Obama Gay?

[anon606]

I'm just saying that the "Is Obama gay?" question vanishes pretty quick. It's not as though what Congress does has to make sense. All it has to do is look dangerous. Stupid and crazy are both dangerous.

 

[Brandie69]

So your logic is, if any other country in the world has a law against something, someone who breaks that law isn't qualified to be President of the United States? Christ, do you think actual thoughts, or what? That's the stupidest reason that Obama shouldn't be president that I've ever heard, and I've heard a lot of dumb reasons.

You know, in pretty much every country ever, treason is illegal. Now, I've heard rumors that George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others all committed treason against their mother country and started a revolution. How are any of those jerks qualified to be president if they committed an action that another country might consider illegal?

PS: If you want, I can name names and places. I tried searching "Washington revolution" and you'd be shocked, shocked I tell you, at the number of results I found.

Very nice, Mr. Liquid. In fact, you might even make the argument that Geo. Washington's treason was particularly egregious since he was a commissioned officer in the King's Army. I have some links for that, too, if you'd like.

 

[Brandie69]

A. It was a consulate not an embassy. (Take heart. Mitt Romney couldn't tell the difference either).

B. No one (except maybe Mitt) is saying that a government is responsible for the attack (nor is it logical--except maybe to Mitt--that a government is behind this attack).

So, we go after the group(s) that did this (and there is evidence it was long planned and timed to 9/11). We don't go to war with any government.

Maybe this is all to subtle for you (and Mitt Romney). Not so scary about you--but Mitt Romney thinks he can be president.

I think anon606 is to be forgiven for any rashness in his response to R. Richard.

As someone (oh, I wish it were me) posted on an actual political blog the other day, "I should tape up my head BEFORE I read posts like that."

 

[R. Richard]

So your logic is, if any other country in the world has a law against something, someone who breaks that law isn't qualified to be President of the United States? Christ, do you think actual thoughts, or what? That's the stupidest reason that Obama shouldn't be president that I've ever heard, and I've heard a lot of dumb reasons.

You know, in pretty much every country ever, treason is illegal. Now, I've heard rumors that George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others all committed treason against their mother country and started a revolution. How are any of those jerks qualified to be president if they committed an action that another country might consider illegal?

PS: If you want, I can name names and places. I tried searching "Washington revolution" and you'd be shocked, shocked I tell you, at the number of results I found.

Breaking a law is one thing. Being against the law is quite another.

As to the American revolution, I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said, "We must hang together, or we will most assuredly hang separately." As far as I know, each of the major figures in the American revolution (with the exception of Nathan Hale) owed big bucks to the England, including the King of England. They risked their lives to found a country where they could be wealthy landowners and not pay tax on their tea.

The founders of our country broke the laws of a King, who they felt was oppressing them. They then founded a country, in 1776, where what they did was alright. They then fought another war to affirm that right (the War of 1812.)

What the founders of our country did, however, didn't offend the religion of England to the point where the new country had to fight a holy war. (That was left to Ireland.)

Once the US of A got to the point where they could defend themselves against England, they could still talk to England and did. How do you talk to people whose religion you violate (you really can't.)? (e.g. The USA and England eventually settled their secular differences and things calmed back down. England and the Irish have never really settled their religious differences, despite the fact that they basically have the same religion. (I believe that one of the sticking points is what end of an egg do you break?)

You don't begin to follow my logic. (And you probably break your eggs at the wrong end.)

 

[Brandie69]

Good God, man, you are confusing real world history with Gulliver's Travels.

I have more to say to you, but before I waste the bandwidth, please clarify:

Do you really mean us to take you seriously?

 

[R. Richard]

Between sovereign nations, their representatives are generally protected by the threat of military force, and thus are extended diplomatic courtesy.

The attack on our embassy is an invasion of the US territory, and the murder of an ambassador could be a pretext for the declaration of war.
"

The murder of the USA Ambassador is diplomatic courtesy?

There;s no real need for war. If I were running things, I would recall all of the USA diplomats from Libya and I would declare the diplomats of the government of Libya personae non gratae. I would also declare the UN representatives of Libya personae non gratae. I would then give said diplomats the normal time to vacate the USA. I would then veto any and all bills that granted foreign aid to Libya. TYhe rest of the world could then decide if they wanted to work with Libya, or the USA.

 

[MatthewVett]

Breaking a law is one thing. Being against the law is quite another.

As to the American revolution, I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said, "We must hang together, or we will most assuredly hang separately." As far as I know, each of the major figures in the American revolution (with the exception of Nathan Hale) owed big bucks to the England, including the King of England. They risked their lives to found a country where they could be wealthy landowners and not pay tax on their tea.

The founders of our country broke the laws of a King, who they felt was oppressing them. They then founded a country, in 1776, where what they did was alright. They then fought another war to affirm that right (the War of 1812.)

What the founders of our country did, however, didn't offend the religion of England to the point where the new country had to fight a holy war. (That was left to Ireland.)

Once the US of A got to the point where they could defend themselves against England, they could still talk to England and did. How do you talk to people whose religion you violate (you really can't.)? (e.g. The USA and England eventually settled their secular differences and things calmed back down. England and the Irish have never really settled their religious differences, despite the fact that they basically have the same religion. (I believe that one of the sticking points is what end of an egg do you break?)

You don't begin to follow my logic. (And you probably break your eggs at the wrong end.)

Props for the Swift reference.

Regarding the rest, though, what kind of sovereign nation determined its leader by whether or not other nations will accept then? You might as well surrender to another country. Whether it's religious or secular, it doesn't matter. Are female presidents ineligible for president because Saudi Arabia disapproves?

You can't appease crazy.

 

[TxRad]

Break your eggs on the wrong end?

Most folks break their eggs in the middle.

Can someone translate this?

 

[sr71plt]

The murder of the USA Ambassador is diplomatic courtesy?

There;s no real need for war. If I were running things, I would recall all of the USA diplomats from Libya and I would declare the diplomats of the government of Libya personae non gratae. I would also declare the UN representatives of Libya personae non gratae. I would then give said diplomats the normal time to vacate the USA. I would then veto any and all bills that granted foreign aid to Libya. TYhe rest of the world could then decide if they wanted to work with Libya, or the USA.

What part of no one is fingering the government of Libya (which, at the moment, pretty much belongs to us anyway, by the way) for this haven't you understood?

Don't bother to answer that--this all obviously scoots right over your head.

 

[Brandie69]

The murder of the USA Ambassador is diplomatic courtesy?

There;s no real need for war. If I were running things, I would recall all of the USA diplomats from Libya and I would declare the diplomats of the government of Libya personae non gratae. I would also declare the UN representatives of Libya personae non gratae. I would then give said diplomats the normal time to vacate the USA. I would then veto any and all bills that granted foreign aid to Libya. TYhe rest of the world could then decide if they wanted to work with Libya, or the USA.

This is amateur debate. If it were Libya that attacked our consulate, your response would be spot-on.

Plainly, however, it was not.

The correct response when insurgents in a friendly country attack our consulate is to keep the mission there and send more security.

Do you happen to know what response the US government had?

I'm out. You're crazy.

 

[R. Richard]

Good God, man, you are confusing real world history with Gulliver's Travels.

I have more to say to you, but before I waste the bandwidth, please clarify:

Do you really mean us to take you seriously?

Gulliver's Travels was a vicious poitical satire on real world conditions.

From almost the moment of publication, Gulliver's Travels was seen by many readers as a challenge to their skill in identifying the satirist's targets, and much ingenuity has been exercised in attempts to find the meanings behind Swift's allegories and allusions. Whigs and Tories, George I and Walpole have been found in Lilliput. Of course, most of this ingenious speculation is dismissed as misguided and misleading (the sumbitch wanted to stay out of jail.) Swift, he argues was expressing his views through fables and paradigms rather than by detailed allusions to specific events and personalities.

The book was a transparently anti-Whig satire and it is likely that Swift had the manuscript recopied so his handwriting could not be used as evidence if a prosecution should arise (as had happened in the case of some of his Irish pamphlets) and the manuscript was secretly delivered to the publisher Benjamin Motte. Motte, fearing prosecution and recognising a bestseller when he had one, simply cut or altered the worst offending passages, such as the descriptions of the court contests in Lilliput or the rebellion of Lindalino, and published it anyway. The book was an instant sensation and sold out its first run in less than a month and continued to be published for a long while afterwards.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Brandie69, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. You might try reading the history of Gulliver's Travels, if you feel that you can spare the bandwidth.

 

[sr71plt]

OK, gang, this is, I think, the main reason the United States is in such a muddle--far too many voting citizens have the cognitive abilities of an R.R and the attention span of a gerbil (which gets us back to R.R.). It's getting real old real fast.

 

[R. Richard]

If Libya is a country, then they have agivernment, whose responsibility is to protect their citizens and fireignb diplomats. If the Libyans can't do thsat, then they have no country.

Let me cite a simple exmple of how to handle such a crisis. A Soviet diplomat was kidnapped in war torn Beruit, Lebanon. There was no government and no law and order at all. The Soviets turned loose the KGB and they begin to kill the relatives of those that they thought responsible. The KGB were talented amateurs and they got the message across. No war, no diplomatic notes, just death. From that day forward, NO ONE in Beruit messed with Soviet diplomats. A matter of historical fact. (sr71plt, it could have been handled better, by stiking deeper into the culture of the people having the revolution. However, the KGB were merely talented amateurs. Of course, you can;t see that last.)

 

[sr71plt]

Break your eggs on the wrong end?

Most folks break their eggs in the middle.

Can someone translate this?

I think you're supposed to break the egg at the sort of pointy end. Egg cups are designed to cradle the butt end.

And I think you're supposed to then lightly tap the top of the soft-boiled egg. That's as far as I've ever gotten in this procedure. My next step usually is, "Shit. Can someone get me another egg--and open it for me?"

 

[Brandie69]

Gulliver's Travels was a vicious poitical satire on real world conditions.

From almost the moment of publication, Gulliver's Travels was seen by many readers as a challenge to their skill in identifying the satirist's targets, and much ingenuity has been exercised in attempts to find the meanings behind Swift's allegories and allusions. Whigs and Tories, George I and Walpole have been found in Lilliput. Of course, most of this ingenious speculation is dismissed as misguided and misleading (the sumbitch wanted to stay out of jail.) Swift, he argues was expressing his views through fables and paradigms rather than by detailed allusions to specific events and personalities.

The book was a transparently anti-Whig satire and it is likely that Swift had the manuscript recopied so his handwriting could not be used as evidence if a prosecution should arise (as had happened in the case of some of his Irish pamphlets) and the manuscript was secretly delivered to the publisher Benjamin Motte. Motte, fearing prosecution and recognising a bestseller when he had one, simply cut or altered the worst offending passages, such as the descriptions of the court contests in Lilliput or the rebellion of Lindalino, and published it anyway. The book was an instant sensation and sold out its first run in less than a month and continued to be published for a long while afterwards.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Brandie69, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. You might try reading the history of Gulliver's Travels, if you feel that you can spare the bandwidth.

All of this an elaborate way of avoiding the point.

You can not justify your original two posts with anything resembling logic. So you have fallen to this. I have no more bandwidth for idiots like you.

 

[Brandie69]

If Libya is a country, then they have agivernment, whose responsibility is to protect their citizens and fireignb diplomats. If the Libyans can't do thsat, then they have no country.

Let me cite a simple exmple of how to handle such a crisis. A Soviet diplomat was kidnapped in war torn Beruit, Lebanon. There was no government and no law and order at all. The Soviets turned loose the KGB and they begin to kill the relatives of those that they thought responsible. The KGB were talented amateurs and they got the message across. No war, no diplomatic notes, just death. From that day forward, NO ONE in Beruit messed with Soviet diplomats. A matter of historical fact. (sr71plt, it could have been handled better, by stiking deeper into the culture of the people having the revolution. However, the KGB were merely talented amateurs. Of course, you can;t see that last.)

There are some combinations of letters here that most of us won't recognize as words.

You may wish to post when sober.

 

[sr71plt]

If Libya is a country, then they have agivernment, whose responsibility is to protect their citizens and fireignb diplomats. If the Libyans can't do thsat, then they have no country.

Let me cite a simple exmple of how to handle such a crisis. A Soviet diplomat was kidnapped in war torn Beruit, Lebanon. There was no government and no law and order at all. The Soviets turned loose the KGB and they begin to kill the relatives of those that they thought responsible. The KGB were talented amateurs and they got the message across. No war, no diplomatic notes, just death. From that day forward, NO ONE in Beruit messed with Soviet diplomats. A matter of historical fact. (sr71plt, it could have been handled better, by stiking deeper into the culture of the people having the revolution. However, the KGB were merely talented amateurs. Of course, you can;t see that last.)

Christ almighty, dimwit. What part of "we own the current Libyan government" can't you get? Or that the Libyan government didn't do this? No government can totally control the activities of insurgent groups within its borders, and no country is held accountable to get that done in international diplomacy. We certainly can't fully control all of the crazy groups we have milling around inside the United States, let alone ones attacking us from the outside.

Diplomacy doesn't apply here. And no one with half a brain expects it to. An insurgent group shelled the consulate (not an embassy), and you betcha we're on their trail. The Libyan government doesn't have much to do with it. And we certainly aren't going to waste time or powder by going after them rather than those who actually did it. As far as the Libyan government is concerned, we have enough trouble just keeping them propped up--along with all of the other governments we've replaced and can't get away from having to keep breathing. When you declare that the Libyan government should be held accountable or should do something, functionally you're just saying that the U.S. government should do it--and we are working on it.

And I've had enough on you on this too.

 

[sun_sea_sky]

I've had to listen to a lot of stupid shit today.
This ^, however, just pushed it right out of my head.
Because this was the dumbest shit I've heard all year.

This is truly a strange thread. If you* seriously think Obama is gay you may as well think he is a Martian.

How do you "prove" you aren't gay anyway? I suppose you could marry and have kids. Oh, wait. He's done that.

All this "Obama is gay" stuff proves is that he must be doing something right. If you can attack the argument you do that. If you can't attack the argument you attack the man. "Logical Thinking 101".

* Not you, Brandie69. The dumb guy.

 

[sr71plt]

What is even more bizarre is to post something like this to a wide-open erotica discussion board. This is probably the one place in the universe where the proper answer to this (related to the answer I gave off the top) would be "What the hell would be wrong with that if he was gay?"

R.R. has a penchant for totally misunderstanding the forum he is posting his crap to. (As well as totally misunderstanding just about everything else he tries to discuss.)

 

[ishtat]

The USA had its first Gay President 155 years ago - James Buchanan, 1857-1861

Time to catch up RR?

 

[R. Richard]

Brandie69, you obviously don't understand Gulliver's Travels and you then use your lack of understanding to tell me that no one will take me seriously Interesting.
Brandie69, you tell me that you have no more bandwidth for me and then you use more bandwidth to hit me with argumentum ad hominem. Interesting.

TxRad, it's not about breaking eggs, or which end. The reference to the breaking of eggs in Gulliver's Travels was a literary device.

(What really pisses me off is that I never once passed English, in high school. I mean not even a single assignment. However, I can see more in Gulliver's Travels than at least several of you who have the stink of English majors all over you. Interesting.)

As for sr721plt, your world is argumentum ad hominem. I cited a known, historical solution to the kind of problem that we now see in the raid upon the USA Libyan Consulate. The solution was applied in an area where there was NO FUNCTIONAL government. The solution was applied by KGB agents, who had no realistic diplomatic training. They did have enormous amounts of ferocity. The solution was incomplete and amateurish. However, the solution did work in the real world. Now, you want to, in effect, apply the rule of law and try to solve a problem that's patently not solvable via the rule of law. Interesting.

 

[sr71plt]

As for sr721plt, your world is argumentum ad hominem. I cited a known, historical solution to the kind of problem that we now see in the raid upon the USA Libyan Consulate. The solution was applied in an area where there was NO FUNCTIONAL government. The solution was applied by KGB agents, who had no realistic diplomatic training. They did have enormous amounts of ferocity. The solution was incomplete and amateurish. However, the solution did work in the real world. Now, you want to, in effect, apply the rule of law and try to solve a problem that's patently not solvable via the rule of law. Interesting.

You didn't even read my last post, did you? You were talking the responsibilities of host governments under international law--not me. I was saying that was irrelevant in this case and that we'd take action ourselves--pretty much as you describe the Soviets did. So you can't even keep straight who said what or that I've said that what is going to happen is pretty much what you are advocating.

I'm not surprised you couldn't pass English in high school.

 

[trysail]

I must admit I kept reading through this to see where the erotica started--and didn't find it. Glad the feedback was excellent though.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/hypocrisy-meter.gif​

Why on earth do you see the need to post this here? What does this have to do with erotica?

 

[MatthewVett]

Break your eggs on the wrong end?

Most folks break their eggs in the middle.

Can someone translate this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Endians#Etymology

 

[Pure]

Just sayin'

This is one of socially approved politics threads in AH, I gather.