2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread-Part 10.

[anitram]

I'm embarrassed for all of us to have had to read purpleoscar's bigoted rantings here.

 

[Lila64]

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

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

 

[namkcuR]

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.

 

[Lila64]

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[JOFO]

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.

 

[purpleoscar]

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!

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

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.

 

[purpleoscar]

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.

 

[diamond]

On another note Rush has brought up Obama'ss fake birth certificate story, that I posted a while back.

Apparently Rush is behind the <>cruve.

<>

 

[Utoo]

On another note Rush has brought up Obama'ss fake birth certificate story, that I posted a while back.

Apparently Rush is behind the <>cruve.

<>

We've known that Rush is behind the curve for a long time. The fact that it's behind your curve is perhaps even worse.

 

[JOFO]

On another note Rush has brought up Obama'ss fake birth certificate story, that I posted a while back.

Apparently Rush is behind the <>cruve.

<>

Either post something newsworthy or don't post.
It was concluded it's not fake ages ago.
Stop stirring the pot.

 

[toscano]

We've known that Rush is behind the curve for a long time. The fact that it's behind your curve is perhaps even worse.

I can just hear Rush's broadcast next week: "You guys ought to be aware Obama rhymes with Osama....."

Really, is there ANYONE who doesn't think Rush is just a self-serving racist douchebag ?

 

[diamond]

in his IM chat w me today, no he didn't seem that way.


word.

<>

 

[Irvine511]

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!

it is.

you've been enlightened.

what kind of idiot would think that a single person who wants to have sex with underage prostitutes in Thailand speaks for millions of people?

you realize this is like thinking that Adolf Hitler speaks for all Germans.

 

[anitram]

Rush Limbaugh is a hateful person and a sorry excuse for a human being. Thankfully he seems to believe in God and I hope for his sake that one does exist so that Rush's judgment day may go a little differently than he presently thinks.

 

[Diemen]

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!

The problem is you're taking the actions of an extreme minority in a group and ascribing it to the majority. It's a false equivocation to declare that homosexuality has no morality because of the actions of a minority, and you should know that. If you honestly believe that most homosexuals condone this kind of behavior, then the only conclusion I can come to is that you're a woefully misinformed bigot. I suggest you tread extremely carefully on this topic (or drop it altogether).

 

[purpleoscar]

The problem is you're taking the actions of an extreme minority in a group and ascribing it to the majority. It's a false equivocation to declare that homosexuality has no morality because of the actions of a minority, and you should know that. If you honestly believe that most homosexuals condone this kind of behavior, then the only conclusion I can come to is that you're a woefully misinformed bigot. I suggest you tread extremely carefully on this topic (or drop it altogether).

I agree it's a difficult topic but I've moved it so the people who want to avoid it can. The baldwin article I posted looked at intergenerational relationships as not a minority opinion of homosexuals and that it's a part of the culture. If that's a misconception I'm okay with people posting evidence otherwise. If I'm "ignorant" or "bigoted" remember that I'm allowing a full discussion with other points of view. It's hard to talk about a topic that is heated. That's why I was hoping to find some discussion with other points of view without all the F words and "who the hell are you" comments. I'll certainly drop it if the discussion can't be civil.

Thanks Diemen for your even handed approach as administrator.

http://www.u2interference.com/forum...osition-8-on-same-sex-marriage-189980-28.html

 

[U2isthebest]

I have to post this. This is so amazingly brilliant and hilarious. They all slipped back into those characters perfectly. Who knew that Andy Griffith is an Obama supporter?

Ron Howard's Call To Action from Ron Howard and Henry Winkler

 

[Irvine511]

I agree it's a difficult topic but I've moved it so the people who want to avoid it can. The baldwin article I posted looked at intergenerational relationships as not a minority opinion of homosexuals and that it's a part of the culture. If that's a misconception I'm okay with people posting evidence otherwise. If I'm "ignorant" or "bigoted" remember that I'm allowing a full discussion with other points of view. It's hard to talk about a topic that is heated. That's why I was hoping to find some discussion with other points of view without all the F words and "who the hell are you" comments. I'll certainly drop it if the discussion can't be civil.

Thanks Diemen for your even handed approach as administrator.

http://www.u2interference.com/forum...osition-8-on-same-sex-marriage-189980-28.html

yes. let's have a civil discussion on whether or not jews drink the blood of muslim children.

 

[Diemen]

I agree it's a difficult topic but I've moved it so the people who want to avoid it can. The baldwin article I posted looked at intergenerational relationships as not a minority opinion of homosexuals and that it's a part of the culture. If that's a misconception I'm okay with people posting evidence otherwise. If I'm "ignorant" or "bigoted" remember that I'm allowing a full discussion with other points of view. It's hard to talk about a topic that is heated. That's why I was hoping to find some discussion with other points of view without all the F words and "who the hell are you" comments. I'll certainly drop it if the discussion can't be civil.

When you are essentially accusing members of our own forum of being sympathetic to child molestors, then I don't think it should come as a surprise that people take offense to that, and frankly that kind of accusation doesn't even deserve discussion. Rational discussion rarely persuades bigotted opinions.

Continued pursuit of this line of discussion will not be tolerated.

 

[purpleoscar]

When you are essentially accusing members of our own forum of being sympathetic to child molestors, then I don't think it should come as a surprise that people take offense to that, and frankly that kind of accusation doesn't even deserve discussion. Rational discussion rarely persuades bigotted opinions.

Continued pursuit of this line of discussion will not be tolerated.

Alright topic dropped.

 

[martha]

When you are essentially accusing members of our own forum of being sympathetic to child molestors, then I don't think it should come as a surprise that people take offense to that, and frankly that kind of accusation doesn't even deserve discussion. Rational discussion rarely persuades bigotted opinions.

Continued pursuit of this line of discussion will not be tolerated.

Thank you.

 

[anitram]

The latest California Prop 8 poll is looking good. Keep it up guys!

 

[Irvine511]

The latest California Prop 8 poll is looking good. Keep it up guys!

some interesting theories.

the Morman Church has apparently bankrolled a huge amount of the "Yes on 8" advertising and organization. some are speculating that this is a way of proving their legitimacy (the church itself, not individual Mormons) as "real" Christians to the larger white protestant evangelicals.

why, you might ask?

2012!!!

 

[diamond]

SHOCK: MCCAIN VOLUNTEER ATTACKED AND MUTILATED IN PITTSBURGH

is this true?

it's on Drudge right now.

<>

 

[U2isthebest]

some interesting theories.

the Morman Church has apparently bankrolled a huge amount of the "Yes on 8" advertising and organization. some are speculating that this is a way of proving their legitimacy (the church itself, not individual Mormons) as "real" Christians to the larger white protestant evangelicals.

why, you might ask?

2012!!!

My big boy might go for it again?!

 

[anitram]

What, the Mormons finally decided to stop hating on blacks so they need a new scapegoat?

 

[Irvine511]

What, the Mormons finally decided to stop hating on blacks so they need a new scapegoat?

to be fair, we should probably say "The Mormon Church."

but it seems like they want to prove their status as True Christians the old fashion way -- through discrimination!