Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » Obama's Real Religion (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Obama's Real Religion
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What's not going to happen? Us continuing to drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes at 72 degrees? Or other nations saying OK?

We already know, from Obama's comments at a private meeting with big-pocket donors in San Francisco, that he's an elitist who sneers at the common people who cling to religion and guns because they're bitter about job losses twenty years ago.

Oh man.

Card is a pioneer, a legend, an idol, a GOD for anyone who ever wanted to make an egregiously hyperbolic lie (off-hand, no less), but first questioned whether or not it would hurt their credibility.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's a core pundit skill nowadays; they no longer even bother asking "do you still beat your wife," but instead say, "As a wifebeater, how do you feel about gay marriage?"
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Started to compose a response to this essay, then stopped myself. For the record, is there anyone left who thinks Card's essay's are fair, consistant, or intellectually honest?

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I, too, think it would be a waste of breath to bother rebutting this one. OSC's bizarre insistence that we divorce ourselves from the best mechanism for changing people's behavior (i.e. through popularizing a message) and insist on trying to win hearts and minds through some magical perfect scientific data is nothing short of foolishness. As if in the next five or ten years we're going to wave our magic wands and prove 100% beyond a shadow-of-a-doubt anything about global climate patterns... it's just not going to happen. That should not make us powerless to act - nor should it mean we don't have a responsibility to take just-in-case measures like, oh I dunno, being a little more frugal about energy.

[ June 03, 2008, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dpittard
Member
Member # 6085

 - posted      Profile for dpittard   Email dpittard       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By a little cautious, do you mean crippling the US economy and giving the government another 1.4 trillion in tax revenue through cap and trade scams (since they are such good spenders)?

Obama convinced me of his insanity when he said he would set up an oversight committee of politicians to "control" military spending . . . hahahahahah, sigh, so funny. Oh, was Obama being ironic; maybe I do like him.

Posts: 22 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Card's right but wrong on this.

Fossils ending is not in question.... that's the whole study of "peak" and we are nearing the end of easily accessible supplies. The US GAO states that with growth accounted including the likely gasification of coal to supplement lack of crude, we could have as little as 12.5 years of it left.

We either let renewables emerge, or..... we starve and lose heat and power? No, that's where he takes the wrong turn. We either let renewables emerge or we go to war.

What doesn't follow is that the US would be on the losing side of energy battles.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dpittard:
By a little cautious, do you mean crippling the US economy and giving the government another 1.4 trillion in tax revenue through cap and trade scams (since they are such good spenders)?

Crippling? You mean, like, pouring a trillion dollars into the invasion of Iraq?

If the **** eventually hits the fan, and I suspect in my lifetime it may, people are going to be wondering exactly why it took so long to do anything. They're going to look back and marvel at how people managed to ignore a heaping majority of scientific calls for action, insisting that "the rigorous science isn't yet there" while the problem got worse right on schedule.

I will be happy to track down each and every person who thinks promoting environmental policies is a waste of time and demand that they be publicly shamed. I hope to have a long memory for that task - it will provide me much amusement in my old age.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"What doesn't follow is that the US would be on the losing side of energy battles."

Cause we did great in Iraq... how much oil are they producing??

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We're pretending that we're NOT there for the oil.

And Iraq has produced not a drop since we got there. They turned it off knowing that if it wasn't known to be empty, it would be bombed.

[ June 03, 2008, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
HadouKen24
Member
Member # 6111

 - posted      Profile for HadouKen24   Email HadouKen24       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find it interesting that Card doesn't bother mentioning Obama's environmental platform. Taking a single quote out of context and divorcing it from all other statements Obama has made on the issue doesn't exactly strike me as the most persuasive way to write.
Posts: 66 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think Card is suggesting that the beliefs behind the platform are what matter and best predict actual performance.
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
HadouKen24
Member
Member # 6111

 - posted      Profile for HadouKen24   Email HadouKen24       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm suggesting that a single quote isn't a very good guide to the beliefs behind the platform. You need context.
Posts: 66 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, the "eat" was..... weird if not telling. Weird at the very least.
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
HadouKen24
Member
Member # 6111

 - posted      Profile for HadouKen24   Email HadouKen24       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, it's not. Obama's platform involves reducing both energy costs and carbon emissions.

The carbon emissions bit is a no-brainer. It has been known for several years that cattle emit a lot of the so-called "greenhouse gases." Raising cattle = emitting carbon. Eating fewer burgers means that fewer cattle will be raised. Which means less carbon emissions.

Obama (like everyone else in Washington) has come out in favor of corn-based ethanol. Cattle raised in huge feed lots are frequently fed corn. If we are to keep the price of ethanol low, then, we'll have to raise fewer cattle. But that will only happen if we eat fewer burgers.

This is exactly what I mean when I say one needs context. Apparently strange quotes--quotes that, without further context could fuel wild speculation about the individual's intentions--frequently show themselves to be much more benign, or at least less mysterious, when put in context.

Posts: 66 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
aaaaaahh.

Answer- put the corn back into the cow's mouths, use technology that is different and better than corn ethanol to power vehicles, and I do believe that the vast majority of the cow-y emissions are not products directly out the backside, but rather are slow natural digestion of the manure-- (methane) that can be better handled by allowing financing of the manure pits.

Eat cows, use something else for energy.

I've looked at some of those capture systems, they are nifty. In general, they are slow to get financing too.

But, now that you've explained it I see now what Obama was thinking.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
HadouKen24
Member
Member # 6111

 - posted      Profile for HadouKen24   Email HadouKen24       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(For the record, I agree with you on the answer. Obama's platform needs... a bit of work, at least in that area.)
Posts: 66 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kat_Freeman
Member
Member # 6081

 - posted      Profile for Kat_Freeman   Email Kat_Freeman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know, I understand the frustration Card is expressing here, but it's easy to be paralyzed by the combined opinions of a large group. Of course every solution is going to have a group of nay-sayers, because everyone is in disagreement on which methods have the least impact, or which are the most convenient. And everyone has their “pet” causes. For some, the squirrels are top priority because they remind them of childhood. For others, it’s the two-meter womprats that bring back fond memories.

There are plenty of rational, passionate, environmentalists out there who are working toward real solutions. Take my dairy-studies-roommate for example, who is working on ways to use methane to power cows. Well, sort of. Something about cleaner-burning-cow-food that makes the energy more accessible to the cow and less likely to be passed.

Anyway, scientific progress is quiet and celebrities are loud. We’ll see who has the greatest impact in the end.

Posts: 64 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CaptSC
Member
Member # 6001

 - posted      Profile for CaptSC   Email CaptSC       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I liked this article.

I've seen environmentalism started to be called a "religion" or even the "new socialism" in other articles, so it is interesting to me that it has popped up here.

The mass of OSC skeptics/critics/haters will gleefully call this parroting, but I will have to disagree.

I myself have started to see this come out. Even the hypocrisy so prevalent in many other religions' leaders is seen in the environmentalism movement.

Anyway, I was hoping OSC would bash ethanol more, but he didn't. I don't like one bit how, in a bogus effort to win votes, we are causing people to die in other parts of the world. Whoever thinks converting FOOD into FUEL is a good idea needs to rethink their positions.

[ June 04, 2008, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: CaptSC ]

Posts: 8 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
HadouKen24
Member
Member # 6111

 - posted      Profile for HadouKen24   Email HadouKen24       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm extremely uncomfortable with calling environmentalism a "religion." It's no more a "religion" than the faith that somehow drug laws will keep us safe from dealers and crazed users.

Calling it a "religion," quite frankly, is pure rhetoric. It is a baldfaced attempt to emotionally sway readers to positions far more extreme than rational, considered thought would lead them to. Of all the "environmentalist" positions, only Deep Ecology and its variants could possibly qualify as a religion, since they are the only ones that present a radically different worldview and system of evaluation from dominant norms. Deep Ecologists, however, are far and away in the minority even within the Green movement.

Posts: 66 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Individual Persona
Member
Member # 6105

 - posted      Profile for Individual Persona   Email Individual Persona   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does anybody here read Douglas Adams?

In one of his books, I think it was So Long and Thanks for All the Fish, he describes a lorry driver in a heavy rainstorm.

The rain is so fast and thick that the driver experiments. He believes that it doesn't matter whether the windshield wipers are on or not, because he can't see through the rain either way. When he turns off the windshield wipers, not only does the visibility drop, but it doesn't pick up when he turns them back on.

I know this is a silly example, but for anybody who makes arguments with the justification that "These laws don't protect us anyway, so why have them" I doubt that removing those laws will go unnoticed, and I further doubt that it's a smart move.

Just sayin'

Posts: 340 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
HadouKen24
Member
Member # 6111

 - posted      Profile for HadouKen24   Email HadouKen24       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Many laws do protect us. Laws against murder, theft, fraud, and other crimes make us safer by dissuading people from engaging in such acts and by giving us recourse when they do. Laws don't stop bad behavior %100--if they could, then we wouldn't need many of them anymore--but they do stop at least some of it.

Drug laws make us less safe. They create a violent underground that would not otherwise exist while putting otherwise innocent people in jail. (an unintended side effect of putting people in jail is that they learn a lot about how to get away with crime from fellow inmates who were only mostly successful.) Cocaine and opium addicts were perhaps sad and pathetic, but usually safe to others, in the days prior to prohibition.

Aside from the civil liberties aspect that people should be allowed to do what they want.

Not that I want to turn this into a drug law thread. I just wanted to clarify that my reasoning is a wee bit more complex than "the laws don't protect us, so why do we have them?"

Posts: 66 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I've seen environmentalism started to be called a "religion" or even the "new socialism" in other articles, so it is interesting to me that it has popped up here.

The mass of OSC skeptics/critics/haters will gleefully call this parroting, but I will have to disagree.

I myself have started to see this come out. Even the hypocrisy so prevalent in many other religions' leaders is seen in the environmentalism movement.

See, that's why I don't like using the word "religion" to describe environmentalism. It's not a religion. It's a movement.

The things you see in the environmental movement are the same things you see in other movements. Some religions are movements, too, but not all movements are religions. The only reason to call environmentalism a religion instead of a movement is to take advantage of certain connotative meanings that are not inherent in the movement itself, but which would be convenient to link to the movement.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stevarooni
Member
Member # 6053

 - posted      Profile for Stevarooni   Email Stevarooni   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HadouKen24:
I'm extremely uncomfortable with calling environmentalism a "religion." It's no more a "religion" than the faith that somehow drug laws will keep us safe from dealers and crazed users.

Then why are you uncomfortable with it? Certainly the zero-tolerance attitude toward drug control is, indeed, a religious zeal just as is the zero-tolerance environmentalist screwiness.
Posts: 536 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I don't like one bit how, in a bogus effort to win votes, we are causing people to die in other parts of the world."

According to you, Chavez, and Castro.

Our Corn exports broke a 30 year old record last year. It's not our fault if no one is willing to deal seriously with the demand side of the equation.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When ecology and economics merge into one discipline, well, that'll be nice. Someday.

I mean, money DOES grow on trees, but trees don't grow from money.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
HadouKen24
Member
Member # 6111

 - posted      Profile for HadouKen24   Email HadouKen24       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Then why are you uncomfortable with it? Certainly the zero-tolerance attitude toward drug control is, indeed, a religious zeal just as is the zero-tolerance environmentalist screwiness.
TomD hit the nail on the head in the post just above yours.
Posts: 66 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OSC has finally lost his mind.

This is the worst hatchet job in a long long list of hatchet jobs that would make Jason, Michael Myers, or Bob Novak proud. It's not only that it's just a bunch of made up twisted logic in a perverted effort to demean Barak Obama, but it's also petty. I knew OSC was off his rocker when it came to politics but I never thought of him as petty. For example: "Mr. Obama". I think that is "Senator Obama", Mr. Card.

The conclusions he draws and extrapolates from quotes taken out of context and thin air are worthy of a...a...a science fiction writer.

And the laughs and lies just keep on coming: George W. Bush is historically one of our most environmentally friendly and successful presidents? Stop it! You're killing me! No, really, you're killing me. I'm laughing till I'm crying. Or maybe I'm just crying and the laughing is a empathetic result of the sad bitter realization that OSC has finally descended into a madness. A madness of his own making. Of his own wonderfully imaginative mind. (If you don't believe me I present you with the oldy but goody; He really 'imagines' he's a Democrat! He's jumped the shark as a political pundit. He's jumped the shark and fell down his own rabbit hole. I wonder if we'll ever see him again. Go ask Alice. I think she'll know. Some words make you happy, and some words make you mad, but the words that Orson gives us just make me sad. Sad that since his fall he makes no sense at all.)

Has OSC given up writing books for tabloid journalism? Because I think he'll probably have to work on getting 'some' provable evidence if he plans to write this libelous crap and hopes to work for The Star or The Enquirer without getting his ass sued off.

Maybe that's it. Maybe OSC just doesn't realize that you can't just make reality up as you go along in order to make the reader believe whatever you want them to believe about the characters in the real world like he can and does so well in his fiction? Yeah, that explains a lot. He's totally lost sight of the line between reality and fiction.

Rod wouldn't even submit this crap for our approval in The Twilight Zone. [Frown]

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The fact Obama gonna win is driving lots of folks absolutely bonkers.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Meanwhile, McCain's teleprompters go senile:

Hot water

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bush Burns

"CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider adds, "He is more unpopular than Richard Nixon was just before he resigned from the presidency in August 1974."

Worst president ever. (Ever meaning 'in the 20th century). Even Harding had sense to stay out of war.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cool Picture

Apropos of something, I suppose. Just a way cool pitcher, I thought.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Poor Dubya

"“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.” "

remarks in bold seem to me to sum up the enigma of Bush's presidency. He isn't evil nor totally stupid, just a classically confused Son of the King surrounded by devious ministers, Cheney in particular, who know intimately how to lead him by his battered but nonetheless hypertrophied ego.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hptrekker2006
New Member
Member # 6090

 - posted      Profile for hptrekker2006         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
People once said the same thing about another sitting President...the one who lost China to communism, and lost North Korea back to communism.

Now, looking back 55 years on him, people praise Harry Truman for successfully building the structure of the Cold War, such that war with the enemy would be suicidal for both sides. Think about that.

Meanwhile...no one in the mainstream seems to realize that to compare Iraq to Vietnam is, effectively, to compare Bush to their beloved fair-haired boy JFK (he who started sending military personnel [sorry, "advisers"] into that little hell hole).

[ June 18, 2008, 02:54 AM: Message edited by: hptrekker2006 ]

Posts: 2 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Truman lost China to communism? I agree he made some unwise decisions regarding Chiang kai-Shek, but we hardly "lost" China to ANYone.

That's crazy logic.

Kennedy sent a few dudes to Nam, yes, although some of that already began under Eisenhower.

It was Johnson who turned Nam into a major USA conflict.

Try again, hptrekker. Bad history makes for bad propaganda.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's also worth noting that people my age tend to criticize Bush and Kennedy; we're not as enamoured of Kennedy as the old folks are.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, Bud, Advisors started going in under Ike.

Our first two combat deaths occured July 8th, 1959.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scooter
Member
Member # 2850

 - posted      Profile for Scooter     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm so tired of the spin for Obama that claims his quotes are taken out of context. That is such a cop-out. It's an easy response to any criticism of a quote.

Sure, context matters, and sometimes things are taken out of context in a way that clearly distorts the meaning behind a quote. But not always. Sometimes there is no context that could matter, unless the context is that the quote in question was a quote from someone else and the context was criticism of that quote.

Haven't we all learned that Reverend's Wright's content did not change when he restated it? (Hey, you may agree with his content, that's not the point.) Sometimes words transcend the context in any relevant way.

It's kind of like any time someone reads about a statistic they don't like, they say, "well statistics can say anything you want them to." Cop-out! Maybe that's the case, maybe not. Show how it is.

Show how Obama's words were taken out of context and how the meaning changes because of it. Then you have a point.

Posts: 5 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
HadouKen24
Member
Member # 6111

 - posted      Profile for HadouKen24   Email HadouKen24       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Show how Obama's words were taken out of context and how the meaning changes because of it. Then you have a point.
You mean the way I did in post #14 of this thread?
Posts: 66 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It's a core pundit skill nowadays; they no longer even bother asking "do you still beat your wife," but instead say, "As a wifebeater, how do you feel about gay marriage?"

[LOL] [LOL]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"As a closet gay spouse, do you miss having a wife to beat?"
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1