2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread-Part 10. - Page 47 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-23-2008, 10:44 AM   #921
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
If the gay community can't distance itself from these practices of recruitment then they have no real moral background. This "get them while their young" is disgusting. If it's a hate crime to beat up gay people it should be a hate crime to solicit sex from minors. What happened to the idea of consenting adults?
Then I'm guessing you have no moral background, since you aren't doing anything to stop "straight" pedophillia.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I'm glad both democrats and republicans want to continue to support the original definition of marriage, because I believe that marriage between a man and a woman is a biological institution that existed before religion. For people to psychologically function properly they should at least go through puberty up to age 18 before they can sleep with older people.
So you are a neo-con? A true conservative would want the government to step away from this... Shame on you.

And what does that last line have to do with marriage? Man, you are the king of convoluted thought.

You honestly discust me... Looks like I may have to use my ignore option for the first time ever...
__________________

BVS is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 10:45 AM   #922
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I don't believe in gay marriage anymore, and gay adoption. I used to believe in conservative arguments in favor of it. For the homosexual related stores that specialize in trying to help people avoid getting caught having under age rough trade in other countries plus advertising material that prefers under age sex and also gay people actually trying to change the terminology of pedophillia to something okay and asserting in studies that it's not even psychologically damaging disturbs me enormously. I actually had trouble sleeping.

No advertising in any store should legally have material like this. This stuff should be banned to smithereens!!

If the gay community can't distance itself from these practices of recruitment then they have no real moral background. This "get them while their young" is disgusting. If it's a hate crime to beat up gay people it should be a hate crime to solicit sex from minors. What happened to the idea of consenting adults?


what the FUCK are you talking about?

FUCK you. you don't know what you're talking about. if you are taking a fringe-of-the-fringe group like NAMBLA and thinking that it represents even a fraction-of-a-fraction of the gay community, then you might as well condemn all white people for being KKK members.

no one would get away with writing this SHIT about any other group on the planet.

are there people out there who support the GLOBAL sex trade that involves the enslavement of young BOYS and GIRLS? absolutely. it's sick, wrong, and illegal. but to think that this is somehow representative of anything other than illegal activity shows the depths of your prejudice, the fact that you'd willingly the absolute worst about a group you obviously know NOTHING about.

you are aware that most sexual predators are HETEROSEXUAL men? that most children who are raped are LITTLE GIRLS? that it most often happens at the hands of a MALE family member?

i'm going to cut you a break and chalk this all up to the fact that you're ignorant, and uninformed.

but i swear to god, if i see stuff like this again, i'm actually going to go nuclear. i can think of NOTHING more offensive than associating me with child rapists and the outright LIES and GARBAGE that assumes that sex with minors is anything other than an illegal activity in the gay community.

who the FUCK do you think magazines like "Barely Legal" are meant for?
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 10:52 AM   #923
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:32 AM
BVS is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 11:00 AM   #924
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 07:32 AM
What the?

And why is it in this thread too?
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 11:12 AM   #925
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
what the FUCK are you talking about?

FUCK you. you don't know what you're talking about. if you are taking a fringe-of-the-fringe group like NAMBLA and thinking that it represents even a fraction-of-a-fraction of the gay community, then you might as well condemn all white people for being KKK members.

no one would get away with writing this SHIT about any other group on the planet.

are there people out there who support the GLOBAL sex trade that involves the enslavement of young BOYS and GIRLS? absolutely. it's sick, wrong, and illegal. but to think that this is somehow representative of anything other than illegal activity shows the depths of your prejudice, the fact that you'd willingly the absolute worst about a group you obviously know NOTHING about.

you are aware that most sexual predators are HETEROSEXUAL men? that most children who are raped are LITTLE GIRLS? that it most often happens at the hands of a MALE family member?

i'm going to cut you a break and chalk this all up to the fact that you're ignorant, and uninformed.

but i swear to god, if i see stuff like this again, i'm actually going to go nuclear. i can think of NOTHING more offensive than associating me with child rapists and the outright LIES and GARBAGE that assumes that sex with minors is anything other than an illegal activity in the gay community.

who the FUCK do you think magazines like "Barely Legal" are meant for?
Hey tough guy. The article mentions that homosexuals are a small percentage of the population but seek under age encounters at a higher rate. I'm not saying you are doing this behaviour I'm saying that psychologists trying to defend this behaviour and the gay person on the second article I posted trying to find ways to catagorize under age sex in certain situations as not being pedophillia is a problem.

Shouldn't this get people angry? Isn't it a double standard? Why are gays cut this kind of slack? That second article I posted is from a homosexual. This is his point of view. It's infuriating!
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 11:15 AM   #926
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
he needs a power nap.

heres a better vid:

ĎI Just Gave John McCain My Purple Heartí by Byron York on National Review Online

This soldier makes a good point.
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 11:20 AM   #927
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post

This soldier makes a good point.
Here I thought the war in Iraq was essentially won...
BVS is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 11:22 AM   #928
Blue Crack Supplier
 
kellyahern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8 years and I still can't think of anything witty to put here
Posts: 34,698
Local Time: 07:32 AM
McCain takes 'Joe the Plumber' bus tour - Decision '08 - MSNBC.com

A "Joe the Plumber" bus tour? Seriously?
kellyahern is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 11:23 AM   #929
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Well at least if John clogs the toilet Joe the plumber will be there

They should buy Joe the plumber some Armani suits
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 11:25 AM   #930
Blue Crack Supplier
 
kellyahern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8 years and I still can't think of anything witty to put here
Posts: 34,698
Local Time: 07:32 AM
^ Not sure how much help that will be . . . Joe isn't licensed, remember?
kellyahern is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 11:25 AM   #931
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 07:32 AM
I'm embarrassed for all of us to have had to read purpleoscar's bigoted rantings here.
anitram is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 11:37 AM   #932
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Lila64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ‚ô•Set List Lane‚ô•
Posts: 52,894
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I'm embarrassed for all of us to have had to read purpleoscar's bigoted rantings here.

I basically avoid them. Really.

Irvine -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



On a lighter note...

Larry David: Waiting for Nov. 4th

I'm with Larry on this one

Quote:
Waiting for Nov. 4th


I can't take much more of this. Two weeks to go, and I'm at the end of my rope. I can't work. I can eat, but mostly standing up. I'm anxious all the time and taking it out on my ex-wife, which, ironically, I'm finding enjoyable. This is like waiting for the results of a biopsy. Actually, it's worse. Biopsies only take a few days, maybe a week at the most, and if the biopsy comes back positive, there's still a potential cure. With this, there's no cure. The result is final. Like death.

Five times a day I'll still say to someone, "I don't know what I'm going to do if McCain wins." Of course, the reality is I'm probably not going to do anything. What can I do? I'm not going to kill myself. If I didn't kill myself when I became impotent for two months in 1979, I'm certainly not going to do it if McCain and Palin are elected, even if it's by nefarious means. If Obama loses, it would be easier to live with it if it's due to racism rather than if it's stolen. If it's racism, I can say, "Okay, we lost, but at least it's a democracy. Sure, it's a democracy inhabited by a majority of disgusting, reprehensible turds, but at least it's a democracy." If he loses because it's stolen, that will be much worse. Call me crazy, but I'd rather live in a democratic racist country than a non-democratic non-racist one. (It's not exactly a Hobson's choice, but it's close, and I think Hobson would compliment me on how close I've actually come to giving him no choice. He'd love that!)

The one concession I've made to maintain some form of sanity is that I've taken to censoring my news, just like the old Soviet Union. The citizenry (me) only gets to read and listen to what I deem appropriate for its health and well-being. Sure, there are times when the system breaks down. Michele Bachmann got through my radar this week, right before bedtime. That's not supposed to happen. That was a lapse in security, and I've had to make some adjustments. The debates were particularly challenging for me to monitor. First I tried running in and out of the room so I would only hear my guy. This worked until I knocked over a tray of hors d'oeuvres. "Sit down or get out!" my host demanded. "Okay," I said, and took a seat, but I was more fidgety than a ten-year-old at temple. I just couldn't watch without saying anything, and my running commentary, which mostly consisted of "Shut up, you prick!" or "You're a fucking liar!!!" or "Go to hell, you cocksucker!" was way too distracting for the attendees, and finally I was asked to leave.

Assuming November 4th ever comes, my big decision won't be where I'll be watching the returns, but if I'll be watching. I believe I have big jinx potential and may have actually cost the Dems the last two elections. I know I've jinxed sporting events. When my teams are losing and I want them to make a comeback, all I have to do is leave the room. Works every time. So if I do watch, I'll do it alone. I can't subject other people to me in my current condition. I just don't like what I've turned into -- and frankly I wasn't that crazy about me even before the turn. This election is having the same effect on me as marijuana. All of my worst qualities have been exacerbated. I'm paranoid, obsessive, nervous, and totally mental. It's one long, intense, bad trip. I need to come down. Soon.
Lila64 is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 11:40 AM   #933
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Hey tough guy. The article mentions that homosexuals are a small percentage of the population but seek under age encounters at a higher rate. I'm not saying you are doing this behaviour I'm saying that psychologists trying to defend this behaviour and the gay person on the second article I posted trying to find ways to catagorize under age sex in certain situations as not being pedophillia is a problem.

Shouldn't this get people angry? Isn't it a double standard? Why are gays cut this kind of slack? That second article I posted is from a homosexual. This is his point of view. It's infuriating!

Once again your sources suck. Steve Baldwin(not Stephen) the author of your first article is an evangelical ultra right hack, his standings do not coincide with the concensus of sociology in fact he's quite laughed upon, the only ones that except his findings are the Michael Reagan's and the Dr Laura's of the world, I'm sure the Taliban would have loved him too. Your other article is almost 10 years old and was the same exact hack "science" as this one that's why it was rejected.

You have shown your true colors today. I had my suspicions and they were confirmed today.
BVS is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 11:49 AM   #934
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,727
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Hey tough guy. The article mentions that homosexuals are a small percentage of the population but seek under age encounters at a higher rate. I'm not saying you are doing this behaviour I'm saying that psychologists trying to defend this behaviour and the gay person on the second article I posted trying to find ways to catagorize under age sex in certain situations as not being pedophillia is a problem.

Shouldn't this get people angry? Isn't it a double standard? Why are gays cut this kind of slack? That second article I posted is from a homosexual. This is his point of view. It's infuriating!
But you keep generalizing 'gays'. There is no 'gay community', not anymore than there is a 'straight community'. It's a condescending term that reduces homosexuality to a clique rather than a sexual orientation. When you say 'gay community', you make homosexual people out to be part of a clique, who all share the same traits and characteristics. Each gay person is as unique to the next gay person as each straight person is unique to the next straight person. You can't generalize them based on sexual orientation that way. But every point you're trying to make falls apart if you don't generalize them. In other words, you have to engage in willfull ignorance in order to believe what you're saying.

But the bigger point is this: what you're saying has fuck-all to do with gay marriage. Your arguments are not against gay marriage, but against homosexualality altogether. You are equating pedophile with homosexual, and it is 1000% incorrect. It's like saying 1=2. You pull out one or two examples of gay people doing bad things, and then make grand and absurd assumptions, generalizations, and conclusions based on that. If someone said to you,

"many straight men have raped women, therefore straights shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt. If the straight community can't distance itself from this practice then they have no moral background. Shouldn't this get people angry? Why are straights cut this kind of slack?"

You would think, "that's absurd, just because some straight men have raped women doesn't mean all of them will."

What you are saying is no different. The only difference is that you have a prejudice, whether it is conscious or unconcious.

Finally, I think at the very least you need to get a grasp of how offensive what you're saying is to gay people. I do not know if you are aware or not, but Irvine and melon, and maybe a few others(I don't know any others off the top of my head) are gay. When you publically post stuff like this in a forum that they frequent, you are basically saying to their face, "your kind likes pedophilia. your kind disturbs me. your kind shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt because your kind loves to sexually abuse children." Surely you can understand why a gay person would be infuriated/offended/emotional after having you or anyone else say that to them. There are others on this site who oppose gay marriage and there are others on this site who may have some prejudice against gay people, but in my experience, they at least try to be respectful about it...they don't always succeed, but they at least try. You aren't even trying. You're being ignorant and offensive as far as this topic is concerned and willfully getting upset with people who tell you that your premise is flawed, absurd, and incorrect.

Believe what you want, but at least try to find ways to express it that aren't so incredibly offensive to gay people. Because what you're doing right is no different than saying 'black people are all criminals, so they shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt'. That would be a clearly prejudiced statement, right? But change a few words and it would say exactly what you're saying. Think about it.
namkcuR is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 11:52 AM   #935
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Lila64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ‚ô•Set List Lane‚ô•
Posts: 52,894
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Lila64 is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 12:01 PM   #936
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Hey tough guy. The article mentions that homosexuals are a small percentage of the population but seek under age encounters at a higher rate. I'm not saying you are doing this behaviour I'm saying that psychologists trying to defend this behaviour and the gay person on the second article I posted trying to find ways to catagorize under age sex in certain situations as not being pedophillia is a problem.

Shouldn't this get people angry? Isn't it a double standard? Why are gays cut this kind of slack? That second article I posted is from a homosexual. This is his point of view. It's infuriating!


and you FUCKING kidding me?

you're taking a single article and blowing it up into some sort of gospel? you're taking a single person and pretending he speaks for everyone? not even just a majority? or even a minority? or even a minority-within-a-minority?

why don't you do some actual research on the subject. if you'd like, i can find single members of any community who have inflammatory views, and yet no one seems to think that they represent anyone other than themselves. in fact, the only people who take these people seriously are those who are looking for some sort of confirmation of their deep, hateful prejudice.

seek underage encounters at a higher rate? WTF does this even mean? do you have any context for this, let alone factual information, that would give any credence at all to such an assertion? the fact is that most victims of sexual abuse as children are GIRLS, not boys. and those having sex with actual children are PEDOPHILES. those seeking sexual encounters with teenagers are PEDERASTS, and guess what hot shot, Britney Spears has built her entire career on the fantasies of HETEROSEXUAL men wanting to have sex with her. remember the countdown to when the Olsen twins would have their 18th birthday? lusting after teenagers is hardly new, teenagers as young as 13 were often married off to much older men as recently as the 1960s. it's something that men, whether hetero or homo, might be guilty of (and some women as well), but to say that this is some reason why gays shouldn't get married or adopt couldn't be a bigger example of blaming a minority for a problem that they have nothing to do with. if you're so big on protecting children, hot shot, then you'd better hope that all children are raised by LESBIAN couples so they're kept away from straight men who are the #1 perpetrators of sexual abuse on children.

what slack are gays cut? do you know ANY gay people? do you think you're somehow enlightened because you're pretty sure that, despite the fact that i'm gay, chances are i'm not going on sex tours in Thailand?

FUCK you.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 12:05 PM   #937
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 11:32 AM
This thread, like the campaign itself, has spiraled out of control into a bewildering clusterfuck of racism, bigotry, lies, and hate.

It was inevitable I guess.


Please let the madness stop.
JOFO is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 12:06 PM   #938
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by namkcuR View Post
But you keep generalizing 'gays'. There is no 'gay community', not anymore than there is a 'straight community'. It's a condescending term that reduces homosexuality to a clique rather than a sexual orientation. When you say 'gay community', you make homosexual people out to be part of a clique, who all share the same traits and characteristics. Each gay person is as unique to the next gay person as each straight person is unique to the next straight person. You can't generalize them based on sexual orientation that way. But every point you're trying to make falls apart if you don't generalize them. In other words, you have to engage in willfull ignorance in order to believe what you're saying.

But the bigger point is this: what you're saying has fuck-all to do with gay marriage. Your arguments are not against gay marriage, but against homosexualality altogether. You are equating pedophile with homosexual, and it is 1000% incorrect. It's like saying 1=2. You pull out one or two examples of gay people doing bad things, and then make grand and absurd assumptions, generalizations, and conclusions based on that. If someone said to you,

"many straight men have raped women, therefore straights shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt. If the straight community can't distance itself from this practice then they have no moral background. Shouldn't this get people angry? Why are straights cut this kind of slack?"

You would think, "that's absurd, just because some straight men have raped women doesn't mean all of them will."

What you are saying is no different. The only difference is that you have a prejudice, whether it is conscious or unconcious.

Finally, I think at the very least you need to get a grasp of how offensive what you're saying is to gay people. I do not know if you are aware or not, but Irvine and melon, and maybe a few others(I don't know any others off the top of my head) are gay. When you publically post stuff like this in a forum that they frequent, you are basically saying to their face, "your kind likes pedophilia. your kind disturbs me. your kind shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt because your kind loves to sexually abuse children." Surely you can understand why a gay person would be infuriated/offended/emotional after having you or anyone else say that to them. There are others on this site who oppose gay marriage and there are others on this site who may have some prejudice against gay people, but in my experience, they at least try to be respectful about it...they don't always succeed, but they at least try. You aren't even trying. You're being ignorant and offensive as far as this topic is concerned and willfully getting upset with people who tell you that your premise is flawed, absurd, and incorrect.

Believe what you want, but at least try to find ways to express it that aren't so incredibly offensive to gay people. Because what you're doing right is no different than saying 'black people are all criminals, so they shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt'. That would be a clearly prejudiced statement, right? But change a few words and it would say exactly what you're saying. Think about it.
Well actually I wouldn't mind their opinions. In fact their opinions would be the most I would want to hear. Straight politically correct people will just avoid the conversation. I'll move those articles to the gay marriage debate forum. If they want to explain to me how these articles are "bigoted" and "ignorant" I'm not afraid in hearing their point of view. If you haven't guessed by now I'm not afraid of contentious issues. I was pro gay marriage and adoption but my view has been shattered by gay people defending the dissemination of information related to which countries are best for under age sex. If this is a minority opinion amongst some gays and there are gays that disagree with their opinion I don't mind hearing it. Enlighten me please!
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 12:14 PM   #939
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Well actually I wouldn't mind their opinions. In fact their opinions would be the most I would want to hear. Straight politically correct people will just avoid the conversation
It has nothing to do with "political correctness". And do you really have to move that to the gay marriage thread? When the majority (or even any small minority) of gay people want to marry and be involved with underage people (which will be NEVER) then you can do that.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 12:20 PM   #940
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
It has nothing to do with "political correctness". And do you really have to move that to the gay marriage thread? When the majority (or even any small minority) of gay people want to marry and be involved with underage people (which will be NEVER) then you can do that.
Well I'm getting responses from people that they want the thread to be exclusively regarding the campaign. So fair play.
__________________

purpleoscar is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×