The Goat Pen

AA is just trying to set up 3 years from now when he marries a goat.

Well done on Cletus' unintentional pun on "things down under" and BRM's international water fountain joke. Both stellar.

I never get any love any more.

Cletus wrote:Sardis will disown and maybe kill his kids if any of them turn out to be gay. Bob Jones people don't tolerate that kind of bullshit.

No, I won't disown him, but I sure as he'll ain't walking him down the aisle...

You've already led him down the primrose path of the ignorance and superstition which is the hallmark of your kind, I guess your job is done...

Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven,
Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine,
Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads

And recks not his own rede.

Oh, I reck my own rede...

[youtube]dE-nfzcUiPk[/youtube]

Excellent

Judge strikes down Kentucky's gay marriage ban
ruled on based on federal law, not state law. Can eventually end up in the US Supreme Court (in this court, will probably be overturned 5-4 if comes up before Kennedy or Scalia win)

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-strikes-dow ... 16500.html

LOL at the video

The guy standing behind the 2 women is actually a friend of mine...

Corporations with the rights of people, but not the responsibility..

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-conserva ... 5_27311306

"For the record, for-profit corporations do not hold religious views, no matter what the Supreme Court says. They’re legal constructs, not spiritual beings, nor even, for that matter, atheists. But lets concede the point so we can examine the implications. Fine, Mitt Romney, corporations are people.

The reason these corporate “people” exist is to limit investors’ personal liability. There are tax advantages, too. For instance, while the top income tax rate on homo sapiens is 39.6%, the rate for corporations is 35% – and a lot of folks think that’s too high. Why should a for-profit corporation get to be a person under the Constitution’s First Amendment but not under the 16th, which established the personal income tax? To pile on top of these privileges the additional privilege of ignoring a legal mandate to provide contraceptive coverage to employees is awfully indulgent."


The author throws out there a tax argument when he does not understand tax law. If he did, he wouldn't bring it up because tax law argues against his position on the Hobby Lobby case. Hobby Lobby could be filing as a Small Corporation. We don't know, but I am guessing it would be an S Corp to take advantage of the amount of contributions they make. Income from S Corps do flow through to the individual owners of closely held corporations and taxed at higher individual rates because the law recognizes the close relationship between the two. It also doesn't tax the dividend of funds from a small corporation to owner. So the law already has precedent in distinguishing between the privately held corporations (Hobby Lobby) and large publically held corporations, say like a GE. The Hobby Lobby case only applies to closely held companies which would be reasonable and consistent.

Maybe the camouflage could have been a little better...

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... er-strike/

"Somebody" shot down a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 near the Russia-Ukraine border.

295 dead

Appears to be a Russian made surface rocket...and ALLEGEDLY the Russian separatists in Ukraine have taken credit for it via Twitter...

I think they took credit until they realized it was a passenger jet.

"Russian separatists?" Is that basically code for "Russian military operating in Ukraine with insignia removed?"