Wow, really?

Obama has a soft spot for homosexuals because of the years he spent as a male prostitute in his twenties. That’s how he paid for his drugs. He has admitted he was addicted to drugs when he was young and he is sympathetic with homosexuals; but he hasn’t come out of the closet about his own homosexual/bisexual background.

Gosh, that would explain a lot, wouldn’t it?

34 thoughts on “Wow, really?”

  1. Ah, Salon. 100 writers and 22 working brain cells.

    This is what American Lefties do when they know they can’t win an election… They console themselves that the masses – those they so dearly wish to educate and uplift – are just a bunch of ignorant assholes.

  2. “By keeping so much of his early years under wraps, he invites this sort of thing.”
    No. This is the story he puts about because the truth we be damaging.

  3. Ah, ye who mock from afar…

    It really is quite amazing just how stupid some people are. But I suspect that the ratio of gullible idiots to more or less sane people hasn’t changed much over the years (you must recall that Massachusetts etc, those bastions of civilized Correct Thinking, are the ones who executed ‘witches’..)(and that for all the trumpeting about ‘the Constitution’, this nation is one founded upon an act of treason).

    What has changed is that the Internet brings the shrill rants of the idiots much more efficiently into the public view, so those of small mind and less reason are able to come together more efficiently than before, and impose their batshit weirdness upon a lethargic populace.

    I speak of course of the acolytes of Mr Sanders, but there’sa bunch of similarly-afflicted people with a converse world view in Tejas…

  4. No idea if Obama batted for the other side, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he did. He looked rather louche as a young man, like one of them exotic gigolos who get befriended by senior backbenchers and high court judges.

    Marco Rubio, on the other hand, is swishier than pink sparkly streamers attached to a little girl’s bike. If he wasn’t in politics he’d probably be on Broadway.

  5. If I’d spent my 20s taking it up the aris in order to fund a drug habit, I reckon I’d probably be quite anti-gay.

  6. I have only to read Salon or The Grauniad to find myself wondering whether zika-induced microcephaly is why so many left-liberals exist.

  7. While he isn’t the most masculine fellow I’ve seen, anyone who has paid attention to Obama when it comes to the issue of homosexuality will tell you his distaste for homosexuals on a personal level has been very, very obvious. It was only about half way through his first term that he was able to get his public anti-homosexual telegraphing under control.

  8. So Much For Subtlety

    So they have to go to a Board of Education to find someone who believes something this …. unusual? That would be about the level of a parish council. You think that if we trawled through every British local council we couldn’t find worse?

    In fact we find worse much higher. The number of people in British life who think Stalin was on to something is much higher and yet much more irrational. I expect Corbyn believes dumber things with less evidence.

    And as far as evolution goes, the entire Left believes that Evolution (with a Capital E) is Sacred Writ, except it does not apply to humans, or at least not to human intelligence. Or sexuality.

  9. Tim Newman said:
    “Some of the crueller right wing blogs have long speculated that Michelle is either a tranny or as close to a she-man as he could get.”

    Weren’t similar comments made about Mrs Brown?

  10. So Much For Subtlety

    Tim Newman – “Some of the crueller rigtht wing blogs have long speculated that Michelle is either a tranny or as close to a she-man as he could get.”

    Well she does sort of behave like it. They have toned her down a little – making her do the wife-y stuff like play with children and talk about their diet. But she has always been openly disrespectful of her husband. No question about who is in charge in that marriage.

    Dennis the Peasant – “While he isn’t the most masculine fellow I’ve seen, anyone who has paid attention to Obama when it comes to the issue of homosexuality will tell you his distaste for homosexuals on a personal level has been very, very obvious. It was only about half way through his first term that he was able to get his public anti-homosexual telegraphing under control.”

    Really? I am not sure that was obvious to me. But then again a lot of Black men on the Down Low are openly disrespectful of homosexuals – and yes I am looking at you N.W.A. I doubt Magic Johnson had much nice to say about them either.

  11. “And as far as evolution goes, the entire Left believes that Evolution (with a Capital E) is Sacred Writ, except it does not apply to humans, or at least not to human intelligence. Or sexuality.”

    I think you’ll find that politicians of any denomination hold the world record in ignoring such inconveniences as the laws of physics when it comes to pushing their ideas.

  12. While it’s fun to attack Salon for being a lefty rag this comment really does fall on an old woman in Texas. Without taking the time to fully examine her record I will lump her with the loons that believe other insane ideas, like the one about 50% of pregnancies being aborted.

    The most dangerous argument in the whole article is:

    “Now comes a serious contender for the 15-member State Board of Education, the body that enacted curriculum guidelines requiring students to learn about Confederate heroes, and required teachers to explain the equivalency of Abraham Lincoln’s and Jefferson Davis’s inaugural addresses, as well as the ways international institutions such as the United Nations threaten U.S. sovereignty.”

    All three of these are things that need to be discussed in the appropriate classroom. If anyone disagrees then I’ll be happy to pick apart any argument you have.

    Of course the problem is that the “right” teachers won’t give balance either. In my US history classes we magically stopped before Gettysburg every year. The one history teacher I had who broke this unwritten rule was fired after one year because impressionable minds couldn’t handle the fact that the south lost the war. One of our biggest problems in education is far more effort goes into indoctrination at the expense of molding a liberal mind.

  13. All three of these are things that need to be discussed in the appropriate classroom
    I’m happy to agree with that. Everything needs to be discussed where appropriate. The question is where that might be.

    On the particular points: the Confederacy had no heroes who mattered. Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address was not equivalent to Lincoln’s. And there is no significant way in which the UN threatens US sovereignty.

    If you want to teach the US civil war from a Southern perspective, the broad questions are: why did the Confederate states secede; were they morally right to do so; were they constitutionally entitled to do so; were they practically right to do so. Always remembering that the perspective of the slaves is just as important as the perspective of the slave owners.

    The answers to those questions are: to perpetuate slavery; no; debatable, but SCOTUS said no; and no.

  14. “On the particular points: the Confederacy had no heroes who mattered.”

    Your hero and mine are most certainly not the same person. To a supporter of the Southern cause General Lee is a hero. Your claim that he didn’t matter makes no sense to me. Please explain why the most successful general of the war, based on the resources available, doesn’t matter.

    “Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address was not equivalent to Lincoln’s.”

    Why?

    “And there is no significant way in which the UN threatens US sovereignty.”

    When the US declined to join the League of Nations after The Great War one main point was that by joining the US would give up sovereign powers in making foreign policy. The replacement, the UN, does in fact limit the options that the US government may take. Why else would we care when Russia vetoes in the security council?

    “If you want to teach the US civil war from a Southern perspective, the broad questions are: why did the Confederate states secede; were they morally right to do so; were they constitutionally entitled to do so; were they practically right to do so. Always remembering that the perspective of the slaves is just as important as the perspective of the slave owners.

    The answers to those questions are: to perpetuate slavery; no; debatable, but SCOTUS said no; and no.”

    In truth states seceded to protect the economic model of the south. At the time that meant continuing slavery. After the war the share-cropping system replaced slavery until the great migration. Currently illegal immigrants fill the role formerly held by slaves.

    Moral justification is subjective. If the only justification for the war was to specifically continue slavery then no. If the justification is that the federal government is attempting to steal your property then there is a moral right to secede. The Civil War was fought for different reasons by the north and south. Simply applying only northern morals to both sides does not further the discussion. Please justify why hundreds of thousands of non-slave owning whites gave up their lives to defend a system that did not profit them.

    Where in the Constitution does it say that a state may not secede from the union? Just because the SCOTUS said the south couldn’t secede makes it as true as if I say the sky is orange. Remember the SCOTUS also gave us the Dredd Scott decision.

    Your last point is the only one I can agree with. The war determined that the southern economic model was weaker.

    The perspective of slaves, and just as importantly their modern day decedents, has to be done. One can easily make the case that the average black person was relatively better off living in slavery than in our current ghettos. Families are still broken by the system. Economic mobility is still virtually non-existent. Education is a complete failure. At least under slavery productive work was accomplished as opposed to the current welfare state.

    After a quick reread I realize that it sounds like I am in favor of slavery. I have to point out that is not the case at all. I fully believe that the north’s moral justification trumps the south’s economic argument. My problem is that you reduced very complex topics to simple sound bites. When your longest answer to a question is a mere 11 words with no justifications all detail and nuance is lost. Completely ignoring the failure to correct the inequalities which allowed slavery to be profitable is one of my nations’s greatest shames. Despite the fact that we agree on many points I simply can not support your statements. Please try to be more literally liberal in any response.

  15. To a supporter of the Southern cause General Lee is a hero. Your claim that he didn’t matter makes no sense to me. Please explain why the most successful general of the war, based on the resources available, doesn’t matter.

    Let’s stipulate that Robert E Lee was the outstanding military tactician of the war. Does that matter to one’s understanding of history? No, the only difference his military genius made was that the war lasted longer and more people were killed. Which is an important difference to the people who died, but not a major consideration for a schoolchild studying history today. (Losing brilliantly in an bad cause doesn’t make him a hero in my eyes, but as you say your heroes and mine needn’t be the same.)

    “Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address was not equivalent to Lincoln’s.”
    Why?

    Because he lost, and in an ignoble cause. Which means that Lincoln was speaking as an elected president of the United States, whereas Davis was speaking as an insurrectionist.

    The replacement, the UN, does in fact limit the options that the US government may take. Why else would we care when Russia vetoes in the security council?
    It limits, in so far as the US pays any attention to the UN, what the US can do in other countries. It doesn’t affect US sovereignty over its own territory, which is what every other country in the world means by sovereignty.

    The Civil War was fought for different reasons by the north and south.
    That’s true. The North fought to preserve the Union. The Confederacy fought to preserve slavery.

    Please justify why hundreds of thousands of non-slave owning whites gave up their lives to defend a system that did not profit them.
    Alas it seems there’s no cause so bad that men will not die for it.

    Where in the Constitution does it say that a state may not secede from the union? Just because the SCOTUS said the south couldn’t secede makes it as true as if I say the sky is orange
    The Constitution doesn’t explicitly say whether or not a state may legally secede. But it does say that for legal purposes SCOTUS gets to say what the Constitution means. The unwisdom in my eyes or yours of sundry SCOTUS rulings doesn’t change that.

  16. So Much For Subtlety

    Social Justice Warrior – “And there is no significant way in which the UN threatens US sovereignty.”

    At the time of the Gulf War, Social Justice Warriors like you argued the US had no right to go to war without UN approval. A view seemingly shared with the UN. That is a major impediment on US sovereignty.

    “If you want to teach the US civil war from a Southern perspective, the broad questions are”

    More accurately you should day if you want to teach the US Civil War from a Social Justice Warrior pretending to be Southern perspective …..

    “Always remembering that the perspective of the slaves is just as important as the perspective of the slave owners.”

    Why?

    Social Justice Warrior – “Losing brilliantly in an bad cause doesn’t make him a hero in my eyes, but as you say your heroes and mine needn’t be the same.”

    Actually losing brilliantly in a bad cause often makes people heros. More perhaps than if they win. The Western heroic tradition is founded on Achilles and Thermopylae. By which standard Lee’s cause looks pretty good.

    “It limits, in so far as the US pays any attention to the UN, what the US can do in other countries. It doesn’t affect US sovereignty over its own territory, which is what every other country in the world means by sovereignty.”

    That is not what every other country means by sovereignty and even there the UN is trying to interfere through things like Refugee treaties and environmental protection.

  17. “That’s true. The North fought to preserve the Union. The Confederacy fought to preserve slavery.”

    That is also a very narrow view.

    Abolitionists fought to end slavery. The financial industry of the north fought for financial gains during reconstruction. Midwest farmers fought to end the labor cost advantage that slavery gave southern farmers. Preserving the Union was only one of many reasons the north fought.

    The south fought primarily to defend the economic structure. If a substitute labor force(robots) with similar costs had been available slavery could have been ended without a war.

    If I was explaining the reason for the Civil War to a 5 year old I would tell them that the cause was slavery. I had hoped that we are all old enough here to realize that isn’t the whole story.

    “Because he lost, and in an ignoble cause. Which means that Lincoln was speaking as an elected president of the United States, whereas Davis was speaking as an insurrectionist.”

    Davis was elected by the states he represented. By your reasoning if the French hadn’t tied up British forces Washington would just be an insurrectionist.

  18. “Always remembering that the perspective of the slaves is just as important as the perspective of the slave owners.”
    Why?

    Because they’re human beings equally. Obviously.

    The south fought primarily to defend the economic structure. If a substitute labor force(robots) with similar costs had been available slavery could have been ended without a war.
    If you’re arguing that there were economic reasons why the slave states supported slavery and the non-slave states didn’t, then yes, so what? I’m looking at South Carolina’s Declaration of Secession, which kicked off the whole schism. It’s admirably brief, but it uses the word “slave” and its derivatives 18 times. Slavery was what secession was all about. Imaginary robots didn’t get a mention.

    Davis was elected by the states he represented. By your reasoning if the French hadn’t tied up British forces Washington would just be an insurrectionist.
    I wouldn’t describe Washington’s cause as ignoble, which makes what he had to say about it rather more interesting. But otherwise, yes.

  19. No, the only difference his military genius made was that the war lasted longer and more people were killed.
    What’s your point? The only ‘difference’ is that it’s unfortunate that his great spirit and intelligence did not let the South win the unjust war that the Northern industrialists forced on them.

    It limits, in so far as the US pays any attention to the UN, what the US can do in other countries. It doesn’t affect US sovereignty over its own territory, which is what every other country in the world means by sovereignty.
    Sure, tell us more about how the insane decisions of the EU don’t hurt the UK. Same situation. Same bullshit internationalist crap.

    Please go to Detroit or Baltimore and experience what Lincoln’s backers have brought upon the US.

  20. “The south fought primarily to defend the economic structure. If a substitute labor force (robots) with similar costs had been available slavery could have been ended without a war.”

    I know that’s what was widely thought at the time, but as a question of economic fact, was the “free” labour force after their civil war any more expensive than the slaves had been before?

    Slaves had to be fed and housed, and the cost of bringing them over was high (particularly once the Royal Navy started disrupting supplies – were the slaves already in the USA by that point keeping their numbers up?). Plus the cost of overseers (although would that be higher or lower than under a free system – slavery would need more as enforcers, but employing sadists who rather enjoyed it might keep wages down), wear and tear on whips, etc.

    On the other side of the equation, are free workers more productive or less?

    I don’t know.

    I think Adam Smith believed that, overall, free workers should be cheaper per unit of output than slaves, but was the calculation ever done?

  21. Having just read Jefferson Davis’ memoirs, that the US slave population was very much more than self-replicating (in a manner that Barbados, Jamaica etc were not) is one of those things that the South used to say that their version of slavery wasn’t all that bad.

    And, if we’re fair about it, population growth shows that slaves were not at the Malthusian subsistence limit. Shitty way of judging a society obviously.

    And yes, Smith and others (Mill, which is what led Carlyle to call economics the “dismal science”, he wanted slavery to be economic, Mill proved it wasn’t) did indeed show that free labour was more profitable. As, actually, so did medieval England as the villeins were freed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *