The Lambkin Experience

From a lengthy thread off the BPSB.
The Michael Lambkin Experience
http://www.facebook.com/#!/sid.thomas1

What he thinks he has shown about me that "speaks volumes" about what I am speaks volumes of volumes squared about who he is and what he has delegated himself (lyingly: "I speak for one person only...myself"..with lots of "we"'s thrown in) to speak for..

I am supposed to have been refuted in claiming homosexual agendae, i.e. same-sex marriage, had ever won a popular vote, by referring to Az. prop 107 in 2006. I instinctively knew this couldn't be true w/o skullduggery; denied it; and did some work. Here's what I found, and you would, too, whoever wants to look.

The '06 prop 107 was a vote NOT to continue the BAN on same-sex marriage, in place since 1996. THIS IS NOT the same as voting FOR same sex marriage. A "YES" vote, as it was stated, could easily have been taken by the less competent as a vote FOR homosexuality; a NO vote AGAINST it. Studies have been done on how superficial most consideration is, and verbal cues like that make a lot of difference, ask professional poll takers. So passed (the BAN was defeated) 51-48%, with hefty deepocket$ input. But the same ballot, after people caught on, was reversed 56 - 44 w/ 700,000 more votes, in '08. Proving where the will of the people lies, and how doubled down twisted to instance the case as the opposite. There hasn't really been any popular state regional vote FOR approval, but 27 out of 28 rejections w/ 1 vote nullifying a ban quickly reinstated.

No, I have not been shown wrong, but doubly vindicated: once by the case, then by this exposure of its misuse. And not just here, but through the futile efforts of is entity, everywhere, but keep plugging away, I'll have gone on further down the road. In its own terms, it is "anti-Absolutist", by which is presumably meant rejection of truth and falsehood as properties of proposition. To this, by its lengthy, ever increasingly bizzare performance here, we can now add: irrational, ineducable and venal.

Note: apparently realizing the "May a gay marine marry your only son!" quip -- that's what it was; quit pretending naivete -- took the wind out of its attack sails, Lambkin returns to it here as a personal attack, on HIS CHILD? Wha.. ? He has an only son and I knew it! ?? As if my attitudes toward homosexuality, of which he knows nothing but what is said here,
were personally damaging to HIS children? (?) but homosexual encouragement of Sandusky-Fine-ramblin' NAMBLA men wasn't any threat to straight folks'? They don't think they were doing anything wrong, either, and it requires someone friendly to the homosexual persuasion to explain why that is or is not true -- to everyone -- not a homophobe like me (<-NOT). Otherwise, what are we entitled to assume as an agenda? if not 'grooming' lads for
younger and younger "marriages" to powerful, authoritative Michelangelos and the devil take the hindmost har har wait! I'm getting flashed about the David!


Which is where this thread started, detailing alien threats to Occupiers, who are AMERICA'S CHILDREN.