quote:

But they taste sooooooo good when you put them on the barbie with some shrimp.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

But they taste sooooooo good when you put them on the barbie with some shrimp.

Is that done like shrimp rolled in cat strip with like a toothpick or is this some kind of surf n' turf medley thing?

quote:

Trust me, I get that. Which is why I express my surprise that anyone gay would want to work on his campaign. He has never been, is currently not, and never will be a champion of gay rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
I still can't get over the fact that a gay male was, up until recently, working on Romney's campaign.

really? so what? did someone force him to work for Romney?.. its nothing to compare to Andrew Young pretending to be dating Reile Hunter and knocking her up when all along he was covering for John Edwards who was the real one cheating on his sick wife with her.. and all the muck with that whole affair.. million bucks stolen, a public trial..

there is sleeze on both sides.. jmo..

My post is not about one "side" vs the "other", whatever you even mean by that.

My point is really quite specific. We have a man who bullied gay teens when he was young. I am surprised anyone who is gay would want to work for/with someone like that. A very limited point. Nowhere in my post am I talking about anything beyond that.

As a bisexual, I would not want to be working with/for someone (anyone) who I found out used to physically attack people who were gay/lesbian for no other reason than they are not allowed to "look different". That is what I'm saying. It doesn't have anything to do with "sides".

oh I know you want to bash Romney and all Rs where ever you can and pretend that the Ds are all lily white and ignore their faults and transgressions when it suits you.. you wonder why a gay man would work for him? yet you dont wonder why women worked for womanizing user sleazoid Democrats like Edwards and Clinton, all the way back to JFK?.. its the exact same thing..

So now we are comparing CONSENSUAL sexual acts between adults to physically attacking someone gay because they look "different". You can't be serious?

Why are you even on this site if you don't believe in consensual sexual acts between two adults?

And if it is adultery that is your issue, then I suggest you leave that to the couple involved. Marriages and relationships are complicated things, and I don't think it is for anyone outside the relationship to judge what happens over the course of a marriage/relationship. Monogamy is an issue that many couples struggle with - and not all are successful. I don't put failure at monogamy in the same category as physically attacking a gay person for being "different". Not to mention many married people don't even believe in monogamy.

For those of you who equate these acts (gay bashing with consensual sex between two adults), then fine. Obviously for YOU, these are equally egregious. [&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

Trust me, I get that. Which is why I express my surprise that anyone gay would want to work on his campaign. He has never been, is currently not, and never will be a champion of gay rights.

Tell that to the 1994 Romney:

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
I still can't get over the fact that a gay male was, up until recently, working on Romney's campaign.

really? so what? did someone force him to work for Romney?.. its nothing to compare to Andrew Young pretending to be dating Reile Hunter and knocking her up when all along he was covering for John Edwards who was the real one cheating on his sick wife with her.. and all the muck with that whole affair.. million bucks stolen, a public trial..

there is sleeze on both sides.. jmo..

My post is not about one "side" vs the "other", whatever you even mean by that.

My point is really quite specific. We have a man who bullied gay teens when he was young. I am surprised anyone who is gay would want to work for/with someone like that. A very limited point. Nowhere in my post am I talking about anything beyond that.

As a bisexual, I would not want to be working with/for someone (anyone) who I found out used to physically attack people who were gay/lesbian for no other reason than they are not allowed to "look different". That is what I'm saying. It doesn't have anything to do with "sides".

oh I know you want to bash Romney and all Rs where ever you can and pretend that the Ds are all lily white and ignore their faults and transgressions when it suits you.. you wonder why a gay man would work for him? yet you dont wonder why women worked for womanizing user sleazoid Democrats like Edwards and Clinton, all the way back to JFK?.. its the exact same thing..

So now we are comparing CONSENSUAL sexual acts between adults to physically attacking someone gay because they look "different". You can't be serious?

Why are you even on this site if you don't believe in consensual sexual acts between two adults?

And if it is adultery that is your issue, then I suggest you leave that to the couple involved. Marriages and relationships are complicated things, and I don't think it is for anyone outside the relationship to judge what happens over the course of a marriage/relationship. Monogamy is an issue that many couples struggle with - and not all are successful. I don't put failure at monogamy in the same category as physically attacking a gay person for being "different". Not to mention many married people don't even believe in monogamy.

For those of you who equate these acts (gay bashing with consensual sex between two adults), then fine. Obviously for YOU, these are equally egregious. [&:]

OMFG.. you dont get it.. its nothing to do with consensual acts or any of the other bs you are trying to go on about.. we all get that you wouldnt work for Romney.. The gay guy had his reasons for working for Romney just like women had their reasons for working for sleazoid womanizing Democrats that they had to fight off all the time.. or just as Young had his reasons for working for Edwards.. they are his reasons, not yours.. maybe the gay guy was a Republican.. maybe he needed a job and it was as good as any other job.. maybe he took the job to make more connections.. whatever the reasons he had were his, not yours..

quote:

We'll see what dancing and jigging happens when the above posters are shown on TV by those nasty Democrats.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
OMFG.. you dont get it.. its nothing to do with consensual acts or any of the other bs you are trying to go on about.. we all get that you wouldnt work for Romney.. The gay guy had his reasons for working for Romney just like women had their reasons for working for sleazoid womanizing Democrats that they had to fight off all the time.. or just as Young had his reasons for working for Edwards.. they are his reasons, not yours.. maybe the gay guy was a Republican.. maybe he needed a job and it was as good as any other job.. maybe he took the job to make more connections.. whatever the reasons he had were his, not yours..

I understand YOU feel these two things are the same therefore you think women working for Edwards are the same as gay people working for Romney. I understand your position. BUT, your position only holds logically if you think asking a woman to sleep with you (and having her say yes) is the same as physically attacking someone for looking "different". So, please explain to me why asking a woman to sleep with you (and having her say yes) is the same as physically attacking someone for looking "different"? Because if they are NOT the same then you are comparing apples to oranges when you raise the issue of women working for Edwards. So AGAIN, please explain why having consensual sex is the SAME in YOUR mind as physically ATTACKING (against their will) a gay person simply because they "LOOK DIFFERENT".

(For the record YOU are the one who raised the issue of consensual acts by talking about Edwards sleeping with women - all of which were CONSENSUAL acts. I did not mention Edwards - YOU did. I'm only responding to what you wrote. If YOU don't want to talk about consensual acts, then stop going on and on about Edwards unless what you really want to talk about is campaign finance abuse. But you seem to be focused on the "womanizing". So I guess any man who goes after more than one woman in his life is the same in your mind as a person who physically attacks a gay person. Wow.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
wow, again with the bs..

you are the one that has the problem with a gay guy working for Romney.. if the gay guy had a big problem with it he wouldnt have taken and kept the job.. maybe he didnt see Romney at that time as being anti-gay like you do.. but the gay guy would be in a much better position to decide that, since he was working with him every day.. Again, he had his reasons for working there and continuing to work there..

No, i didnt bring up consensual acts by talking about Edwards, its not about the cheating, its about the cover up.. Young worked for him, did his bidding, covered for the guy and kept covering and working for him for whatever Youngs reasons were.. and women that worked for other womanizing democrats that had to endure looking the other way and covering for their bosses that had a revolving door of women coming thru did that work for their reasons.. Not work i would have wanted to do but i am not them.. That was my point, you arent the gay guy, your reasons for not working there are not his reasons..

quote:

oh I know you want to bash Romney and all Rs where ever you can and pretend that the Ds are all lily white and ignore their faults and transgressions when it suits you.. you wonder why a gay man would work for him? yet you dont wonder why women worked for womanizing user sleazoid Democrats like Edwards and Clinton, all the way back to JFK?.. its the exact same thing..

quote:


Once slaughtered and butchered it is impossible to tell the difference between rabbit and cat except to a vet or someone quite familiar with the two critters. The difference is in the shape of the breast bone...taste same same.
Yes it is the surf and chicken thingie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

I once got some yakitori from an Okinawan street cart and noted at the time that it was not chicken, pork, or beef.

I'm not sure what the "jungle meat" given to me by a Guyami Indian in Costa Rica was, either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
If your issue is Young then just say that and stop blathering on about "womanizing" (your word by the way, not mine).

Again, working for a "womanizer" is NOT the same thing. You are not articulating any reason for why you think it is the same. Why do you keep raising the issue of all the women who have worked for Edwards???????? Why is this relevant??????????

I am NOT talking about the specific guy who worked for Romney - it should have been obvious that the original comment is a general one. I'm sure he had his reasons for working there, but obviously those reasons had nothing to do with supporting gay rights. My point is IF YOU SUPPORT GAY RIGHTS YOU WOULD NOT WORK FOR ROMNEY.

If you can't answer any of the questions that I have repeatedly asked you, then please spare us all another post. I've asked you to clarify several things that you are unable to do. So obviously you have no answer to make your position logical, so you keep blathering on about the same things. Answer my questions. And if you can't answer them, not my problem. Done with this.

quote:

Well now you've gone and done it to yourself. Now you'll NEVER be able to run for President [&:]

quote:

oh I know you want to bash Romney and all Rs where ever you can and pretend that the Ds are all lily white and ignore their faults and transgressions when it suits you.. you wonder why a gay man would work for him? yet you dont wonder why women worked for womanizing user sleazoid Democrats like Edwards and Clinton, all the way back to JFK?.. its the exact same thing..

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Thank goodness.

Back on topic:

Mitt Romney's 'vicious' high-school bullying: Is his apology sufficient?

Mitt Romney apologized Thursday for "hijinks and pranks" he pulled nearly 50 years ago at his elite Michigan prep school — episodes dug up by The Washington Post in a lengthy investigative report. In one of the incidents, Romney, then a high school senior, and some of his friends held down a classmate — who some believed to be gay — and forcibly cut his bleached blond hair. "He can't look like that," a Romney friend recalls the future presidential candidate saying. "That's wrong. Just look at him!" Later, the Post reports, the crying boy "screamed for help" as "Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors." Romney's childhood friends — five of them corroborated the tale — described the incident as "senseless," "stupid," "idiotic," and "vicious." Romney himself says he doesn't remember the 1965 encounter, but concedes that he "did some things" in his teens, and is sorry if he offended anyone. Will Romney's apology suffice?

Read more: http://theweek.com/article/briefing_blog/261/the-romney-campaign