Upload
Login or register

makethingsworse

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:9/26/2012
Last Login:12/03/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#4479
Highest Content Rank:#8430
Highest Comment Rank:#391
Content Thumbs: 167 total,  234 ,  67
Comment Thumbs: 8674 total,  10837 ,  2163
Content Level Progress: 70% (7/10)
Level 16 Content: New Here → Level 17 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 25% (25/100)
Level 281 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 282 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:1
Content Views:19392
Times Content Favorited:11 times
Total Comments Made:3381
FJ Points:8337
Favorite Tags: OC (2)

latest user's comments

#130 - What I'm saying is it shouldn't be up to the government who ge…  [+] (3 replies) 11/10/2016 on Election 0
#131 - oslikriko (11/10/2016) [-]
I think that was the point of allowing the gays to marry.
User avatar
#132 - makethingsworse (11/10/2016) [-]
I don't think you fundamentally understand what I'm saying.
#133 - oslikriko (11/11/2016) [-]
You said gay marriage should be reversed. That would be the government telling people who can and can't be married. The opposite of libertarianism.

If you switched "reversed" with "allowed" in your comment then it would make sense. I'm not trying to argue, I'm just trying to understand what you meant, cause I'm pretty sure we're on the same side.
#75 - 1. You're assuming that the other 2 will die in 4 years. 2…  [+] (6 replies) 11/10/2016 on Election +1
#111 - oslikriko (11/10/2016) [-]
Not following you on number 3??? I agree with you on everything else, but it sounds like you're arguing against yourself on number 3.
User avatar
#130 - makethingsworse (11/10/2016) [-]
What I'm saying is it shouldn't be up to the government who gets to marry who.
#131 - oslikriko (11/10/2016) [-]
I think that was the point of allowing the gays to marry.
User avatar
#132 - makethingsworse (11/10/2016) [-]
I don't think you fundamentally understand what I'm saying.
#133 - oslikriko (11/11/2016) [-]
You said gay marriage should be reversed. That would be the government telling people who can and can't be married. The opposite of libertarianism.

If you switched "reversed" with "allowed" in your comment then it would make sense. I'm not trying to argue, I'm just trying to understand what you meant, cause I'm pretty sure we're on the same side.
User avatar
#78 - Namezone (11/10/2016) [-]
1. There are two men in their nineties on the supreme court. It's entirely possible/likely they will die, and soon.

2. maybe, maybe not. much of his voter base seems like they want/wouldn't mind it.

3. gay marriage just allows people to marry those who they want, as it should have been. The only boundaries the federal government should enforce are: a legal union between one consenting adult and one other. Gay marriage puts this forward as possible and should be left intact.

4. All it takes is for the justices to bring it back under review. Trump doesn't have to actively do anything, or even passively. HE may not even want it to happen.

5. yes, the VP has almost no power. Except a lot of prestige. People listen to suggestions made by the VP.

i THINK it'll be okay. I hope so too. But it might not be. Nobody wants to see an American theocracy, it'll set us back EVEN MORE versus the rest of the world.