Dear Person who left this in my yard:
It’s gone now…got in the way while I was raking.
But before you put up a new one, please have the courtesy to fill out the application in the box by the door. Please print legibly, and pay particular attention the the section labeled, “Next of Kin.”
Love and Kisses,
—Darryl
I know where you can get a vicious Guard Rabbit if you need one. =:-D<
Gosh Darryl …
What is that climbing down your leg? You have a problem with free speech? trespass?
Or is your problem more of the politically correct sort ….
Here are some other terms that stretch the concept of definitions:
race, gender, IQ, racism, right to life, choice
war, preventive war, tolerance, intolerance
Are blacks a race? how about french men? is there an American race? .. an English race?
hmmm … how about middle calss, should we defne that as beginning at 25k so that we will have more MC folks?
As for marriage, riddle me this …
If we are redefining the term, why stop at sexual identity? How abut Mom/daughter or man/car?
Personally, I think the exclusivity of marriage is a bad idea. Jesus is married to lots of nuns, why shouldn’t every male have that option and every female?
Orwell might understand, or maybe we need an ACADEMIE AMERICAINE POUR DISCOURS POLITIQUE?
I just voted for it!
@2
Women used to be forbidden to sell real-estate and 21 used to be the voting age. We periodically define and redefine who can do what. Why should this be any different?
How much you wanna bet it wasn’t in his yard, but it was in the tree lawn, that public strip of land between the curb and the sidewalk?
Who let the troll out?
woof.. woof..
“Romnesia” on marriage equality..
http://americablog.com/2012/10.....ution.html
He’s for banning it? Again??
@5
In most cities it’s the adjacent homeowner’s responsibility to take care of that strip of land.
Darryl, if was a different political sign someone put in “your yard,” and you agree with the message or candidate, would you have left it up?
The orange man crying in the presence of two Log Cabin Republicans tying the knot.
So in other news, the House Republicans maxed out the 1.5 million they set aside to defend DOMA in the courts..
The result?
Massive fail!
Those Republicans are indeed “wise spenders” of taxpayer dollars.
Troll – Congratulations on posting one of the most moronic questions ever on this comment board. It wasn’t “his yard.” It was his yard. And he has the right to toss any garbage anyone leaves in it. And with very few exceptions he has the right to define “garbage”.
Jeebus, is there some natural law that requires trolls to be morons?
@10 – It’s a myth that Republicans are more fiscally conservative than Dems. If that were the case, then the NY Times’ look at the long-term costs of two presidents’ policies wouldn’t look like this: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepa.....ref=sunday
9, 11 – If someone trespassed in a Republican’s yard he’d likely get shot, so I don’t see what the ruckus is.
I got yelled at by a guys Republican neighbor while putting a sign for a Democrat in a yard. It seems in the mind of a Republican you need his permission to put up a sign in the neighbors yard. I was there because the person who’s yard it was called the campaign and asked for a sign. But hey, this guy drove a big truck, so that means he’s King Of The Neighborhood, right.
Republicans: can’t stay out of other peoples marriages, can’t stay out of other peoples sex lives, can’t stay out of women’s uterus’s, can’t stay off their neighbors lawns.
2,
WTF is your problem? Give it up.
@14 They’re all control freaks. But, as Sen. Lindsay Graham admitted, the GOP faces a bleak future because “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.” That guy’s neighbor is a dying breed.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.c.....hite-guys/
Troll,
“How much you wanna bet it wasn’t in his yard, but it was in the tree lawn, that public strip of land between the curb and the sidewalk?”
Well…by your definition, I would win such a bet, since there are no sidewalks in my yard.
But either way, you are mistaken. The sign was on my lawn, in an area in which the City of Redmond has an easement for things like sidewalks and street signs.
Michael,
“In most cities it’s the adjacent homeowner’s responsibility to take care of that strip of land.”
Indeed. Not only is it my responsibility, but I own the land!
Troll,
“Darryl, if was a different political sign someone put in “your yard,” and you agree with the message or candidate, would you have left it up?”
Yes…of course I would.
SJ,
You have a problem with free speech? trespass?”
Neither. But, believing in free speech doesn’t mean I have to allow people to exercise that right on my property. (BTW: same justification for a comment policy on this blog.)
“Or is your problem more of the politically correct sort ….
Sure. And if someone exercised their free speech by planting a swastika on your private property, I suspect you’d be having the problem of getting “politically correct”, too.
@ 14
One guy yells at Michael and his impression is that all Republicans act like that as well?
I don’t assume that all my liberal friends are like the people that post here.
Michael, were I to see you post a sign for a Democrat on the front lawn next door to me, I would do no more than smirk.
@21
Having difficultly understanding humor this morning?
@21
Btw, I just finished filling out my ballot, I voted for 2 Republicans and charter schools.
You got it!
Just wanted to be sure that your objection was not to the sign but to its pretending to speak for the occupants of your home.
I intend to vote for Referendum 74 but I will do so with great reluctance.
“Marriage” has a very deeply felt meaning to millions of people. The term is bound up in romantic ideas of the relationships between men and women .. ideas that are also reflected in the white wedding gown of Americans or the ornate red gowns in China. The same ideas are related to gender specific roles as the giver of care vs. the stalwart defender of women and children.
Redefining the term demeans those people’s relationship in the interest of showing respect for gay marriage.
The Orwellian effort by modern idealogues to redefine terms was well defined by Orwell. I, for one, get lost in trying to figure out whether I am pro or anti life because I support saving women’s lives by allowing abortion.
So tell me, my wookie, is “choice” a bad thing when liberals mean we should compel poor kids to go to our shitty public schools but a good thing when ti comes to the choice of abortion? I assume you, along with me, object to the right’s passing laws that redefine “life” as being conception? How do you feel about laws that define marijuana as a “medicine?”
As for “marriage” changing the definition serves an agenda that has nothing to do with gay rights. The term “marriage” has been well understood in our society for a millennium or three. The rational reason to redefine it is not simply to create a privilege for same sex people who want the legal rights of married couples. That worthy goal is done perfectly well in all of Europe by one form or another of civil contract.
There is another issue here. The number 2 is not implicit in being gay. Gay men and women can have many different forms of numerical relationships that, I assume, are as admirable as pairings. If we want to redefine marriage because some gay people want to be paired, why do we exclude harems?
The real reason “marriage” is important to gays is not legalization of same sex pairs but public acceptance. So, for what it is worth to you as a wookie, I will, reluctantly, vote for Referendum 74
@ 21
And I’m voting for gay marriage, abstaining on the US Senate choice, and sitting right on the mid-point of the fence-top about marijuana.
If someone can explain to me how this does not increase my risk of death or serious injury on the road….
I’m serious about the last sentence. Trying to understand how this would not put more impaired drivers on the road.
@25 – first, you have to assume that consumption of marijuana will automatically increase as a result of legalization. Right now, people consume marijuana, and undoubtably some of those then proceed to operate motor vehicles. So, would legalization automatically increase consumption? And would that automatically increase the numbers of impaired drivers? Ask yourself this: with a legal, enforceable age limit for consumption, is there a lesser or greater chance of impaired youths driving? Or consider this: evidence from The Netherlands seems to indicate that in the long term, legalization leads to lower consumption among youth. Does that make you more or less likely vote yes?
I think SC has a thing for Michael. Flirts with him a lot.
Hey if you want to bring in the argument that man marry car, then all I have to say is, yeah what is wrong with that, If I want to marry my car then I should have that right. None of your business.
@28
A car has no legal rights and is not able to sign a contract.
study-up there, buttercup.
you are just jealous.