I’m fairly sure we’ve already established the she’s a typical white person and, therefore, a crypto-racist whose suffering from the reaction bred into her experiences.
That’s better. I concede that Obama’s stance on Russia is hypocritical. Now, about that metrosexual thing: try again.
By the way, is United States Olympic Committee a government organization?
I disagree. The fact that she would openly call a little boy “Barack Hussein Obama” to his face tends to favor the theory that she’s avowed, rather than crypto racist.
Yes (though it is not under the direct control of the government). It’s chartered by the US government under the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. The US Olympic delegation isn’t under the auspices of the USOC, in any event; it’s a State Department mission.
It looks that way.
Why are you complaining so bitterly about being asked to use relevant examples? You’re the one who raised this nonsense objection in the first place.
I can’t concede that- I need to know how this works. Is burunduk34 saying that Obama is a hypocrite because he (burunduk34) doesn’t know for a fact that there were any gay members of the trade mission? We don’t even know who was on the trade mission in the first place. How does burunduk34 know their orientations?
The diplomatic mission is obviously selected by the government.
That wasn’t so difficult, was it?
I don’t know, man. He does look pretty metrosexual to me…
And I bet Obama would end up on his back in about 5 seconds, crying “daddy, daddy, why did you leave me?!”, after Putin does sumi otoshi on his ass.
To sum up, Obama is bad because shut up.
Do you know for a fact that there were any gay members in the trade mission?
What diplomatic post does Billy Jean King hold?
I don’t. But then, I’m not making claims about the mission. You are, so it’s on you to substantiate them. Perhaps you should’ve done your homework on that issue.
She doesn’t hold a diplomatic post (and I didn’t say she held one). She’s a member of the U.S. Olympic delegation.
To sum up, Obama is good because shut up.
The people who think Obama made a good choice here can say what they like. They have a specific reason. You’re just sort of spewing angry nonsense all over the place.
There have been no reports in the media of any prominent homosexuals included in the mission in question, in order to “send the message” to Saudi Arabia.
There were, however, reports in the media, about sending a prominent (at least, to the US public) homosexual (one Billy Jean King, hope no one is offended by me using her full name) to “send the message” to Russia.
In fact, even when Barack Hussesin Obama meets with the King of Saudi Arabia, a perfect avenue to tell the King that he (BHO), has “no patience for countries that abuse poow wittle homosexuals, etc, etc, etc”, somehow, his patience becomes Buddha-like…
Can the people who think Obama made a bad choice here say what they like.?
I disagree. I think you’re the one just sort of spewing angry nonsense all over the place.
That’s true. In fact as far as I know, the makeup of the mission was not reported at all. Perhaps you could do a little digging and learn who they are and whether they are straight or gay. You’re correct that a trade mission isn’t usually a big news story and the Olympics are. So was Russia’s decision to adopt an anti-gay law just a few months before athletes and tourists from around the world come to Russia for the Olympics.
I trust the US media to report on any homosexual activity in a heartbeat. If there was a gay in that mission and if the intent was to “send the message” to Saudi Arabia, it’d sure get reported. How would Saudi Arabians “get the message” otherwise?
Alas, Barack Hussein seems reluctant not only to “send the message”, he doesn’t even mention his having “no patience, etc, etc” when he meets King Abdullah.
Is the fact that homosexuality is legal in Russia and completely illegal (and is punishable by fines, imprisonment, corporal and capital punishment) in Saudi Arabia a big news story?
Is the fact that Barack Hussein Obama has “no patience for those who abuse homosexuals, etc”, while bowing to King Abdullah a big new story?
Yes, no doubt you think a liberal gay cabal runs the press on behalf of the UN. I’ll go this far: it doesn’t sound like any message was being sent with that particular trade mission. Then again, that’s one isolated data point. Not every situation gets handled the same way.
As I already explained, Russia only adopted its anti-gay law recently. In that sense, yes, that’s news and the situation in Saudi Arabia is not news. Just like people pay a little more attention to the Olympics than they pay to trade missions. (Maybe I’m wrong and you’re an avid follower of trade missions, but probably not.)
Yes, and no doubt you think that eye-fucking a beheaded skull of a prepubescent boy, after you’ve used rusty pliers to rip out his intestines and repeatedly forced him to defecate on his own dying mother, is a swell idea.
Ah, good, at least we’ve got some common ground here.
Do you think this particular mission to Saudi Arabia (which included, among others, Biden, McCain, Petraeus) was supposed to “send a message”?
Well, then, if Russia waits long enough (say, a few years, like Saudi Arabia), then this brouhaha over its so-called “anti-gay laws” (I remind our audience that homosexual intercourse is completely legal in Russia) will stop being news and we’ll have nothing to worry about, just like we have nothing nothing to worry about in Saudi Arabia (judging by apparent and quite persistent forgetfulness of that stalwart defender of homosexual rights, Barack Hussein Obama, to “send the message” to Saudi Arabia)
Admittedly, people do pay a little more attention to the Olympics, and we can only hope that Barack Hussein Obama stops his homosexualization of the games, and they will, in fact, be about athletes’ performance, not about their sexual orientation.
Judging by Russia’s track record, that’s actually precisely what’s going to happen.
There’s nothing about the picture you supplied which implies that Obama is “especially meticulous about his grooming and appearance, typically spending a significant amount of time and money on shopping as part of this.”*
He may be all of those things for all I know, but the picture you provided doesn’t indicate it. Indeed, he looks if anything a little shabby in that picture. Soccer dad at best.
Regarding the use of his middle name, you keep replying as though you’re being told what you’re allowed to call him. But that is not what you’re being told. You’re being told what the reasonably expectable consequences of your usage will be. I mean, like I already said, call him what you want. I just want you to know what people will assume about you. It’s not a rule about what you’re allowed to say. It’s a fact about what people will assume about you when you say it.
You are asking about other cases where someone uses his middle name and asking what the implication of those uses would be. But none of this has bearing on the facts about what people will assume about your use in a conversation like this one.
Let’s skip to the endgame, burunduk34: is this about recreational (if lame) Obama-bashing, your personal dislike of gays, or both?