.....But Mr. Obama actually did bare his soul unintentionally today (perhaps the Biden disease is catching) with his astonishing characterization of American fighting men and women, whom he referred to as “those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf.” Really?
Most Americans thought they were fighting for the country, not on Barack Obama’s behalf. Slip of the tongue, to be sure, but can one think of another president who’d have made it? They are fighting under his command, under his orders, to be sure, but this particular locution is offensive and solipsistic. Mr. Obama has switched his position on the sanctity of marriage back and forth and has a new one, again, today, revealed when politics made that advisable to him and to his campaign. Whether this is the end or he will “evolve” some more is anyone’s guess.
But let’s leave our soldiers out of this. They aren’t fighting for Mr. Obama and his campaign, and no one sent them out to risk their lives to win same sex “marriage.”......
Excerpted from HERE
Excerpted from HERE
He is truly one sick MF. What a demented narcissistic dip shit and in real need of some psychiatric help.
ReplyDeleteI honestly do not know of anybody that is actually "fighting for their country". A close and honest look will reveal that everyone who is fighting is fighting for American corporations, which has nothing whatsoever to do with "our country".
ReplyDeleteNothing being done offshore is doing a damn bit of good for the folks at home.
sorry ken, i don't care if gays marry each other. it's not a choice, its just the way you are.
ReplyDeleteSteve, Steve, Steve..... Remember the Blue Barrel acid going around in K-Town? Are you having a flashback, Brother?
ReplyDeleteIt's arrogance in that he thinks that Soldiers are over "there" fighting On his behalf, not his stance on gay marriage. I just couldn't chop the paragraph up without fucking it up.
Like you, I could really give a fuck who's fucking who. Or out here, who's fucking what.
If I can state my thoughts on this topic ....
ReplyDeleteI too don't care what the fags do to each other, but granting them full status marriage is a huge problem for the christian community and many other cultures and faiths in America.
So the choice is who to alienate. The nearly hundred and fifty million (at least) American who oppose and regard it as either perverted, immortal or sinful ... or the gay community and their supporter who are largely supporters of communism, collectivism and continued moral decay. I mean to say ... those parades are nothing but weird and twisted.
It isn't so much a matter wether we personally agree or give shit about the issue ... it is the division it causes in America. When the majority of the population is incensed, angry and even embarrassed about their country's morality, then there will be never ending strife. That will not make for a peaceful unified society.
Another example of division is the abortion issue .. how's that one looking to you?
America has many big problems mostly economic and this is just gas on the fire.
And finally, Obama shouldn't even talk about a military that he has no respect for and is gutting financially.
solipsism-the doctrine that since all knowledge is subjective, the self is the only entity directly known.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think the government needs to get out of the marriage business. Leave it to Churches where it belongs.
ReplyDeletedon't remember blue barrell acid, but do remember microdot, pyramid, and strawberry sunshine.
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw that post I thought you had read one of my blog posts! Glad it was just another example of Obama's asshattery.
ReplyDeleteI served under Clinton, but it was never on his fucking behalf. Fuck Obama.
And Anonymous, it's pretty arrogant of the Christian community (of which I'm a member) to be up in arms over this. So what if you see it as perverted and sinful -- isn't that the way we're told to see the world? In the world, not of it?
Any why focus on the sin of others? Is it our job to prevent others from sinning at the barrel of a gun? Does God care about a net reduction of sin in the world, if it doesn't involve the repentance of the sinners themselves?
"Personally, I think the government needs to get out of the marriage business. Leave it to Churches where it belongs."
ReplyDeleteThat's what Stanhope says on the issue - he also says that everyone should be considered an individual entity by the government. If you want tax breaks, incorporate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmpf5-tuDEo
Good find and posted.
ReplyDeleteAs a card carrying Libertarian, I don't want any say in anyone's personal choices, nor do I want to pay for them. But I do have a friend who owns a high-end wedding planning business (you guys have NO idea how much is spent on weddings in this country). Her little Baptist soul is warring with her little capitalist head over the bounty of gay marriage bucks on the table. I hope capitalism wins out. You know her profit line will just be FABULOUS!
ReplyDeleteMarriage is a civil contract in this country. Therefore, a church service is completely unnecessary. One cannot be legally married without the proper government filings. Therefore, denying the right to enter into that contract to a select group of citizens, namely Anonymous' "fags", is a civil rights violation. Any true conservative would support gay marriage based on the precept that it is no one else's business who marries whom, any more than it is anyone else's business what kind of cars we drive, how many guns we own, what we smoke or drink...I could go on ad nauseum. Individual freedoms, and the support thereof, are the hallmarks of true conservatism. What god you worship also applies. That your religion is threatened by gay marriage is a polite way of saying you hate faggots. Just own it, Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is a civil contract in this country.
ReplyDeleteThat is the problem. It is none of the state's business.
It's a civil contract as opposed to a religious ceremony because the First Amendment requires it to be so. Tax breaks aside, there has to be a civil contract in place to address the status of a couple for the courts to refer to for a plethora of reasons, not least property division in the event of a split.
ReplyDeleteWhether it SHOULD be a matter only for religions is beside the point. The existing system denies the ability to have equal status under the law to a select few based on criteria unique to that group. THAT is classic discrimination, period. Consider that, at one time, certain races and religions in this country were not allowed to intermarry...
The globalist hatchet man Kissinger once said "the military are dumb animal`s who exist to do our bidding". All these sonsabitches have their own special place in Hell waiting for them someday.
ReplyDelete