WOW! Progressive Saint, Al Franken, now known as a groper and assaulter of women!
cwp3420 wrote:
I hope we get invited to Texâs wedding with Brucie, now that itâs legal and all. Will Tex be the bride or g***m?
Clone reply for another textbook real butch clone.
"You try so hard but have so little to work with. Maybe you might be able to expand your dismal and one dimensional repertoire a little. A big project for a guy like you." Mr Texcaster
"The Law Enforcement Convention", an illustration by Ralph Steadman for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
Carl is the real butch one.
ken hubert wrote:
Probably the bride!
I agree. Would he then be considered a "wide receiver"?
thom w wrote:
How do you abort something that doesn't exist? Post partem would indicate the pregnancy is over and can no longer be aborted. Pchaan was worried about people wanting to make a******n legal up to age 5, so you're in good company.
That is pure squat from a bland pedantic ass.
cwp3420 wrote:
I agree. Would he then be considered a "wide receiver"?
Certainly not a tight end.
The studs are getting all butched up now. They seem to think this posturing makes them more attractive to each other. Train wreck interesting. David Attenborough has documented this kind of BULL FRUIT behavior a few times. Who is the most butchest of them all? Gee, it's really a toss up. lol
cwp3420 wrote:
I agree. Would he then be considered a "wide receiver"?
You don't even complain about the Steadman drawing anymore. Pavlov conditioning?
gmcase wrote:
That is pure squat from a bland pedantic ass.
Which part do you take exception to?
ken hubert wrote:
Somehow I just knew that you would come running to your boyfriend's defense.
So how will that work since Australia will be letting q***rs get "married"? Will you be bringing back one of your Boys of Bangkok with you? Where will that leave Nakkh? Out in the cold, again?
How do you know there are bots in Thailand.
Aaaahhhh, never mind!!! LoL
SS
Texcaster wrote:
You don't even complain about the Steadman drawing anymore. Pavlov conditioning?
I don’t. You’re in a rut, and not worthy of a response.
cwp3420 wrote:
I don’t. You’re in a rut, and not worthy of a response.
It is you, Studly, that goes into rut whenever you start to unpack your gay fantasies. Just find a cute guy and be done with it. We're not judgmental here.
thom w wrote:
Which part do you take exception to?
The stupefyingly boring part - you.
cwp3420 wrote:
I agree. Would he then be considered a "wide receiver"?
He's always been a wide receiver, lol!
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.