Barry Soetoro
Nov 6th, 2008, in Opinion, by Guest WriterBarry Soetoro aka Barack Obama’s Indonesian connection.
Former Menteng student now US President
Obama Barack has been democratically elected President of the US.
Quite an about face for the best democracy money can buy, in view of the Bush presidential se-lection.
But of course, corruption, collusion and nepotism is the sole monopoly of the Third World – or so the deluded denizens of the West repeat to themselves as they hug their knees, rocking back and forth – reminding themselves of how they uphold human rights equally across the board, entirely devoid of double-standards and totally oblivious to race, creed or religion.
Barrak Hussein Obama II was born to a white American Ann Dunham and Kenyan Barrak Hussein Obama Snr, in Nyang’oma Kogelo now in Kenya.
Here the Indonesian link starts.
Ann Dunham married in 1967 Lolo Soetoro, a Javanese, whose own father, in 1946 was killed along with his eldest brother were killed, after which the Dutch army burned down the family’s home. Soetoro fled with his mother into the countryside to survive. Incidentally yet more proof of Dutch war crimes – delibrate destruction of civilian property outside the scope of battle.
Pak Lolo Soetoro was an army geologist then later a government relations consultant for Mobil Oil. Obama describes Soetoro as well-mannered, even-tempered, and easy with people.
Barry Soetoro in Indonesia with mother Ann Dunham, step-father Lolo Soetoro, baby-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng.
From age 6 to 10, Obama lived in Jakarta. Age six, Obama attended the Catholic Primary St Francis di Assisi. Much was made of the lie he was educated in a Madrassa – or more accurately a pesantren – this of course was totally untrue. Obama Jnr later attended Model Primary School, Menteng and was registered as a Muslim – as his father was Muslim.
In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies. My mother wasn’t overly concerned. ‘Be respectful,’ she’d say. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I would close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words.
One of “Berry’s” childhood friends was Adi who often visited “Berry’s” 16 Jalan Haji Ramli house. Speaking volumes of Dutch “development” at the time the road was of this established middle-class neighbourhood was a dirt lane where Obama used to wile away the hours kicking a soccer ball.
Adi recalled Obama and his friends wore plastic bags over their shoes to walk through the muddy street during the rainy seasons.
Neighborhood Muslims worshiped in a nearby house, which has since been replaced by a larger mosque. Sometimes, when the muezzin sounded the call to prayer, Lolo and Barry would walk to the makeshift mosque together, Adi said.
His mother often went to the church, but Barry was Muslim. He went to the mosque,” Adi said. “I remember him wearing a sarong.”
Obama spent most his spare time hanging out with Adi and other friends at the home of Yunaldi Askiar, a classmate. They used to play a kind of fencing game using sticks, kick a ball up and down the narrow dirt lanes or go swimming in the river behind the school, said Askiar, 42, a car mechanic.
Obama was taller and better dressed than most kids in classes where shoes and socks were still luxuries, so he stood out from the start. As an African American, and the only foreigner, he suffered racial taunts and teasing but never turned to violence.
“At first, everybody felt it was weird to have him here,” Israella Dharmawan, his first grade teacher said. “But also they were curious about him, so wherever he went, the kids were following him.”
His friends enjoyed playing tricks on Berry: Harmon ASki recalled,
“Sometimes we’d say, ‘Barry, do you want a chocolate?’ And we’d give him a chocolate. The next day we’d give him a chocolate again. The third time we’d give him terasi (fermented shrimp paste) wrapped up like chocolate. Obama didn’t get mad. He would laugh it off.”
Ann Soetoro moved to Yogyakarta, while Obama Jnr studied in Jakarta. She was inspired by Jogja village industries, which became the basis of her 1992 doctoral dissertation.
“She loved living in Java,” said Dr. Dewey, who recalled accompanying Ms. Soetoro to a metalworking village. “People said: ‘Hi! How are you?’ She said: ‘How’s your wife? Did your daughter have the baby?’ They were friends. Then she’d whip out her notebook and she’d say: ‘How many of you have electricity? Are you having trouble getting iron?’ ”
Dunham-Soetoro became a consultant for the United States Agency for International Development on setting up a village credit program, then a Ford Foundation program officer in Jakarta specializing in women’s work. Later, she was a consultant in Pakistan, then joined Indonesia’s oldest bank to work on what is described as the world’s largest sustainable microfinance program, creating services like credit and savings for the poor.
Obama in Hawaii with Maya and Ann and maternal grand-father, shortly after leaving Indonesia.
In his tellingly-titled Memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama describes his Indonesian interlude as “one long adventure, the bounty of a young boy’s life”. But he also recalls being troubled by the poverty around him: “the empty look on the faces of farmers the year the rains never came,” and the desperation of the disabled beggars who came to the family’s door.
“The world was violent, I was learning, unpredictable and often cruel,” he writes. Obama and his mother thus we were very well acquainted with the harsh realities of indigenous Indonesians.
Fermina Katarina Sinaga, recalled yojhng Obama in her class: in the common task of class to write an essay titled “My dream: What I want to be in the future.” Obama “wrote ‘I want to be a president,’ ” she said. During a later writing assignment on family, he wrote, “My father is my idol.
The Indonesian connection for Obama and all that shaped him proving once again all things Javanese and indigenous Indonesian the bedrock for the towering monuments built on the foundations of a great civilisation.
1,047 Comments on “Barry Soetoro”
-
Lairedion says:
I do, however, think they should understand that you are a pair of charlatans. Integrity, honest argument and any commitment to traditional decencies is outwith your framework of reference.
Name-calling for the sake of commitment to traditional decencies. Brilliant stuff. 🙂
-
Ross says:
On 9th June I started this ‘debate’ with a perfectly reasonable comment, viz.
,‘they heard Muslims compare homosexuality with incest.’ Yo, Hans, I have many a time and oft criticised various Islamic nonsenses, but what’s your beef when they make an obvious point that some sexual practises are revolting and un-natural?
.
Just 5 hours later Oigal came back with ‘Personally, I am huge supporter of the daily doubles.’The same day I responded that he was ‘strange’ and asked him about his views on incest, as it had been part of the point at issue.
That was two weeks ago! Only last night did we get a response.
June 10th he suggested only a ‘loonie’ would ask such a question. Same day he offensively (and illogically) added ‘From personal experience over the years, almost always the people screaming loudest about those god awful homos, were invairably the ones struggling with their own sexuality and desires.’
That’s clear nonsense, as if those who detest communism are somehow secret reds, or the FPI are somehow Christian agents! Oigal only made the comment, which is absurd, to be rude.
I replied promptly, saying so, and got more ‘logic’ back, which culminated in your meaningless outburst, viz
‘Laugh..it must be pretty lonely in your world..lets see no gays (cross-dressing pervs and former heads of FBI, I assume get special pass), no people of the left, absolutely no communists, no immigrants unless personal members of HRH fan club…must be a right ol party at the British League bangers and mash night.’Still only June 10th, so I countered his outburst thus-
‘Ya, you are 8 miles high on this one, Oigal, still whinging away about the never-verified smear on Hoover, despite numerous refutations. It must be fun banging the drum for a long-dud communist hatchet-job on a long-dead man.Obviously, the world would be a better place had no communists ever been seen on Earth, and it is only good sense that immigrants to a country accept and respect its traditions, e.g. those wishing to settle in a monarchy should be loyal to the Crown. What’s wrong with that?’
————————-
Defeated in that diversionary debate, Oigal 13th June demanded ‘evidence’ of the pedophile menace, which I provided on the same day, with my preface being.
‘Knowing you of old, you will at once rant that the sources are rightwing and thus untrustworthy, which just about sums up your philosophical integrity. Agree with my basics or sod off.’
Oigal leapt through this open door, telling us that not only were my sources ‘extreme right’ but also ‘fundamentalist.’ So obviously BAD!
Still on the 13th, I relied thus and again asked him to come clean on his incest policy.
He came back abusively, urging me to ‘stay on topic,’ which (see top of this post,) I was very much adhering to!
He rounded off that with reference to my ‘insecurities’ (what insecurities?)and suggested I needed ‘professional help,’ as I had ‘some deep-seated issues.’
(I don’t, of course)
Very personal insults -his natural style re-asserting itself. Still no answer on his incest attitude.
STILL on the 13th I replied ‘inter alia’
‘Seriously, you must stop avoiding the question. If you think any kind of perverted sex is permissible between two grown-up people, you should answer the question. Is incest acceptable too?’
Oigal astonishingly came back with ‘Ah Ross, The personal attacks are telling, honestly ‘ My most personal attack had been to ask him why he was so het up about queers, a fair question, given his attempt to impute perverted impulses to others.
I summed up the ‘debate’ thus far with a reasonable remark, viz.
Does anyone else notice a certain inconsistency in Oigal’s aversion to personal invective against himself and his eagerness to slight others.‘You’re a sad little chap, Oigal who can’t answer a straightforward question – you are soft on sodomites, but ambivalent on incest. Why?’
STILL NO ANSWER!
Oigal went to sleep after this gem. ‘Because its such an obvious red herring with nothing to do with subject at hand.’ BUT of course, it was an inegral part of the comment that sparked his outburst. Very much on topic, me, way off the beam, Oigal.Next day, 14th June, I provided more material, but observed that ‘before you respond, Oigal, I’m about to use my dukun-like second sight, and predict what yo’ll say….
——————–
‘Squawk…yawn…laugh…lieve it ahy, mate, you caaan’t be serius…you spekt me ta axcept info from peeple I don’t like/agree with/ believe in Gawd. No way, Jose. On yer bike, dahn’t let te bar-door hit ya on da way out.’
—————–
True to form, Oigal behaved exactly as I’d said he would. viz
‘Sorry Ross, still looking for that study not transcripts of your like minded. Saying it is so does not make it so. As a matter of interest, I tend to be against fundamentalists of any sort be Christian, Islam, Politics. Unfortunately, those organizations are infested with those who think they are the sole arbitrators of what is allowed and is not allowed, in spite of facts and commonsense.’
To this he added a very nasty side-swipe at the brave Canadian Chris Kempling, who did a great job and paid a heavy price for it. STILL NO ANSWER TO THE INCEST QUESTION.
By 15th June, I got fed up and said this, among other points. ‘He yaps like a naughty puppy when I present him with several pages of material that he doesn’t like. At the same time, when asked repeatedly to say whether his evidently libertarian philosophy includes the right to incest, he baulks and dodges and twists and turns, anything rather than answer a simple quesion.It is also a highly apposite question, for the reason I mentioned, that in Canada, once the dam was broken and traditional marriage replaced, the entire moral relativist crew began to press for polygamy, and in at least one country -I think it’s Holland – multiple marriage has been approved. (tho I’m open to correction if I’m wrong – I’ve yet to hear Oigal say that! He is not at his best in ‘attack-dog’ mode, and should see that it is unconvincing)’
Oigal’s response? ‘Yawn…Whatever Ross..’
NO ANSWER YET, But I asked again.
‘And it’s still not clear what Oigal thinks about legalising incest.’
At this point, the IM chief intervened and began deleting posts, and Oigal was off the hook for a while, till I moved to this thread.Embarrassed in the presence of his American debate antagonists, he finally came halfway to admitting his true feelings on incest. Yet he could not do so without further offensive slights.
‘The fact that someone refuses to indulge your homophobic fanasties and inane paranoidal conspiracy links purely a matter of withdrawing oxygen to a bigoted fool. Besides the infantile red herring aspect, the major reason incest was not responded to was Incest carries its own warnings, the product of which could end up as flaming homophobic, racist, bigoted internet poster. A legend in its own lunchbox if you will.’So there we rest, Oigal STILL not saying if he thinks incest should be as acceptable as he believes other perversions should be, but a hint that it might be unhealthy.
As if homosexuality is not one of the most unhealthy lifestyle choices one could be unwise enough to make.
We’d best transfer the ‘debate’ to my own new blog. The thread here, after all, is about Aceh and its dimwitted sharia laws.
See Ross’s Right Angle for a nutritious diet of sound thinking..
-
Odinius says:
Ross said,
Instead, you went into kindegarten mode with lots of ‘yawn…laugh…etc.’ which your antagonists on this thread will recognise as what passes for your debating technique. If you can’t respond rationally,you call people dingbats or as your sidekick in pro-poofter rhetoric, Odinius, calls them, dingleberries.
Odinius himself dismissed three sensible men as morons, though Spencer, Wilders and Horowitz have only asked their countrymen to wake up to a serious threat..
Odinius elsewhere ignored all the contradictory evidence on the ‘gay’ menace and said that ‘studies show’ shirt-lifters are no more of a threat to kids than normals. which is at best unproven and at worst untrue. Same as Obama’s antecedents.
No, Ross. I demonstrated with evidence that your position has no scientific basis. All you managed to demonstrate was the fact that you really don’t like homosexuals.
But now I have to wonder why you’re porting that discussion from another thread into this one? You seem really upset that other heterosexuals might, *gasp*, not care whether people are gay or not. Why are you holding grudges on this topic? You’re normally quite good about just leaving the banter on the page.
As for Wilders, etc. being “sensible men,” don’t you realize that the people who support Syamsuddin, PKS, FPI, etc. also think they’re being “sensible?”
-
No, Odinius, I am hoping that a wider audience, which this thread has, will embarrass Oigal into owning up on the issue of legalisation of incest.
He, like you, seems to think there should be ‘no holds barred’ on any kind of perversion, so long as the persons concerned are adults. Thus polygamy and incest would pass your tolerance threshold.I don’t agree with such thinking and want to clarify whether he – and you – do.
Also, when the safety of children is at stake, it is not good enough to brush aside evidence you don’t like about predatory perverts. You say ‘scientific’ as if you have access to all sorts of data. Maybe you have, but there is plenty other that doesn’t justify such complacency.
-
Ross,
Since you insist on continuing the conversation here, where I imagine you hope to gain more allies than you managed in the other thread, I guess I’ll respond. But please try to avoid the straw men, red herrings and such. To aid in that process:
First, Oigal and I are different people with different opinions on a wide-range of subjects. We just happen to agree on the rights of homosexuals and the standard of discourse on this ridiculous thread. But on a lot of other subjects, we don’t agree.
Second, you don’t actually know my, or Oigal’s, opinions on incest or polygamy. In my case, you’ve never asked.
But since you wonder, incest–of the sub-cousin variety–is perhaps the only practice that is universally taboo. This is probably because it correlates–scientifically–with a massively high rate of birth defects. Homosexuality, by contrast, is as old as human socialization and, by definition, doesn’t cause birth defects. Many people who engage in homosexual sex, who account for somewhere between 3-6% of any given population, continue to procreate in a manner that doesn’t correlate with high rates of birth defects. So from an evolutionary perspective, it’s really not dangerous. Incest, on the other hand, would be. As a result, the issues are simply not comparable.
As for polygamy, I don’t personally believe in it, but I don’t really care if others practice it–provided it’s consensual and both women and men are allowed to be polygamous. Why the hell should I care what some Mormon or Muslim fundies do, provided they’re not harming anyone or trampling over the rights of others to do so? Unfortunately, advocates of polygamy tend to feel it should be one sided, and the practice itself lends itself to misogyny and abuse, so I get off the bus when we begin speaking of polygamy-as-it’s-practiced, rather than polygamy-in-the-abstract.
Third, your attempts to establish that homosexuality constitutes a ‘threat’ to children were widely debunked. That doesn’t change just because you repeat the allegation.
-
realest says:
there are some tribes who resorted to incest, when tribe members decreased due to migration into larger cities, in an attempt to germinate a ‘pure’ race. what would be better anyway: incest resulting in birth defects or homosexuality without any births at all?
– japan low pop
– govt non-intervention of personal liberty
– nobody could dictate the life and death of othersand let’s cut the chase on the obvious questions –
Nobody permitted incest because it’s plain wrong. the whole homo-loving thing is just another farce for ppl to dictate how others should live under the hypocritical umbrella of freedom. -
Oigal says:
As for Wilders, etc. being “sensible men,” don’t you realize that the people who support Syamsuddin, PKS, FPI, etc. also think they’re being “sensible?”
I shall not bother with responding to Ross’s frankly boring personal tirade, however the above statement is key.
It is ironic that Ross canot see that by his very (in this case)homophobic intolerance towards others he is no different to the very groups he rants so much against. A vast number of those people who support the very harsh Sharia Laws, rally against other religions, belief or lifestyles quite honestly believe them to be a perversion and a threat to the moral fibre of the nation.
The ranting hate mongers and intolerant have no place in a civilised society and unfortunately Ross fails to grasp with whom he choose to lie.
-
Cliff says:
Hey Ross, I don,t know how any one who thinks homosexualism is ok could even debate any thing else being right or wrong, I just feel sorry for the real homosexuals, no hate as long as they leave me alone, but i do not think that a people under God should be forced to recognize those gays as a married couple.
But the people who promote that life style just because of their hatred toward God is another matter, and any one who will say they are not dangerous to children is full of it.
As far as the other matters is concerned I can not decide for sure what the word of our creator has wrote concerning it, and until i am sure, i will just stay out of it.
-
Thanks for sharing Cliff..
-
ET says:
Odinius
As for polygamy, I don’t personally believe in it, but I don’t really care if others practice it–provided it’s consensual and both women and men are allowed to be polygamous.
Given the legal implications of polygamy – family law, inheritance, housing etc. – I don’t understand why you said you don’t care. Accepting institutionalized polygamy would not only require a major overhaul of the values and laws that govern civilized societies but also cause unrest and anxiety among society’s weakest, only to satisfy a bunch of libertarian moral relativists and individualists going over the top.
I think this postmodern idea of everything being OK as long as it is consensual will only lead to degradation and decay. Moral degradation going out of control and the idolization of personal indulgence and permissiveness breeds weakness which in turn has caused the downfall of many great civilizations. Remember the Roman empire?
Sobriety and restraint however are the building blocks of a true champion. -
ET,
With all due respect, I find your response a little frustrating. There’s a whole paragraph there, and all you did was quote the first sentence. You need to read the rest of the statement to understand the statement. Particularly this part:
Unfortunately, advocates of polygamy tend to feel it should be one sided, and the practice itself lends itself to misogyny and abuse, so I get off the bus when we begin speaking of polygamy-as-it’s-practiced, rather than polygamy-in-the-abstract.
In light of that, your criticism is based on a severe mischaracterization of my position on the issue here. I’d kindly ask you to consider the entire statement, which for the sake of convenience I’ll reiterate here:
I have no problem with the abstract idea of polygamy. If–and only if–a society were able to establish institutions and norms that make polygamy equitable for all parties, and it didn’t institutionalize discriminatory power relations, well I still wouldn’t understand the attraction on a personal level, but I’d be hard pressed to say why it should be considered a horrid breach of ethics.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned before, this idealized version doesn’t really exist in practice, and as a result, I have a serious problem with the practice of polygamy: in Indonesia, 19th century Utah and pretty much every other example I can think of off the top of my head. It is one-sided, in the sense that only men can be polygamous, which lends itself to all sorts of abuses ranging from general misogyny to much more severe things. These effects of polygamy-in-practice are, in my opinion, hugely problematic from both a moral and practical perspective. Since no modern society has managed to establish polygamy without these consequent problems, the actual institutions of polygamy that exist or have existed within recent history are, in my opinion, a significant breach of ethics.
-
Thanks, Odinius, for giving us your view on incest. True, I didn’t ask you directly, but I asked Oigal repeatedly. You really want to legalise it?.I note Oigal still lacks the guts to say so. Pretty pathetic, really.
Also, Odinius, I note your cop-out mention of ‘strawmen.” whatever you mean by that.
I assume you are not a parent, and thus are not too concerned about the risk to children from the wretched perverts you champion. -
realest says:
I think polygamy, like all other luxury goods, should be taxed heavily like that bule- marrying-locals thingy.
-
I think polygamy, like all other luxury goods, should be taxed heavily like that bule- marrying-locals thingy.
==========================================================
I don,t know what that means except for the luxury and tax,es, but i disagree on luxury tax,es or any other kind of tax except use tax, and i will go along with income tax, but just barely.Maybe i would make a good libertarian.
Polygamy? well every one is always doing what they can to have something extra so why not make it honest and legal?
-
You really want to legalise it?.I note Oigal still lacks the guts to say so. Pretty pathetic, really
Oh Rossy, life is so bitter for you isn’t it.
Incest has nothing to with Homosexuality, nor with any of the other little red herrings thrown around with “gay” abandon by yourself.
The fact that your orginal assertion was so pathetically weak that you have to continually try and distract the discussion by strawman agruements and red herrings is what is pathetic.
Frankly, I simply refuse to oblige your sad attempt in clouding the orginal question put to you after your offers to provide proof. What you simply fail to grasp is you are quite entitled to hold your homophobic and other bigoted views on life, but you don’t get to call them facts or proven without the proofs. Sorry 16 page personal manuscript printed by a self proclaimed creationist university does not in most people’s books hold up as a scientific study (Stanford Uni as discussed refuse to print it let alone verify the nonsense). I do note you failed to acknowledge the one “almost” study was exposed as a fraudlent use of data. Tell you what though, in the interests of red herrings. One can only assume that if you put so much weight in that “University’s” reputation, one assumes you are a believer that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and men rode dinosaurs?
Your personal inferences and sneers because someone refuses to enterain your diversions in ignorance are telling and the sad troll like stalking from thread to thread pretty much sums up the level of debate here. My views on life, the universe and everything are pretty much available to anyone with whom I have modicum of respect which of course leaves certain people well on the outside.
As you obviously have little to add except mindless insults (which I do enjoy but tend to get boring for others) I suggest we move onto your next bigoted howler. BTW…You do know this is the Obama thread don’t you? Remember “YES WE CAN”
-
Ross said:
You really want to legalise it?
Huh? I never said or intimated any such thing. I said it’s almost universally taboo, likely because it’s very dangerous from an evolutionary perspective, due to its association with high rates of birth defects.
-
Oigal Says:
Incest has nothing to with Homosexuality, nor with any of the other little red herrings thrown around with “gay” abandon by yourself.
I think i can speak for Ross on this one. Incest should be allowed to exist for the same reason homosexuality does – personal freedom of consenting adults.
Odinius Says:
I said it’s almost universally taboo, likely because it’s very dangerous from an evolutionary perspective, due to its association with high rates of birth defects.
Well homosexuality is more dangerous than incest – extinction. Hmmmm ….. retarded cripple vs extinction:
-
Well homosexuality is more dangerous than incest – extinction. Hmmmm ….. retarded cripple vs extinction:
Except that it’s not. Homosexuality, in Western societies, accounts for 3-6% of the population, about half of whom also engage in heterosexual sex. Even among those who don’t, many choose to procreate with surrogate mothers. In societies where homosexuality has been more accepted, it’s actually usually bisexuality. So safe procreation continues, and homosexuality proves no impediment to the expansion of the species. If you want a real “threat” to human population, it’s from Westerners and the wealthy in developing societies having fewer children and having them later. But then again, there are too many people in the world, so it’s not actually a problem.
Incest isn’t really a threat to size of the human population either, but it is a threat to the quality of the gene pool. From an evolutionary perspective, this is very, very bad. Hence the near universal taboo on incest.
By definition, homosexuality has no effect on the gene pool.
-
Odinius Says:
Homosexuality, in Western societies, accounts for 3-6% of the population, about half of whom also engage in heterosexual sex. Even among those who don’t, many choose to procreate with surrogate mothers.
Knowing modern science(since we’re talking about educated freaks), couldn’t incestuous couples get a surrogate mother/sperm donor too when they want offsprings?
Since i still have 4 minutes of edit time, let me save some time for both of us:
– contraception
– sex is an impulse, basic animal instinct
– blaming genes -> we should exonerate killers or at least abolish death penalty -
Well, the problem is that if it’s legal, and procreation is possible, then procreation within that kind of union is, by extension, legal. It’s simply not possible for homosexuals, unless they pursue an alternate route that has no evolutionary implications. So once again, it’s simply not an evolutionary threat, whereas incest remains one.
But it is actually legal in some places. In Belgium and Brazil, in turns out:
-
Odinius Says:
Well, the problem is that if it’s legal, and procreation is possible, then procreation within that kind of union is, by extension, legal. It’s simply not possible for homosexuals, unless they pursue an alternate route that has no evolutionary implications. So once again, it’s simply not an evolutionary threat, whereas incest remains one.
Homos could have children by means of being bi-sexual/surrogate/adoption, why couldn’t incestuous couples do the same and avoid ‘evolutionary threat’ whatever that means. How is it an evolutionary threat when everything comes down to choice? All these makes zero sense to me.
Pro-creation is a by-product, has nothing to do with banning incest
Let’s save us both more time:
– nobody wants to deliberately bear retarded cripple
– reasons of pure blood dont make sense coz u cant get no pure blood from homos
– let’s stick to gay rights instead of legality -
rustyprince says:
Funny that the early life of B. Obama can be clouded in such greyness. The right-wing loons seem to suggest it leaves the Presidency open to foreign influence/blackmail.
But for such a scenario to be credible the same blackmailers would also have to have the Republican party and media in their pocket. I’d attest the only body able to carry out such a devious scheme and allow an individuAl without the most basic
citizenship credentials to become President are those behind the creation of AIPAC, and basically control American politic.
Not buying into the conspiracy theory but that’s almost the only scenario that allows a fraudelent Presidency.
If America is crazy enough to bomb or support an attack on Iran, I’ll reassess my opinion of the conspiracy -
Speaking of conspiracy theories and linking to contemporary events, woe!!! That’s a goal ref, what the f!ck,Brits denied,
Great Lampard equaliser; well the Guardian claimed that the 1966 world cup final goal on the line that was given to england against Deutch, the linesman had fought against the Jerries in ‘stalingrad’ -
Talk about conspiracy, read the new World Order,and the book on global tyrany step by step, and yes there are loons but the biggest loons are those with their head buried in the sand and can not see whats right before their eyes.
If people would get over their hate and envie of people who has more than they do, the ones who they call rich, that would solve a lot of the problems.
Sure there are a lot of rich people who are thieves and many of them are in politics and we need to get them out, but they can not hold a candle stick to the so called poor people who are also thieves, most of them either too lazy or to cowardly to steal for them selves so they vote in the stupid liberal socialists to steal for them.
And you may think that i am not poor because i can not stand the whinning class of poor people, you would be wrong, as i was raised when poor was really poor, so i know those poor me,s pretty good, if not for some of the decent people who who were not so poor we would have starved to death.
-
Oigal is running scared now.
Despite the fact that the comment which sparked the spat was quite clearly about both sodomy and incest, he now says ‘The fact that your original assertion was so pathetically weak that you have to continually try and distract the discussion by strawman agruements and red herrings is what is pathetic.’At least Odinius has come out and said he is not in favour of incest being legalised. He recognises that both homosexuality and incest are not normal or healthy. Oigal, you should have the guts to tell us what you think on leglaised incest.
As for your fave ‘minority’ – the poofters – I can’t be bothered wasting time supplying more evidence since you merely turn the argument away, as when you went into an anti-monarchist, pro-immigration tirade that span out of even what little self-control you appear to have, lacing it with jibes against British food.
I begin to doubt your sanity.For useful and interesting posts on the problems of Islamist radicalism, attempted rehabilitation of communism in Indonesia, and a good attack on the similarly loathesome perversions of bestiality and homosexuality, take a stroll over to my blog and howl at the moon, while the rest of us are enjoying the footie. (I use enjoying in its broadest sense, after that awful England result!)
I might even supply yet more evidence, though facts won’t change your pro-queer prejudice, I konw.
-
realest said:
Homos could have children by means of being bi-sexual/surrogate/adoption, why couldn’t incestuous couples do the same and avoid ‘evolutionary threat’ whatever that means.
Well, we’re talking about whether incest is legal, and incest means sex. Since there’s no 100% sure method of birth control, having legal incest sex means making incestuous procreation legal. This is what’s threatening, from an evolutionary perspective.
With regards to adoption, this is already possible in most Western countries. Single parents can adopt, after all, or have surrogate children. So can gay couples. The thing is, it’s no evolutionary threat provided there’s no actual procreation by incestuous couples. It is likely considered a moral hazard by community standards, though. Given that fact, and that in most countries there are more couples that want to adopt than children to adopt, a brother and sister combo aren’t, realistically, going to be able to adopt a kid.
-
And what kind of example would be set by ‘gay’ (‘sad’) couples bringing up a child in such an un-natural and unwholesome environment?
-
Goodnight.
If you wish to rail on, please visit
ross.indonesiamatters.comBut it will have to wait till tomorrow night for a reply. The real world beckons.
-
swann2001 says:
Purba the question is not why America loves the Jewish people so much as the question is why do Arabs and Muslims hate the Jews so much. Don’t they deserve to live just as much as a billion Muslims? I don’t wish to hate anyone but it is very disturbing to see Palestinians putting suicide vests on 8 and 10 year old children, teaching the next generation nothing but more hate and violence. Americans are peaceful people for the most part. We were attacked during World War II and we responded to the evil that threatened the whole world. We did not conquer Countries and keep them we gave them back to the people who the Country belong to. If the United States wanted to take over the whole world we could easily have done it when we were the only Country with a nuclear weapon, but we did not. We are accused by Communists and leftists that we exploit poor Countries but it is not true. We buy everything we get from other Countries, for example tin from Africa is purchased and with that money poor African nations can buy food and other goods it needs to support its people. Could the people eat the tin and other minerals, no, but they have something they can sell to get the things they need to survive. Same thing with oil in the Middle East, if it was up to me I would tell the terror States and rich oil shieks to drink their oil, but we buy billions of dollars worth of petroleum, we don’t steal it. We don’t control the oil in Iraq either, I don’t even think they are a major producer for us. But to get back to the Jewish question they are the only Democratic Nation in the Middle East and they are friendly to the United States. We liberated many Jews from the death camps in Europe after six million had been killed. Do you think we should let something like that happen again? Iran’s Mullahs claim the Holocaust never happened and they vow the destruction of Israel, yet Israel is not saying it wants to wipe Iran off the face of the earth. America has come to the aid of people who want to live in peace but have been attacked by forces who are basically evil in intent. How do we know evil when we see it? Death camps, suicide bombers, ruthless killings & beheadings of innocent people, sending rockets into a peaceful countryside to kill innocent people is evil. The United States has killed people with rockets but we take every precaution possible to ensure that unarmed innocent civilians are not killed. We fight with both of our hands tied behind our back in order to do so, and cowardly and evil men know this and hide amongst civilians. If the United States where to unleash its full might and power there would be no insurgents or suicide bombers left, only ashes, we don’t because we do care about innocent lives being lost. Israel existed over 4,000 years ago in much the same area as modern day Israel does today. The Philistines also lived in areas that are now under Israeli control and they fought each other as far back as 11th Century BC, so why do the Philistines of today think that they have the only claim to the land that is now Israel? I know it is a very complicated situation and I only know some of the issues facing Jews & Palestinians, but I do know that Palestinians cheered on 9/11 and Israel stood with us. Do we need to know any more? Who cares more about human life & Peace, Israel or hate filled adults who put suicide vests on their children and fire indiscriminate rocket attacks into civilian areas of Israel? The definition of a Philistine is someone who is smug, ignorant, indifferent or antagonistic to artistic or cultural values, I guess times change but people very little. There is a saying following the practice of an eye for an eye will eventually leave the whole world blind. Someone has to say enough is enough and we are going to practice peace for awhile if only for our children’s sake. Shalom and whatever it is they say in Palestine or do they even have a word for peace?
Comment on “Barry Soetoro”.
Related Stories
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2025
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact
Oh and..
Why would anyone with a firm grip on reality accept any “scientific study” from a organisation that totally rejects the theory of evolution and it is committed to ensuring creationist studies are considered part of scientific dogma in schools (We shall not mention the men with dinosaurs and the earth is only 6000 years old bit..ooops just did).