A Recent Favorite:

Uh Oh, Nothing Here Yet

Why don't you go browse some Comics or Editorials and pick a few to favorite?

Recent Comments

  1. LameRandomName commented on Shoe about 12 hours ago

    So you think a bad idea is better than no idea? OK, good to know.

  2. LameRandomName commented on For Better or For Worse 3 days ago

    Hex is even better. I’m only 32 in Hex.

  3. LameRandomName commented on Doonesbury 14 days ago

    Did you ever catch a whiff of the diaper and think; “Is that even on the periodic table”?

  4. LameRandomName commented on Doonesbury 15 days ago

    You are using a 20th century connotation of the word “regulated” to support your argument.

    The 18th century denotation of the word is something else entirely.

  5. LameRandomName commented on Doonesbury 15 days ago

    We ALL have prejudices.

    Which ones in particular do you wish to ascribe to me?

  6. LameRandomName commented on Doonesbury 15 days ago

    Yeah, it was. Furthermore, this isn’t a secret… this was one of the issues discussed in the convention, the pro & anti federalist papers and the ratification debates; as well as in the media.

    Quite simply…
    You’ve been lied to.

  7. LameRandomName commented on Doonesbury 16 days ago

    You know…

    If you progressives really want to have marriage equality, you’re going to have to do two things:

    1) Accept incorporation for the ENTIRE bill of rights… No more liking it for the 1st Amendment and disliking it for the 2nd.

    2) Turn BACK to the Constitution. What it ACTUALLY says, not what you want to interpret it as. Because what you call “Marriage Equality” is already sitting there in Article Iv and in the 1st & 14th Amendments.

    Of course, you’re going to have to drop your own prejudices and stereotypes first…

    You do know you have them, right?

  8. LameRandomName commented on Doonesbury 16 days ago

    Because they are chasing the wrong thing Dan.

    They’re chasing “Marriage Equality” when they SHOULD be demanding “Marriage License Equality”.

    The voting rights act did not grant Blacks the right to vote, a right that is actually nowhere in the Constitution. It made illegal to DENY the vote based on certain explicit criteria.

    As for the religious side, it’s not that anyone sued say, the Catholic Church to force the govt to force the church to perform a gay marriage…

    It’s that DOMA was determined to be unconstitutional.

    That’s a two way sword…
    The govt can neither prevent nor force a religious institution to perform a gay marriage, which means that the growing body of religious intitutions willing to do so cannot be prevented from doing so.

  9. LameRandomName commented on Doonesbury 17 days ago

    Yeah, exactly.

    The 1st Amendment precludes the govt from interfering with the free exercise of religion by telling a religious institution that they must perform a marriage ceremony that goes against their beliefs..
    The equal protection clause of the 14th would force States/Counties to provide the same type of of single document legal contract to gays as they already provide to straights. This contract is more commonly called “marriage License”.

    But people are too busy being butthurt to notice that they already have what they want if they would only stop whining long enough to demand it.

  10. LameRandomName commented on Doonesbury 17 days ago

    It always amazes me that so many people on the left never stop to wonder why they are asking the GOVERNMENT for permission to do something that the 1st Amendment specifically precludes the GOVERNMENT from having a say in.


    Semantics aside, there are TWO “marriages” that occur whenever anyone gets married. One is covered by the 1st Amendment and the other by the 14th.

    But you guys are so busy with your self-righteous anger against an enemy that is mostly a figment of your imagination that you never stop to notice that you’re barking up completely the wrong tree.