Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

A question for King Obama

So Obama has declared that if he had a son he'd have to "think long and hard" about allowing him to play football because of all of the violence in the game, especially at the college and professional levels.

Questions that he should be repeatedly asked at his next press conference (if he ever holds one again) are these:

"Mr. President, the violence of war is many orders of magnitude greater than with football, a mere game. Would you also stop your son, if you had one, from joining the military?"

How about your daughters? You recently announced that women are now to engage in frontline combat. Would you intervene if one of your own daughters volunteered to participate in this kind of up-close mass murder of foreigners?"

by Anonymousreply 18702/04/2013

Begone troll.

by Anonymousreply 101/30/2013

Umm, war is horrible but unavoidable at times. It has been throughout the whole history of the human race. So get a grip emo prog

by Anonymousreply 201/30/2013

don't feed the trolls

by Anonymousreply 301/30/2013

Um... the people fighting wars in the military are adults. I think Obama was speaking of the wisdom of letting little kids play football when knowing about the likelihood of concussions and brain damage.

by Anonymousreply 501/30/2013

great idea r8

by Anonymousreply 901/30/2013

Yeah, genius idea, r8, because it's impossible to understand why a head of state might require more protection than the average citizen, and why a gun might be a safer weapon in the hands of a trained bodyguard than in those of some hotheaded, paranoid gun nut who only thinks he's prepared to defend himself in the unlikely event that someone threatens his life.

by Anonymousreply 1001/30/2013

Obama really needs to stop with this "if I had a son" scenario. It didn't work so well when he said if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon Martin. Why would he inject himself into an already divisive issue?

I understand the sentiments, but it usually doesn't bode well when you actually verbalize it. Sometimes I think the great orator isn't so great on his feet.

by Anonymousreply 1201/30/2013

R11: good use for a gun. On yourself.

Read the post about the white boys who are wacko loser whining bitches.

by Anonymousreply 1501/30/2013

"Mr. President, the violence of war is many orders of magnitude greater than with football, a mere game."


by Anonymousreply 1601/30/2013

Thank you, r13.

by Anonymousreply 1701/30/2013

Bitch, you gonna get cut.

by Anonymousreply 1801/30/2013

Yes, thank you, R13, and also R5, making an obvious point.

by Anonymousreply 1901/30/2013

The anti-drone trolls always forget to mention, if not for drones we'd have to have boots on the ground fighting instead. I don't see what's so great about American soldiers getting captured, tortured and killed by Al Qaeda. These people who are always screaming about how horrible drones are forget to mention that's the alternative to drones.

It's sad that innocent people are getting killed by drones. However, Obama is President of the United States, not President of Afghanistan. It's his job to keep Americans from getting killed, not Afghanistanis. American soldiers' families want their family members to come home alive.

Anybody who doesn't understand that wars are bad because innocent people get killed in the crossfire, doesn't understand what war is.

by Anonymousreply 2101/30/2013

I'll state the obvious. Obama is your President, not your King, you disrespectful fuck.

by Anonymousreply 2301/30/2013

OP is a racist pig. "King Obama"? Really? Maybe you said something else in your post but I wasn't reading are obvious a racist creep, op.

by Anonymousreply 2401/30/2013

R23, the power of the US President to assassinate anyone anywhere without trial is a more absolute power than many kings of many nations have been permitted. The Patriot Act removed civil protections that were established by the Magna Charta.

by Anonymousreply 2501/30/2013

The Op's question is something a high school student who considers himself very bright would ask the principal in front of the whole high school.

Obama responds personally to questions sometimes and puts himself in other peoples' shoes. Some would call it unpresidential, others would call it empathetic.

The America-is-a-communist/fascist-state meme is everywhere these days. It's kind of a junk-food-fattened obesity of the mind.

by Anonymousreply 2601/30/2013

Hey OP, what did you call President Bush when he called himself "The Decider"?

Did you and your ilk call President Bush "King" too?

by Anonymousreply 2701/30/2013

Yes, of course, Bush was KING, or the face of the KING (in reality, he's a puppet). But so is Obama the face of our KING. Just because he's black and a Democrat doesn't mean he can't play KING. In fact, he can get much more accomplished than Bush because no one suspects him.

by Anonymousreply 2801/30/2013

Putin has assassinated people all over the world by poisoning, the Israelis have assassinated people all over the world. Nobody's calling them "King Putin" or "King Netanyahu." It was said for years that Castro may have had JFK assassinated. Nobody ever called him "King Castro." I call racism.

A lot of these "statements" by Teabaggers are not based on any rational understanding of world events, they are just parroted talking points from Fox News. The people on Fox who say them don't even seem to know what they mean. Offensively and belligerently calling a President a King, as a form of insult, is just one of those childish name-calling tactics seen on Fox and right wing sites. It's not an actual argument, it's just a fit of petulance.

by Anonymousreply 2901/30/2013

[quote]If Obama wasn't murdering innocent people with drones, maybe he wouldn't need all those bodyguards.

But of course. After all, Lincoln and Kennedy were assassinated because of all the drone strikes they ordered. The Secret Service didn't exist until drones were invented. No head of a huge and powerful country would ever need special protection from would-be assassins if not for drones.

by Anonymousreply 3001/30/2013

OOOH, he called the President "King Obama"

How brave, how bold, taking such a risk on an anonymous board.

by Anonymousreply 3101/30/2013

That Obama's getting too big for his britches. Let's call the little upstart out -- put him in his place by calling him King, just like Tea Party tool Rand Paul does.

by Anonymousreply 3201/30/2013

I'm pretty sure whomever wrote this article has suffered a few concussions.

by Anonymousreply 3301/30/2013

OP is an idiot troll. Why do you keep feeding him? He is way too fat already.

by Anonymousreply 3401/30/2013

lol @ "Magna Charta."

by Anonymousreply 3501/30/2013

Hey asshole OP, fighting a war and risking your life for your country's good is s not quite on the same level as playing a silly " game " that can cause serious brain damage.

by Anonymousreply 3601/30/2013

it's fun to read threads that are entirely troll-based. Thanks, y'all. Great work getting out "the message!"

by Anonymousreply 3801/30/2013

I'm pretty sure that if you compared the rates of brain injuries for players in the NFL, or college and high school football for that matter, with similar statistics for the Army and Marines you'd find them MUCH higher in the former group.

by Anonymousreply 3901/30/2013

OP eats the turd mounds of Rush Limbaugh.

by Anonymousreply 4001/30/2013

Why is the NFL worrying about the President? Seriously, they should be concentrating on which one of their players will murder someone next

by Anonymousreply 4101/30/2013

gee r10, you miss the point of a government of for and by the people don't you?

We don't have a king in this country for a reason. If it's good enough for him then it's good enough for the rest of us. Otherwise it's called tyranny.

by Anonymousreply 4201/30/2013

Let us hope the King abdicates.

by Anonymousreply 4301/30/2013

Oh for god's sake, Obama is not a "king" anymore than Bush was a "king".

Just another "there's a negro in the White House" troll.

by Anonymousreply 4501/30/2013

This is utter bullshit.

You can't compare football to war.

People don't go to war - or at least they shouldn't - as a sport or as an elective.

They go to war because they feel - rightly or wrongly - that doing so is required for reasons of national or international welfare or security.

No one plays football to defeat the Nazis.

I am not saying that war is always necessary. If we want to discuss whether we are involved in useless, stupid wars, then let's do that.

A great many parents respect the need for their children to go to war when they are convinced it is necessary. They might not feel the same about their children risking their health or safety for something that is not necessary, including an idiotic war. And also including a sport.

by Anonymousreply 4801/30/2013

Do you approve of the drones killing kids in the ME?

by Anonymousreply 4901/30/2013

So if we would be willing to defend ourselves in battle if there would be a right wing coup in this country, we must also be willing to risk our lives playing football? Otherwise we are hypocrites? Is that the point?

Because if it is, it's worse than sophistry. It's idiocy.

by Anonymousreply 5101/30/2013

Exactly, R51. What's hilarious is that the OP can't tell the difference.

by Anonymousreply 5201/30/2013

[quote]Do you approve of the drones killing kids in the ME?

Civilians have been killed violently since the very first war. It's an unhappy result. But death by drone remotely controlled by a human is no greater sin than death by mortar by a soldier on the scene.

by Anonymousreply 5301/30/2013

r53, did you have this same belief when Dubya was doing it?

by Anonymousreply 5501/30/2013

Yes. I opposed the Iraq War. I did not oppose the use of drones.

by Anonymousreply 5601/30/2013

OP is too. stupid. to. live.

by Anonymousreply 5701/30/2013

[quote]If it's good enough for him then it's good enough for the rest of us. Otherwise it's called tyranny.

No, dipshit at r42, our government is not tyrannical because the president (among others) happens to require more personal protection than most citizens. Our government is not tyrannical for allowing trained, professional bodyguards to carry weapons in the course of duty, while prohibiting or attempting to prohibit the mentally ill and any other yahoo who pleases to carry assault rifles wherever and whenever they wish.

by Anonymousreply 5801/30/2013

[quote]Do you approve of the drones killing kids in the ME?

I don't love drones, but like r53, I'm not sure why it's any worse for a drone to kill civilians than for a live, human soldier to do the same.

Mostly, I'm just perplexed as how my answer to that question has any bearing on the question of whether football is too risky.

by Anonymousreply 5901/30/2013

Good grief we have a freeper troll turning this place piss yellow.

by Anonymousreply 6001/30/2013

[quote]Listen, if someone breaks into my home and intends to do harm, I want a way to protect myself. What do you suggest [R51]?

I'm not r51, but I suggest you have a beer, smoke some dope, and stop worrying so fucking much. You freakshows talk about home invasion as though it were as common as jaywalking. Chances are, armed bandits are never going to break into your home, and if they do, they'll probably do it when you are out (unless you never leave your house, which does not seem altogether unlikely, I admit).

If somebody does break in, I suggest you call the damned cops. And if you're really THAT worried about it, get an alarm system that will notify the police automatically the second the break-in happens.

This is a much safer option for all concerned than a nervous nelly nutter like you keeping a loaded gun in his home. The chances you'd ever successfully use that gun to defend yourself from a dangerous criminal intent on harming you is miniscule, and far, far less likely than all of the following:

--your kid, niece, nephew, friend or neighbor's kid, etc., finds the gun and accidentally kills himself or someone else

--you shoot your own fool self in the foot, leg, balls, or worse while grabbing the gun because a floorboard creaked and you went apeshit

--somebody actually does break in, sees you going for the gun, and shoots you first

--you shoot some trick-or-treater or Girl Scout selling cookies because you were sure she was about to invade your precious castle

by Anonymousreply 6101/31/2013

R62, if you can't differentiate between drone activity and any other military action, then quit trolling about drones killing people.

by Anonymousreply 6601/31/2013

OP is wack.

Is OP even American?

by Anonymousreply 7101/31/2013

[quote]Your are sick. So, killing innocent people is okay as long as they do it via drone.

No, killing civilians by drone is no more sinful than killing civilians by mortar, rifle, or any other weapon.

by Anonymousreply 7201/31/2013

Freepers were always pro-war when it was Bush. But now a scary black man has his finger on the button and suddenly they're anti-drone, anti-involvement in other areas and so on.

No more " 'murrica! Lets go get them terrurists, yurrrr!" from the Freeps.

by Anonymousreply 7301/31/2013

Killing civilians is not automatically a war crime, r74.

by Anonymousreply 7501/31/2013

it's social etiquette when referring to a monarch to give their title followed by their first name and not surname.

by Anonymousreply 7701/31/2013

Doesn't King Obama have a county to ruin and wealth to redistribute? Leave football to the thugs and ex cons currently suited up..

by Anonymousreply 7801/31/2013

I find the "King Obama" stuff really offensive. It's just another way of saying "uppidity negro," isn't it?

by Anonymousreply 7901/31/2013

This was all about football until the Red Diaper babies used tired obstructionist shrieking to turn it into a discussion about the name O was called.

by Anonymousreply 8001/31/2013

red diaper babies?

by Anonymousreply 8101/31/2013

From Urban Dictionary, for R81:

red diaper baby

This is an expression, largely used in New York City, for baby boomer children of avowed American communists. It became the title of a one-man show in New York by Josh Kornbluth in 2000.

That poster is claiming we disagree with him/her/it because we are all raised by Communists.

by Anonymousreply 8201/31/2013

No r82, I am saying you are using obstructionist tactics to change a discussion about Obama's views on football and whether it is his place to enter the debate to a screed on the name OP used for the President.

In your post at r82, you claimed I called you red diaper babies for disagreeing with me instead of for using for calling you out on your methods.

Maybe it is hardwired in you, but r82 is all about you doing that again.

by Anonymousreply 8301/31/2013

[quote]Your are sick. So, killing innocent people is okay as long as they do it via drone.

No one has said this. People have said it's NO WORSE when done by drone than when done by soldiers. Both situations are very unfortunate; one is not more unfortunate than the other. Get it?

[quote]This is how stupid these people are. The people being murdered are innocent, and it doesn't matter if a drone or a soldier pulls the trigger.

No, in fact, it doesn't matter. Why do you think it does. Killing innocent civilians is always ugly. Why do you think it's only a problem when a drone does it? Apparently, you don't give a shit about the countless innocents killed by soldiers.

by Anonymousreply 8401/31/2013

R76, Ron Paul is not a liberal. Please.

by Anonymousreply 8501/31/2013

King Obama sounds better than King Rmoney ANY day.

by Anonymousreply 8601/31/2013

"Drones" have become a Republican talking point. Talking points have nothing to do with rational arguments, they are just catchwords, with no rational argument backing them up.

Drones kill civilians by mistake sometimes. Human soldiers kill civilians by mistake sometimes. Dead is dead either way. The only difference is, American soldiers' lives aren't at risk by enemy fire when drones are used. Drones are not sent out for the sole pupose of deliberately killing innocent civilians. Soldiers sometimes choose to kill innocent civilians on purpose, to cover up crimes like rape of civilians or for other nefarious reasons. Drones don't. Anyone who thinks that there will be some time in the forseeable future when no civilian gets killed in the crossfire of a war has lost their mind.

As far as the war with Afghanistan having "no purpose," the purpose was to attack Al Qaeda after 9/11, and weaken or destroy them so they could no longer be a threat to the United States or its allies. The war was started by George W. Bush, not Obama, and Bush made an agreement with Hamid Karzai to end the war by a certain date, which Obama is carrying out. When the Americans leave, the Taliban and Al Qaeda will probably take over again, because there is no effective government in Afghanistan.

by Anonymousreply 8701/31/2013

OP = age, gender?

by Anonymousreply 8901/31/2013

[quote]I hope someone breaks into your house, and allows you to call the cops before they murder you and your family.

Well, hope away, hon, but it's beyond unlikely than anyone's ever going to break into my house, while I am home, for any reason, let alone for the purpose of killing me and my family. (And even if someone did, I'd probably have a better chance at success in calling the cops than in getting out a gun and firing away.)

I think I'll take my chances on that remote possibility rather than on the far greater likelihood that I, a member of my family, or an innocent visitor might be harmed by the loaded and ready-for-action gun I'd need to keep handy to defend myself in your scenario.

Like I said, you really need to mix yourself a cocktail and relax a little. Annoying as you are, I still highly doubt that dozens of people are lurking in the shadows just waiting for the right moment to bust into your trailer and kill you dead.

by Anonymousreply 9001/31/2013

you know nothing, r88.

I think you are insane to boot.

by Anonymousreply 9101/31/2013

R87 you are right. They go on about drones but they don't give a shit about the soldiers killing civilians. They don't really care about those "brown" people either especially if they are "mooslem".

Just another talking point to stir up the right wing crazies against that uppity negro in the White House.

by Anonymousreply 9201/31/2013

Women should serve if they want to, and there are plenty that want to. This whole backlash about women being the backbone, blah, blah, blah, is nothing but phony bullshit for the very folks that want to control Women's vaginas.

by Anonymousreply 9301/31/2013

[quote]Wow. If this country starts putting young women in combat I'm leaving. I will refuse to live in such a barbaric country. Even poor, shitty countries appreciate the value of women and motherhood. I'll happily go die somewhere else.

Translation: If this country starts treating women as the equals of men, I'm leaving.

by Anonymousreply 9501/31/2013


"We should not be in these countries at all, let alone killing them off.

Why is Obama pushing for more war?"

As I mentioned above, Bush started the war with Afghanistan, not Obama. He thought we should stop Al Qaeda from attacking the United States. I don't like Bush, but that wasn't a crazy idea. If you don't know why we are in that war, open a newspaper or news website once in a while.

2. Obama is not "pushing for more war." Mitt Romney wanted wars with Iran and Syria. Obama is trying everything he can not to get involved with more wars.

"Women in combat" was pushed because women are already in combat, and can't get earned promotions because they are not officially in combat. Nothing's changed on the ground. Tammy Duckworth had both legs blown off in combat, but wasn't offically "in combat" because she was shot down in a helocopter in midair, until she landed and there was a firefight on the ground. That's ridiculous. In WWII, they were called "combat pilots." They got killed or injured all the time. Now they're not "in combat" because they're women? Her legs are still gone though. She joked, "I lost my legs in a barfight."

by Anonymousreply 9601/31/2013

Exactly, r95. Read between the lines, it's about controlling women, not respecting women.

by Anonymousreply 9801/31/2013

R97 - you do realise that people fighting in wars now are doing it of their own free will? Women aren't being fucking drafted.

Also, "false feminism"? What's real feminism according to you? Treating women like precious china dolls that you keep at home to have babies and make the dinner?

by Anonymousreply 9901/31/2013

The military is still voluntary, yes? In which case women themselves would be deciding that they wanted to join.

Obama is not putting them at risk, they are themselves because they want to.

by Anonymousreply 10101/31/2013

We needed to, r100. My buddies needed 12 billion dollar bonuses.

by Anonymousreply 10201/31/2013

[quote][[R93]], Whose body did you come out of? Who nourished you as a baby?

Did anyone say pregnant women or nursing mothers should be in combat, trolly? Just as plenty of individual men are ineligible for combat for various reasons, individual women can and will be excluded, too, when circumstances demand it. That doesn't mean women as a class need be prohibited from participating in combat and being officially recognized for it.

by Anonymousreply 10301/31/2013

I can see this is becoming the freeper version of 'women's rights'.

by Anonymousreply 10501/31/2013

[quote]Please tell me why we had to invade Iraq, and murder one million of their people?

Because GW Bush and his cronies made up some bullshit about WMDs to justify it.

by Anonymousreply 10701/31/2013

Wrong, r104, you are way off the mark.

by Anonymousreply 10801/31/2013

When they say King Obama I suddenly thought of king cake. Sweet, gaudy and delicious.

by Anonymousreply 10901/31/2013

The war was started and profited by your friends, r104, the republican'ts

by Anonymousreply 11001/31/2013

[quote] Here's the proof: pornography, pimping, moms forced to work long hours for low wages, anti-depressive med abuse, domestic and street violence, rigid standards of beauty, and violent scenes in film and music.

I remember that horrible violent scene in an Eminem song.

P.S. you're a fucking idiot.

by Anonymousreply 11201/31/2013

R1, ask your friend George W. Bush. Obama wasn't President then.

Rumor has it that it was because Saddam Hussein threatened to kill George Bush Sr. It was revenge by W, and had nothing to do with 9/11. Of course the Bush/Cheney administration denies it. It also may have had to do with Halliburton getting obscenely rich from war profits. Cheney got very wealthy from this.

by Anonymousreply 11301/31/2013

Sorry, my comment was addressed to R100.

by Anonymousreply 11401/31/2013

Did OP change her address? The yellow tide stopped, but the non-sequiturial frothing hostile nonsensical posts did not.

Leave the country. You're excused.

by Anonymousreply 11601/31/2013

[quote]Now, to add on do this living hell, the dems wnat them put in combat positions.

Please explain what it is you don't understand about the following facts:

-- Women are ALREADY IN COMBAT. The Dems simply want to recognize them for it, as they should.

-- Women who go into combat do so by CHOICE. They are hardly about vote for somebody who would deny their right to do as they have chosen.

by Anonymousreply 11801/31/2013

Well, R117, it appears that there are benefits to being an eldergay after all!

Ain't no way they'll be drafting my 50-year old ass!

by Anonymousreply 11901/31/2013

R117 why are you screaming? You sound completely unhinged. Do you have any meds you need to take?

by Anonymousreply 12001/31/2013

[quote]Drafting young women into combat will spell the collapse of civilization.

How(?) and no it won't.

by Anonymousreply 12201/31/2013

Civilization collapsed under Reagan. Please.

by Anonymousreply 12301/31/2013

r116 the latest batch of trolls have a habit of cleaning their cookies frequently.

by Anonymousreply 12401/31/2013

The Microsoft Troll does the same thing. B-a-d to be clearing cookies.

by Anonymousreply 12501/31/2013

Anyone eldergay who bitches about the awfulness of today's millennials will laugh bitterly at the idea of drafting them into combat.

On what basis is a draft coming?

by Anonymousreply 12601/31/2013

r127, you seriously should contact your current therapist for an appt. if you don't have one yet, you really should find one.

by Anonymousreply 12801/31/2013

Republicans have been exploiting the poor into fighting their fake wars for years. Why would anybody think that this is a new agenda?

by Anonymousreply 12901/31/2013

Women serve in combat in the Israeli army. Their civilization hasn't collapsed. And they credited for having one of the most formidable armies.

by Anonymousreply 13001/31/2013

R127 obviously took the blue pill.

by Anonymousreply 13101/31/2013

Where did all these crazies come from today? Is DL linked on some wing-nut, faux conspiracy site? I've not witnessed this many nonsensical rants since before Novemeber2012.

by Anonymousreply 13401/31/2013

Yes, they do. And as Tammy Duckworth said she didn't loose her legs in a bar fight.

by Anonymousreply 13601/31/2013

$18 down the drain, OP.

by Anonymousreply 13801/31/2013

Who the hell says Obama is God? He's a not-perfect president who has had some difficult choices to make and done some things many don't agree with. I don't know anyone who say's he's God.

You sound crazy.

by Anonymousreply 14001/31/2013

[quote] Since so many liberals are so blindly obediant to Obama, they're hoping to get the poor and minority families to accept this idea. I can see that it's working, by reading this board.

Liberals can't be poor or part of a minority group?

Getting sick of the "look at Nazi Germany" comparisons. Know why so many Americans are fat? Because Americans have never had it so good.

by Anonymousreply 14101/31/2013

R140 I do believe that this OP is a Faux News/Limbaugh listening freeper troll. "King Obama" is one of their nicknames for him along with "savior". I see it on the blogs all time along with imaginary "gay agenda".

by Anonymousreply 14201/31/2013

R140, Jamie Foxx said he is; he called Obama "Our Lord and Savior" which of course, he isn't!

by Anonymousreply 14301/31/2013

Jamie Foxx is the Majority Leader in the Senate, the Secretary of Education, and a secret manipulator of the Federal Reserve -- not an entertainer. Entertainers say silly things all the time, but Jamie Foxx was speaking as a powerful representative of the government so he and everyone else in America must believe that Obama is our lord and savior.

Only Op can see through this lie.

by Anonymousreply 14401/31/2013

I agree, r134! a special and persistent brand of crazy is here posting anti-government claptrap.

by Anonymousreply 14501/31/2013


by Anonymousreply 14601/31/2013

OP = Asswipe freeper troll.

by Anonymousreply 14701/31/2013

"Did OP change her address? The yellow tide stopped, but the non-sequiturial frothing hostile nonsensical posts did not."

No, there are several libertarians. I'm the OP.

"Leave the country. You're excused."

If we didn't have to leave our property and money if we wish to leave (since the USA taxes you worldwide) then many would leave the Socialist USA tomorrow.

by Anonymousreply 14801/31/2013

A question for OP: what kind of rent do you pay living under a bridge?

by Anonymousreply 14902/01/2013

Uhhh, I am the OP. glad more liberty lovers are here!

by Anonymousreply 15002/01/2013

[quote]No, there are several libertarians.

Yes, there are unfortunately many over-privileged white guys suffering from arrested adolescence and self-absorption, who are completely ignorant of their own level of privilege.

Sad, really.

There's a reason there's never ever been a "libertarian" society or one organized around such ideals... it'd fail almost instantly if anyone tried (and nobody is stupid enough to try). There's also a reason there are almost no minority or women libertarians. It's shocking that there are any gay people stupid enough to fall for this inane, intellectually bankrupt ideology.

by Anonymousreply 15102/01/2013

preach it, r151!

by Anonymousreply 15202/01/2013

I call b.s. R148. You could leave if you really wanted but you just want to whine and bitch about an uppity negro in the White House. Besides, other countries are far more socialist than we are.

by Anonymousreply 15302/01/2013

The USA?



Oh my. That was the best laugh I've had all day. Thanks, Racist Wingnut Troll!

by Anonymousreply 15402/01/2013

I sorta love the freeper trolls on here. They are so hopelessly unfamiliar with the world outside their trailer park. They are refreshingly naive and gullible.

The only recent 'king' the U.S. Has had was King George of Connecticut, succeeded by the Duke of Texas and I imagine his other son, the Duke of Florida will be running in 2016.

by Anonymousreply 15502/01/2013

[quote]There's a reason there's never ever been a "libertarian" society or one organized around such ideals... it'd fail almost instantly if anyone tried (and nobody is stupid enough to try).

The one who has been infesting DL recently is dumber than most of them. One of his proposals is that the government get out of the money business and that anyone, or any business or institution, be able to establish their own currency. The many, and fatal, problems with this particular proposal never seem to occur to him.

by Anonymousreply 15602/01/2013

Whatever it takes to stop these wars I am for--whether it is democratic, repub, libertarian, socialist--whatever it takes.

I want war to end. I want us, as a species, to evolve. War is hell.

At least the Libertarians are against involvement in foreign wars, and for that I respect them greatly. If you cannot respect that position, then I have nothing to say to you. I don't understnd what is wrong with that position, and cannot fathom why both the Dems and Repubs continue creating hell on earth.

by Anonymousreply 15702/01/2013

Obama's bodyguards need guns to defend the president from the ignorance of people like the OP.

Seriously comparing football to war? You republicunts are really desperate...

by Anonymousreply 15802/01/2013

[quote]If you cannot respect that position, then I have nothing to say to you.

Oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please!

by Anonymousreply 15902/01/2013


by Anonymousreply 16002/01/2013


by Anonymousreply 16102/02/2013



The libertarians are the ONLY group that oppose wars- foreign and domestic- and support restoring civil liberty.

Please read or and you will see why the establishment Reps and Dems hate and fear Ron Paul.

by Anonymousreply 16202/02/2013

Ron Paul is like 88 years old and will never run for president again. Pray God his ugly-ass son never will either.

by Anonymousreply 16302/02/2013

After Wednesday’s news of US economic contraction, next we heard that unemployment claims are up.

Now this:

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration tried anew Friday to defuse controversy over a requirement in the healthcare law designed to broaden access to contraception, proposing new regulations to protect some religious organizations from having to cover these services in their health plans.

The proposal, which comes after more than a year of heated debate, expands an exemption from the contraceptive mandate for churches and other houses of worship.

(Oh brave stallion...)

by Anonymousreply 16402/02/2013

[quote]Please read or and you will see why the establishment Reps and Dems hate and fear Ron Paul.

LOL.... Only in the fevered imaginations of idiot libertarians (but I repeat myself) does anyone "hate and fear Ron Paul." Ron Paul is an ignorant, hypocritical bigot, whose economic policies would be disastrous and who has been consistently wrong on economic and foreign policy issues, in particular, for several decades. The fact that he's right about a few things does not change or excuse those other facts.

by Anonymousreply 16502/02/2013

[quote]The proposal, which comes after more than a year of heated debate, expands an exemption from the contraceptive mandate for churches and other houses of worship.

Did you actually read the proposal, R164? It doesn't really expand the exemption. Those other institutions still have to provide contraception; it's just that the insurance companies will pay for it, since providing contraception is cheaper than providing health insurance for pregnant women.

That was proposed months ago, well before the election. The key paragraph:

[quote]But the Obama administration will still require insurance plans offered by hospitals, universities and other employers with religious affiliations to provide contraceptive coverage with no cost-sharing for employees.

by Anonymousreply 16602/02/2013

I wish there was a Frau Fundy block button. They pay 18$ and ruin DL for everyone. They really should stick with their own kind and stop spying on our happy little site. The second I see a posting against Obama I know it's one of them. It's like reincarnations of Ann Coulter. Ugh

by Anonymousreply 16702/02/2013

What a stupid question, OP.

And what kind of fool says "King Obama"??

Oh yeah, KARL ROVE does.

by Anonymousreply 16802/02/2013

Do people like the libertarians on this thread realize how much like cult members they sound when they talk about Ron Paul?

by Anonymousreply 16902/02/2013

Does some Ron Paulite really think people "fear" Ron Paul? It's like saying we "fear" Don Knotts. Both Pauls are delusional isolationists. They could no more run a country than Jessica Simpson cvould perform brain surgery. That doesn't mean I "hate and fear" Jessica Simpson.

There's a place for that sort of thing, I'm sure, just not running anything.

by Anonymousreply 17002/02/2013

R162. The Green Party is the only party that opposes wars.

And the libertarians are all anti-gay fools. They say "get the government off our backs" but then ask the government to oppress gay people every time.

by Anonymousreply 17102/02/2013

Powerless, tinymeat hicks, R167.

They do it to fuck with you. And because they're probably too pussy to speak out in real life.

Treat them like the little gnats they are-- swat or ignore.

by Anonymousreply 17202/02/2013

true enough

by Anonymousreply 17302/02/2013

OP=R8 and about a zillion other replies. If you want a monologue, OP, stand in front of the mirror.

by Anonymousreply 17402/02/2013

It's dumb to call military action mass murder.

by Anonymousreply 17502/02/2013

That's so sweet.

by Anonymousreply 17802/02/2013

[quote]Most of the gay people I know outside this cesspool are libertarian

That's because you apparently hang out with idiot libertarians, asshole. Ever hear of a self-selecting sample? It's not representative of the general population at all.

You, like all libertarians, are an ignorant twat.

by Anonymousreply 17902/03/2013


by Anonymousreply 18002/03/2013

176 I hate to break it to you, but I am accepted to such an extent that my friends and peers admire my view that there are two sides to every subject. Even on DL. Name calling the President is absurd. The views that we are going downhill and into negative territory (fascism) are not in the best interest of helping our country go forward. I pointed out the fact that we have been invaded by some sort of fundie Frau consortium that is trying to skew views on a public message board. I can assure you 99% of the people here agree with me that something is afoot when these Posts against democrats and Obama turn up on DL

by Anonymousreply 18102/03/2013

If I were the parent of a 17 y.o. son today, I would sue the Federal Government for discrimination. Now that females can serve in combat, all 17 y.o.s should be required to register for the Selective Service, not just males. It's not JUST about the Draft...

Penalties for Failure to Register for the Draft

Men who do not register could be prosecuted and, if convicted, fined up to $250,000 and/or serve up to five years in prison. In addition, men who fail to register with Selective Service before turning age 26, even if not prosecuted, will become ineligible for:

Student Financial Aid - including Pell Grants, College Work Study, Guaranteed Student/Plus Loans, and National Direct Student Loans.

U.S. Citizenship - if the man first arrived in the U.S. before his 26th birthday.

Federal Job Training - The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) offers programs that can train young men for jobs in auto mechanics and other skills. This program is only open to those men who register with Selective Service.

Federal Jobs - men born after December 31, 1959 must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service.

In addition, several states have added additional penalties for those who fail to register.

by Anonymousreply 18202/03/2013


by Anonymousreply 18302/03/2013

Credit your source, r182

by Anonymousreply 18402/03/2013

Laughing at the idea of r182 bing somebody's parents.

by Anonymousreply 18502/03/2013


Every elected official should have to serve a year on the front lines of any military action. And their children and spouses too.

by Anonymousreply 18602/03/2013

No, just r182.

by Anonymousreply 18702/04/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!