A far left extremist said this earlier today

DavidS

Anti-Tea Party Member
Sep 7, 2008
9,811
770
48
New York, NY
"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."

Who said this?

Game opens now and is good for 1 hour. No Google searching.

Just try and guess this.

I'll give you a hint - he is an elected official. I'm not going to mention his race and no, it wasn't Obama (unfortunately).
 
I call BS.

He also said this:

"And I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that," he said.
 
While you are cherry picking quotes, go find the one where Barack Obama says that marriage is between a man and a woman.
 
I wonder if he would say this if his daughter wasn't a lesbian? I doubt it.

He is a liar and a crook and responsible for the death of over 4000 real Americans in Iraq. He had one of Saddam's henchmen tortured to get him to say that there was a connection between 9-11 and Saddam. He still will say there was a connection when rational people know there wasn't.

He is a evil little bastard that ran scared after they fucked up on 9-11 and threw out everything to try and recover. History will list him as one of the truly evil little bastards of all our presidents of vice.:evil:

I would have to say that I really don't like or respect him very much.:lol:

As to his daughter being a lesbian, where are the tough talkers on the right who love to throw around words like "bull dike" etc when referring to her?
 
I wonder if he would say this if his daughter wasn't a lesbian? I doubt it.

He is a liar and a crook and responsible for the death of over 4000 real Americans in Iraq. He had one of Saddam's henchmen tortured to get him to say that there was a connection between 9-11 and Saddam. He still will say there was a connection when rational people know there wasn't.

He is a evil little bastard that ran scared after they fucked up on 9-11 and threw out everything to try and recover. History will list him as one of the truly evil little bastards of all our presidents of vice.:evil:

I would have to say that I really don't like or respect him very much.:lol:

As to his daughter being a lesbian, where are the tough talkers on the right who love to throw around words like "bull dike" etc when referring to her?

What I said. Nice try, David.
 
I wonder if he would say this if his daughter wasn't a lesbian? I doubt it.

He is a liar and a crook and responsible for the death of over 4000 real Americans in Iraq. He had one of Saddam's henchmen tortured to get him to say that there was a connection between 9-11 and Saddam. He still will say there was a connection when rational people know there wasn't.

He is a evil little bastard that ran scared after they fucked up on 9-11 and threw out everything to try and recover. History will list him as one of the truly evil little bastards of all our presidents of vice.:evil:

I would have to say that I really don't like or respect him very much.:lol:

As to his daughter being a lesbian, where are the tough talkers on the right who love to throw around words like "bull dike" etc when referring to her?

i prefer rug muncher or lesbyterian, myself. bull dyke is sooo prosaic.

did you know cheney's out of office, ray?
:eusa_shhh:
 
del - talking about rug munchers... Do you know that the number one cause of death in the lesbian community is hair balls...:eek:
 
I wonder if he would say this if his daughter wasn't a lesbian? I doubt it.

He is a liar and a crook and responsible for the death of over 4000 real Americans in Iraq. He had one of Saddam's henchmen tortured to get him to say that there was a connection between 9-11 and Saddam. He still will say there was a connection when rational people know there wasn't.


I was just reading today where Cheney admits there was no 9/11 - Iraq connection.
 
"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."

Who said this?

Game opens now and is good for 1 hour. No Google searching.

Just try and guess this.

I'll give you a hint - he is an elected official. I'm not going to mention his race and no, it wasn't Obama (unfortunately).

Harvey Milk?
 
"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."

Who said this?

Game opens now and is good for 1 hour. No Google searching.

Just try and guess this.

I'll give you a hint - he is an elected official. I'm not going to mention his race and no, it wasn't Obama (unfortunately).



It was Dick Cheney. It was on FOX news today. However, I'll bet the left wing nut cases are freaking out over this statement. It will be very interesting how they justify their HATE toward him now.

BTW--Obama is AGAINST Gay marraige--& prefers civil unions. Who would have guessed--LOL
 
Last edited:
I think this entire debate is a bit ridiculous. A civil union or "state marriage" is actually the same thing. Various religions have taught us that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a religious matter, not a state matter, and we do have a separation of church and state. Therefore, there should be no barriers to gays having a civil marriage. However, that marriage does not have to be recognized in the religious sense.

Then we have the argument by some that it should be left up to the states. That just creates all kinds of problems as gay couples will marry in one state, and then move to another where all of a sudden their marriage is null and void. I think the answer to this is that we should leave marriage as a religious component, and do away with civil marriages. Allow civil unions for anyone who chooses to go through the state rather than a church. In the end, they both guarantee the same rights, but that would put an end to the argument.
 
Then we have the argument by some that it should be left up to the states. That just creates all kinds of problems as gay couples will marry in one state, and then move to another where all of a sudden their marriage is null and void.
Disagree.

Per article 1, Section 10, no state may impair the responsibilities and benefits of legitemate contracts.
I think the answer to this is that we should leave marriage as a religious component, and do away with civil marriages. Allow civil unions for anyone who chooses to go through the state rather than a church. In the end, they both guarantee the same rights, but that would put an end to the argument.
How do you simultaneously do away with civil marriages and keep them??

Have no statutory nexus with marriage whatsoever, and leave it to common law.
 

Forum List

Back
Top