x
Click to expand

mattymc

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/05/2011
Last Login:7/29/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#786
Highest Content Rank:#2201
Highest Comment Rank:#599
Content Thumbs: 5295 total,  6043 ,  748
Comment Thumbs: 19382 total,  21214 ,  1832
Content Level Progress: 25% (25/100)
Level 150 Content: Faptastic → Level 151 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 96.5% (965/1000)
Level 315 Comments: Wizard → Level 316 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:0
Content Views:171735
Times Content Favorited:120 times
Total Comments Made:3520
FJ Points:21488

latest user's comments

#10 - This is wise, certainly. But it operates under the assumption,…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/28/2015 on The cold shit syndrome 0
#12 - outsidethebox (06/28/2015) [-]
I'd just never be able to trust her, and know that my lack of trust for her would inevitably lead to problems. (As no successful relationship is built on a foundation of distrust.)

I'm not sure I'll ever find someone who I can actually trust 100%, but I'm not going to settle.

I'm not a virgin and have a pretty great life, so dying alone is a risk I'm willing to take.
#128 - Ok congratulations, you got me, I took the bait, well trolled  [+] (1 new reply) 06/28/2015 on /pol/ was right again (desc.) -1
#129 - thatonecommunist (06/28/2015) [-]
nope, i'm being completely legit.
#126 - depending on the size of the animal, either one, not to mentio…  [+] (3 new replies) 06/28/2015 on /pol/ was right again (desc.) -1
#127 - thatonecommunist (06/28/2015) [-]
Cross species infection is the only legit reason you gave there, animals don't have to consent to anything, maybe there should be a legal list of fuckable animals.
#128 - mattymc (06/28/2015) [-]
Ok congratulations, you got me, I took the bait, well trolled
#129 - thatonecommunist (06/28/2015) [-]
nope, i'm being completely legit.
#120 - Human beings should not **** animals.  [+] (5 new replies) 06/28/2015 on /pol/ was right again (desc.) -1
#125 - thatonecommunist (06/28/2015) [-]
Eh, why not? who does it hurt?
#126 - mattymc (06/28/2015) [-]
depending on the size of the animal, either one, not to mention the potential for cross-species infection, and the fact that animals lack the legal standing or the ability to properly consent
#127 - thatonecommunist (06/28/2015) [-]
Cross species infection is the only legit reason you gave there, animals don't have to consent to anything, maybe there should be a legal list of fuckable animals.
#128 - mattymc (06/28/2015) [-]
Ok congratulations, you got me, I took the bait, well trolled
#129 - thatonecommunist (06/28/2015) [-]
nope, i'm being completely legit.
#117 - Go see a psychiatrist, you have a serious problem  [+] (1 new reply) 06/28/2015 on /pol/ was right again (desc.) 0
User avatar #118 - commoncrunch (06/28/2015) [-]
I refuse.
#116 - You're part of the problem  [+] (7 new replies) 06/28/2015 on /pol/ was right again (desc.) +1
#119 - thatonecommunist (06/28/2015) [-]
what problem?
#120 - mattymc (06/28/2015) [-]
Human beings should not fuck animals.
#125 - thatonecommunist (06/28/2015) [-]
Eh, why not? who does it hurt?
#126 - mattymc (06/28/2015) [-]
depending on the size of the animal, either one, not to mention the potential for cross-species infection, and the fact that animals lack the legal standing or the ability to properly consent
#127 - thatonecommunist (06/28/2015) [-]
Cross species infection is the only legit reason you gave there, animals don't have to consent to anything, maybe there should be a legal list of fuckable animals.
#128 - mattymc (06/28/2015) [-]
Ok congratulations, you got me, I took the bait, well trolled
#129 - thatonecommunist (06/28/2015) [-]
nope, i'm being completely legit.
#230 - 226< They dont but they are required to perform the functio… 06/27/2015 on Legal marriage 0
#224 - This debate isnt about the right of the state to regulate priv…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/27/2015 on Legal marriage 0
User avatar #226 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
How does a private citizen stop having rights once they are being paid by the government?
#87 - Actually its a taxable status and a legal arrangement that aff…  [+] (5 new replies) 06/27/2015 on They got some news 0
#98 - sunnyspade (06/29/2015) [-]
And again, if you actually understood mine you would have taken it that I find any kind of government meddling with things that aren't outlined in the constitution (defining things and making marriage in any way affiliated with the government) of course unconstitutional and self- destructive. In the constitution there isn't a right given to regulate marriage.
#99 - mattymc (06/29/2015) [-]
You're entitled to your opinion, but Im afraid you lost this round
#100 - sunnyspade (06/29/2015) [-]
First thing on politico right after this is polygamy and why it should be the next time. I'm thinking in the long run we all lost this one.
#101 - mattymc (06/29/2015) [-]
Legal threesomes? Id support that more than gay marriage
I draw the line at kiddie fucking and animal fucking, consenting adults have the righ to consent to whatever they want
#103 - sunnyspade (06/29/2015) [-]
Holy shit you are missing the point. Government does not deserve all of this power its stupid and inevitably leads to corruption... like it already has. Jesus I don't give two shits if some faggots wanna get married because the only reason they do is for the federal benefits, which I think are fucking retarded anyway. Yeah I'm a christian, yeah I live in Georgia, and yeah if I had the choice to gay marriage in my state I would, because it is sickening to me and I don't like seeing it. But that doesn't make it my right OR THE GOVERNMENT'S to say to stfu and deal with it. Most states had it anyway why did it have to be such a big deal in my state where almost nobody wants it. Like you people don't understand the implications of what you have put in motion.
#218 - You posted those links earlier, and they were refuted, try again  [+] (3 new replies) 06/27/2015 on Legal marriage 0
User avatar #221 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
Not really, they still show people being forced to provide services to people when they dont want to, how is that right?
#224 - mattymc (06/27/2015) [-]
This debate isnt about the right of the state to regulate private enterprise and persons, its about whether public employees are required to follow the law, stay on topic
User avatar #226 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
How does a private citizen stop having rights once they are being paid by the government?
#180 - With respect to the marriage situation, the government can for…  [+] (5 new replies) 06/27/2015 on Legal marriage 0
#218 - mattymc (06/27/2015) [-]
You posted those links earlier, and they were refuted, try again
User avatar #221 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
Not really, they still show people being forced to provide services to people when they dont want to, how is that right?
#224 - mattymc (06/27/2015) [-]
This debate isnt about the right of the state to regulate private enterprise and persons, its about whether public employees are required to follow the law, stay on topic
User avatar #226 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
How does a private citizen stop having rights once they are being paid by the government?
#83 - Nice try, but I will see your 10th and raise you the 14th …  [+] (7 new replies) 06/27/2015 on They got some news 0
#85 - sunnyspade (06/27/2015) [-]
The only part about the 14th amendment that involves this is "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" so I will only talk about that. SO im just gonna post this that i found because I think this guy said it pretty clearly.

Every person who claims that the denial of the ability to marry is unconstitutional is misguided.

"Getting married isn't a right. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections."

Basically marriage isnt a constitutional right its a civil institution. Its like religion in a way. Its allowed to exist in the US that doesn't mean that the government has to say or do anything about it. And even if they did since its not mentioned directly in the constitution I will refer you back to the 10th amendment.

www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVGreenMarriage90712.html
#87 - mattymc (06/27/2015) [-]
Actually its a taxable status and a legal arrangement that affects inheritance, you'd know that if you read my whole comment. Good effort though
#98 - sunnyspade (06/29/2015) [-]
And again, if you actually understood mine you would have taken it that I find any kind of government meddling with things that aren't outlined in the constitution (defining things and making marriage in any way affiliated with the government) of course unconstitutional and self- destructive. In the constitution there isn't a right given to regulate marriage.
#99 - mattymc (06/29/2015) [-]
You're entitled to your opinion, but Im afraid you lost this round
#100 - sunnyspade (06/29/2015) [-]
First thing on politico right after this is polygamy and why it should be the next time. I'm thinking in the long run we all lost this one.
#101 - mattymc (06/29/2015) [-]
Legal threesomes? Id support that more than gay marriage
I draw the line at kiddie fucking and animal fucking, consenting adults have the righ to consent to whatever they want
#103 - sunnyspade (06/29/2015) [-]
Holy shit you are missing the point. Government does not deserve all of this power its stupid and inevitably leads to corruption... like it already has. Jesus I don't give two shits if some faggots wanna get married because the only reason they do is for the federal benefits, which I think are fucking retarded anyway. Yeah I'm a christian, yeah I live in Georgia, and yeah if I had the choice to gay marriage in my state I would, because it is sickening to me and I don't like seeing it. But that doesn't make it my right OR THE GOVERNMENT'S to say to stfu and deal with it. Most states had it anyway why did it have to be such a big deal in my state where almost nobody wants it. Like you people don't understand the implications of what you have put in motion.
#134 - a moot point because a religious institution is neither a publ… 06/27/2015 on Legal marriage 0
#132 - normally you'd be right, but since it is a religious ministe… 06/27/2015 on Legal marriage +6
#79 - Nothing, the gays get mad but since its a religious situation,…  [+] (27 new replies) 06/27/2015 on Legal marriage +15
User avatar #88 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
No, because that is discrimination based on sexual orientation, they go to jail
#132 - mattymc (06/27/2015) [-]
normally you'd be right, but since it is a religious minister they cannot be made to do anything by the state with regard to the exercise of said religion, its separation of church and state at its purest. If a gay couple wants to have the ceremony conducted my a minister in a church/synagogue/mosque etc, the onus is on them to find one that will acquiesce.
User avatar #130 - breaken (06/27/2015) [-]
It's a private enterprises, it has nothing to do with the state.
User avatar #131 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
Ok, I’m going to let you on to something that will help you later in life, state laws also govern private enterprises
#134 - mattymc (06/27/2015) [-]
a moot point because a religious institution is neither a public nor a private enterprise, it is subject to laws but not ones that govern its operations insofar as those operations do not break existing laws
User avatar #133 - breaken (06/27/2015) [-]
But the state can't force them to marry them. Just like it can't force the people who didn't want to make the cake for the gay couple.
User avatar #135 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
Look up baker Jack Phillips
#159 - mayoroftownsville (06/27/2015) [-]
That's not a religious institution moron. What about the separation of church and state confounds you so?
User avatar #162 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
Could you kindly reference the section of the US constitution that separates church and state?

You should not be able to force somebody to use their skills, talents, speech, or any other form of expression to provide support for something they don’t believe in.
#164 - mayoroftownsville (06/27/2015) [-]
Someone already quoted it on your dumb ass (comment 79) but i'll do it again for good measure: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
User avatar #167 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
Right, so when somebody practices their religion, and follows their beliefs, the government should not restrict them when they are committing no other crime, even if it is considered hateful.

It is not an amendment intended to protect only the popular.
#180 - mattymc (06/27/2015) [-]
With respect to the marriage situation, the government can force a magistrate to do it, they are PUBLIC servants and as such are required to perform the duties assigned to them. The job comes first
#218 - mattymc (06/27/2015) [-]
You posted those links earlier, and they were refuted, try again
User avatar #221 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
Not really, they still show people being forced to provide services to people when they dont want to, how is that right?
#224 - mattymc (06/27/2015) [-]
This debate isnt about the right of the state to regulate private enterprise and persons, its about whether public employees are required to follow the law, stay on topic
User avatar #226 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
How does a private citizen stop having rights once they are being paid by the government?
User avatar #177 - couriernine (06/27/2015) [-]
The only people who can be forced to perform same-sex marriages are those who are employed by the state to perform marriages. Judges, etc. No priest is obligated to do so as they are not employed by the state to perform marriages.
User avatar #178 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
Is that currently in any law? That's something that is going to be figured out over the next decade, and it's going to destroy a lot of people's lives on both sides of it
User avatar #182 - couriernine (06/27/2015) [-]
You do realize that NO church is ever forced to perform a marriage it doesn't want to, for any reason. State employees that are paid to perform marriages are, because THAT'S THEIR FUCKING JOB.
#176 - mayoroftownsville (06/27/2015) [-]
Yeah, and that's why the government won't be forcing priests to wed any gay couples. Seriously, if they were going to violate that part of the 1st amendment, they would do it by taxing churches long before they'd force gay marriage officiation.
User avatar #179 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
Lets wait and see how the lawsuits go before we start being legal experts
#230 - mattymc (06/27/2015) [-]
226< They dont but they are required to perform the functions of their job unless they are asked to deprive someone of life liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Notice how marrying gays doesnt do any of those things.
Bottom Line
the Archbishop of New York can Refuse to marry Portia DeRossi and Ellen Degeneris and no one save the Pope can stop him
Judge Judy cannot refuse to marry the same people if they have filled out the paperwork and provided witnesses because as an appointed judge signing off on marriages is a function of their job and refusal needs to be based on a practical reason, not a religious one.
#184 - mayoroftownsville (06/27/2015) [-]
Kennedy is a libertarian who feels the way you do about forcing businesses to serve customers they don't want to, Roberts is a staunch constitutionalist, and Scalia, Alito and Thomas are predictable conservatives in everything. That's 5, I don't think we have anything to worry about.
User avatar #187 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
But that's still years of trials before it reaches them, in the meantime people’s lives will be destroyed
#189 - mayoroftownsville (06/27/2015) [-]
Lol, how? Dude, priests can't even be forced to perform interracial marriage. Seriously, every couple years you hear about some church in Kentucky or something refusing to do it, and they get criticized, but the constitution is clear and no legal battle results. You're really buying into the fucking hype here, but I guarantee you that the most that will come of this is a couple of court cases which will end with victory for the priest.

Do you live in San Francisco or something? You know most of the US isn't like that, right?
User avatar #193 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
You provide astoundingly accurate information to back you claims
#19 - We've all done it 06/27/2015 on Flexing 0
#19 - Cite the Article and Section then  [+] (9 new replies) 06/27/2015 on They got some news +5
#81 - sunnyspade (06/27/2015) [-]
The entirety of the 10th amendment. Powers not given directly to the fed gov. are given to the state gov. The constitution says nothing about defining words and having any say in marriage. It's just simply not their job. The supreme court's job is to judge whether or not something is constitutional. The federal govt is overstepping their bounds and I find it to be unconstitutional.
#83 - mattymc (06/27/2015) [-]
Nice try, but I will see your 10th and raise you the 14th
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Last i checked, a citizen has the right to marry (referring specifically to the legal contract ragarding taxing and inheritence among co-habitators)
#85 - sunnyspade (06/27/2015) [-]
The only part about the 14th amendment that involves this is "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" so I will only talk about that. SO im just gonna post this that i found because I think this guy said it pretty clearly.

Every person who claims that the denial of the ability to marry is unconstitutional is misguided.

"Getting married isn't a right. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections."

Basically marriage isnt a constitutional right its a civil institution. Its like religion in a way. Its allowed to exist in the US that doesn't mean that the government has to say or do anything about it. And even if they did since its not mentioned directly in the constitution I will refer you back to the 10th amendment.

www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVGreenMarriage90712.html
#87 - mattymc (06/27/2015) [-]
Actually its a taxable status and a legal arrangement that affects inheritance, you'd know that if you read my whole comment. Good effort though
#98 - sunnyspade (06/29/2015) [-]
And again, if you actually understood mine you would have taken it that I find any kind of government meddling with things that aren't outlined in the constitution (defining things and making marriage in any way affiliated with the government) of course unconstitutional and self- destructive. In the constitution there isn't a right given to regulate marriage.
#99 - mattymc (06/29/2015) [-]
You're entitled to your opinion, but Im afraid you lost this round
#100 - sunnyspade (06/29/2015) [-]
First thing on politico right after this is polygamy and why it should be the next time. I'm thinking in the long run we all lost this one.
#101 - mattymc (06/29/2015) [-]
Legal threesomes? Id support that more than gay marriage
I draw the line at kiddie fucking and animal fucking, consenting adults have the righ to consent to whatever they want
#103 - sunnyspade (06/29/2015) [-]
Holy shit you are missing the point. Government does not deserve all of this power its stupid and inevitably leads to corruption... like it already has. Jesus I don't give two shits if some faggots wanna get married because the only reason they do is for the federal benefits, which I think are fucking retarded anyway. Yeah I'm a christian, yeah I live in Georgia, and yeah if I had the choice to gay marriage in my state I would, because it is sickening to me and I don't like seeing it. But that doesn't make it my right OR THE GOVERNMENT'S to say to stfu and deal with it. Most states had it anyway why did it have to be such a big deal in my state where almost nobody wants it. Like you people don't understand the implications of what you have put in motion.
#19 - isn't that the expectation? Actresses/Models make millions and… 06/27/2015 on Porn vs Stars 0
#16 - Fav'd for research purposes 06/27/2015 on Porn vs Stars +1
#14 - Because the trainer in the games is a being that tanscends eve… 06/27/2015 on Pokeshaming Comp +4
#492 - Legal secession would have been approved by congress or the pr… 06/26/2015 on Confederate flag 0
#15 - I personally like a little bit of mystery, constant exposure d…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/26/2015 on Xavier in his down time +13
#28 - fresighto (06/26/2015) [-]
You spelled only wrong
#40 - I personally get more annoyed at that flag because its the fla…  [+] (3 new replies) 06/26/2015 on Confederate flag +1
User avatar #185 - youregaylol (06/26/2015) [-]
War doesn't decide who is right.
User avatar #99 - galanorth (06/26/2015) [-]
They were traitors... for legally seceding... and defending themselves from northern aggressors... Yankee logic.
#492 - mattymc (06/26/2015) [-]
Legal secession would have been approved by congress or the president or the supreme court, the south stormed off like a toddler that had its desert canceled, then attacked Ft Sumter, you fired the first shots, not us. Then you cried when Sherman ran train on Georgia, you lost, now sit down and shut up.
#14 - Ah leeches the preferred cure-all of traitors and cunts 06/26/2015 on A mosquito sucked blood... +14
#9 - wow im so sorry, couldnt help it 06/26/2015 on on the internet nobody... +10

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 650
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
 Friends (0)