Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

Chris Kluwe
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=73127		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  sjboyd0137 [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 2:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Chris Kluwe
High-fucking-larious

They Won’t Magically Turn You Into A Lustful Cockmonster
Author:  Northside_Dan [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 2:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
Lustful cockmonster :lol: :lol: :lol:
Author:  Don Tiny [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
I like his phraseology throughout the piece .... not sure why .... :wink: :lol: :lol:
Author:  Hank Scorpio [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
He really wrote some descriptive phrases. I especially like 'fromunda stain'.

Gay marriage will be allowed in the next 5 years and people fighting it will look like idiots.

That being said, I still cringe a little when it gets compared to the civil rights fight though. Maybe that is white guilt or something but to compare the two really seems to marginalize what happened to blacks in our country.
Author:  Terry's Peeps [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
Where can I sign up for hot dong action?

I'm asking for........a friend.
Author:  Hank Scorpio [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Where can I sign up for hot dong action?

I'm asking for........a friend.


:idea:
Author:  sjboyd0137 [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Where can I sign up for hot dong action?

I'm asking for........a friend.

There's a neighborhood right next to Wrigleyville you should check out.
Author:  Terry's Peeps [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
In the good old days there'd already be a LustfulCockmonster mult.
Author:  Krazy Ivan [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
Terry's Peeps wrote:
In the good old days there'd already be a LustfulCockmonster mult.



Now we just call him IMU...
Author:  Krazy Ivan [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
:lol:
Author:  badrogue17 [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
Terry's Peeps wrote:
In the good old days there'd already be a LustfulCockmonster mult.

Why go to a mult when Spaulding posts here? I keed I keed
Author:  good dolphin [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
badrogue17 wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
In the good old days there'd already be a LustfulCockmonster mult.

Why go to a mult when Spaulding posts here? I keed I keed


I think her title was flirty lush
Author:  redskingreg [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
immessedup17 wrote:
Krazy Ivan wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
In the good old days there'd already be a LustfulCockmonster mult.



Now we just call him IMU...

Image


Chris Brown needs to date that entire family.


Too much?
Author:  sjboyd0137 [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
redskingreg wrote:
immessedup17 wrote:
Krazy Ivan wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
In the good old days there'd already be a LustfulCockmonster mult.



Now we just call him IMU...

Image


Chris Brown needs to date that entire family.


Too much?

My fiance is amused endlessly by that show. I watched a couple of episodes, and I'm horrified.
Author:  Hank Scorpio [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
redskingreg wrote:
immessedup17 wrote:
Krazy Ivan wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
In the good old days there'd already be a LustfulCockmonster mult.



Now we just call him IMU...

Image


Chris Brown needs to date that entire family.


Too much?


Yes, beating women jokes are allowed but not pedophilia.
Author:  Don Tiny [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Where can I sign up for hot dong action?

I'm asking for........a friend.



Image
Author:  Hank Scorpio [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
DT's google search to find that pic. Weatherman map boners?
Author:  Krazy Ivan [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
Hank Scorpio wrote:
DT's google search to find that pic. Weatherman map boners?



Doppler related erection pics
Author:  Hank Scorpio [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
Krazy Ivan wrote:
Hank Scorpio wrote:
DT's google search to find that pic. Weatherman map boners?



Doppler related erection pics


Poor Mrs Doppler.
Author:  Chus [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
Don Tiny wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Where can I sign up for hot dong action?

I'm asking for........a friend.



Image


Image
Author:  Don Tiny [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
Hank Scorpio wrote:
DT's google search to find that pic. Weatherman map boners?


Nay ... hot dong action ... not a GIS you want to run at work, btw.
Author:  Terry's Peeps [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
Chus wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Where can I sign up for hot dong action?

I'm asking for........a friend.



Image


Image


Two dicks. Wow.
Author:  leashyourkids [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
I just drafted Chris Kluwe because of this article.
Author:  Curious Hair [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
I'm not sure Chris Kluwe is the hero he's being made out to be if he just called gay people "cockmonsters."
Author:  leashyourkids [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm not sure Chris Kluwe is the hero he's being made out to be if he just called gay people "cockmonsters."


Don't be gay.
Author:  Terry's Peeps [ Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
He's at it again. This is in response to a letter to the paper from Matt Birk.

BlogNo.14–Problems

1 October, 2012 // Uncategorized // Tags :

Author’s note: Any grammar fails in this are on you Mike. ON YOU! (please don’t hurt me)

Full disclosure: I know Matt Birk, having played with him for multiple years in the NFL. I think he’s a smart, funny person who has done both good things in the community here in Minnesota as well as with the concussion issue facing disabled players. I respect Matt, and I respect his right to his own views and ideas.

However, in this instance, Matt I think you’re wrong. This is not an attack on you as a person or your beliefs, but the argument you presented in the Star Tribune simply does not stand up to logical inspection.

Problem the first – Your argument lacks facts, sources, or statistics. You can’t just say “Same -sex marriage is bad for kids because I think it’s bad for kids, and I think it’s bad for kids because it’s bad for kids”. That’s called circular reasoning and it’s a logical fallacy. If you want us to understand why same-sex marriage is bad for kids, you need to provide some sort of substantial evidence. Tell us that children from same-sex couples are more likely to grow up broke and miserable and alone and will end their days starving in a gutter. Just don’t use a study like this one, which displays clear source and confirmation bias (as outlined neatly in this article from Slate). Use something like this (sadly behind a paywall, but the abstract should give you the high notes). I’ll sum it up for those who don’t want to click on links: there’s no difference between children raised in heterosexual relationships and same-sex relationships, as evidenced by a meta-study of nineteen different LBGT studies.

Problem the second – Your argument that “government recognizes marriages and gives them certain legal benefits so they can provide a stable, nurturing environment for the next generation of citizens: our kids” is flawed on two counts. The first flaw is one of simple mathematics – if “marriage” is so necessary to the proper raising of children, why are we not passing an amendment to outlaw divorce? Current statistics from the CDC put the national divorce rate at approximately 50% (of roughly 2.1 million marriages a year, 1 million will end in divorce). They also put the number of same-sex couple households at 685,000, and those with children at 160,000. Let’s say, purely for the sake of example, that every single one of those same-sex households got married. You’re telling me you’re more concerned with the impact of those 160,000 households, as opposed to the 1 million heterosexual couples getting divorces? If this is truly about the children, shouldn’t divorce be first up on the constitutional amendment list, in order to save more children?

The second flaw is that you’re actually arguing in favor of same-sex marriage. If children having a stable home is the main crux of your concern, then denying gay couples the benefits of 1100 federal laws can only harm the children they will raise. Not allowing those children the same health benefits, family care benefits, survivor benefits; that can only be a detriment to the upbringing and care of a child, correct? Or do you propose that same-sex couples should be unfit for adoption, should be unfit to raise children?

Problem the third – You’re conflating “‘if it feels good, go ahead and do it’” with couples that want the stability and benefits of marriage and just so happen to be gay. There’s plenty more heterosexual couples that marry because “it feels good, go ahead and do it” with no intention of ever having children than there are same-sex couples (again, simple mathematics). Should we deny marriage to anyone who doesn’t plan to have kids? What about the infertile couples? The old people? You yourself say “Marriage is in trouble right now — admittedly, for many reasons that have little to do with same-sex unions.” So why the discrimination? Why should we be passing a constitutional amendment denying legal rights to American citizens who pay taxes and serve in our armed forces? If “marriage” is so important, why aren’t we going after all those “many other reasons” first?

Problem the fourth – Marriage has already been redefined multiple times over the years. Marriage used to be one man and multiple women. Marriage used to be a way to exchange property between two families. Marriage used to be between brother and sister to keep the royal bloodline pure. Marriage used to be between children. Marriage used to be only for people that were the same skin color. Marriage used to be a lot of things, many of them oppressive towards women and minorities. I think I’d rather marriage be between two people that love each other and are committed to each other no matter what combination of fleshy bits are hanging off their bodies; not a reality TV show.

Problem the fifth – You’re trying to raise a religious argument in a secular matter. The First Amendment isn’t just about the freedom FOR religion, it’s also about the freedom FROM religion. The word “marriage” appears in thousands of legal documents and laws in this nation, and to attempt to narrowly define it through a religious application means you’re trying to assert a religious viewpoint on those who may not necessarily hold the same views. Our founding fathers knew quite clearly the dangers that state sponsored religious persecution could inflict (they lived through it!), and the First Amendment is worded in favor of state neutrality for a reason. I will support your right to worship at whatever altar you choose, but I will not support you trying to force it on someone else, or to deny someone else legal benefits due to religious reasoning.

Problem the last – The only impact same-sex marriage will have on your children is if one of them turns out to be gay and cannot get married. What will you do (and I ask this honestly) if one or more of your kids ends up being gay? Will you love them any less? What will your actions speak to them, 15 years from now, when they ask you why they can’t enjoy the same relationship that you and your wife have now? And if your response is “We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it”, well, for a lot of people that bridge is here right now. They’re trying to cross it, but the way is barred, and I will do my best to tear those barricades down any way I can because I believe that we are infringing on the free will of other human beings by denying them their basic right to live free of oppression. I love my daughters for their minds and their personalities, not for who they love as adults. That’s none of my damn business, and I will support them in life no matter who they want to marry.

Ultimately, while your letter is respectful and polite (and I’ve tried to keep mine the same way, no SPARKLEPONIES in this one), I remain unconvinced by any logical reasoning you have so far brought to bear on the subject. I encourage you to keep speaking out, as we should never be afraid to espouse our views, but from a rational standpoint I simply cannot agree with discrimination against a subset of our citizenry.

(Miss you at the crossword puzzles)

-Chris

Posted By ckluwe
Author:  Curious Hair [ Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chris Kluwe
Chris Kluwe seems like a guy who really needs to show the world that he's Not Just Your Average Football Player, except that he's a punter, so for him not to conduct himself like the recipient of years' worth of subconcussive head trauma is just the cognitive equivalent to successfully showing up to work on time. I mean, Christ, he reads like Ten Foot Midget.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/