Olbermann Suspended for being a HACK LIBERAL!

Dixie said:
No actually, YOU make this stuff up, because I never said that. Gay Marriage is most certainly about the gayness... MARRIAGE is NOT!
Click to expand...
You are so shallow! Gay marriage isn't about gayness! Denying marriage to gays isn't about gayness! it is about marriage! Well, what about civil unions or contracts? ahahahahahaha Are those allowed? Or are the not about gayness, either? ahahahahaha still laughing!
 
Rana said:
You are so shallow! Gay marriage isn't about gayness! Denying marriage to gays isn't about gayness! it is about marriage! Well, what about civil unions or contracts? ahahahahahaha Are those allowed? Or are the not about gayness, either? ahahahahaha still laughing!
Click to expand...

LOL... How the hell can "GAY" Marriage NOT be about GAY? It's a complete contradiction of LOGIC!

A contract of civil union is a contract, it is not dependent on sexuality or lifestyle. As I said, I have no problem with CUs. My problem is with redefining "marriage" to include a sexual behavior, which it shouldn't include.
 
Olbermann is obviously a partisan commenter. I really can't understand the logic behind this decision. You don't have to look at his political donations to figure out that he's not exactly impartial. What kind of program did they think they were running?
 
Dixie said:
LOL... How the hell can "GAY" Marriage NOT be about GAY? It's a complete contradiction of LOGIC!

A contract of civil union is a contract, it is not dependent on sexuality or lifestyle. As I said, I have no problem with CUs. My problem is with redefining "marriage" to include a sexual behavior, which it shouldn't include.
Click to expand...

Well then, since it only redefines it so that everyone can marry the adult the love you should be perfectly happy.
 
Don't you just love the bigotry going on here?

Gays, you can't marry because you're just a "sexual behavior", nothing more. That person you fell in love with an want to spend the rest of your life with? That's not relevant because they don't have the parts I approve of. It's not about love, after all, it's about the sexual.... dammit, did I just contradict myself?

Whatever.

GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG BECAUSE IT DEFIES LOGIC!!!!!!
 
Watermarx said:
Well then, since it only redefines it so that everyone can marry the adult the love you should be perfectly happy.
Click to expand...
Dixie:

My problem is with redefining "marriage" to include a sexual behavior, which it shouldn't include.

Marriage shouldn't include sexual behavior! Wow! My hubby is going to be bummed! as am I!

You really don't think about what you write! ahahahahahaha
 
Rana said:
Dixie:

My problem is with redefining "marriage" to include a sexual behavior, which it shouldn't include.

Marriage shouldn't include sexual behavior! Wow! My hubby is going to be bummed! as am I!

You really don't think about what you write! ahahahahahaha
Click to expand...

Marriage shouldn't be defined by sexual behavior, no. Did you and the hubby get married to have sex? Was the sex the reason and basis for your marriage? What if something tragic happened to one of you, and sex became impossible to have? Would you get a divorce? Marriage is a union between a man and woman, it is not defined by sexual behavior.
 
So now, TWO threads have been hijacked to talk about Gay Marriage again. Is that ALL you fuckwits ever want to discuss? Seems like you'd just get tired of the same subject over and over again, and have some inclination to talk about something different. We've either got to talk about the "car in the ditch" or Gay Marriage???
 
Dixie said:
So now, TWO threads have been hijacked to talk about Gay Marriage again. Is that ALL you fuckwits ever want to discuss? Seems like you'd just get tired of the same subject over and over again, and have some inclination to talk about something different. We've either got to talk about the "car in the ditch" or Gay Marriage???
Click to expand...
Want some cheese?
 
Dixie said:
Marriage shouldn't be defined by sexual behavior, no. Did you and the hubby get married to have sex? Was the sex the reason and basis for your marriage? What if something tragic happened to one of you, and sex became impossible to have? Would you get a divorce? Marriage is a union between a man and woman, it is not defined by sexual behavior.
Click to expand...

Dixie, Dixie, Dixie. :palm:

Consider the following:

1. Religious texts say one is not supposed to have sex unless married.

2. The Catholic religion demands that a marriage be consummated. If a Priest completes a marriage ceremony but the couple do not consummate the marriage (have sex) they are not considered to have been married.

3. The proverbial shot-gun marriage. (A marriage that is forced or necessitated because of pregnancy. Also called shotgun wedding.)

So, to say marriage has nothing to do with sexual behavior is just being silly. It has everything to do with sexual behavior.
 
Yurt said:
because hack....you only whined about them giving to repubs...you of course "conveniently" neglect to mention them giving to dems as well...you tried to paint it as only repubs which is false
Click to expand...

Credible link?
 
It's ironic that Olbermann gave to political candidates after criticizing Fox News because its owner, Rupert Murdoch, gave $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association. "Fox News has put its money where its mouth is," Olbermann said in an August segment that questioned the network's impartiality.

In October, Olbermann again raised the issue of Murdoch's donations, during an interview with Democratic Rep. James Clyburn. Olbermann asked whether there was "a legislative response to the idea that there is a national cable news outlet that goes beyond having a point of view and actually starts to shill for partisan causes and actually starts to donate to partisan groups of one party."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...spends-olbermann-over-political-contributions
 
Yurt said:
lol....first it didn't matter...now you want a link....

scared?
Click to expand...

I didn't mean it doesn't matter, in THAT sense. What I meant is that it doesn't matter in regards to YOUR argument.

If Olbermann is a HACK for giving to Democrats, wouldn't New Corp, Hannity, Cavuto or anyone at Fox also be a hack IF they gave to EITHER party?

You can't provide a credible link, so you must be lying.



Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
 
Bfgrn said:
I didn't mean it doesn't matter, in THAT sense. What I meant is that it doesn't matter in regards to YOUR argument.

If Olbermann is a HACK for giving to Democrats, wouldn't New Corp, Hannity, Cavuto or anyone at Fox also be a hack IF they gave to EITHER party?

You can't provide a credible link, so you must be lying.



Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Click to expand...

eye-roll
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top