Neat MAD thread on topless opponents

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: Neat MAD thread on topless opponents

Post by _Some Schmo »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:
rcrocket wrote:Yes. He squarely is. He has never recanted his statements made at the Rick Warren thing.

Publicly, he says he does oppose gay marriage, but I believe that is for political expediency. I don't think privately he has any problem with gay marriage.

This is my suspicion as well.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_Dwight Frye
_Emeritus
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Neat MAD thread on topless opponents

Post by _Dwight Frye »

karl61 wrote:speaking of ___less, I hear some photos of Ms. California are coming out.

Huffington Post put them up not too long ago.

(WARNING: partial nudity -- some side boob and those shorts where the bottom part of the cheeks hangout)

[photo 1]

[photo 2] (even though Ms. Prejean claimed only one photo existed -- oops!)
"Christian anti-Mormons are no different than that wonderful old man down the street who turns out to be a child molester." - Obiwan, nutjob Mormon apologist - Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:25 pm
_JohnStuartMill
_Emeritus
Posts: 1630
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:12 pm

Re: Neat MAD thread on topless opponents

Post by _JohnStuartMill »

Some Schmo wrote:This is my suspicion as well.

It's nearly a certainty. When he attended Church in Chicago, Obama was a member of a liberal congregation that did not oppose gay marriage. He attended Easter services at an Episcopalian (i.e., presumably pro-gay) Church this year.
"You clearly haven't read [Dawkins'] book." -Kevin Graham, 11/04/09
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: Neat MAD thread on topless opponents

Post by _Some Schmo »

JohnStuartMill wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:This is my suspicion as well.

It's nearly a certainty. When he attended Church in Chicago, Obama was a member of a liberal congregation that did not oppose gay marriage. He attended Easter services at an Episcopalian (i.e., presumably pro-gay) Church this year.

There's been a lot of talk lately about the decriminalization of marijuana possession/use, and at one of his recent town hall meetings, one of the most popular questions asked related to this very issue. Obama made what could be construed as a fairly snide comment about Internet users, but the feeling I got was that he was hiding his true opinion on that issue for political expediency as well. He didn’t address the heart of the issue, which was “should it be legalized?” Instead, his answer was that he didn’t think it was “a good strategy to boost the economy.”

It was a nice way to avoid the real issue. I bet if he thought it wouldn’t be political suicide, he would push for legalization. Why wouldn’t he? I can't think of a single law that's dumber, more expensive, and bass ackwards as the ones concerning pot (not to mention gambling and prostitution). If those are illegal, why isn't over eating or alcohol? Makes no sense at all.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Post Reply