–Secretary of State John Kerry, who served
Apparently 300,000-400,000 turned out for the People’s Climate March in New York City, Sunday.
NEW YORK — More than 300,000 people marched through the streets of New York City on Sunday in what organizers called the largest climate-change demonstration in history.
With banners, flags, floats and drums, protesters at the “People’s Climate March” overwhelmed midtown Manhattan in flocks of vivid color, demanding action ahead of the United Nations Climate Summit this week.
And as typically seems to be the case, the aftermath belies the message espoused.
Noah Rothman at Hot Air has the scoop:
“We live in a grotesque era where we have everything we want right now,” one protester told Foster, graciously packaging her entire movement up in one self-hating nutshell.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZlsKvOkHIY[/youtube]
There appear to be two strains of protesters who attended the People’s March. Some cling desperately to the ideals of Marx and who repeat rhetoric and slogans which have largely remained unchanged since the Rutherford B. Hayes administration. These folks ironically consider themselves “progressives.” The other strain of protester who spoke with Foster seemed lost, misplaced, left behind in a world which no longer made much sense.
It is a condition as old as time; the aimless in search of personal meaning complement the ranks of a movement which promises personal purpose. The revolution is over, but the tragically committed revolutionaries persist.
What Foster uncovered in New York City was what so many on the right have known for years, but the public rarely sees. The modern climate alarmism movement has been hijacked by the remnants of those who still adhere to the defunct tenets of revolutionary Marxism. It is no wonder, then, that so few climate change devotees in government and the media go out of their way to make sure you never hear from their grassroots supporters.
And today:
NEW YORK, Sept 22 (Reuters) – Hundreds of protesters plan to risk arrest on Monday during an unsanctioned blockade in New York City’s financial district to call attention to what organizers say is Wall Street’s contribution to climate change.
~~~ Flood Wall Street organizers said they wanted to use the momentum gained by Sunday’s march to “highlight the role of capitalism in fueling the climate crisis.”
I remember attending a couple of anti-war rallies in Los Angeles. These protests were full of fringies spouting all sorts of sideshow agendas that had little to nothing at all to do with what the rally was organized for.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
@retire05 #247:
As you finally recognize the absurdity of your “trade” proposal and return to your tired lecture regarding my civic duty:
“You, on the other hand, will cast your ballot over a singular issue and not what is best for the nation as a whole.”
I believe that it IS my right to vote as I see fit. Correct? You vote for what you want the most, and I will do the same. I might add that most of the “values” that you claim to support are values that I ALSO believe I am supporting by my vote. We have extraordinarily different ideas about HOW to get what is best for the country.
For example, I think that staying out of wars with Muslims is best for the National Security. I think that oppressive regulations SHOULD be eliminated or re-written so that they are not “oppressive”. I believe that personal responsibility SHOULD be a goal for everyone, but I don’t think that everyone is CAPABLE of being entirely responsible for themselves, and I’m not about to throw those people under the bus.
I also believe that all law-abiding citizens deserve the same dignity and respect that is afforded to every other law-abiding citizen, regardless of what differences may distinguish them one from another, and that they all should be treated fairly and equally under the law, regardless of whether or not they can be entirely self-sufficient. You think that our laws are already perfect – at least the ones written and signed into law by Republicans – and I adamantly disagree.
“All decisions of the Supreme Court I consider “settled law” to the extent that the doctrine of stare decisis (respect for precedent) applies.”
Then how, prey tell, does the court reverse itself when it has erred? Respect for precedent is not binding on the court, as either you or Sotomayor noted in the quintessential cop-out:
“In other words, all law is settled . . . except when it isn’t.”
Exactly my point. Law isn’t “settled” when the SCOTUS says it isn’t settled.
“b) you are gay by birth, at which point that makes you a freak of nature.”
Yep, that’s me. “b.” No doubt about it. Proud of it, too, as there isn’t any other option. Sad, though, that there are only about 6 million of us here and just 140 million worldwide, all certain to remain oppressed as long as there is a surplus of human life due to the overly robust procreative impulses of the other 98%. So yes, all of you bully breeders, you can all be damned until you stop persecuting gays.
@George+Wells:
.
Wrong, George. There is no solid evidence that homosexuality is physiological over psychological. None. As a matter of fact, scientific studies prove you to be wrong. There is NO gay gene, no brain deformation, nada. The ONE study that claimed that homosexuality was caused by a quirk in the brain was rapidly debunked by even the most liberal of scientific groups.
“bully breeders” Ummm, interesting term. Now, perhaps you would like to explain how you think you are being “persecuted?” Did someone refuse to sell you a wedding cake based on their First Amendment rights and you got your widdle feelings hurt?
@Redteam #249:
“George, do you think this was the correct way to get to gay marriage?”
The “correct way”??? As we’ve won in 8 state legislatures and we’ve won in 3 state referendums and we’ve won by the decisions of 47 different judges, which way is it that you are questioning?
“Do you think that the will of the people should be recognized?”
The “will of the people” IS “recognized” when they vote on an issue. Their voices are heard when the votes are tallied and reported. In a referendum, depending on which state it is, either their majority “opinion” automatically becomes “law” or the majority opinion “instructs” or “informs” the legislature, which in turn either acts in accordance with the majority opinion or it does not at the peril of being voted out of office in the next election.
“And where states pass gay marriage laws, should those laws be respected? And what about those states that passed laws prohibiting gay marriage?
Laws that are passed and signed MUST be followed until they have been either stayed or overturned by the courts for being in conflict with constitutionally guaranteed rights. No state law can trump the US Constitution. The courts, not the voters, get the final say in what is and what is not constitutional. You can “respect” any law you want, and similarly, you can “disrespect” any law you want. But you have to follow them all until they are either legally blocked or overturned.
“Don’t those people have rights?”
Lawful citizens have the right to be heard. They can talk all they want, thanks to free speech, and they can vote every chance they get. (And of course they have a slew of other rights that don’t apply to your question.) When a person doesn’t like what his legislature has done, he can take his complaint to court. That applies to you, and it applies to me. Equally. If I think that I’ve been wronged by a legislature’s law or by a referendum’s result, I can take my complaint to court. You can, too. Our rights to do that are equal – due process. However, no majority has the right to unwrite the Constitution. We ALL have the same, limited rights. And whenever there is a disagreement over what those rights are, it is the courts that make the final decision, not a mob with torches and pitchforks.
@retire05 #253:
We disagree on that, as is our right.
I wonder, though, about your insistence that I am mentally ill.
Do you REALLY believe that?
If so, do you treat ALL mentally ill persons with derision, insult, disgust and condemnation?
Or is it only the gay mentally ill people who deserve your special brand of hateful pity.
Isn’t THAT “persecution”?
@George+Wells:
But if there is nothing about it in the constitution, as there isn’t regarding who can marry who, then it is a state right and the Constitution’s duty is to insure that each state respects the laws of other states. They seem to want it all one way. If a state makes gay marriage legal, they want that recognized, but when it’s vice versa, then it’s vice versa. If I’m wrong and marriage is governed by the US Constitution, please tell me which article or amendment covers it. Not only is ‘marriage’ not in the constitution, there is no right in marriage that is granted or not granted by the constitution. So when a state makes or fails to make gay marriage a legal thing, then that is the law that pertains to the people within that state. Other states are required to observe those laws.
You said:
I know you’re not going to understand this, but it’s you, the gay person that is persecuting you. How would anyone know to treat you as a ‘gay’ person if you didn’t make yourself known as being ‘different’? This desire, or whatever, to have people treat you differently than they would a normal person is what makes the population resist. Any group that stands up and says “I’m different and I want to be treated as if I weren’t different” are going to be treated differently just because of that. Very few normal men wear assless chaps in parades, it seems to draw unwanted attention to those that do. Are you required to have a permit for public display when you wear those? I believe that as long as gays want to be treated differently, they will be. When they do not demand special treatment, they will be treated as anyone.
@George+Wells:
Yes, I do. And until the early ’70’s, homosexuality was listed in the DSM as a mental disorder. But actions of the Gay Liberation Movement, including physical threats against the psychiatrists, and their families, caused the APA to simply drop the listing from the DSM.
“Writing about the 1973 decision and the dispute that surrounded it, Bayer (1981) contended that these changes were produced by political rather than scientific factors. Bayer argued that the revision represented the APA’s surrender to political and social pressures, not new data or scientific theories regarding on human sexuality.” (O’Donohue & Casselles, Homophobia: Conceptual, Definitional , and Value Issues, p. 66 in Destructive Trends in Mental Health The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm editors Rogers H.Wright, and Nicolas A. Cummings.)”
There was no cure, no treatment created. But then, perhaps you can list one other illness, mental or physical, that has simply been dropped from medical lists as if it never existed. I can’t and I don’t think you can, either.
No, I also do not treat other homosexuals with the derision, insult, disgust and condemnation that I treat you to. It is you I don’t like. And I have made that very clear. But you offer no apology for the many gays that treat anyone who holds religious beliefs about homosexuality with derision, insult, disgust and condemnation. You seem to be silent on the actions of militant gays, never addressing that it is a two-sided coin.
”?
No. The term “persecution” has been bastardized by people like you. Persecution is being hung from a construction crane because you are gay. Persecution is being stoned to death or whipped until almost dead and then thrown into a dark pit of a prison. Persecution is not being able to live your life unimpeded and sharing the same rights of life, liberty and property as anyone else.
No where in the U.S. Constitution is there any mention of marriage, or marital laws. Yet, you seem to find in the Constitution what is not there. Marriage laws are the purview of the state, granted to it by the Federal government under the 10th Amendment. But the bottom line is that you, like any heterosexual, bi-sexual or transgendered person has the same right to marry under the same rules and restrictions that applies to every one equally, except you are a militant and that was not good enough for you. You, and the rest of the militant gays, want to push the edge of the envelope. We cannot teach Christianity in our schools, but you, and the rest of the military gays, want to teach children about being queer, insisting that homosexuality is “normal” when it is not. If you get your feelings hurt because someone holds a religious belief about homosexuality (covered by the First Amendment) you think it is perfectly A-OK to sue the pants off that person and create a hardship for them. That, George, is PERSECUTION by tort.
Gays claimed that they only wanted to be able to live their lives as they choose. That was the entire argument in the ’70’s. OK, you got that. But it wasn’t enough, was it? You wanted to flaunt your homosexuality, rubbing in the face of everyone who finds it abnormal. Hell, you even came to this little blog to flaunt your homosexuality. Why? Because you want to rub it in the face of those of us who, for whatever reason, do not agree with your lifestyle. I remember the first time you showed up here and it was to back another militant gay that had posted here (Ummm? Could it be you are really him since your bios have too many similarities that could not possibly be coincidental and even using the same terminology?). Any derision, insult, disgust and condemnation that has been heaped on you is because you sought it.
@retire05: Retire05, you said that very well. I think you are particularly factually correct on most of the points you made. There is a drug dealer that lives near me. He does not insist that I openly endorse him illegally selling drugs. He is content to live very quietly and not draw attention to his activities. I’m content to let him do what he does, as far as I’m concerned (I know the police know of his activities and keep it fairly well under control. That’s the way I think it should be for gays and their sexuality, but no, they want to insist that I have to like it. I have to publicly endorse their right to teach about gays in school. I have to bake a damn wedding cake for them even if I tell them that I don’t want to make and sell a cake to a gay guy. The police/courts would not insist that I have to bake a cake celebrating being a drug dealer for my neighbor.
Homosexuality is not normal, it is an aberration. Only less than 2% of the people in the world are born/or develop that problem. They can wish to be normal all they want, but until they ‘act’ normal, they won’t be treated that way.
@Redteam:
Recently a woman wrote an article that appeared on a blog about how her whole life was destroyed when her husband, and father of her two children, decided he was gay and dumped her and the kids for a man.
She talked only of how her life, and the life of her children, had been turned upside down, and how a sympathetic judge gave her husband every thing he asked for. She also talked about how her two [minor] children had been required to be part of their father’s gay life style (I am not indicating any kind of abuse).
The woman used an alias, not wanting to “out” her husband. Her circumstances could have been exactly like a million other women who have had their husbands trade them in on a new model, with one exception. He traded her for a man. But what do you think happened next?
Her ex-husband has “married” a radical gay militant, and so not only did they “out” the woman, revealing her real name, the “partner” contacted her employer and tried to get her fired on the basis that she was “homophobic.”
This is exactly what I have been talking about. Gays are now the new Nazis. They go after anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Jobs, families, businesses, churches, nothing is sacred when it comes to the intimidation gays want to dump on those who don’t agree with their life style and their goals of making homosexuality the new “norm.” And we are supposed to just shut up, sit down and not complain, all the while they deride our religious beliefs and call us names.
If gays are only 2% of our population, why are they over represented on TV, in movies, pushing to get homosexuality taught as normal in grade schools, forcing colleges to acknowledge them and even insisting on having their own homosexual “community” buildings on college campuses?
The whole “equal rights” meme is a ruse, designed to force acceptance, not try to acquire tolerance.
@retire05:
I don’t know the answer to that question. It’s kinda like libs are more of a minority than are conservatives but they make a hell of a lot more noise and get more attention. I think it’s because they are so miserable they want to make as many others miserable as they can. People that are happy and content don’t tend to stand on a podium and try to make others miserable to join them.
@Redteam:
Now you’re getting warm.
Homosexuals know they are not the norm. And even if they are comfortable in their own skin, when they constantly have other homosexuals tell them they are being persecuted, they become [in their minds] victims. Who has ever been happy being a victim? Victimhood, itself, brings unhappiness and discontent. But if they are victims, then as night follows day, there has to be a victimizer. So the “victimizer” becomes heterosexuals, Republicans, people of religious faith who subscribe to the teachings of the New Testament, anyone who doesn’t slap on them the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. How many times has our resident gay talked about “persecution?”
Harvey Milk was a very outspoken homosexual in California. He was murdered. Although Milk was shot not due to his homosexuality, he immediately became a martyr for the gay movement. Same with Matthew Shepherd. He wasn’t killed because he was gay (it was a drug deal gone bad and he was shot by someone he had previously had a relationship with) but again, Shepherd was turned into a gay martyr. Lawrence vs. Texas, the case that started the whole mess, was not, as it was represented in the press, a case of the police busting in on two unsuspecting gays just doing what they wanted in the privacy of their own home, but was actually a case of “swatting” caused by a disgruntled lover who called the police and reported a violent disturbance (“a black man going crazy with a gun”) at the Lawrence apartment. Had the owner of the apartment in Lawrence bothered to lock the door to his apartment, the police would not have be able to just walk in quietly, as they did.
The two men probably would never have been arrested but Lawrence got belligerent/aggressive with the police and they took him to jail.
When you dig deeply, searching for the truth in all these reports, you find they are not what they have been reported to be. But the press loves a victim, and being that most of the press has been liberal since the days of Walter Lippman and Walter Duranty, knowing that sensationalism sells papers, all these cases were blown way out of proportion.
To understand the “gay” movement, you have to go back 130 years to Germany. You have to understand it’s Marxist roots, and why it is so important to make the abnormal normal.
George You’ve got the evangelical purveyors of morality tag team to battle with. Just curious if you are enjoying the debate and what your goals are?
What do you think of 05’s “digging for the truth” in the Shepard case. You’d think in her search she’d at least learn how to SPELL the poor kid’s name.
@Richard Wheeler:
Perhaps, Mr. Big Mouth, you would like to point out where I have ever argued against same-sex marriage from an “evangelical” or religious point of view?
No digging required. The case was recently in the news due to the truth about Shephard case finally being reported on.
@retire0505 Are you too stupid or too stubborn to spell the young man’s name correctly.
@Richard Wheeler:
I had never heard of this case before reading this. I would guess had you asked me how he spelled his name, I’d say Shepherd is used more commonly than Shepard. In fact, I don’t recall ever having seen the name pronounced as Shepherd spelled as Shepard. Usually it’s always spelled Shepherd.
Reading the details of his murder sounds as if being gay was only used as a prosecution tool, not a reason for the crime. Seems as if the crime was committed to rob him, using his gayness was just a way to accomplish that. He was 21, is there a reason to refer to him as a ‘poor kid’?
@Richard Wheeler:
Strange statement. How did you come to use the term ‘evangelical’?
I’d say the correct term for this discussion would be either ‘conservative’ or ‘non-liberal’. Seems they fit the discussion much better.
@Richard Wheeler:
So asking you to back up your “evangelical” statement, you instead pick something mundane to obfuscate your own stupidity?
Matthew Shepard was neither poor, nor a “kid” as you originally called him. He was a drug using, drug selling adult who got killed by a previous lover over a drug deal, not because he was gay.
@Richard Wheeler:
How thick is this right wing bubble anyway? If you only read certain posts and comments from our favorite Right Wing news sources you might be led to believe that every young black or gay man who has ever been murdered in America had it coming. Someday perhaps a black Eagle Scout alter boy will be murdered on live national TV during the Super Bowl by the Grandmaster of the KKK and a week later Retire will tell you how the kid was a thug who really liked skittles and thus deserved to die. All it takes is one obscure nimrod to write a blog post to that effect and it will find a hungry and willing audience dying to believe every word and parrot it forever.
@Tom: Exactly. After “digging for the truth” she can’t even spell his name.” How stupid is that?
@Richard Wheeler:
“Matthew Shepard was neither poor, nor a “kid”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard
How does Wikipedia spell it, Richard?
Still waiting for you to point out where I have ever argued against same-sex marriage from an “evangelical” or religious point of view.
@Redteam: “Wake up the echos”—-Down 4 4th and 11 0n the 17 minute left Irish hit for 7 and dramatic rain soaked 17-14 win over Stanford–remain undefeated and in the hunt.
Celebration in Mississippi–2 great wins
@Richard Wheeler:
Ah, “facts”. How quaint of you to raise such an antiquated notion, Richard. To the dedicated hater, the objective world has a way of rearranging itself to suit the potential for maximum hatred.
@Tom:
Do I hate drug dealers? You betcha. They are the scum of the earth.
Bet you wear your “Free Mumia” t-shirt regularly.
@retire05: Why do you continue to try to educate these ignorant people. You would be much more effective banging your head against the wall. They have limited reasoning power and they have limited vision. They are only trolls who lost their bridges. Here is a recnt research paper that describes them well!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/and-climate-internet-trols-are-some-of-the-worst/
@Randy: @Randy: From the guy who assured us only one flag raising on Surabachi.
You wanna put in with a racist homophobe it speaks volumes about you Col.
@Randy:
“An internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response. ”
And then we get this from Richard+Wheeler:
I guess the first paragraph sums him up pretty accurately.
@Redteam: #265
This reminded me of how I remember the first American in space. A long time ago I read where someone said that NASA thinks there are sheep in space. Otherwise, why would they send a shepherd there? (Alan Shepherd)
@Redteam #256:
“But if there is nothing about it in the constitution, as there isn’t regarding who can marry who, then it is a state right and the Constitution’s duty is to insure that each state respects the laws of other states.”
That might sound right to you, but that isn’t how it really works. You are right that there is nothing about marriage in the constitution. And it is true that the general rule is that matters not specifically designated to “belong” to the Federal Government are left to the states.
You with me so far?
The problem that YOU run into is that you BELIEVE that this means that a state can do ANYTHING that it wants to do in the marriage arena, and that simply isn’t true.
States CANNOT do anything that they want to in the marriage arena.
States used to forbid interracial marriage. Some states got rid of the laws that forbade interracial marriage, but other states stubbornly held onto those laws. The Supreme Court reviewed challenges to the remaining laws, and decided to throw them out on the grounds that they violated the constitutionally guaranteed right of equal protection. That was the “Loving v. Virginia” case. That case proves that the Federal Government may intrude into the realm of “states rights” when a state passes a law that intrudes upon rights protected by the Constitution.
“Very few normal men wear assless chaps in parades.”
I suppose that it hasn’t occurred to you that VERY FEW GAY MEN WEAR ASSLESS CHAPS IN PARADES!
There are perhaps 6 million gays in the United States, of which half are male. The overwhelming majority of those three million gay males NEVER wear drag, NEVER wear assless chaps, NEVER perform sex acts in public, and NEVER have sex with children OR animals. The pervert who told you otherwise was lying.
@retire05 #257:
”
“I wonder, though, about your insistence that I am mentally ill.
Do you REALLY believe that?”
“Yes, I do.”
“There was no cure, no treatment created.”
So exactly how Christian is it of you to treat even one person who is afflicted with an incurable mental illness with “derision, insult, disgust and condemnation”?
“But you offer no apology for the many gays that treat anyone who holds religious beliefs about homosexuality with derision, insult, disgust and condemnation.”
I am no more in the business of apologizing for the actions of persons for whom I am not responsible than you are. And I don’t expect you to be responsible for the actions of all heterosexuals. Exactly what good would it do for you to offer an apology to a woman who had been raped by a man? You are shooting blanks there, Sweetheart.
@retire05 #257:
“No where in the U.S. Constitution is there any mention of marriage, or marital laws. Yet, you seem to find in the Constitution what is not there. Marriage laws are the purview of the state, granted to it by the Federal government under the 10th Amendment.”
I really wonder why you and Redteam keep putting up this false logic, when it has been disproved so many times:
“That isn’t how it works. You are right that there is nothing about marriage in the constitution. And it is true that the general rule is that matters not specifically designated to “belong” to the Federal Government are left to the states.
Are you with me so far?
The problem that YOU run into is that you BELIEVE that this means that a state can do ANYTHING that it wants to do in the marriage arena, and that simply isn’t true.
States CANNOT do anything that they want to in the marriage arena.
States used to forbid interracial marriage. Some states got rid of the laws that forbade interracial marriage, but other states stubbornly held onto those laws. The Supreme Court reviewed challenges to the remaining laws, and decided to throw them out on the grounds that they violated the constitutionally guaranteed right of equal protection.
That was the “Loving v. Virginia” case. That case proves that the Federal Government may intrude into the realm of “states rights” when a state passes a law that intrudes upon rights protected by the Constitution.”
Like many other Republicans, you believe that if you repeat a false statement often enough, it will magically come true. But it never does.
“If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” is not a good practice in the real world. People who keep doing the same thing expecting that the outcome will change are idiots.
@Tom: I’m quite sure you’re convinced Michael Brown was an angelic choir boy that was only visiting that convenience store where the merchandise accidentally fell into his pocket. After all, other than a video or two and past incidences, there is no evidence that he wasn’t a really nice young man. He never intended to harm that policeman, right?
Tell us who this is and where he lives. I don’t think I’ve heard of him.
@Richard+Wheeler:
Picked both of those on ESPSN’s College Pickem. So far today have only missed the Oklahoma game. Got all others correct.
@Richard Wheeler: #269
If stupidity is based on how many words a person misspells, I would be rated as one of the stupidest people EVER born. I was lousy at all subjects, ESPECIALLY English. I have heard of many teachers who helped turn a student around, but none of them worked at my schools. I never knew what an adjective, adverb, pronoun, etc., was until I bought Mad Libs, and HAD to learn them.
There is an organization called Trucker Buddy that matches drivers up with grade school classes. They right back and forth, and it helps the kids learn about America, and they are writing to an ACTUAL person.
I usually emailed my letters, and didn’t have a spell checker program at that time. A later computer had one, and I was surprised how many smaller words I was misspelling. After one of the downloads, I would sometimes get a window telling me of a grammatical error. One such error said, “You don’t normally start a sentence with the word, “And”. I didn’t care, and wanted a long pause between sentences, so I did it anyway.
When I got the next batch of letters from the 5th graders, one of them started with, “You don’t normally start a sentence with the word, ‘And’”. The EXACT words my computer gave me. 5th graders were being taught things I don’t remember is I was taught.
One thing I learned a long time ago, is that a lot of people who haven’t brought themselves up to other people’s level, will try to bring others down to theirs. I used to be that way, until I figured out that it just made people not want anything to do with me. I now accept people the way they are, faults and all. If they misspell some words, don’t know stuff that I do, get excited about stuff that I don’t, don’t get excited about stuff that I do, I try to adjust to them, so we can get along. If we all accepted people the way they are, there would be a lot less arguing, an I personally would like to see a lot less arguing around the world.
@Tom:
You all up to date on ‘dedicated haters’ are you? Hang out with a bunch of them do you? Some of the crowd also gay, or just haters?
@George+Wells: #278
It would surprise us all to find out how many gays we are around all of the time and don’t know it. They are NORMAL people who just prefer same sex partners.
@retire05 #259:
“they …call us names.”
What? Did those people who straights call “Queer, Fag, Faggot, Fudge-packer, Sissy, Pansy, Poof, Bent, Butt pirate, Cock jockey, cock sucker, Fairy, Fruitcake, Knob jockey, Mary, Nancy, Queen, Princess, Drama Queen, Rear Admiral, Rectal Pioneer, Sausage jockey and Turd burglar”, did they call YOU something that hurt YOUR widdle feelings?
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
@George+Wells:
How hypocritical of someone who daily violates Christ’s rules to try to use my Christianity as an ax on my neck.
But then, that just reaffirms your liberalism.
And are you admitting you are mentally ill?
@Redteam: You are full of shit RT LOL When asked by me you plcked A&M Bama and LSU 0-3.
@Smorgasbord: Once again I commend you for being on the right side of the gay rights issue. It takes a strong compassionate person. Seems 05 would consider you mentally ill.
@George+Wells:
Why should I care what a “Queer, Fag, Faggot, Fudge-packer, Sissy, Pansy, Poof, Bent, Butt pirate, Cock jockey, cock sucker, Fairy, Fruitcake, Knob jockey, Mary, Nancy, Queen, Princess, Drama Queen, Rear Admiral, Rectal Pioneer, Sausage jockey and Turd burglar” (your words, not mine. hell, I never heard of most of them before) thinks of me. I’m not that insecure.
@Richard Wheeler #262:
“George You’ve got the evangelical purveyors of morality tag team to battle with. Just curious if you are enjoying the debate and what your goals are?
What do you think of 05’s “digging for the truth” in the Shepard case.”
Hi Richard,
Yes, the tag team of misinformation and illogic is awake. I enjoy fussing with them. It makes me very glad to be happily married to someone who so stubbornly clings to ignorance. I don’t expect either of them to accept one iota of the truth that I have been writing, but I write it all the same in case someone less mentally constipated than they are happens to read what they write and wonder what the alternative perspective might be.
Regarding the Shepard case, I never put much faith in the politically scrambled detritus that the news media puts out, and I certainly don’t buy what lawyers say in court cases on behalf of their clients. What I AM confident of is the fact that the Republican Party has for very many years blocked all efforts to have law enforcement agencies or other arms of the government collect data on hate crimes against gays and on gay teen suicides. They are very afraid of the results that would be obtained, and appreciate that in the absence of such thorough data collection, only the occasional case will rise to the attention of an already thinly stretched news media. Any particular case? I can’t say for sure what the facts really are, and I doubt that any depth of inquiry would reveal the whole truth. But I wasn’t born yesterday, and I know beyond a doubt that gay people are often murdered simply because they are gay.
@Richard+Wheeler:
what is that? Is it anywhere near Mount Suribachi? I only ask because you are hounding Retire about correct spelling then you go and blow that word. There may have been only one flag raising on Surabachi, but there were two on Mount Suribachi. My philosophy, on line, about spelling is, if it’s good enough that the average person knows what I’m attempting to spell, it’s good enough. Sometimes computers and phones have a mind of their own about how words are spelled and make corrections for you when you’re not expecting it, and sometimes they’re wrong. Nobody is required to spell correctly or do math correctly in schools anymore, the new liberal philosophy is if it’s close,and we can spend more of the public’s money on it, it’s good enough.
@Richard+Wheeler:
So you think that anyone who doesn’t support sodomy cannot be compassionate? Kind of a stretch there trying to equate one with the other, isn’t it, Rich?
@George+Wells:
You don’t write truth, George, you spew propaganda.
@George+Wells:
Has it occurred to you that no straight men wear assless chaps in parades? So if you see someone in assless chaps, you know their sexual proclivities.
@George+Wells:
Proof?
@Smorgasbord #285:
“It would surprise us all to find out how many gays we are around all of the time and don’t know it. They are NORMAL people who just prefer same sex partners.”
Absolutely right.
The characterization of all gay people as men who wear ass-less chaps in parades is the epitome of disingenuity.
Thanks.
@Richard+Wheeler:
Can’t you read? Here’s what I said:
I was clearly only referring to my picks on ESPSN’s College Pickem. If the LSU-Auburn scores holds, which it will, I will be wrong on that one also. So will miss 2 out of the 10. Well, let me qualify that, the California-Washington game hasn’t started yet, but I got it right, i’m relatively sure.
@retire05 #287:
“And are you admitting you are mentally ill?”
No.
But YOU said that I am, and YOU admitted to me, in #257:
“No, I also do not treat other homosexuals with the derision, insult, disgust and condemnation that I treat you to.”
You are guilty of persecuting a person who you believe to be mentally ill. That isn’t Christian.
@George+Wells:
The desire for sex with someone of the same gender is NOT biologically normal, no matter how many times you say it.
@George+Wells:
You love that word persecuting, don’t you? And what do you know about being a Christian except for not being one?