Obama=Liar & Puts american soldiers lives at risk

Superfreak said:
???? Why are you suddenly obsessed with my ass? Is your protestation about gays really a cover for the fact that you are hiding in the closet, begging and crying for someone to come along and help you come out?
Click to expand...

Well, you don't like USC. If the shoe fits...
 
Southern Man said:
Marriage ain't gonna fix that shit pal. Sorry.
Click to expand...

So you think married people have sex with as many partners as single people?

Bottom line... there is nothing wrong with having a lot of partners when you are single. The longer you stay single the more partners you are going to end up having....
 
Superfreak said:
wow... imagine that.... a nonsensical 'insult' from a USC grad.... who would have thought that could happen? Oh yeah.... everyone that has ever met a USC grad
Click to expand...

I, in fact, found my comment quite sensical. You, sir, are still feeling shame for that very poor Rose Bowl prediction you made!

As an aside, you b*tt pirate, I met Meg Whitman at a fund raiser Friday night. She actually comes off as pretty legit. I think she'll have a chance in next year's Cali Gov race.
 
Superfreak said:
???? Why are you suddenly obsessed with my ass? Is your protestation about gays really a cover for the fact that you are hiding in the closet, begging and crying for someone to come along and help you come out?
Click to expand...
Not at all. You called me a retard so I called you a Fat Boy. I wasn't aware that you were a queer as well. Sorry. :rolleyes:
 
Superfreak said:
So you think married people have sex with as many partners as single people?

Bottom line... there is nothing wrong with having a lot of partners when you are single. The longer you stay single the more partners you are going to end up having....
Click to expand...
Actually, poking over 1000 guys up the ass is pretty fucking unstable. If you can't figure that out then there's not much else to say. *shrug*
 
cawacko said:
I, in fact, found my comment quite sensical. You, sir, are still feeling shame for that very poor Rose Bowl prediction you made!

As an aside, you b*tt pirate, I met Meg Whitman at a fund raiser Friday night. She actually comes off as pretty legit. I think she'll have a chance in next year's Cali Gov race.
Click to expand...

LMAO... of course YOU found it to be sensical... I would hope that you at least understand your own gibberish.

I think Meg would do a decent job given her past track record... IF she could get cooperation from Sacramento... which is highly unlikely.
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, poking over 1000 guys up the ass is pretty fucking unstable. If you can't figure that out then there's not much else to say. *shrug*
Click to expand...

How exactly is it 'unstable'???? I think what you really mean is that you are pissed that you are stuck at TWO.... Rosie and Louisa...

Side note... so do you proclaim then that Wilt is also unstable given that he is well over 10000 (according to Wilt anyway).

Why do gay people bother you so much? Is it because you feel left out?
 
Robdawg said:
Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television.

Some readers might think it unfair to blame Obama. After all, the president inherited the "don't ask, don't tell" law when he took office. As Commander-in-Chief, he has to follow the law. If the law says that the military must fire any service member who acknowledges being gay, that is not Obama's fault.

Or is it?

A new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have statutory, stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges. Obama could simply invoke his authority under federal law (10 U.S.C. §12305) to retain any member of the military he believes is essential to national security.

Or he could take advantage of a legal loophole. The "don't ask, don't tell" law requires the military to fire anyone found to be gay or lesbian. But there is nothing requiring the military to make such a finding. The president can order the military to stop investigating service members' sexuality.

An executive order would not get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" law, but would take the critical step of suspending its implementation, hence rendering it effectively dead. Once people see gays and lesbians serving openly, legally and without problems, it will be much easier to get rid of the law at a later time.

I spent a day with Dan Choi last month, and he is not someone we want to fire from the military. He loves the armed forces. He served bravely under tough combat conditions in Iraq. His Arabic is excellent, and he used his language skills to defuse many tough situations and to save lives, both Iraqi and American. All of his unit mates know he is gay, and they have been very supportive of him. But he doesn't want to live a lie.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-belkin/obama-to-fire-his-first-g_b_199070.html
Click to expand...

Okay, I get the controversy, I get the question as to why Obama doesn't make the change ASAP....but what I don't get is the "liar" part in the title.
 
Southern Man said:
Most reasonable people would consider having porking over 1000 different men up the ass as an indication of unstable behavior. The source of this data was A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, not "Christians against Gays" as you suggest.
Click to expand...
Bull. The source of the study was "Orthodoxy Today", it isn't like I can't see your link or it was hidden from me. They draw on a PhD who is happy to make a statistical analysis that pretends to say what they want it to say, ignores the promiscuity of other groups and draws on bigotry and stereotypes. It's an appeal to authority fallacy, the whole danged "study".

Again, this would not be the measure for you, yet you want to apply a different measure for a different group, because (as you said earlier) you fear showering with them. In fact many men in the military are incredibly promiscuous, it is one of the hugest reasons that their marriages don't last when statistically compared to the rest of society. That and they get paid squat.

Using your arbitrary measure, heterosexual men in the military wouldn't be able to join the military because they would be considered "unstable", and according to the "study" they shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids because their marriages don't last and they are promiscuous when compared to other cherry-picked segments of society.
 
Superfreak said:
Do you really think Wilt is the only heterosexual that is over 100 or 500 or 1000?

Give me a break.

You are simply trying to find an excuse for your bigotry.
Click to expand...
No I don't, but it uncommon enough for 1000 to be a celebrity sensation. Nice strawman. :)
 
Superfreak said:
How exactly is it 'unstable'???? I think what you really mean is that you are pissed that you are stuck at TWO.... Rosie and Louisa...

Side note... so do you proclaim then that Wilt is also unstable given that he is well over 10000 (according to Wilt anyway).

Why do gay people bother you so much? Is it because you feel left out?
Click to expand...

This post makes no sense.
 
Damocles said:
Bull. The source of the study was "Orthodoxy Today", it isn't like I can't see your link or it was hidden from me. They draw on a PhD who is happy to make a statistical analysis that pretends to say what they want it to say, ignores the promiscuity of other groups and draws on bigotry and stereotypes. It's an appeal to authority fallacy, the whole danged "study".

Again, this would not be the measure for you, yet you want to apply a different measure for a different group, because (as you said earlier) you fear showering with them. In fact many men in the military are incredibly promiscuous, it is one of the hugest reasons that their marriages don't last when statistically compared to the rest of society. That and they get paid squat.

Using your arbitrary measure, heterosexual men in the military wouldn't be able to join the military because they would be considered "unstable".
Click to expand...

The link that I provided to you was a summary report. The actual sources are included in the post. Attack those messengers as well?

Please provide your link showing that 28% or more hetero military guys claim to have boinked 1000 different women. Until then I'll consider your counter argument a straw man.
 
Southern Man said:
The link that I provided to you was a summary report. The actual sources are included in the post. Attack those messengers as well?

Please provide your link showing that 28% or more hetero military guys claim to have boinked 1000 different women. Until then I'll consider your counter argument a straw man.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I pointed out that the actual "sources" are paid for by groups like "Orthodoxy Today", and how the "study" was flawed to begin with.

And I made no such claim, I said that they divorce more often than other sectors of society because the men are often promiscuous, I never laid claim (like this "study") of any specific number. Bragging is not evidence.

Again, unmarried men being promiscuous does not make them mentally unstable. It just makes them guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top