Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $26,735
31%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 31% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by kenboy

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Rachel Maddow Busted Using Multiple Fake Twitter Accounts To Boost Mentions Of Her Show

    03/02/2013 12:55:44 PM PST · 72 of 134
    kenboy to icwhatudo

    I wouldn’t blame Maddow for this, as fun as it might be to do so (and think it’s disingenuous for the article to do so): I’ve seen publicly released reports by my own company, completely apolitical stuff, become the subject of similar tweets, where dozens of accounts tweet the exact same thing containing a link to my content. I know I’m not doing it (and it’s a three person company and the other two people know absolutely nothing about Twitter.) I’ve seen the same thing happen with blog posts, too: sites just steal content and pretend it’s their own.

  • Survey USA Poll Results: MN Budget Show-down (government shutdown-who's to blame?)

    05/25/2011 6:49:27 AM PDT · 3 of 3
    kenboy to scooby321

    I’m pretty sure that’s untrue: which other state showed an uptick in millionaires to correspond to Maryland’s loss? Much more likely millionaires suddenly found themselves multi-hundred-thousandaires as the economy went to hell.

  • Fake Obama Kenya birth certificate?

    08/03/2009 9:29:25 AM PDT · 840 of 1,190
    kenboy to Uncle Sham
    Take a look at this line in the twelfth amendment:

    And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

    I think the "qualify" bit in the 20th amendment (which changed the start of term from March 4 to January 20) is simply updating this scenario.

    Imagine a situation where the Electoral College has run into a 269-269 tie, and where the House of Representatives is deadlocked and has not yet chosen a President -- but the Senate HAS selected a new Vice President. This section of the 20th amendment serves to make it clear that the Vice President serves as acting President "until a President shall have qualified."

    Why else use the wording "until a President shall have qualified? If there's an argument to me made that some sort of documentation needs to be presented, why wouldn't it be worded to say so? Something like "until a President shall have proven to be eligible for the office." There's historical precedent for a Presidential election being decided after multiple ballots in the House; the 12th amendment's language regarding this situation is made obsolete by the 20th's change in the date; this makes sense to me.

  • Fake Obama Kenya birth certificate?

    08/02/2009 6:12:58 PM PDT · 171 of 1,190
    kenboy to Uncle Sham

    What on earth are you talking about? There’s no requirement of proof; no previous president has been asked to prove anything about their birth, including the one who may have been born in Canada. There’s no support whatsoever for your claims, and by your logic, the office of President has ALWAYS been vacant because no one has ever “proven” their eligibility before.

  • How to put Democratic leaders on the defensive just like Chris Matthews 'got' Cong. Pence yesterday

    05/06/2009 4:02:27 PM PDT · 18 of 167
    kenboy to BlueStateBlues
    If we can get one prominent dim to say he’s not an ape, then he loses the lib crowd. Worth the asking, IMHO.

    Sorry, that doesn't make any sense at all. The theory of evolution says that men and apes have A COMMON ANCESTOR. It doesn't say that humans are DESCENDED from apes themselves.

  • Obama blows off Medal of Honor recipients

    01/21/2009 2:41:56 PM PST · 15 of 29
    kenboy to kittykat77
    My guess (and it's just a guess) is that the grouping of "official" balls is handled formally by committee and isn't very flexible.

    This seems like a non-issue to me -- the transcript at Fox News shows he went to all ten of the official balls and zero of the unofficial ones, including the BET one that someone upthread is saying he went to. Considering it took them four hours to hit those ten balls, that they ended at 12:30 in the morning after so full of a day, and that the Commander-in-Chief ball, honoring the military, was among those he attended, I fail to see how this particular attack makes a lot of sense.

  • Don't Shoot the Messenger: Bad News for Martini Drinkers

    01/10/2009 3:33:42 PM PST · 48 of 61
    kenboy to Big Giant Head
    The Queen mother died a few years ago ... she was, I believe, a centurion.

    The Queen Mum was a Roman soldier?

    Or a Cylon.

  • Don't Shoot the Messenger: Bad News for Martini Drinkers

    01/10/2009 3:32:45 PM PST · 47 of 61
    kenboy to Betis70

    Hendricks has a little bit of a cucumber flavor to it. I think it makes a really good Bloody Mary (yeah, I make mine with gin instead of vodka), but I don’t know if it’d be great in a martini.

  • Supreme Court dismisses 2nd Obama citizenship challenge

    12/15/2008 4:48:33 PM PST · 46 of 56
    kenboy to jetxnet
    Which prior candidate showed a birth certificate to "the State Department?" I can't seem to find any news articles about John Kerry, Al Gore, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, George H. W. Bush, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Ronald Reagan, or Jimmy Carter arriving at "the State Department" to present their papers.

    Do I need to look back beyond that for the last time it happened?

    Did every single State Department employee witness the presentation of documents? Was it just the Secretary of State who received the formal papers from each candidate? Perhaps a deputy? Is it a civil servant who looks over and approves the form, or a political appointee? If the candidate disagrees with the State Department's assessment of the validity of his papers, is there an appeals process?

    Did the candidates need to show their parents birth certificates as well, you know, to ensure they were natural born citizens? Or is that a new requirement?

    Please, do tell me more about this procedure. I'm fascinated by this untold story of American politics.

  • Supreme Court dismisses 2nd Obama citizenship challenge

    12/15/2008 4:41:15 PM PST · 43 of 56
    kenboy to jetxnet
    Which Presidential candidates have shown their birth certificates in previous elections? Who did they show them to? Who decided the birth certificates they supposedly showed weren't forgeries?

    I'm not aware of any presidential candidate ever being asked to produce a birth certificate, and I'm certainly not aware of random anonymous internet "experts" then declaring said birth certificate a forgery.

    I also remain unaware of any state that actually hands out original birth certificates, as opposed to official copies and the like, since doing so would ensure that the STATE no longer had record of your birth, but, hey, anonymous internet experts know everything.

  • Supreme Court refused to hear the Donofrio case because he was a kook!

    12/08/2008 11:49:26 AM PST · 54 of 103
    kenboy to Velveeta

    Unless your parents were foreign diplomats, I believe you ARE a natural born citizen — but the court is never going to officially define it, so all we have to go on is what the term meant then. If you were born in a given country you were a “natural subject” of its king or other government.

  • To Every Thing There Is a Season (Obama eligibility ignored by SCOTUS)

    12/08/2008 11:11:16 AM PST · 40 of 65
    kenboy to Free Descendant

    The birth certificate that everyone is pretending is a forgery says he was born in Hawaii. There’s no issue here, never HAS been an issue here, and never will be an issue here. This is “Hillary killed Vince Foster and Web Hubbell is Chelsea’s real father” territory.

  • Supreme Court Silent on Obama Birth Certificate Lawsuit

    12/05/2008 5:03:26 PM PST · 85 of 201
    kenboy to fightinJAG
    I agree that the only argument to be made is that his father's citizenship makes Obama himself NOT a natural-born-citizen, though I believe that argument fails, both for practical reasons and for reasons of the law.

    From a practical standpoint, I think the court is loathe to define the term; they've avoided explicitly doing so at every previous occasion, and I don't see them wanting to do so now.

    From a legal standpoint, based on Jay's letter to Washington, the lack of debate about the phrase being included in the constitution, and the common law usage of the word at the time, I believe the phrase's meaning was clearly understood at the time -- natural born citizen meant all those born in the United States other than children of diplomats or hostile occupying forces. If they'd wanted to refuse American-born children of foreigners, the constitution would have said natural-born citizens of OTHER COUNTRIES were ineligible. Instead, it said the opposite -- that natural born citizens of this country were.

  • Supreme Court Silent on Obama Birth Certificate Lawsuit

    12/05/2008 4:45:19 PM PST · 62 of 201
    kenboy to Churchillspirit
    How is "our side" helped by ignoring the doubts about The One's birthplace and/or nationality?

    Because there are no serious doubts. There's no real evidence for any of this. There might -- MIGHT -- be some argument to be made that having a non-American father might make you a ... non-natural-born citizen -- but there's NOTHING that seriously suggests he was born anywhere but in Hawaii, and the continual claims of that non-issue have really made it impossible to intelligently discuss the first, POSSIBLE issue of his father's citizenship. (Which, separately, as best I can tell, wouldn't preclude an American-born person from being considered natural-born, based on case law.)

  • Supreme Court Silent on Obama Birth Certificate Lawsuit

    12/05/2008 4:36:45 PM PST · 55 of 201
    kenboy to Star Traveler
    First, I doubt that his 18-year-old mother would have been aware that she was one year too young to qualify her son for citizenship under the current law; hasn't everyone always believed that a US citizen's baby, born anywhere in the world, is automatically a US citizen (and, of course, may or may not also be a citizen of the country in which he is born?)

    Second, I don't think the timeline makes a lot of sense -- his parents married in February, and he was born in August. I can't imagine a young pregnant woman deciding to travel to Kenya -- pretty much on the exact opposite side of the world from Hawaii -- especially in 1961. (And I don't think I've ever heard of evidence she DID travel to Kenya then, though I also haven't heard stories of people standing up to say "oh, I was her hospital roommate when she had Barack in Honolulu, look, you can see her in the corner of this old family photo." (Haven't been looking for such, either.)

    Finally, there's the inconvenience of the birth certificate that lists his place of birth as Honolulu, along with the maybe corroborating evidence of the birth announcement. I realize it's a 2007 printout, so aside from the unlikeliness of it actually being a forgery, we'd also need to account for the fact that he would also have had to forge his birth certificate on PREVIOUS occasions, such as to get a US passport. Since this CURRENT forgery, produced while running for President, is apparently so clumsy that random anonymous experts on the internet can determine so, how is it that the state department fell for his previous, likely even clumsier forgeries?

    I'm sorry, it's just all too much, and requires way too much belief in bad faith by everyone from his 18 year old mom to the city clerk in Honolulu. I don't buy it.

  • Supreme Court Silent on Obama Birth Certificate Lawsuit

    12/05/2008 4:13:12 PM PST · 41 of 201
    kenboy to Churchillspirit
    This American, born in America. God, this must be how most Democrats feel when Al Sharpton shows up on TV: you're not helping our side.
  • Supreme Court Silent on Obama Birth Certificate Lawsuit

    12/05/2008 4:09:46 PM PST · 38 of 201
    kenboy to fightinJAG

    What about Woodrow Wilson’s England-born mother?

    Was he not a natural-born citizen?

  • Supreme Court Silent on Obama Birth Certificate Lawsuit

    12/05/2008 4:07:04 PM PST · 33 of 201
    kenboy to nobama08

    Wouldn’t the court setting some extra-constitutional standard be an example of that judicial activism we’re always hearing about? There’s not a word in the constitution regarding how one proves eligibility, or what “natural born” might mean, and there’s certainly no serious evidence behind claims Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii.

    I mean, except for the obvious step his mother took of putting a birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper, just in case he ever wanted to run for President someday despite being, you know, born in Kenya.

  • Thomas Breaks Tradition: Forces Supreme Court to Look at Obama Citizenship Case

    12/04/2008 5:13:30 PM PST · 480 of 922
    kenboy to MHGinTN

    Oh, OK, you’re absolutely right.

    Enjoy your tin foil hat.

  • Thomas Breaks Tradition: Forces Supreme Court to Look at Obama Citizenship Case

    12/04/2008 5:00:49 PM PST · 472 of 922
    kenboy to wndawmn666

    This is a great comment, except for the part where it’s utterly wrong and ignores the common law interpretation of “natural born citizen” as it existed in 1787.

    One good explanation:
    http://volokh.com/posts/1204265246.shtml

  • Thomas Breaks Tradition: Forces Supreme Court to Look at Obama Citizenship Case

    12/04/2008 4:58:14 PM PST · 469 of 922
    kenboy to Cincinna

    I would be STUNNED if the birth certificate in your safety deposit bank was the original document signed by the doctor — that’s going to permanently be in the possession of the clerk’s office in the town/county/state where you were born.

    I believe he produced the birth certificate that the state would give any Hawaiian-born person who requested a copy of theirs.

  • Thomas Breaks Tradition: Forces Supreme Court to Look at Obama Citizenship Case

    12/04/2008 3:54:00 PM PST · 439 of 922
    kenboy to freepersup

    That’s exactly what I’m saying. The founders were “interested” in the birthplace of the President, and not in the birthplace of his parents. “Natural born” citizens were those born within the country.

  • Thomas Breaks Tradition: Forces Supreme Court to Look at Obama Citizenship Case

    12/04/2008 3:21:36 PM PST · 423 of 922
    kenboy to Salvation

    Sounds like Donofrio ignored the case law, specifically US vs. Wong Kim Ark.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

    The gist of it: if Obama was born in Hawaii, his parents’ citizenship is completely irrelevant, so long as neither of them is a foreign diplomat or part of a hostile occupying force.

    This is going nowhere fast.

  • Thomas Breaks Tradition: Forces Supreme Court to Look at Obama Citizenship Case

    12/04/2008 12:47:40 PM PST · 344 of 922
    kenboy to jcsjcm
    Naturalized - give up their foreign citizenship US Citizens - born on US soil with no parent being a citizen, 1 parent being a citizen. Natural born - born of 2 US citizens

    Where do you get your definition of natural born from? The constitution never defines the term, and SCOTUS has never ruled on it.

  • Thomas Breaks Tradition: Forces Supreme Court to Look at Obama Citizenship Case

    12/04/2008 12:39:56 PM PST · 340 of 922
    kenboy to Drew68
    It's not a disservice; it's hilarious.
  • Obama is missing!

    12/02/2008 2:34:44 PM PST · 142 of 251
    kenboy to Reagan Man

    No fair letting facts get in the way of our righteous indignation!

  • Livethread - Obama, McCain, and Rick Warren

    08/16/2008 6:01:10 PM PDT · 240 of 668
    kenboy to UFC Pride K1

    So am I the only one who came out of this thinking Obama comes off as a smart, genuine, thoughtful guy?

    We could do a lot worse.

  • Schwarzenegger says he respects court's marriage ruling

    05/15/2008 2:03:25 PM PDT · 49 of 53
    kenboy to Dilbert San Diego

    it may, or it may not, but of course, horses, children, etc. can’t consent to marriage, and can’t be party to a contract.

    There’s also, I think, a legitimate state interest in limiting the number of partners in a marriage to two; it’s just too complicated otherwise, and who wants a situation where one of your wives says pull the plug and the other says keep him on the ventilator?

  • Schwarzenegger says he respects court's marriage ruling

    05/15/2008 1:46:25 PM PDT · 40 of 53
    kenboy to dan1123

    Not to get in the way of your hysteria, but I’m not aware of a any uptick in the number of man/dog or man/child marriages in the wake of the Loving v. Virginia decision, in which an activist Supreme Court said state bans on blacks and whites marrying one another violated the constitution.

    If suddenly white men being able to marry women of any color didn’t also mean they were allowed to marry, let’s say, ducks, I don’t know why saying they’re allowed to marry other men would have the same effect.

  • Florida to vote on protecting marriage

    12/15/2007 7:58:56 AM PST · 6 of 11
    kenboy to tlb

    I agree that it’s a waste of time as far as “protecting” marriage is concerned, but that’s of course not its real goal; it’s about motivating the most conservative voters — who may otherwise not be very motivated to come out and vote in November for the eventual Republican nominee — to make sure they come on election day.

  • If Hillary Clinton is elected president what would we call Bill Clinton? (as if)

    08/26/2006 5:38:26 PM PDT · 35 of 116
    kenboy to AmericanMade1776
    I think we might call him "The Junior Senator From New York," actually.

    If Hillary does win, her US Senate seat is open, and Elliot Spitzer, as the governor of New York, would get to appoint someone to serve out the rest of her term.

    And he might like the idea of having an excuse to spend some nights away from home, doing constituent work...
  • Army dismisses gay soldier 'outed' by e-mail

    07/29/2006 10:31:58 AM PDT · 279 of 303
    kenboy to Lucky Dog
    Sorry, you're right. I pulled "tens of thousands" out of thin air. Now that I've googled for some numbers, I think I have to say "easily half a million" instead.

    There are aproximately 1.4 million active duty military. (from Wikipedia. You can confirm with the census if you prefer.)

    CDC reports that 90% of men 25-54 have had oral sex with a female; 40% have had anal sex with a female. Now, there's obviously no quick and easy way to make the numbers fit, but I see here that the average man in the Army is 28 years old, so he'd fit in that range. Now, of course, it's likely that the UCMJ makes some percentage of those men think twice before they allow a woman to perform oral sex on them, or before they engage in anal sex with a woman -- but I don't really don't know how much to discount the numbers. Do you think cutting them in half sounds fair? If we did that, and said 45% of them have had oral, we'd be looking at over 600,000 soldiers under investigation for engaging in oral sex.

    Whatever the actual number, I think it's fair to say it's certainly a lot more than the number engaging in homosexual contact. Since they're both equally against regulations, and since our military continues to be the finest in the world, I fail to see where we have a order and discipline problem stemming from all this "unnatural carnal copulation."

    Neither one of us is budging from our positions on this; let's just call it a day.
  • Army dismisses gay soldier 'outed' by e-mail

    07/29/2006 8:40:47 AM PDT · 277 of 303
    kenboy to Lucky Dog
    Sorry, I think the whole "good order and discipline" thing is a ruse.

    If ignoring orders about sexual behavior was actually detrimental to good order and discipline, the tens of thousands of straight soldiers who are engaging in uninvestigated and unprosecuted oral and anal sex would clearly be creating a massive problem in the ranks. I'm glad you're willing to see those straight soldiers investigated and discharged, no matter what the cost to our ability to fight wars, but I respectfully submit we'd be much better off offically allowing all our soldiers, regardless of orientation, the privacy to have whatever sort of sex they want, provided it's in private and with consenting adults.
  • Army dismisses gay soldier 'outed' by e-mail

    07/28/2006 11:31:11 AM PDT · 265 of 303
    kenboy to Lucky Dog
    However, there is still the issue of “good order and discipline” which you are studiously avoiding. Are you afraid to address that issue?

    I've addressed it numerous times, but this time, I'll put it to you directly:

    To maintain "good order and discipline," do you believe that heterosexual soldiers who admit to having engaged in oral or anal sex with a member of the opposite sex, including, if they are married, their own wives, should be brought up on charges stemming from an Article 125 violation?

    If not, why not? How is a straight soldier engaging in a form of sexual contact that is clearly against regulations according to Article 125 any less a breach of good order and discipline?
  • Army dismisses gay soldier 'outed' by e-mail

    07/28/2006 11:19:26 AM PDT · 264 of 303
    kenboy to scripter
    I think we're looking at the same numbers, but focusing on different things.

    33% of male cases and 46% of all cases are from causes other than male-male sex. (Since 0% of the female cases are from male-male sex, the second number is probably ignorable -- but that's a solid third of cases among men not resulting from male-male sex.) Granted, many are from IV drug use, and I hope there's not much of that in the military -- but again, that's 10% of male cases being caused by something other than gay sex or drugs -- and a lot of the female cases -- and since we can't trust people to tell us if they're gay, and since removing all the gays who get caught would STILL leave us with HIV cases among the remaining soldiers, why not just spend the resources on testing, instead of investigating consensual sex?
  • Army dismisses gay soldier 'outed' by e-mail

    07/28/2006 10:20:14 AM PDT · 255 of 303
    kenboy to Lucky Dog
    Why go to all that testing expense when it is far easier to just ban queers? Military service is a privilege not a right. No one is “entitled” to serve, especially if he or she does not want to follow the rules.

    Why go to all that testing expense? I don't know, how about to keep soldiers with blood-borne pathogens off the battlefield and out of the ranks, where they can infect one another? Looking at CDC's numbers, there's a significant number of HIV cases that aren't caused by homosexual contact -- and since we already know, from the sheer fact that we're talking about this, that "don't ask don't tell" doesn't keep gays from joining the military, why not play it safe and eliminate the prohibition on sodomy and instead discharge those with the virus, of all genders and orientations?

    Unless, of course, blood-borne pathogens are just a convenient excuse.
  • Army dismisses gay soldier 'outed' by e-mail

    07/28/2006 8:30:09 AM PDT · 240 of 303
    kenboy to Lucky Dog
    especially the part about blood borne pathogens and the added, unnecessary threat that such pose on the battlefield

    So ban those with HIV or Hepatitis or whatever else you'd like to include in that category from service. I'm fine with that. Test their blood regularly, and if they come up positive, discharge them.

    Article 125 of the UCMJ, as best I can tell, was included when the UCMJ was adopted in 1951. It had nothing to do with HIV, or monogamy. Under Article 125, however, oral sex in a monogamous heterosexual relationship is just as illegal as anal sex in a polygamous homosexual one.

    And I don't know, but I'd like to think that soldiers will risk their lives for their comrades because that's what soldiers do.
  • Army dismisses gay soldier 'outed' by e-mail

    07/28/2006 7:09:18 AM PDT · 236 of 303
    kenboy to Lucky Dog
    If queers in the military do not have the discipline to restrain themselves in the area of sexual perversions, what makes you think that they would have the discipline to restrain themselves to following other orders?

    Once again: the UCMJ makes no distinction between "sexual perversions" committed by homosexuals or heterosexuals. Penetration is penetration, and if you're right -- that soldiers who ignore orders related to sex will ignore other orders -- then I expect we'll need to dismiss tens of thousands of straight soldiers who've had anal (and possibly oral) sex with their wives and girlfriends.

    Because, really, if they don't have the discipline to restrain themselves from those sexual perversions with their opposite-sex partners, what makes you think they'd have the discipline to restrain themselves to following other orders?
  • Army dismisses gay soldier 'outed' by e-mail

    07/28/2006 6:49:59 AM PDT · 233 of 303
    kenboy to Republican Wildcat

    Not to rip off the guy above me, but I really like the phrase "straw man fallacy."

  • Army dismisses gay soldier 'outed' by e-mail

    07/28/2006 6:35:08 AM PDT · 232 of 303
    kenboy to Lucky Dog
    First, unless they are doing it public, the military has no way of knowing. If they are doing it in public, then there are other sections of the UCMJ that become operative. Second, assuming they are not doing it in public, there are no witnesses and no case. Even if a spouse decides to turn state’s evidence and accuse the other, there is no independent corroboration and, thus, no case. To my knowledge, there has never been a case brought against a military member purely for private, consensual sexual intercourse with a spouse.

    So, let's say you're a straight, single soldier, and your straight, single, civilian ex-girlfriend, who is pissed at you, wants to get you fired. Should she really be able to call your CO, tell him that you've had anal sex with her, and get an investigation opened into your violation of the UCMJ? If the law is applied equally, I suppose Army investigators will question the other soldiers to find out if you ever admitted (bragged) to having done it, and once that independent corroboration is established, you'll be cashiered.

    But that's OK, because anal sex spreads blood borne pathogens.

    Seriously, I think this is all ridiculous. We're fighting a global war on terrorism, but we're spending millions of dollars investigating and dismissing soldiers because of who they have sex with. As far as I'm concerned, gay or straight, if it's not someone in your unit, I don't care.
  • Army dismisses gay soldier 'outed' by e-mail

    07/28/2006 6:25:51 AM PDT · 231 of 303
    kenboy to Charles H. (The_r0nin)
    Open homosexual behavior would do far worse.

    You know, I don't think it would. But I'll be honest about it and say I don't know. Tell you what: let's study the situation and see how allies like Israel and the UK handle these issues, and we'll see what they learned from their experiences, and we'll use their learning as a starting point for us. Rather than listening to individual soldiers tell us that they don't care who's in the foxhole with them or that they know gays only join the military to recruit, as we've seen on this thread, let's look at the unit cohesion experiences in these other countries. If it's been a disaster, then maybe we should keep the UCMJ as it is -- though, I think maybe banning anal (and depending on how you read it, anal) sex between opposite-sex couples is a bit archaic.

    And regardless of whether or not one's sexual orientation is a choice or not, it sure seems to me that this "unit cohesion" argument is the same one used 60 years ago to justify keeping the military segregated.

    There are policies in place to deal with unwanted sexual advances, should a gay soldier be stupid enough to make them on a straight soldier. In this case, it seems like the only reason unit cohesion (the unit being ... the choir) was damaged was because DADT exists. If this soldier, like his straight single fellow soldiers, was allowed to sleep with whatever single civilian he wanted too off-base, the unit would still be fine.
  • Army dismisses gay soldier 'outed' by e-mail

    07/28/2006 6:11:49 AM PDT · 227 of 303
    kenboy to Republican Wildcat

    No.

  • Army dismisses gay soldier 'outed' by e-mail

    07/28/2006 5:53:10 AM PDT · 224 of 303
    kenboy to Charles H. (The_r0nin)

    I'm simply saying that I feel "making sure no one feels uncomfortable in a group shower" is a stupid reason to ban gays from serving in the military. This whole "oh, if a gay man sees me without my clothes on, he's just going to be unable to control himself and he'll rape me" hysteria is ridiculous.

  • Army dismisses gay soldier 'outed' by e-mail

    07/28/2006 5:26:34 AM PDT · 221 of 303
    kenboy to Lucky Dog
    This is just ridiculous.

    If you had in front of your superior officers, you could have been disciplined just as this man was.

    So, how many straight soldiers have been discharged for having anal sex with their wives or girlfriends? Any? Ever?

    Note the irony: you can only be blackmailed if your sexual preference needs to be a secret. If gays can openly serve, there's nothing to blackmail them with.

    The idea that we need the UCMJ to protect straight soldiers from gay ones in the showers is hilarious. I mean, you'd think the straight soldiers would be pretty capable of taking care of themselves in that regard? You stare at me in the showers while you're playing with yourself, I don't think the UCMJ is gonna be your biggest problem.
  • Pterosaur-like Creatures Reported in Papua New Guinea

    07/20/2006 8:40:21 PM PDT · 53 of 310
    kenboy to KneelBeforeZod

    Sleestacks for the win!

  • F-16 strafes, kills terrorist

    07/20/2006 8:37:20 PM PDT · 38 of 68
    kenboy to Excuse_My_Bellicosity
    I know the beast of a gun in the A-10 can do all sorts of cool stuff...
  • AOL Retention Manual Revealed

    07/20/2006 9:34:53 AM PDT · 98 of 113
    kenboy to TommyDale

    Ack. Hope I never have to.

  • AOL Retention Manual Revealed

    07/19/2006 11:10:39 AM PDT · 37 of 113
    kenboy to TommyDale
    I was really hesitant to switch to Vonage because I'd heard about the months to port, but as it turned out, they ported me (from MCI's "The Neighborhood") in exactly twenty days, which is exactly what they said it would take.

    I was stunned.
  • America's Other Mayor (Mike Bloomberg)

    07/17/2006 3:45:59 PM PDT · 41 of 45
    kenboy to nopardons
    I'm right on some things, and left on others. I fit in nowhere, sadly.

    I haven't seen squeegee men, but I have to tell you, coming out of the tunnel and having one approach me would singlehandedly reverse me on Bloomberg.
  • America's Other Mayor (Mike Bloomberg)

    07/17/2006 3:03:21 PM PDT · 37 of 45
    kenboy to nopardons
    I live just across the river in New Jersey, and I think he's done a pretty good job. Definitely a better job than the folks we've had here, though that's obviously not the highest bar. I'm Jewish, too, and that doesn't hurt. I'm more pro-choice than I am pro-life. As a very aggressive driver, I believe that New York City is a much safer place without easy-to-obtain handguns (and I believe the opposite is likely true in less populated and better tempered places). I'm utterly thrilled that I can go out to dinner or a bar in the city without having to breathe in other people's smoke. I think he's basically right about illegals when it comes to the city's economy.

    Frankly, I don't see where he's a lot different than Giuliani on most issues -- and I liked him a lot too, and would probably vote for him as well.

    It's true that most of my feelings towards him stem from him keeping NYC a pleasant place to visit; maybe it wouldn't transfer as well to the national arena -- but I'd sure give him a fair hearing and listen to what he has to say.