PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on May 03, 2017, 01:54:19 PM
-
Soooooooooooooooooo.....................
How does one "consider" a "gay fling"???
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4470040/Obama-s-sex-drugs-past-laid-bare-new-biography.html
And he considered a gay affair while at college where his mentor was an openly-homosexual professor who Obama called 'a wonderful guy'
President Obama considered pursuing a gay relationship while he was a college student.
Writing about the former president's two years at Occidental College in Los Angeles, Garrow discloses in Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama the close relationship Obama had with assistant professor Lawrence Goldyn.
'Goldyn made a huge impact on Barry Obama,' Garrow writes. 'Almost a quarter century later, asked about his understanding of gay issues, Obama enthusiastically said, "my favorite professor my first year in college was one of the first openly gay people that I knew…He was a terrific guy." with whom Obama developed a 'friendship beyond the classroom.'
It was the winter of 1980 when Obama took a political science course at Occidental taught by the openly gay professor, a 1973 graduate of Reed College in Oregon with a PhD from Stanford.
To say that Goldyn was out 'would be an understatement,' a fellow student at the college told Garrow. Goldyn was 'funny, engaging' and 'wore these really right bright yellow pants and open-toed sandals.'
Goldyn was one of the first gay people that Obama knew and Obama said the 'strong friendship that developed helped to educate me.'
Goldyn would remember that Obama was not fearful of being associated with him.
Three years later, writes the author, 'Obama wrote somewhat elusively to his first intimate girlfriend that he had thought about and considered gayness but ultimately decided that a same-sex relationship would be less challenging and demanding than developing one with the opposite sex.'
To say that Goldyn was out 'would be an understatement,' a fellow student at the college tells Garrow. Goldyn was 'funny, engaging' and 'wore these really right bright yellow pants and open-toed sandals.'
-
Although he had/has an effeminate persona as President, I always was way more concerned with his far left, radical policies, and politics, than his sexuality. (YUCK!). Michelle is MUCH more masculine anyway. I guess that was to try to balance things out. :)
-
Rush Limbaugh had a good point on this story last week. We are continually told that being gay is not a choice.
-
Rush Limbaugh had a good point on this story last week. We are continually told that being gay is not a choice.
The "attraction", I guess, is outside of your conscious control.
The behavior/lifestyle definitely is.
-
Although he had/has an effeminate persona as President, I always was way more concerned with his far left, radical policies, and politics, than his sexuality. (YUCK!). Michelle is MUCH more masculine anyway. I guess that was to try to balance things out. :)
"Michelle" is a male.
-
"Michelle" is a male. Wookie.
FTFY
-
My reaction is "so what"? He wouldn't be the first straight man to have a close friendship with a gay man and to even consider an experimental fling. As Seinfeld said, men are an easy sell, explaining why they are normally so freakish about any possible gay attraction. It was the episode where George got a massage from a male therapist when, while he was working on his hamstring, George thought "it might have moved".
Anyway, it's my impression liberals like Obama like to use this sort of thing as "virtue signaling". Look how open minded I am, nothing wrong with gays see I'll even have an affair with one. Of course I can't say this was where Obama was coming from but I was around in 1973 and it was a common thing.
I couldn't care less if he had a gay fling. Like Anthony, I care about his leftist radicalism. I do care that he supposedly smoked crack or something with this gay friend and none of that misbehavior seems to have made it into mainstream media, when all Trump had to do was mention grabbing a woman's crotch for everybody to lose their shit.
A very double standard.
-
My reaction is "so what"? He wouldn't be the first straight man to have a close friendship with a gay man and to even consider an experimental fling. As Seinfeld said, men are an easy sell, explaining why they are normally so freakish about any possible gay attraction. It was the episode where George got a massage from a male therapist when, while he was working on his hamstring, George thought "it might have moved".
Anyway, it's my impression liberals like Obama like to use this sort of thing as "virtue signaling". Look how open minded I am, nothing wrong with gays see I'll even have an affair with one. Of course I can't say this was where Obama was coming from but I was around in 1973 and it was a common thing.
I couldn't care less if he had a gay fling. Like Anthony, I care about his leftist radicalism. I do care that he supposedly smoked crack or something with this gay friend and none of that misbehavior seems to have made it into mainstream media, when all Trump had to do was mention grabbing a woman's crotch for everybody to lose their shit.
A very double standard.
My point exactly, the double standard. The press made a big deal of Trump's marital affairs. They came unglued over the mere mention that GWB may have tried cocaine.
-
My point exactly, the double standard. The press made a big deal of Trump's marital affairs. They came unglued over the mere mention that GWB may have tried cocaine.
And of course everyone is just bemused because Bill Clinton didn't inhale. That little rascal.
-
Human sexuality is a really complex thing. I suspect that sexual proclivities follow a bell curve. Perhaps the peak of the curve are heterosexuals who might consider a homosexual experience if the situation was right. On one end you have homosexuals who would never consider a heterosexual relationship. On the other perhaps you have folks who cringe at the thought of a homosexual relationship.
Actually, the location of the peak of the curve is a mystery to me. I do applaud the POTUS emeritus for his honesty and candor. I suspect conservacrats would rather all talk of homosexuality be hidden from view, sort of like the 50's. Of course, those who protest loudest...
-
Actually, the location of the peak of the curve is a mystery to me. I do applaud the POTUS emeritus for his honesty and candor. I suspect conservacrats would rather all talk of homosexuality be hidden from view, sort of like the 50's. Of course, those who protest loudest...
I have nothing against the sexuality of an individual. This "protest the loudest" thing is kind of silly though as its intent is to make people fear of commenting on homosexual behavior. Well, I'm not scared, so think what you will. (Nice try Michael. Right out of the lib playbook) Personally, I think male homosexual behavior is disgusting, especially in public. Most heteros I know think the same thing, especially about the physical act.
However, I have nothing against their sexual choice, or preference if it doesn't negatively impact my rights, (cake baking) and I don't have to endorse, or support them through taxes, or public policy giving them special rights. I will say I was embarrassed at the effeminate photos of Obama through out his tenure as President. It is NOT Presidential to ride a girls bike, throw a baseball with a candy arm, bow, and apologize to world leaders, and shriek in fear oat a jujitsu match.
-
I do applaud the POTUS emeritus for his honesty and candor.
But you would be the first to strongly condemn someone who does not follow your ideology.
As with most liberal progressives, if a (D) commits adultery, uses drugs or engages in some other behavior (think Anthony Weiner) then they are to be celebrated.
If an (R) has ever been divorced, engaged in an extramarital affair, engaged in a homosexual affair, makes a derogatory statement or even mentioned about drug use, they are to be excoriated and dragged through the mud in the press and of course demanded to withdraw from the election or resign from office.
-
Human sexuality is a really complex thing. I suspect that sexular proclivities follow a bell curve. Perhaps the peak of the curve are heterosexuals who might consider a homosexual experience if the situation was right. On one end you have homosexuals who would never consider a heterosexual relationship. On the other perhaps you have folks who cringe at the thought of a homosexual relationship.
Actually, the location of the peak of the curve is a mystery to me. I do applaud the POTUS emeritus for his honesty and candor. I suspect conservacrats would rather all talk of homosexuality be hidden from view, sort of like the 50's. Of course, those who protest loudest...
You PHONY.
You've spent the last six months calling Donald Trump all kinds of sexually demeaning phrases and now you want to lecture us??
FUCK You you phony ass idiot.
-
You PHONY.
You've spent the last six months calling Donald Trump all kinds of sexually demeaning phrases and now you want to lecture us??
FUCK You you phony ass idiot.
Lol, Number 7 does have a point, I'd love to hear the response.
-
The location of the peak of the bell curve is probably a mystery to everyone because most people simply will not admit it if they've a little of whichever the other direction or how much.
As for disgusting, I have always found PDAs disgusting of every variety, hetero or homo, doesn't matter. I dislike homo PDAs being used to "stick it to the man", shove it in society's face or whatever. As a political/cultural message it offends me. But hetero PDAs offend me just as much simply because IT IS NOT POLITE.
My deepest value system when it comes to public behavior centers on good manners, common courtesy and politeness. It is the difference between being civilized and being a violent mob.
My position on the cake baking thing comes from that. If a baker is a private business, no law should force him to bake a cake for gays. I would vote against that, and I would vote for his right to reject any customer for any reason. I might draw the line at skin color. However, my feelings toward him are that he is RUDE. This is a customer who wants to pay you money for a damn cake. He's not asking you to declare sodomy okay with God. He is not asking you to reject your own religion. He is coming to you for a business transaction involving a cake - that's all. But I'll vote for his right to commit this discourteous treatment of potential customers because private business rights trump good manners in a nation where law rules. But myself, I might not chose to do business with this person who treats gays rudely.
And it's telling me three posts have been made since I started typing this so I'll respond to that too. I agree Number7 has a point. Again it's a big double standard that liberals support all kinds of perversion, sodomy, etc. but suddenly turn Victorian in judgment of Donald Trump's locker room banter? What say you Steingar?
-
Again it's a big double standard that liberals support all kinds of perversion, sodomy, etc. but suddenly turn Victorian in judgment of Donald Trump's locker room banter? What say you Steingar?
Yes, I'd like to hear that explanation also. It just reinforces that our enemy is the media/Dems/Progressives that support this double standard, and bias. It is time for the light to be shined on these cockroaches, and for them to be held accountable for this behavior that I have personally seen since the 1960's. So yeah, a long time.
-
And it's telling me three posts have been made since I started typing this so I'll respond to that too. I agree Number7 has a point. Again it's a big double standard that liberals support all kinds of perversion, sodomy, etc. but suddenly turn Victorian in judgment of Donald Trump's locker room banter? What say you Steingar?
First, I'd really like to know when I've disparaged The Donald's sexuality. I've disparaged his intellect (truly low-handing fruit), probably his girth, definitely his vocabulary. Don't recall disparaging his sexuality other than to say what hot wives he's had.
Second, I don't criticize anyone for sodomy, perversion, or whatever else floats their boat, so long as they aren't victimizing anyone else. And therein lies the crux. I think you would have a hard time arguing that the women in the beauty pageant who were ogled by Agent Orange weren't victimized. Certainly the ones he claimed to have assaulted were.
My "those who protest the loudest" comment was directed against the never-ending parade of virulently anti-gay officials and politicians who turn out be closet homosexuals. I have no problem at all with their homosexuality, just the hypocrisy.
But I have to admit, I am quite curious about this who "I've demeaned The Donald's sexuality" comment. I just don't recall.
I guess the divide comes from the fact that those on the liberal side of things tend to champion the causes of the gay and transgender communities. So for Obama to say that he might have considered a homosexual affair seems like no big whip. Those on the more Conservative side tend to be less supportive of gay and transgender rights under the rubrik of religious liberty or some such. Thus when they are caught out the stench of hypocrisy is palpable.
-
Streingar is full of shit, as usual.
Or maybe his pathetic moral. I pass doesn't turn except when progressive talking points are available for him to pander.
So Mr. Zero IQ, review your assaults on the president and see if your zero IQ can spot your hypocrisy.
If not, then your hypocrisy is even worse than normal for a mentally disturbed liberal academic.
-
I thought homosexuality wasn't a choice? I thought you're born that way?
-
I thought homosexuality wasn't a choice? I thought you're born that way?
I am so confused now........
And I guess all the speculation of BHO's "bromance" with Reggie Love makes more sense now.
-
First, I'd really like to know when I've disparaged The Donald's sexuality. I've disparaged his intellect (truly low-handing fruit), probably his girth, definitely his vocabulary.
Don't forget his skin color. You're definitely disparaging him based on his skin color.
-
First, I'd really like to know when I've disparaged The Donald's sexuality. I've disparaged his intellect (truly low-handing fruit), probably his girth, definitely his vocabulary. Don't recall disparaging his sexuality other than to say what hot wives he's had.
Your self righteous bullshit is right out of the academic progressive playbook. no one cares how professorial you pretend to be once your hypocrisy is exposed and pointed out. The fact is you babbled about the President and his famous THIRTY-YEAR OLD remark with all the hypocrisy of every progressive lying asshole in America, using his comment, repeated by a pathetic asshol for progressive consumption, as a form of damnation and you are too pathetic and unmanly to admit it.
-
I've disparaged his intellect (truly low-handing fruit),
His intellect? Since you put so much faith in "higher" education, which Ivy League school did you attend on a par with the institution in which President Trump attended, and graduated?
-
Human sexuality is a really complex thing. I suspect that sexual proclivities follow a bell curve. Perhaps the peak of the curve are heterosexuals who might consider a homosexual experience if the situation was right. On one end you have homosexuals who would never consider a heterosexual relationship. On the other perhaps you have folks who cringe at the thought of a homosexual relationship.
Much more likely a one-tailed Poisson distribution. There are far more militant homosexuals than militant anti-homosexuals (media coverage notwithstanding). I'd estimate the peak of the distribution is indifference to homosexual activity; moving left is disaffection for a homosexual relationship, moving right is affection. One would think that practicing homosexuals are quite a bit to the right of peak. Then there are those under the right side of the curve who might be 'malleable', who have no counterpart on the left side.
-
Don't forget his skin color. You're definitely disparaging him based on his skin color.
There is truth in that certainly, though I actually haven't disparaged him for his skin color, but what he did to it. The former is indefensible, the latter somewhat ribald.
-
There is truth in that certainly, though I actually haven't disparaged him for his skin color, but what he did to it. The former is indefensible, the latter somewhat ribald.
I'm lost, what are you talking about? Trump did something to make his skin more orange?
-
I'm lost, what are you talking about? Trump did something to make his skin more orange?
I can only assume so, since orange isn't a normal human color absent the consumption of large numbers of carrots or lots of krill.
-
I can only assume so, since orange isn't a normal human color absent the consumption of large numbers of lots of carrots or krill.
It may be some form of tanning thing. I don't really notice it. Trump has many, many flaws, but his looks don't bother me. His wife is gorgeous, and classy. I'd rather look at her anyway.
I focus more on policy, and the benefits the President can bring to our country. Obama, Hillary, and the Democrats seem to think we suck as a country, and many (at least half) are deplorable, racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. Hillary even blatantly admitted it. If we are not from the Upper East side of NYC, or L.A. and other lib/prog metro areas we are less than them. So let Obama play with Richard Branson, Tom Hanks, and Oprah. We will still be here trying to make America work.
-
I can only assume so, since orange isn't a normal human color absent the consumption of large numbers of carrots or lots of krill.
Seeing your racism shining through once again.
-
It may be some form of tanning thing. I don't really notice it. Trump has many, many flaws, but his looks don't bother me. His wife is gorgeous, and classy. I'd rather look at her anyway.
I focus more on policy, and the benefits the President can bring to our country. Obama, Hillary, and the Democrats seem to think we suck as a country, and many (at least half) are deplorable, racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. Hillary even blatantly admitted it. If we are not from the Upper East side of NYC, or L.A. and other lib/prog metro areas we are less than them. So let Obama play with Richard Branson, Tom Hanks, and Oprrah. We will still be here trying to make America work.
You and reasonable people don't notice it because you are more interested in what the individual brings to the table and what they do.
Our liberal progressive friends are more interested in projecting their racist views and participating in hateful rhetoric pretending to be righteous.
-
Well I never noticed that his skin was orange until you brought it up. I guess I was too focused on his hair. I still can't figure out whether it is combed from front to back, or back to front.
-
Well I never noticed that his skin was orange until you brought it up. I guess I was too focused on his hair. I still can't figure out whether it is combed from front to back, or back to front.
Here's his mother:
(http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w464/flybywire1959/trumps%20mother_zpshjdzqfkq.jpg)
-
In an age where people really do indulge the look(s) they choose without much in the way of criticism, it is obvious Steingar how dearly and certainly hates Donald Trump due to his skin color. Progressive racism is so institutionalized that many progressives can't even see the sickness they indulge without a thought, while CLAIMING anyone who thinks off their carefully constructed reservation is racist.