Remember this NY school.....

Remember over the summer when the New York Public School system made national headlines with the announcement of the creation of an exclusively gay/lesbian/bisexual/crossdressing/transgender/whatever ... taxpayer funded public school?

They spent millions in renovations(while laying off city workers and closing firehouses) for this school of slightly over 100 students whom they told the public had been made fun of in other schools.

Well we are only 2 months into the school year and there have been several incidents in the papers involving these "students". The previous incidents involved these "students" fighting with people walking by the school and they claimed the passerby's were gay bashing them. Another recent incident happened when a guy with an expensive late model car caught a couple of them trying to steal his rear view mirror while the car was parked (some are worth bucks). He confronted them and they screamed "homophobe". Yeah right.

Well check out this article of the latest antics of the students at P.S. Deviant:

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/10232.htm

These deviant criminals are allowed and even encouraged to cross dress to school.

The NY Daily News even did a sick propaganda fluff piece a while back on this school's desire to field sports teams. The article discussed one of those arrested. "Kimberly" Howard (The deviant formerly known as Gerald). The article disgustingly compared gay athletes to Jackie Robinson breaking into baseball.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/121378p-109180c.html

You would think there would be some public outrage here in NY for this illegal use of taxpayer funds for this sick leftist social experiment.

Is there any hope for this sick society we are allowing to emerge?

So much for Transgender Armed Robbery 101? We'll have to see what's next in the sick saga of P.S. Deviant. I figured the board would be interested in this story. That's all they are talking about here on local radio. It would be hillarious if the taxpayers weren't paying for this school.

I just love when people classify Massachusetts as a gay liberal state, when New York is WAY more fucked up then we are.

Just for the sake of argument, I suppose the actions of a few students at that high school means they'll all bad, right?

:rolleyes:

Well.... considering the school only has 107 students. Five were arrested yesterday. Then the couple of other incidents .... Yeah, something is wrong.

The public was told these would be students who were abused and bullied by kids in other schools. That's how our sick politicians portrayed the expense to the taxpayers.

Yeah, NY is totally fucked up. Getting more so everyday. This city has very little future. The politicians are running it into the ground. This mayor we have is an absolute idiot when it comes to public office. He knows how to run a business but knows nothing about public administration.

It is people like you that make homosexuals feel that they need a school like that one. Just leave them alone.. you don't know what it is like to be them. You don't know what they've gone through their entire lives because of their looks, acts and sexuality. Just worry about yourself.

No I don't know. I couldn't care less what they go through. That's their problem. It's also their business and they should keep it to themselves. Not walk around wearing it on their sleeves.

I have a huge problem with my tax money paying to fund, protect or further their lifestyle. The school is an illegal use of taxpayer funding and is wrong. They have absolutely no right to have the taxpayers fund a special school for them. Do fat kids get their own school now? Do whites and blacks get their own schools now? How about special Muslim schools on the taxpayer dime? What about separating the left handed and right handed kids to separate special schools while we are at it. All at the expense of the taxpayer. Where does it end?

With private funding they can create any type of school they want.

I see you are from Texas. You obviously are not a steer so I guess ........ Forget it.

Wow! You sure did gave it to that newbie with both barrels didn't you. I don't think he even knew you're the biggest homophobe on XOC, but I think he knows this now.

I can see a comment like that addressed to me, but come on now Madman, not a newbie. Are you in one of your "Moods" today?

A newbie? He's not a newbie. He has 89 maybe 90 posts by the time this gets posted. Anyone who thinks tax dollars should go to support this crap deserves to get blasted.

This school won't last long. I believe there is a federal suit out there somewhere. Didn't the Supreme Court rule segregation unconstitutional? There is your legal precedent.

Give me a break with your made up lefty words like "homophobe". Not agreeing with them or disapproval of them has nothing to do with fearing them. You pro- people need to come up with a new word.

I disapprove of my neighbor's dog shitting on my curb, but I do not fear him.

You didnt read the articles in those links did you? But I will say this. bad kids are bad kids whether they are gay or not.

I don't know ccspelman from a hole in the wall, but he never said anything about being for tax dollars supporting this school. And yes he is a newbie compared to us, nowhere close to our 1000 plus posts.

As for the word "Homophobe", if you had attended college, maybe you would have learned that this is not "Leftest" rhetoric, it's a real term that describes you perfectly. Face it, we're talking basic Psychology 101 here, you have a deep seeded hatered for homosexuals for some reason or another, and this is why you remain so fixated on the subject. No one here on XOC rasises the issue of homosexuality more than you.

homophobia

n : prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality

OH Shit! Here we go... Gays are the only ones who get picked on in school? Get real! Normal kids get picked on everyday. Too fat, too short, not pretty enough, I could go on, but you get the point.

I don't see how these types of schools will help these kids prepare for the future? If these kids were left alone to figure out, how best to deal with certain situations, would it not make them stronger adults? Won't these special groups expect preferential treatment for the rest of their lives?

Not everywhere in this country, will people be as accomodating as NYC public schools.

Hopefully, this ineffable waste of taxpayers dollars will end.

Geez.... We've covered all this material before.

I did go to college for a while. It was CUNY. It wasn't some prissy liberal Boston college. Actually I really don't remember too many complaints about colleges being extremely liberal and marxist then. Yeah there were some but not like today. No one talked about this ridiculous "diversity" and all this other crap that goes on today. People were judged by their character, not the racial and sexual groups they belonged to. There was no "group think". There was no "victimhood" or presumption of victimization. Yeah. Things were sane.

I took Psych 101 and I remember a Sociology course that would never be taught today. The truth has no business in a liberal arts course these days. The sociology courses of the 80's were pre-diversity and pre-perversity and would be considered racist and intolerant by today's leftist standards. The professor would be fired or thrown in a university gulag or something.

There was absolotely no such word as "homophobe" either. If there was it was never mentioned or used. There was no need to. Gays didn't walk around pushing their homosexuality in front of them with a neon sign. Not like today. Still that is a fabricated word that did not exist prior to the mid to late 80's I'll bet. No one discussed their sexual business with strangers. It was no one else's business but your own. Maybe a few jokes about sex with your friends. That's it.

Most gays were in the closet back then and I think the world was all that much happier for it. Back then if you wanted to see gays living in their natural habitats and outwardly displaying any signs of deviant behavior you had to go to certain neighborhoods. Kind of like we go to the zoo today. Now every newspaper, periodical, news website, movie, TV show, etc.... has some gay story, theme or character. It's friggin ridiculous and out of hand.

Then I left school to fight for truth, justice and the American way. Somewhere along the line the world turned upside down. Insanity and leftism are rampant.

Do I hate gays? No. Do I think they are deviant? Yes. Do I approve of them? No. Do I wish they would go away? Yes. Do they deserve a single damn penny of taxpayers money just because of the fact that they are gay? FUCKING ABSOLOTELY NO!!!!

First of all.. why do you assume I'm a guy? I'm a woman. And secondly, I'm barely a newbie, I've been around here for almost a year now. And, NYMadman, I'm not from Texas. I'm from CT.

I understand that you don't like your tax money going to this school. I completely understand that and I would feel the same way.

Why do you have such a problem with gays? Why does it concern you? I don't get it. A person falls in love with someone of the same sex, so you automatically have to hate them?

If you are referring to my school here, I attended and graduated from the same university as one of your hero's Bill O' Reilly, Boston University. I am NOT an alumni of the that Catholic school Boston College

Quote:

No one talked about this ridiculous "diversity" and all this other crap that goes on today. People were judged by their character, not the racial and sexual groups they belonged to. There was no "group think". There was no "victimhood" or presumption of victimization. Yeah. Things were sane.

Don't forget "Diversity Training" also refers to ones religious belief as well.

Quote:

There was no need to. Gays didn't walk around pushing their homosexuality in front of them with a neon sign. Not like today... No one discussed their sexual business with strangers. It was no one else's business but your own

I wish the religious freaks and Pro-life collective of today did the same.

Quote:

Do I hate gays? No. Do I think they are deviant? Yes. Do I approve of them? No. Do I wish they would go away? Yes. Do they deserve a single damn penny of taxpayers money just because of the fact that they are gay? FUCKING ABSOLOTELY NO!!!!

Thanks for proving my point about you being a homophobe.

I apologize for assuming you were a man, and I meant no disrespect by referring to you as a newbie. I just thought it was unfair of the Madman to jump on your case like he did.

It's okay Sean, I wasn't mad, I just thought it was kind of funny!

Sorry about that. I thought you were from TX. That's what it says in the location box. Plus I saw UTEP in your profile. Are you finished with school?

Actually the whole thing concerns everyone in society. I made some of those points in the post above the one I quoted you from.

Funny.... I was speaking about college in that post. Out of curiousity... what did you major in?

According to Webster's, the term "homophobic" came about in 1969. (Gee...anyone care to guess what event happened that year at a little bar in NYC?)

Quote:

Originally posted by MBFlyerfan:
You didnt read the articles in those links did you? But I will say this. bad kids are bad kids whether they are gay or not.

I was wondering why they bothered mentioning the school. Sure, they may have met there, but the robberies certainly have nothing to do with the school.

I told you it was a made up term. I never heard it until late in the 80's. That's when the culture started to go drifting downward into the slope of political correctness insanity.

Refresh my memory. What happened in 1969 in a bar here?

Duh! New words are formed everyday. What does it matter when it was coined? How long does a new word have had to exist before you accept it?

Quote:

Refresh my memory. What happened in 1969 in a bar here?

Don't you remember, weren't you there? Wow, talk about repressed memories.

Mobycat,

You were referring to the Stonewall riots weren't you?

http://www.socialistalternative.org/literature/stonewall.html

In essence, I guess we have the NYC police department to thank for the birth of gay rights, huh?

WWW. SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE .ORG

Just some light socialist reading huh?

No Communist Manifesto today Sean?

By the way... the reason why the left has embraced the homosexual movement is they are tools to help further the destruction of the nuclear family. The reasons the nuclear family must be done away with is spelled out in chapter two of your manifesto if you have forgotten.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but that was the first link Google came up with.

Got tired of calling me a deviant liberal huh?

You DEVIANT LIBERAL! Feel better?

Whatever you say Sean....

You're one of the biggest cookie cutter leftists on this message board. It's just a coincidence that you're first choice in a search just happens to be WWW. SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE .ORG.

Right...

I haven't thought you were liberal in a long time. You're further along. You are definitely a leftist.

What were your search terms?

I tried nyc bar 1969 homophobia . . .

Then new york 1969 bar homophobia.

I never saw that link come up . . .

It won't work for you. On Sean's PC it is his Home Page.

Well if that is the case, the Dems are in trouble. The whole party seems to be towing the far left line lately.

I heard some funny shit the other night. McGovern was on the radio saying how Dean isn't that liberal.

I believe the search phrase was "NY Madman/closet case/free handlebar mustache rides/leather chaps".

It was something like "1969 bar in NYC" or something like that.

Keep milking it (since you have nothing else). Maybe after another 25 posts inferring I'm a communist, people might actually believe it.

:rolleyes:

The Republicans move further left everyday too.

I love how the Democrat/Media machine has given Dean a pass on all the idiot remarks he has made the past week. Imagine if it was a Republican?

What happened to the treasonous memo from the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee. The media scum is not even reporting on this.

All the media reports on is Dean describing himself as a "metrosexual" WTF???


"I'm further left".... "No, I'm further left".... "No I'm the lefty here".... "Wahhhh.. I'm a general"


"Don't touch me you metrosexual bastard"
"Don't worry Al... I'm the lefty. I was only kidding about the Confederate flag. You'll get your reparations"

Just a question... wouldn't the proper definition of "homophobia" be fear of people with similar tastes?

"Homo" means "same" and "phobia" means "fear of." I know that the definition you posted is widely accepted and pretty clear... I was just pointing out that the widely used term is not quite correct. People should use "homosexualphobia" instead.

Your killing me Madman. That was funny. Hell at least Dean knows his convictions. Clarke jumps on whatever position is the most popular at the time.

Totally off topic. Did anyone see the video from the Thai congress? A couple of their legislatures started fighting. It was pretty funny. I sure wouldn't mind see someone punch KKK Byrd's old ass in the piehole when he opens it.

I hear you. According to the Oxford dictionary the term "Homo-" with the definition of "same" comes in at number three.

Number one is:

ho·mo 1 (n).
A member of the genus Homo, which includes the extinct and extant species of humans

and number two:

ho·mo 2 (n.)
A homosexual

So a homophobe is actually afraid of A) humans B) homosexuals C) similar people.

I just thought it was interesting.

I think a gay only school is perfectly fine, but should not be funded by taxpayer money. Otherwise, it should be acceptable to have a heterosexual only school that's paid for by the taxpayers. (That would be descrimination wouldn't it??)

"Did I remind you that today November 7th is the anniversary of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution?"
"So that makes me the biggest lefty"


"Matt Drudge says I\'m a homo... well after all I am English"

Madman, that shit is funny as hell!!

:rolleyes: well, I guess to some people...

P.S. you know there's got to be something going on when Sharpton becomes the voice of reason!

Nah...that's pretty much funny all around.

Pretty scary, isn't it? If he wasn't a complete racist, he might be more interesting.

Just to even out the Repug/Dem jokes flowing...


"Mr. President! How many times did you snort coke??"


Just then, as the President was about to close the press conference, Dick Cheney flashed his thong.


Wow, I bet this makes all of you Republicans want to puke. What do you have to say NOW, bitches??

Madman's quotes were more clever. But the thong one was pretty good.

Yeah, Bush giving an award to Ted Kennedy made me sick. Kennedy is a joke no matter what side you are on.

*cough* Nixon *cough*
*cough* Hyde *cough*
*cough* Helms *cough*
*cough* Thurmond *cough*
*cough* Gingrich *cough*
*cough* Lott *cough*
*cough* David Duke *cough*
*cough* Hoover *cough*
*cough* Socrates *cough*
*cough* Limbaugh *cough*
*cough* McCarthy *cough*
*cough* NYMadman *cough*

"I got what they call a Texas Sized Penis."

"Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!"

Rumsfeld and Rice look away in embarassment when the President makes reporters rub his wang with their microphones.

A couple of those names are actually good company.

We need another Sen. McCarthy these days with all the communists and fifth column enemies that permeate not only the government but many legal and civic organizations. Not to mention the leftist foundations funding un-american activities. I say bring back the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

None of those people you mentioned are however... murderers. I think we have all noticed that whenever hard socialists or communists consolidate power the first thing that happens is mass murder.

Let's see what company you are in:

* Vladimir Lenin
* Josef Stalin
* Chairman Mao Tse Tung
* Adolf Hitler
* Pol Pot
* Fidel Castro
* Saddam Hussein

That's just a few of the more famous socialists. (Between Mao and Stalin over 100 million alone were murdered) Many millions more by the others, and many more still today by the various socialists around the world.

Socialism is evil and always leads to death and tyranny. Leftists are evil, only some don't know it. They think they are only being "compassionate". Evil never announces itself. It always cloaks itself as something else.

I would think a Christian like yourself would know this. I guess a "bogus" Christian wouldn't.

You are one of the most unbelievable pricks I've ever come across. How dare you challenge my beliefs, simply because we don't agree politically!

By saying we need to bring back HUAC, a travisty that destroyed thousands of lives based simply on a people's belief system is one of the darkest periods of our history. And for you to praise it, and say we need to bring it back leaves me flabbergasted. In the SAME POST you put me in the same category with Lenin and Stalin, yet say that we should have someone around like McCarthy. How can anyone stand on that argument? You defeat any point you were trying to make by spewing your ignorance and wishing for a return of our darkest days. You aren't just right wing, you're damn frightening.

Paranoia. Fear. Finger pointing. These are things that a McCarthyist feeds off of, and gets power from.

In your Right-wing social authoritarianist view of the world, people living a certain lifestyle, or of a certain racial or cultural group, are judged immoral or inferior. Crucially, not only is this judgement made, but your social rightist view goes on to say "and something should be done" - by, for example, criminalising homosexual sex, or banning Asian immigration. Islamist terror attacks also fall under the heading of right-wing social doctrine. Such dogma cannot be categorised as left-wing, despite its interventionist tendencies, because it is directly opposed to the leftist religion of equality and relativism. This is not simply an argument about interventionism versus non-interventionism, or authoritarianism versus libertarianism. BOTH sides want intervention, the far left to establish the equality of minorities and the far right to force minorities to conform.

Hitler was the most ruthless proponent of right-wing social doctrine in world history. Stalin, Mao and others massacred people in the name of equality, the common good and socialist dogma (the engineered famines, for example) and were social leftists, granted. Hitler massacred people because he thought they were vermin and was a social rightist. The characterisation of Hitler as right-wing is fair because his genocidal crimes were committed as a result of his right-wing social ideals. That he was economically leftist is true but irrelevant.

That you, Madman, are the biggest fool on this board is not only true, but irrefutable. Challenge me on this post. I dare you.

Well, thanks to Edward Murrow, we'll never have that. Thank God.

It is ironic that you decry Political Correctness, but then whole-heartedly go for smashing an opposing view, even if it's an extreme. Is that not just another form of "political correctness?"

Quote:

Let's see what company you are in:

* Adolf Hitler

Hitler was no socialist. And I'd hardly call him a leftist. He's about as far right as you can get.

More quotes from your fellow rightie: Hitler.

Sound familliar? These are all things that have come from YOUR MOUTH TOO! So, Madman, think it's gonna be warm in hell with your buddy?

Yes we do need the committee again. It was not the darkest period in American history. It was neccessary. It rooted out many communists and put the brakes on communist infiltration of the U.S. Government in it's day. Unfortunately the country is swimming with hard leftists today. The only people who thought the committee was a bad thing were the leftists and all their leftist hollywood friends. To say McCarthy was a bad thing is propaganda. He was definitely on the right track but he fucked up near the end. This country needs something like that again because to much of the hard left is working to destroy this country and bring it down.

I don't know why you bring Islam into this. The hard left in America is in total alliance with Islam and the fundamentalists. Islam is the only religion they do not condemn and fight to remove from society.

I am not surprised that you make excuses for the millions murdered by Mao and Stalin. That speaks volumes about you.

Yes Hitler was a socialist. Some of his methods can be deemed right wing but there is no doubt that the Nazi's were socialists. Nazi is an acronym for National Socialist. Nazi's share much with the left of today. Most notably their hatred of Jews. Some of that is due to their alliance with radical Islam.

You don't like me. I couldn't care less. I happen to think you are one of the biggest pieces of shit to ever log into this board. Your apologist bullshit for the murder of millions in the name of communism is further proof that you are total scum.

And you are no Christian. You have been nothing but a bullshit artist since the first day you posted here.

Yeah...and the German Democratic Republic was a democracy. :rolleyes:

Why are you changing the subject. That's not what was being discussed.

hey! I'm calling out all the righties on the board. Who wants to stand with Madman in his assertion?

We'll see how many rush to your defense.

You're kidding, right? You insinuated that because they used "socialist" in their name that they were indeed socialists...or rather, that it made Hitler a socialist...which he wasn't.

I couldn't care less.

Who is going to defend your ideals that Mao and Stalin murdered tens of millions all for the common socialist good?

No one is going to back you up. You have revealed yourself for the scum that you are.

You are misrepresenting what I said. I was putting my OWN BELIEFS to the test. I was not condoning what they did. I was using them as an example of leftists gone mad, just as I used Hitler as an example of a rightist gone bad. You have again misrepresented what I meant, and taken things out of context. You are a true rightie, and it doesn't surprise me that you are for McCarthyism either. He misrepresented what people said or didn't say, and thousands paid for it.

I'm still waiting for your reply, McCarthyist.

Yes.. Of course Hitler and the Nazi's were socialists. Just because they were not Marxists does'nt make them any less socialist. Socialism comes on both ends of the extreme political spectrum. Seeing that you are only a fan of hard left socialism I'm not surprised you cannot see that.

Are you trying to be an idiot?

I didn't misrepresent shit.

You clearly stated they murdered those people for the common good. There is no other way that can be construed.

I stand by my statement. We need the House Committee reactivated because there are too many leftist scum trying to bring this country to ruin.

Communist scum like you....

I'm sorry, I should have added the words "what they believed was" the common good. That doesn't mean it was good. I was using those words as an example of Leftist Philosophy gone wrong. You knew what I meant, and still misrepresented me. Just like McCarthy.

What's scary is that there are a lot of people that are believing like you do. That is terrifying, because if we begin to jail and terrorize those because of their beliefs, and you condone that, then you're no better than the Nazis.

And I stand by THAT statement.

Have you been drinking more of that tequila? I've never said I was a fan of hard left socialism. Hitler was NOT a socialist. Socialists don't differentiate people based on their ethnicity. Socialists don't ease gun restriction (German Weapons Law of 1938), socialists don't put ability over equality.

Socialists ARE idealist...something Hitler was not. (See above quote about boy throwing up.)

McCarthy was a patriot skewed by a media controlled by the hollywood elite left. A large number of people that McCarthy supposedly subjected to a "witch hunt" were later positively identified as agents for the Soviet Union.

I was somewhat harsh responding to you. While typing it I thought I was responding to our resident communist at first. I don't think YOU are a hard leftist.

You are wrong about the Nazi's. Your definition of socialism is too tainted by the leftist socialist governments that have been prevelant. The Nazi's may not have nationalized all businesses, etc., and did grant some individual freedoms... only for party members and certain citizens, but study the Nazi government some more. They were definitely socialists. Without a doubt. Just a different flavor of socialism.

You are wrong about socialists not differentiating people by race. Racism and advancement through many socialist systems had much to do with the racial creed of those who wished to rise to power. Also look at the socialists here in America. All they do is classify everyone by race and instill a "group" mentality according to race. To say socialists are not racists is an extremely false statement.

Are you now apologizing for socialism?

WHO SAID WHAT?

You're a bullshit artist.

Now since you painted yourself into a corner you are backpeddling? You have been espousing socialism since the first day you posted here. Now you have revealed your true communist self and are in denial mode. Spoken like a true communist.

You knew exactly what you were saying when you posted it. You are a lying leftist piece of shit.

I don't believe in jailing anyone for their beliefs. I beleive in jailing people for their actions. There is much in the actions of the left.

Commies like you are always the first to jail and kill people for their beliefs. History has more than enough proof of this.

I agree 100%. Many were proven to be Soviet agents and friends of Soviet agents who covered for them. Most Americans are not aware of the truth.

He has been demonized for years and by whom.... the lefty hollywood idiots and the media. He also was not as conservative as he was portrayed by the left. If he was he never would have hired Roy Cohn who was a deviant and McCarthy knew it.

He was a patriot who just wanted to remove communist spies and influence. Looking back in hindsight, thank God he did what he did at the time he did it.

Actually, most, if not all, of his accusations were either proven completely false, or never proven at all.

He never provided any documentation for his accusations.

That first piece of paper he held up with a "list" of some 250 communists within the State department...was a laundry list.

While he may have been a patriot, and his intentions *might* have been good, McCarthy wasn't a "patriot skewed by the media." Nobody would take him on until Murrow. And even then, after Murrow did the show, it got cancelled by CBS. He was a first term Senator blinded by being in the spotlight. So much so that he even went so far as to attack Eisenhower. He got to the point that if anyone attacked him, they must be a Red.

I suppose it all depends on what socialism we are talking about...Socialism of the 30s or now. Socialism on the economic front, or socialism on the political front.

Quote:

Are you now apologizing for socialism?

Not that I'm aware of.

Maybe if you stopped and read what you were responding to, you might stop misrepresenting what people say, and sounding like an idiot.

Then, using your argument, here is a list of several socialists, and their racist ties.

-Strom Thurmond (Blacks)
-Trent Lott (Blacks)
-Richard Nixon (Jews)
-Barry Goldwater (Blacks)
-George Wallace (Blacks)
-Reagan (gays, blacks)

No matter how you look at it.... socialism is evil. It destroys the human spirit, it destroys individuality, and is anathema to freedom. It cannot sustain it self. History has proven that.

Even this new experiment of so-called European democratic socialism is cracking already and will crumble. It may also devolve into tryanny considering there is less democracy as it moves forward and more bureaucratic totalitarian power grabbing.

WilMac....

You've proven yourself to be a leftist scumbag beyond reproach.

Anyone who would condone and apologize for mass murder for any reason is the lowest form of life possible.

You are a fucking liar. You have the balls to even portray yourself as some kind of "religious" guy who calls himself a Christian. Then you condone murder for the socialist good.

You are no better than Stalin or even Hitler. You're cut from the same cloth. They also thought mass murder was a means to an end.

I almost feel sorry for you that someone or something has poisoned and indoctrinated your mind with such extremist leftist thought.

I'm not going to respond to your little petty arguments anymore with your bullshit anti-Republican propaganda. What's the point anyway arguing with a communist?

I'm sorry you feel that way. I was never apologizing for them, or condoning what they did in any shape, form or manner. I never said that what they did was right. What I was saying, and what you have so grossly taken out of proportion, out of context, and, quite frankly, out of your mind, was that they were the to the left what Hitler is to the right. Both are wrongs. Both are evils. Both have no place in the world, and must be stopped, eradicated, and erased.

You continue to slander me and what I say. You take me out of context, you quote what I say and twist it, and you badger me into stupid arguments such as this. You are a troll. Nothing more, and nothing less.

I have said on more than one occasion that in an IDEAL world, socialism would be the way we were governed. Everyone is the same. There would be no better than, richer than, or smarter than. Everyone would have an equal opprotunity.

But I am also a realist. I realize that this type of society can never be truly implemented until Christ returns. And that is what I base my faith on. You, on the other hand, continue to question my faith, call me a liar, and spit on my opinions. You call me a communist, anti-American, and a liar. You and your type make message boards like this the radio that racists and extremests can use to spout their ignorance and hatred. I come on here looking for some fun discussions and some laughs. Instead, I get you screaming at me idiot comments like McCarthyism was good for the United States.

I don't know if you are truly this stupid in real life, but if you are, I pray for you. Because it's people like you and your ilk that make the world an ugly place with your fingerpointing, hatred and ignorance.

Do us all a favor and

And if this post gets me banned, then so the f what. Because if your brand of hatred and ignorance doesn't get you banned, I don't know what would.

WilMac....

Don't give me any more of your bullshit. I haven't slandered you. Your words are right here in black and white. (On another note... written words are liable, not slander. Neither of which has occurred. An educated man would know the difference. An indoctrinated one may not).

No one twists people's posts here more than you.

You entered this board with a determination to specifically argue with me in particular and a few others. This you can't deny. You made that very clear on your first day. So how about you... shutting the fuck up!

I also don't believe anything you say about being a religious guy or Christian. You are a liar and a bullshit artist through and through. No "Christian" man says the things you say. No "Christian" man is loaded with the venom you have. You are a liar and are fooling no one.

You are garbage and when backed into a corner and your own words thrown back in your face you cower in denial. You have no other argument than to call those that oppose you ignorant and hateful. You are the ignorant and hateful one. You are scum.

You can go to hell as far as I am concerned. I hate communists and people like you. I think you knew that prior to even joining the board. You signed up specifically to fight in political arguments. Good for you. Everyone who reads your posts knows you are a liar. Pray for yourself. I don't believe you have ever said a prayer in your whole miserable life. You introduced yourself on the board with a string of lies. Why should anyone believe anything you say?

You're a leftist piece of shit. You also are a child.

Socialism is socialism Moby. Regardless of whether it is today or 70 or 80 years ago.

Regarding economics.... the more socialism a society has, the less of a viable economy is the outcome. The more government-centric any economy becomes, the more the economy stagnates, shrinks and eventually crumbles. Without a viable and vibrant private sector, no economy can grow and sustain it's populace with any decent standard of living.

Yeah, the only reason I'm on here is to target you.

If you weren't so arrogant, I might actually feel sorry for you.

You got balls calling anyone arrogant.

Sounds like somebody we all know!

Would God really have thanked Joseph McCarthy for what he did? He started as a stooge for the Republican party, slept with men (possibly even Hoover himself), and eventually commited career suicide by pissing off the very person he helped get elected to the White House, Dwight Eisenhower.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyism.htm

"For some time opponents of Joseph McCarthy had been accumulating evidence concerning his homosexual activities. Several members of his staff, including Roy Cohn and David Schine, were also suspected of having a sexual relationship. Although well-known by political journalists, the first article about it did not appear until Hank Greenspun published an article in the Las Vagas Sun in 25th October, 1952. Greenspun wrote that: "It is common talk among homosexuals in Milwaukee who rendezvous in the White Horse Inn that Senator Joe McCarthy has often engaged in homosexual activities."

These are the people of history that you consider a hero? McCarthy hired a known "deviant" Cohn to make him his bitch! For a person who hates homosexuals as much as you do, you sure do idolize enough of them. Tell us again how much you adored Hoover!

CIA information on The Venona Papers

NSA information on Venona.

I hope you're not inferring Joseph McCarthy had anything to do with the uncovering of any communist plots against the U.S. McCarthy was only a mouthpiece for Hoover (in more ways than one).

"William Sullivan, one of Hoover's agents, later admitted that: "We were the ones who made the McCarthy hearings possible. We fed McCarthy all the material he was using."

Back to the the original spirt of this thread. Like Hoover, Madmans hero McCarthy was a homosexual, plain and simple.

"Joseph McCarthy considered a libel suit against Greenspun but decided against it when he was told by his lawyers that if the case went ahead he would have to take the witness stand and answer questions about his sexuality. In an attempt to stop the rumours circulating, McCarthy married his secretary, Jeannie Kerr. Later the couple adopted a five-week old girl from the New York Foundling Home."

Among the people investigated by HUAC

-Lucille Ball
-Katherine Hepburn
-Olivia de Havilland
-Rita Hayworth
-Humphrey Bogart
-Danny Kaye
-Fredric March
-Bette Davis
-Lloyd Bridges
-John Garfield
-Gene Kelly

I'm so glad that HUAC protected us from these monsters.

Rita Hayworth? say it isn't so! She was too much a babe to be a communist.

this thread is ... There is nothing anyone can do... they're here and they're queer... gotta live with it... It doesn't matter if you think it's right or wrong... you can beat 'em down all ya want, but more are born everyday... You complain about them flaunting the fact that they are gay... who says they're flaunting it? To them, it's fashion... Believe it or not, they're not trying to impress you ... that's just who they are... But I guess you could say the same about fat people and ugly people... They should all just stay inside... :rolleyes:

Three periods (...) at the end of every sentence is

:p

I will rush to his defense.

Stone

State Department on Joseph McCarthy

National Archives on Joseph McCarthy (I especially like the letter from Truman to McCarthy)

Letter from Eisenhower about McCarthy, page 1 (Note the line: "This particular individual wants, above all else, publicity.")

Letter from Eisenhower about McCarthy, page 2 (Note the line: "At times one feels almost like hanging his head in shame when he reads some of the unreasoned, vicious outbursts of demagoguery that appear in our public prints.")

Letter from Eisenhower to his brother (Note the best line: "To my mind, that practice smacks of more of the coward and the fool than of the leader.")

Yeah, Eisenhower sure thought a lot of him. :rolleyes: I dare say Eisenhower was "more" of a patriot than 99% of people out there.

Note: he was censured by a republican-led senate.

Anyone who thinks McCarthy was a "victim" is engaging in that time honored tradition of revisionism.

Daaaaaammmmnnnn Rita Hayworth was FINE!!!

You're so full of shit Sean. McCarthy wasn't gay. That was just a bullshit tactic by his enemies to discredit him. The left always does that. They claim to sympathize with the gay cause but are always the first to claim those they dislike are gay. The left has also been doing that to Hoover for years. He also was not gay. It's all leftist bullshit and hearsay. Roy Cohn and David Schine were however deviants.

McCarthy did a lot of good. He exposed a lot of communists. He also exposed a lot of communist propaganda perpetrated through hollywood movies. As I said he fucked up at the end. He couldn't deal with the pressure and he started to crack and unravel. It doesn't mean he didn't do good things. Things that were needed in America at the time. It's time to reveal the subversives in America today. The media and universities would be a good place to start.

Where the hell do you come up with all these pro-leftist websites that you link to... as in the link above that you posted? A quick browse through some of their revisionist fluff history is a sham. Talk about being soft on communism. That site is definitely it. You had to get a leftist UK site as a propaganda source? Couldn't come up with one here? No lite reading at SOCIALIST.ORG today?

Are you as leftist as WilMac? Do you also think the murder of 100 million people was a good thing for "equality" and the "common good"? It's amazing you didn't dispute that. Why am I not surprised.

Maybe it's because he actually read my post and understood what I was saying.

maybe I used too many big words for you. I'll try to take it slower and dumber next time.

Eisenhower sure didn't mind him in 1952. McCarthy was somewhat responsible for the Republicans taking the White House.

No one ever said McCarthy was a victim. He fucked up and became his own worst enemy in the end. It still does not discredit the good things he had done. He exposed a lot of communists. We were also well into the Cold War and who knows how things may have turned out if America did not come to terms with the pro-Soviet and pro-communist element within it's midst.

He wasn't a victim but he has become one of the most demonized figures of the last 50 years or so. Is it any coincidence that most of the demonization is from the left.

McCarthy as a junior senator would never have gained the power he had at his peak if he was wrong from the start. It's too bad he crumbled.

The House Committee on Un-American Activities is needed again. We are at war and much of the enemy is within.

You will never have to put much effort into that. You have always been slow and dumb.

Most brainwashed communist drones are that way.

Considering it was in the full swing of the Red Scare, people wanted someone on Pennsylvania who was as far from Communist as possible. Who better than the war hero Eisenhower? He'd have won it without McCarthy easily.

Quote:

No one ever said McCarthy was a victim. He fucked up and became his own worst enemy in the end. It still does not discredit the good things he had done.

What good things? Most of his accusations were never proven. Ironically, his "list" went from 205 people on February 9, 1950 to only 81 people 11 days later. He fed on the fear of the public.

Quote:

McCarthy as a junior senator would never have gained the power he had at his peak if he was wrong from the start. It's too bad he crumbled.

He started his little witch hunt not too long after the Alger Hiss issues. People were on edge - China fell, and Russia had the bomb. Again, he fed on the fears of the public. It wouldn't have mattered *who* started waving a piece of paper around, people were suspicious and would have believed them - especially in a time as the late 40s/early 50s when people still held politicians in a little higher esteem.

Quote:

The House Committee on Un-American Activities is needed again. We are at war and much of the enemy is within.

Personally, I regard the HUAC just like I regard the term "politically correct" - that is, they are BOTH about as un-American as you can get. Diverse views are to be cherished here - HUAC spits on that, and "politically correct" is about as UN-politically correct as one can actually be. Politically correct SHOULD mean that people can have whatever *beliefs* they want without fear of the government, however distasteful they may be to others.

(Oh, and just to clarify for everyone - McCarthy actually had nothing to do with HUAC - he was a Senator, and worked with the Senate Committee on Government Operations.)

Yes, McCarthy was chairman of the Government Committee on Operations. That committee worked along the same lines as HUAC only that the GCO was supposed to weed out subversion in the government. Without the HUAC there probably would not have been a GCO. Also the HUAC was formed in the 30's.

McCarthy's list that you mention was not HIS list. It was a list comprised by the State Dept. some years before.

McCarthy did expose communists. Didn't a bunch leave the country?

Communists have been rounded up for many years. Woodrow Wilson had many arrested and jailed. Communist subversion was nothing new in McCarthy's time. It certainly is nothing new today. It's back and bigger than ever.

The HUAC didn't spit on anything. They were formed as an investigative arm of Congress to enforce existing laws. People in America can have whatever beliefs they want... yes that is true. However they cannot act on some of those beliefs. There is something called "sedition" and "treason" regardless of how much the left tries to spin or play it off.

Actually, his staffers later said it was nothing more than the laundry list he had in his pocket. There WERE no names on that list he would hold aloft and wave. That's why the numbers would change so often.

Still in denile, huh? Yes both Hoover and McCarthy were gay. Hoover was gay and the Mafia knew it:

http://www.geocities.com/hooversecret/

"In 1971, Resnick and an associate talked with the writer Pete Hamill in the Galeria Bar at Caesars Palace. They spoke of Meyer Lansky as a genius, the man who "put everything together,"--and as the man who "nailed J. Edgar Hoover." "When I asked what they meant," Hamill recalled, "they told me Lansky had some pictures--pictures of Hoover in some kind of gay situation with Clyde Tolson. Lansky was the guy who controlled the pictures, and he had made his deal with Hoover--to lay off. That was the reason, they said, that for a long time they had nothing to fear from the FBI."

McCarthy was gay and might have been a closet Nazi as well:

http://www.geocities.com/realmccarthy/

"Greenspun wrote: "It is common talk among homosexuals in Milwaukee who rendezvous in the White Horse Inn that Senator Joe McCarthy has often engaged in homosexual activities." Greenspun also labeled McCarthy "the queer that made Milwaukee famous," as a pun on the Schlitz beer slogan: "The Beer that Made Milwaukee Famous." For years after, Greenspun proudly speculated that "outing" McCarthy pushed him into alcoholic decline. (McCarthy would die from cirrhosis of the liver in 1957.)"

Quote:

McCarthy did a lot of good. He exposed a lot of communists. He also exposed a lot of communist propaganda perpetrated through hollywood movies.

All of McCarthy's "information" came from the FBI (from pickle-smoocher Hoover himself). There's also evidence that McCarthy was a Nazi sympathizer:

"[McCarthy] sided with enemy [Nazi] forces against American soldiers. He falsely accused American officials of crimes. Moreover, he took up this tainted cause at least in part because of heavy financial support from an ultra-right-wing German-American businessman in Wisconsin."

Yea, McCarthy did alot of good for America didn't he.

:rolleyes:

Sean, I don't know whether they were gay or not, and don't really care. Posting geocities links as evidence is about the least credible thing you could do to back up your argument. I could start a website about how your small animal fetish if I wanted. That wouldn't make it a fact.

Here is probably a better "explanation" of whether Hoover was gay or not:

Was Hoover Gay?

Basically, there were rumors and innuendos, but nothing was ever proven and probably never will be.

Moby, we dont agree on most issues, but you are even-handed and intellectually honest about your views. I appreciate the way you handle debates.

How did you know about my small animal fetish?



My favorite small animal just so happens to be the "pussy" (if you know what I mean).



You have to remember that the original focus of Madmans thread here is his deep seeded hatered towards homosexuals. I just find it ironic that two of his heros just might have been gay themselves.

Yes I could have quoted a more reputable source (there's hundreds out there on the internet), but come on now. In the case of Hoover, how many men do you know that never married, were seen together with the same man just about all the time for over 40 years, and then after death, gets buried next to this "Significant Other"? I'm sorry but that screams:



As for McCarthy, again don't you find it a little odd that he marries so late in life (after the gay allegations) to his secretary, then adopts? Again, can you say:



:rolleyes:

Like I said, I don't care if they were gay or not. The time they lived in and the positions they held would most definately give them reasons to hide it if they were. I don't really think it matters either way.

Hey, I try to be, but the Madman pisses me off and I lose all control! hahaha.

Have you read this thread from the begining? You are totally missing the original scope here. Though I agree that it usually doesn't matter if a person is gay or not, it just so happens that it matters here. Both these hypocritcal men attacked/ridiculed homosexuals in their days, labeling them as deviants and the likes, yet practiced the same "lifestyle" themselves in secret. Pot calling the kettle black don't you think?

Dishonest debating makes your position look weaker, even if the other person is doing the same thing.

Who is being dishonest here? I don't think anyone here so far has purposly quoted a "dishonest" source for their debating material. Please elaborate.

Sorry. I was referring to WilMacs comment about honest debating. He said he tries, but Madman pisses him off. I was just saying that lowering your honesty makes your point weaker that is all. Even if you completely disagree with someone, using dishonest arguments doesn't help.

I think Ted Kennedy's recent comments are a good example of this. Making stuff up and spouting it off as truth just makes you look stupid. Unfortunately a lot of the Dems are doing this. Both sides do it all to often unfortunately.

That's why I've lost all respect for BOTH parties. If it seems I'm always against the Republicans, it's because they are the party that makes the most noise, plus the fact they've aligned themselves with a religious organization, clearly going against the Constitution (i.e. purporting religion). I honestly feel that within 20 years there will be a third party just as strong as the two we have currently.

Who has been dishonest? I tried rationally and calmly debating the point...he took it to the next level.

Whatever, I'm not going to get sucked back into it. Anyone that says we need to bring back McCarthyism truly is a madman, I guess.

And you just can't argue logically with the insane.

Sean, you need to read the Constitution again. What laws has Congress passed recently that are respectful of a certain religion?

WilMac I didn't say you were being dishonest.

ok...just checking.

You know and I know the conservative Republicans have aligned themselves with the Christian right.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The first part of the 1st Amendment is what that idiot judge Roy Moore down in Alabama just doesn't understand.

Do we have to do this again? By establishing a religion they meant state sponsored religion. It was not meant to bar religion from government. It was meant to keep the government from establishing a state sanctioned religion ala the Church of England. Where it was the law that you had to be a member of this certain church. And remember, I am an atheist.

Oh and I suppose a two-ton monument of the Ten Commandments on display in the state's PUBLIC Judicial Building is not a show of bias towards religion?

Not a specific one. Did the commandements being there state in any way that if you are not a christian you will not get a fair shake here? What about jews, dont they have the same ten in thier torah? So which religion are we talking about. Which religion is being established?

Your hatred for religion and specifically christianity clouds your judgment on this issue. I am not a christian, nor a jew, nor a muslim....you get the point. I hear these atheists and others telling me I should somehow feel threatened because some judge wanted the commandments on the steps. But not once have they been able to tell me why I should be threatened. Since it is not a religious court, any mention of religion to me would be taken as something outside the judicial system itself, and more of a reminder of where we came from.

Now if, on the other hand, he stated that I had broken some law of the church, and that church law was the law of the land, then I would have a problem. But since this is not the case. Why should I feel threatened?

What if I were Muslim or of some other religion (or not religious at all)? Why should I be subjected to seeing or being part of the Christian or Jewish faith?

Quote:

Your hatred for religion and specifically christianity clouds your judgment on this issue.

As I've stated many times before, I DO NOT hate any religion per se, only the people who use it to get what they really want, usually power or wealth.

Quote:

I am not a christian, nor a jew, nor a muslim....you get the point. I hear these atheists and others telling me I should somehow feel threatened because some judge wanted the commandments on the steps. But not once have they been able to tell me why I should be threatened.

I'm sorry you don't see the problem in this. Are you sure you are an atheist? You don't sound like one. Swear to God?

Quote:

Since it is not a religious court, any mention of religion to me would be taken as something outside the judicial system itself, and more of a reminder of where we came from.

Then why is the monument there? Why doesn't the judge put it on his front lawn?

My feeling is, if it's making people angry, then it's not helping your cause...if they're all pissed off about it, then just drop it, and move on. Getting everyone all pissed about it blinds them to your viewpoint...

...wait a second...I just reread the thread from the other night between me and Madman...

...ahem....

Kettle? Pot?

Jeses H. Christ on a fucking rubber crutch!

How hard is this to understand? Sharing values with the Christians is not creating a law that establishes a religion. The ten commandments sitting in a building is not a law establishing a religion. I know you read it. Maybe it will eventually sink in.

The Constitution does not have the 'seperation of church and state' in it anywhere. The government does not have to seperate itself from anything religious. As long as the Congress is not establishing a national faith, they are in the clear. Leftist judges have decided to make up their own laws, because they hate Christianity. I am not a Christian at all, and I can see this.

How exactly does a monument force you to be a part of Chritianity. That is just stupid.

You're right, a monument won't convert me to any religion, but it shows to anyone entering the PUBLIC court house what side of the religious spectrum the judge is on. So much for impartiality, huh?

:rolleyes:

Bullshit. It does no such thing. The commandments represent one of the oldest group of 'laws' around. That is it.

Lets assume it does what you say. How is that unconstitutional or illegal? Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it illegal. Unfortunately we have judges that think they have the right to make up what is legal and illegal. They are wrong. That is what our legislature is for.

I see we're at an impasse here. If you don't understand that the judicial system must be impartial to all potential defendants, I guess we have nothing else to discuss on this subject.

Hey guys....

It's totally useless arguing about religion with Sean and basically all of the morally bankrupt atheists on the left.

He has a venomous hatred for Judeo/Christian values and Christianity in particular. Haven't you ever noticed he will argue tirelessly against anything Christian yet in the next sentence he will defend a non-Judeo/Christian religion such as Islam as having certain public rights. Rights in which he would never extend to Christians. His is the same hypocrosy that permeates all left wing thought.

Another example of Sean's outrageous hypocrosy is his defense of everything homosexual. Sean rallies that these are noble people worthy of special consideration. He has stated they are "victims" of persecution by the Christians who want to impose their morality. He then turns around and describes a "suspected" homosexual as a "pickle-smoocher".

Originally posted by Sean:
How is his being christian affect his impartiality? Impartial against who? Do you honestly think because he is a christian that he would somehow be biased against jews, muslims, hindus, atheists once they walk into that courtroom? Does he even care? How does he know who is what? Does he ask? Does he have some magic anti-christian dust that he sprinkles on them when they take thier oaths to tell the truth. Will a muslim or hindu catch in flames? If you can prove he is being partial because of his religious beliefs than by all means he needs to be nailed to the wall. But until that time....

I am an atheist, but I can still see a witch hunt for what it is.

So what happens when a Quaker (a Christian) comes in, and refuses to take an oath on the bible? Will he keep his impartiality?

I don't know about Alabama, but a lot of states do not *require* swearing upon the bible. The oath of office for the President does not require it, either.

Most if not all states don't require it.

Sean, you skirted the issue completely. Of course judges should be impartial. This has nothing to do with the monument. How does it violate the Constitution Sean?

:rolleyes:

I'm just as moral as the next guy. Just because I don't believe in the "Collective" and hate homosexuals and Muslims like you do, doesn't make me a bad guy. I bet we share about 85% or more of what you would call moral issues.

Quote:

He has a venomous hatred for Judeo/Christian values and Christianity in particular. Haven't you ever noticed he will argue tirelessly against anything Christian yet in the next sentence he will defend a non-Judeo/Christian religion such as Islam as having certain public rights. Rights in which he would never extend to Christians. His is the same hypocrosy that permeates all left wing thought.

Spin, Spin, Spin away. Typical right-wing paranoid rhetoric. Reading your crap is worse than listening to a Pat Robertson sermon. I dare you to find even ONE quote where I state I hate ANY religion.

Quote:

Another example of Sean's outrageous hypocrosy is his defense of everything homosexual. Sean rallies that these are noble people worthy of special consideration. He has stated they are "victims" of persecution by the Christians who want to impose their morality. He then turns around and describes a "suspected" homosexual as a "pickle-smoocher".

I'll tell you what hypocrosy is, hypocrosy is people like your heros Hoover and McCarthy. These closet cases went after OPEN homosexuals, yet praticed the very same lifestyle they were against in private. I have more respect for a homosexual who is open about it, than a homosexual that hides it but in public says they are against it. Gee where have I heard this train of thought before, the Catholic Church maybe?

:rolleyes:

Did you not read and already comment on my reply pertaining to the 1st Amendment? Let me refresh your memory:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

As for the judge from Alabama, I'm sorry but I have no confidence in someone who was quoted as saying "It's my duty to acknowledge God". Next thing you know he'll be saying he had tea and crumpets with his buddy God at brunch. As I've stated before, If he feels so strongly about religion, why doesn't he park that monument of his on his front lawn instead?

:rolleyes:

Can you prove that he wouldn't be bias against non-Christians? Hey, if it walks like a dog, and barks like a dog...

Actually, he's not a Christian. He's an ELECTED judge that snuck it in there to get votes. He's a scheister. And it should be taken out for that reason alone.

No, I cant, but then again I shouldnt have to. You are the one who should have to prove the bias. Does removing the tablets somehow make him any less/more bias. His beliefs havent changed whether they are there or not. Does the physical presence of the commandments somehow cause him to be less/more biased depending on his proximity to them?
Then you would have to apply that to every judge. If he were a jew would he have to prove he wasnt biased against non-jews? Has he been shown to be biased in other rulings he has made?
Applying this same logic, only non-religious people would be eligible to be judges, but then would he/she have to prove they have no bias against religious people?
Then, because he is white, does he now have to prove he is not biased against blacks, or orientals.
Because he is male, would he have to prove to you he has no bias towards females?
Where does it end? I dont think you are calling this judges impartiality into question simply because he ia a christian, but it sure sounds like you are.
Suppose he wants to wear a crucifix on a chain around his neck? What if it accidentally hangs outside his robe one day in court? Is he all of the sudden biased because of this outward show of his faith? Should he be not allowed to wear it at all? The crucifix and the tablets represent basically the same thing. If the physical presence of the commandments somehow affects the judges ability to be fair and impartial, then it is the judge who is at fault, not the tablets.

Werent we talking about a school at some point?

Fuck it Sean, I see you are going to ignore the point here. The monument is not unconstitutional. It isn't a law that establishes a religion. Your percieved bias has nothing to do with it. Hell, how about all the liberal bias coming out of the ultra left 9th circuit? Their 'decisions' get overturned more than not.

Everyone is going to have a bias. It is human nature, and part of the system. Until we get a HAL 9000 to take care of us, this is going to be the case.

Complete and utter separation of church and state. There can be no implied endorsement of any religion in any government building, period. There must be complete neutrality in anything pertaining to the government. It's not only important for the government, but also for churches. When the state endorses one belief, then it can begin regulating it.

Would you even be arguing your point if the judge wanted to post the 13 levels to enlightenment as taught in Buddhism?

No you are not a moral man. You an an AMORAL person (man is debatable).

I've spun nothing. Anyone who has read any of your posts in any type of religious subject is well aware of your disdain for everything Christian. Especially the Catholic Church. Your quotes in this thread and right above reinforce that.

Oh... and stop saying Hoover and McCarthy were gay. They were not. All you have is heresay and inuendo put forward by left wing scum. You leftists are pathetic. You love gays who wear their sexuality on their sleeves or display their perversion in parades. Didn't you really mean to say that you only respect the radical ones or those in bed with the Democrats. I'm sure you think the Republican ones and Log Cabin's are "pickle smoochers".

You're a sick twisted bastard Sean. The day you claimed you would teach your kid about the uses of his penis took the cake.

I am positive we do not share 85% values on anything.

Funny thing about that court - I forget the exact number, but at least half are actually considered conservative.

I like you. You wear your hate on your sleeve.

More of a man than you'll ever be. At least I'm at ease with my heterosexual orientation, unlike yourself. You hate homosexuals because you fear them, or fear becoming one of them.

Quote:

I've spun nothing. Anyone who has read any of your posts in any type of religious subject is well aware of your disdain for everything Christian. Especially the Catholic Church. Your quotes in this thread and right above reinforce that.

Well you're right about my position on the Catholic Church, the biggest hypocritical organization in the world today. I wonder what Jesus would have thought about how the Catholic church cradled and protected it's pedophiles all those years.

Quote:

Oh... and stop saying Hoover and McCarthy were gay. They were not. All you have is heresay and inuendo put forward by left wing scum. You leftists are pathetic. You love gays who wear their sexuality on their sleeves or display their perversion in parades. Didn't you really mean to say that you only respect the radical ones or those in bed with the Democrats. I'm sure you think the Republican ones and Log Cabin's are "pickle smoochers".

I take it then you have no problem with someone being buried next to their significant other, huh? Who's going to be buried next to you?

Quote:

You're a sick twisted bastard Sean. The day you claimed you would teach your kid about the uses of his penis took the cake.

And I still stand by my comment today. I have no problem teaching my son about the birds and the bees before he learns it on the street.

Quote:

I am positive we do not share 85% values on anything.

Maybe your right. I don't share your blind hatered on certain matters.

I think that Conservatives should rejoice at this school in NYC. In some ways it acts to further marginialize that group by segragating them. It also gets them out of the mainstream where they would no doubt be encouraging the 'normal' students to undertake a deviant lifestyle. Just look at it as the dominant center of society maintaining inequality. Overall, a brilliant move on the part of NYC :p

So you are a "pickle smoocher" after all.

I'm surprised you hate the Catholic Church so much. Considering there are so many gay priests.

The Catholic Church is not alone with problems of it's authority figures having sex with minors. Almost every organization that deals with children is just as guilty. The biggest abusers of minors are public school teachers. You only hear about Catholics because the leftist\media machine is at war with them and out to destroy them. Funny how you never hear that almost all the priests in question are "pickle smoochers" too. Just like you.

He said HETEROsexual, you schmo. Read before you reply. It's a simple rule.

Madman's blind hatred of homosexuals is so great he doesn't even know the difference between heterosexual and homosexual!

It was a poor attempt to insult you. I'm usually better.

True to your leftist train of thought, you have typically ignored much that I have posted because you know I am right.

Well, since the rest of your post attacked Sean as a "pickle smootcher," then what's the point of responding? It's null and void at that point.

I'm very suprised myself you got that one wrong.

Look, in all honesty I'd be against that school myself, especially if I knew my tax dollars were going towards it. But you have to realize that homosexuals don't necessarily want preferential treatment (most of them at least), they just want to be treated equally. Hey if homosexuality was a "learned" behavior, I'd be right there with you on this subject, but it's not, they're born that way. And besides, I don't know about you but two beautiful woman going at it still makes me hot!

By the way, I never ignore anything you post, it's just too damn fun debating you on it! I still believe we both share a lot of the same moral values though.

Would I? Sure. I am not a Christian anyway. So show me were it says in the Constitution that there must be 'complete and utter seperation of church and state'. It doesn't. It is a complete fabrication.

Was I talking to you? Are you that hardup for attention that you have to jump in on every single one of my posts?

It's not mentioned in it. Nor is God in any form. There's a reason it's not.

It isn't a "complete" fabrication. Jefferson said as much in his letter.

But anyway...I'm not posting any more on this subject, we all know my opinion on the matter.

If you post the ten commandments, then you are respecting one religion over another. This is so easy. Why is there even a debate?

It's real easy, because posting them, is not the same thing as Congress making a law. How hard is that to understand?

Well, since you're misquoting me and twisting my words in your signature, I figure that I'm being attacked every time you post. So, yes, I'll continue to jump on your posts until I'm no longer misquoted.

That's just it. You don't see that they do want preferential treatment. They also constantly demand increased access to children so that it does become a learned behavior.

Any beautiful woman would make any "normal" guy hot. That's the key word... beautiful. In real life lesbians for the most part look like Rosie O'Donnell or something along those lines.

I disagree that we share most of the same values. I certainly have not seen that at all. Everything from government, religion and culture we differ.

Exactly! I don't see why these conseratives can't wrap their heads around this. So what if there is no "law" per se about the monument, but come on now. By placing that monument of the ten commandments in a PUBLIC court house, the powers that be are: respecting an establishment of religion, plain and simple.

:rolleyes:

Nice try bullshit artist. That is an EXACT quote in my sig. Page 4 of this thread.

The powers that be? Nice try. When the constitution gets ammended with 'the powers that be', let me know.

There's nothing I've ever read that proves homosexuality is mostly a learned behavior. (human sexual response was one of the classes I took at university). The Spartians tried to make wowan only breeding machines, but their plan failed. Animals too have shown homosexual traits as well, did someone teach them to be gay? I personally think that the only straight people that "turned" were gay to begin with, they just didn't know it yet.

Quote:

Any beautiful woman would make any "normal" guy hot. That's the key word... beautiful. In real life lesbians for the most part look like Rosie O'Donnell or something along those lines.

True, but every now and then a looker comes out of the closet.

Quote:

I disagree that we share most of the same values. I certainly have not seen that at all. Everything from government, religion and culture we differ.

Am I less moral because I don't believe in a man-made religious organization?

Well.... Judge Moore was removed from the bench a little while ago.

In a fit of hypocrisy, the presiding Chief Judge William Thompson of the Court of the Judiciary led the courtroom in prayer.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35566

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/moore.tencommandments/index.html

That is pretty ironic.

Then again, they didn't remove him because of the monument. They removed him because he defied a court order.

You could argue it's similar to Clinton. I don't believe there's anything "illegal" federal-wise about getting a blow job. But he got impeached because he lied to the grand jury.

Here's an interesting thought...what if Moore decided to run again? Couldn't he? I don't know that either party would touch him, but he could be a write-in. Wonder how well he'd do...

Sure some gays are born that way. Some are also made that way for varying reasons.

Regarding your college courses... since when is everything a liberal arts professor says right? They are frequently wrong. A course like 'human sexual response' sounds like not only a waste of time and money (I'm sure it was easy credits) it is also material that can be subjective. Plus I am sure it was a platform to push the homosexual agenda as it is in colleges accross the country today.

Everything outside of nature is man made. You have no proof that religion is wrong or false either. Your rejection of the religion and faith of your birth and your new found "faith" in the power of a truly man made creation .. the state, is somewhat disturbing.

He could run as an indepentent. He could also find another party to back him if the two major parties turn down support for a bid.

I doubt he would run for a judical seat anyway. You may see him run for governor in the future and he just might win.

Exactly which religion are you respecting over another? Looks more like they are prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is so easy, why is there even a debate?

Yes, but taken out of context. Put into context, I'm making a valid argument that both left and right have their extremests, and extremests in any sense are bad news.

If its public property, be that a courthouse, a school, or any other government owned property that the US Taxpayers pay for, and a Judeo/Christian symbol such as the ten commandments is posted there, then federal government is de facto endorsing one religion over another.

Try this page for some interesting reading.

Agreed.

I wouldn't worry about it...seems to be a common problem among some people.

think: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative to create the Internet."

Since when did a state courthouse become a federal institution? The taxpayers in AL pay for that building, and they seemed fine with the monument being there.

Its a moot argument anyway. Moore was removed for not upholding the previous ruling.

The real problem I see here is that this is just the beginning of the left trying to legislate morality right out of our society. Many of us on the right feel that the morals of this country have been under attack for some time now by a left that uses morality as a punchline. They are trying to blur the lines between what is considered right, and what is considered wrong. Our country is starting to suffer because of it. I believe that many radicals in the middle east hate us not because we support Israel, or because we are powerfull. They hate us because they see our society as corrupt, decadent, and completly immoral in every way. This scares them because they believe that we are trying to make them the same way. They believe this because this is what are media portrays to them every day in our commercials, our entertainment, etc. We claim to be a "God-fearing" society, yet all we ever see any more on the news is our own "majority" religions under fire from every direction. We have 10-12 yr old kids getting blow jobs in classrooms and the parents are arguing shouldnt be expelled because they are just kids. We are losing our common sense to a fear of seeming even remotely religious.

Where is the common sense?!

Just because an idea of right and wrong originated out of some religious doctrine does not automatically make it wrong. Truth is truth. Forget conservative and liberal, use your common sense. Sometimes children are too young, they need to have thier innocence a little longer. Instead of being bombarded by violence, sex, drugs, (and that is just the commercial before the Saturday morning cartoons begin)

A 5 year old doesnt need to see Mike kissing Matt at Disney World. For that matter, he shouldnt have to see anyone hetero or homo all over each other in a public place. As a conservative I say it all starts with the parents, no one else. But as a parent today, the only way you can shield a child from all of this stuff is to lock them in thier room with no radio, no TV, no magazines, no nothing.

As I said before, the Commandment are just the beginning of the end of any kind of rational morality in this country.

This is the last I have to say in this topic.

Nothing was taken out of context. You were defending Soviet and Maoist purges of millions.

You even got your whole argument wrong. According to you genocide made Hitler right wing and in some twist of history you seem to think his economy was that of a leftist government. All wrong. The Nazi government was a total socialist government once it consolidated power. The primary thing that distinguished it from a leftist socialist government was it's economic policies and private property rights. Everything else was virtually identical. Your description of the Nazi's economy as "leftist" is far from accurate.

Genocide does not define a government as "right wing". What kind of bullshit propaganda is that? Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot each committed genocide. Even Saddam was a "Stalinist" type socialist and he made attempts at genocide.

The original point of the whole thing I made was that socialism is evil and always devolves into tyranny. Authoritarian socialist governments always kill and always on a large scale. There are almost no exceptions since the concept of socialism has been introduced.

And you defended this murder as the "common good". There was no other way your statement could be taken. Considering the inaccuracies in your statement it could have been made out of pure ignorance. You also could have been regurgitating some indoctrinated propaganda that has infected you. It's hard to tell because of leftists like yourself constantly attempting to portray socialism and communism in a favorable light.

By this reasoning then would you agree that by the government of NYC creating a special segregated school for homosexuals at taxpayer expense endorses same sex sexual preferences over opposite sex sexual preferences?

Did you also know that in NYC schools no reference of Christmas are allowed anymore. No nativity depictions, no signs stating "Merry Christmas". It must say "Happy Holidays" and some won't even allow that. Yet menorahs are allowed and Muslim crescent and star symbols are allowed for Ramadan. What say you about this policy?

Yup! I would agree with that, and I would also go so far as to say that it is unconstitutional. How can we have equality when the state sponsors segregation? I don't care if they're gay or not, but if it was another minority in there, people would scream "racism" and "segregation."

I say this is good. The way I see it, either everyone can celebrate every holiday, or nobody does. And if it steps on the toes of someone who doesn't believe that way, then I say get rid of it.
Put it personal, and on a different subject. In seventh grade, our class was going to be taught condom use using bananas. My dad didn't want me to participate in this, so I was sent to the library for an hour. No problem at first, because I love to read anyway, and I had already been taught at home about sex from my parents as it should be. I didn't need a teacher with a banana showing me how to do it.
But since I was the only one in class that DIDN'T stay, I was made fun of for weeks on end because I wasn't "man" enough to stay in class.
Ok, transfer that same situation to a Jehova's Witness kid that doesn't celebrate Christmas. That kid is going to be taunted and harassed by every other kid in that school.

If one person is going to be cut out, then it has to be cut out for everyone. Equality for all. Basic civil rights. No segregation.

You did read the post did'nt you? You are saying that it is alright for Jewish and Islamic symbols to be displayed in NYC schools but Christian symbols are not? You are condoning this anti-Christian bigotry?

This is not fair or equitable at all.

Huh? You aren't making any sense. Here's what I believe, in plain and simple english.

1) There should be no endorsement of any religion of any kind in any taxpayer supported public building. That includes posting any religious imagery, symbols, or statements from any of the religious scriptures, be they Hindu, Muslim, Jewish or Christian. None!

2) I don't believe that the NYC school is constitutional. Not because it is endorsing a lifestyle, but because it is government sponsored segregation. If people are to get along, they have to get along on their own terms. The more we separate into different classes, ranks, beliefs, sexual orientations, and the like, the more segregated our country becomes.

It's a melting pot. Melt, dammit.

That was his point, WilMac.

Christian references to their year-end holiday, Xmas, are banned.

However, references to the Jewish year-end holiday, Hannukah, and the Muslim year-end holiday, Rammadan [sp?] are permitted, nay, celebrated.

It's an inequity.

You both are fighting over the same fucking point.

Yes... I agree with this.

But NYC schools ALLOW Jewish and Muslim symbols. They DO NOT ALLOW Christian symbols.

Your position was not clear in the previous post. I guess one thing we agree on.

Are you sure? Why hasn't anyone brought up a lawsuit about that?

Not sure if it's been tried. It wouldn't get very far anyway. Ramadan is about 7 weeks before Christmas and all the administrators who control the NYC school system and set the rules are Jewish. The judges here are extremely liberal on culture related issues. The whole thing is an anti-Christian culture war. The thing is minorities are not the ones complaining. Hispanics are almost entirely Catholics, the Chinese rarely complain about things like this and black people are mostly Christian. None of these groups has a problem with Christian symbols.

The only ones who have a problem are the left and the Muslims.

Well, you're painting in really broad strokes. But not living in New York, I have no way to tell....It's a nice place to visit.

EDIT: AHHH OK DAMMIT...sorry, long day, I was confused. Now I feel like an ass.

Yes, I don't believe it's right for anyone to celebrate any religious holiday at schools or post any religious symbols at all.

Hell here it is fine to wear a cross to school, but if you try to were a pentacle you are in deep shit.

I tell ya, one of the most amusing cases I saw was the girl who was sent home for wearing a rosary around her neck. They said it was a gang symbol. She argued it was her faith.

She was full of shit. The rosary is a Catholic symbol, and it is in NO way to be worn as a necklace or jewelry.

It's OK to wear a cross, or a pentacle for that matter, in any public place you want, it's called freedom of speech, and it didn't cost the tax payers anything.

Placing a religious monument in a public building that's paid for by the tax payers of that state, especially without a public vote, is a totally different matter. I'd be curious to know who paid for the monument itself, as well as the cost to install/remove it.

The culture wars even go beyond religion. The left frowns on any displays of patriotism too. Remember ABC ordering all it's newscasters from wearing US flag pins on their lapels or blouses. (ABC let Peter Jennings had a say in that matter). Many other networks did the same.

How many people have been sued across the country in the last few years for flying the U.S. flag? Many.

You think the Pledge of Allegiance thing was all about "under God" being part of it? No way. Even without that the left will find a way to get that removed from all schools. The oath of citizenship that new U.S. citizens now recite has been changed.

All this stuff is going to intensify and get worse and much further out of hand as time goes on.

Judge Moore paid for it with his own funds. He may also get the bill for it's removal I recall reading somewhere.

That's alright though. When he becomes governor he will install it in front of the state capitol building.

And you know damn well the people WILL elect him governor. He had a lot of public support. Still does.

Good God, man! Sometimes you can be downright paranoid!

When has this happened?

That's OK with me, I don't live in Alabama. If this whole mess with the 10 commandments monument is the most pressing issue the people of Alabama have on their plates, then they deserve him.

:rolleyes:

Hell it happened right here in Flower Mound recently.

Sean, my point was at some schools here you can were a cross, but not a pentacle. That is bullshit. None of the parents want to fight it because they are afraid they will loose their kids over it.

Explain to me you anti-Christian, why then did the state of Florida allow that muslim woman to wear her vail when getting her driver's license photo taken? It is clearly against the law in that state to wear a hat or anything covering your head and face, yet because of her religion, the state had to let her keep it on. They made an exception to their law based on religion. Why doesn't this country ever give in to the wants and desires of us Christians? The Ten Commandments will not force anyone to become a Christian.

Exactly, the majority of people wanted the monument to stay. But guess what, the Liberals responded the loudest cry and came running to support one group of people over all the others. Just as they always do.

Ahem...they didn't allow her to wear it. Search for yourself. This is the most up to date story I could find.
Lifting the Veil

And the conservatives don't do the same?

No we don't. We don't put one group of people over an another. We don't legislate laws that provide special rights to a select group of people.

Of course not, conservatives just want to abolish all laws that attempted to level the playing field for minorities, so we can ultimately live in a secure mostly white controlled nation "Under God".

Oh please Sean, get out of the 50's.

Update on NYC insanity........

Yes there is a lawsuit regarding the display of Islamic and Jewish symbols in NYC public schools. We will know the outcome within a week or so I believe. The school system for some insane reason does not view the Islamic star & crescent and the Jewish menorah as "religious" symbols. In their insanity they view them as secular. No Christian symbols are allowed. The word Christmas is a problem because it is viewed as a religious holiday (strange because NY schools are closed for all Jewish holidays even though they are not government holidays). Christmas trees are allowed at the discretion of the principal and no ornaments depicting anything Christian or deemed religious may be hung from the trees (this basically means few schools have trees).

In an even further twist of NY City government insanity........ At Police Headquarters in downtown Manhattan they have recently installed a display of the The Koran. It is displayed atop a brass pedestal and enclosed in a glass cube in front of the official police seal near the Hall of Heroes.

Imagine that... in front of the Hall of Heroes. Many of those heroes who have recently been murdered because of Islam. Insanity in this city knows no bounds. Where is the outrage on separation of church and state in this issue.

The NYPD also wonders why people are retiring by the thousands and can't wait to get out. This city sucks and is so leftist it is killing itself.

http://www.newsday.com/mynews/ny-nyreli073529012nov07,0,7911258.story

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35602

Though I totally agree with you about this scenario being a double standard (you already know my thoughts about having ANY religion proported in public areas), but how do you know it's the "Leftist" fault?

I have my own theory on why this is happening and basicly it's that the white Judo/Christian is the minority in NYC, and is simple being out voted on these matters.

Think about, the inhabitants of NYC proper vote, don't they? Somebody had to have voted for the selectmen in NYC. Do you even know the demographics of NYC, or exactly who is insituting these laws?

On a more abstract thought, do you really think a Democrat like Hillary Clinton would have voted in favor of placing the Koran in front of the Hall of Heroes, in so jeopardizing her future run for the White House?

The thing with the religious symbols are not due to any laws. They are due to policies.

NYC is run by extreme leftists. The City Council has become a total sham. All are leftists and most now are anti-white racists. Even the mayor (Bloomberg) is a liberal Democrat who became a Republican just because he knew there was no way he could have won the Democratic primary. All the politicians in NY are Democrat and for the most part extreme liberals with the exception of Staten Island.

I know the demographics of NY very well. The demographic makeup of NY is VFW (Very few whites). Staten Island is over 70% white and that is the only place where you find Republican elected officials.

Hillary had nothing to do with the Koran at Police Headquarters. That was put there by an Islamic Imam who is a chaplain to the department(for PC reasons of course). It was Jewish politicians who caved on that issue. The Police Dept. is primarily Italian then Irish then a mixture of Hispanic and Black. It is mostly Italian and Irish and all its members are very overwhelmingly from various Christian backgrounds.

Hillary doesn't do a damn thing for NY. She stays in Washington all the time building her power base. You think she lives here? She doesn't care about cops or fireman for that matter. She never went to a single one of their funerals after 9/11. Much will be made of that if she ever ran for president. Even our other radical leftist senator, Chuck Schumer found time to go to some of the funerals.

She attended a few. Almost none...but she did attend them.

Nice try Moby...... Nope. She didn't attend any firefighter or police funerals.

1. She attended Judge's funeral. Now, YOU may not consider him a firefighter, but I bet 99% of NYC's firefighters DO consider him a firefighter.

2. According to this anti-clinton site, she DID attend three: Rudy v. Hillary

3. According to this anti-clinton site, she attended two: Look under "comments"

Keep in mind - I'm not saying she attended "enough" of them. I'm just saying the statement she attended "none" is incorrect.

Fr. Judge was not a firefighter. He was a chaplain. And no...regardless of what you may have heard in the press he was not as universally loved as he was portrayed in the media. I'm sure he was a nice guy, but many fireman did not appreciate an openly gay priest as a department chaplain. Hillary went to his memorial service because it was televised nationally and because he was gay.

I don't care what web log sites you come up with that tell lies.... it is a very widely known fact amongst anyone even remotely associated with any uniformed service in New York City that she never attended a single fireman or cop funeral. That is the truth and her office has consistently lied about this. The press for some reason here didn't touch it. Even the NY Post which is anti-Hillary only made scant references to it in the months after 9/11.

To make matters worse, how about the lies she told Steven Brill when he was writing his book? She lied about meeting many of the civilian families of 9/11 victims and when Steven Brill tried to corroborate her stories with the families for the book, he discovered that she lied. She never met with them and these people said Schumer was the only one who had met them. She only met a few families and they were prepared photo ops with the cameras rolling.

What about the famous lie she told after the towers fell. She claimed Chelsea was jogging that morning by the water near the trade center. That fell apart when Chelsea told Talk magazine in an interview a week later that she was in her apartment that morning about 30 blocks uptown.

If I were you Moby, I would give up trying to defend her. You will get whiplash trying to keep up and defend that bitches lies.

Well, I don't know how close those two are, but she might have *thought* Chelsea was down there. I've had many times where I thought I was going to be travelling to one place, told my parents, and then didn't go - but did not talk to my parents until afterwards. If I had told my parents on the 10th of September that I was going to be down at the Trade Center on September 11th and it fell through and I ended up at work 30 miles away - they may have told people I was there when it happened. They wouldn't have known until I told them afterwards.

Curious...when exactly did she say it? That is, did she say it that day? Because I know when the whole thing happened, I got lucky - it only took me about 3 hours to get a hold of my parents...and my co-workers couldn't get through to anyone at all that day.

Now, if she said this 1-2 days later, then yeah, I'd say she would have known better...there is no doubt she would have been in contact with Chelsea within several hours of the attack. I assume Chelsea has some sort of Secret Service unit still on her.

No, I'm not trying to defend her. But it amazes me that anything that comes out of her mouth must be a premeditated lie, according to the conservatives.

So some firefighters would say he wasn't one because he was gay? What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

A simple "he was not a firefighter, he was a chaplain" would have sufficed.

Funny thing...last I knew the Catholic Church had no problem with someone in the church (lay or clergy) that was openly gay - AS LONG AS they didn't act on it. If he was celibate, as he required to have been, it doesn't matter.

She said it either on the 12th or 13th. She definitely spoke to her daughter in the interim.

He wasn't what? He definitely was not a firefighter. He was a gay priest who chose to hang around and associate himself with a male organization. Is that so hard to see the truth? In light of the gay priest problem we should be thankful he didn't choose to become a Boy Scout leader.

Most fireman are good conservative family men. Is it such a stretch for you to fathom that they would prefer a priest who was not an admitted gay to be a minister and representative of their faith to the department?

The fact that Fr. Judge was gay may have possibly been irrelevant to his vocation. The fact that he openly admitted it made it relevant. I know to people like you everything gay is something to be celebrated so you will never see any other side.

A priest is a man of the cloth and is supposed to be a man of God. Priests give up and subjugate thier sexuality in thier committment to God when they take the vow of celibacy. It is not acceptable for a priest to discuss facts of his personal sexuality to those in which he is to minister. That sacrifice of this part of thier human nature is supposed to be indicative of thier committment not only to God and thier faith, but to thier congregation.

A Catholic priest is not supposed to be sexual nevertheless homosexual. When a priest openly admits thier homosexuality they openly declare more than a modicum of rebellion not only to the very Church and it's beliefs that they have avowed but they also violate the sanctity of the priesthood as a whole.

When a normal man becomes a priest he sacrifices his sexuality for God, his faith, his church and his congregation. His sexuality is part of his past. Is it too much to ask the same of a homosexual who happens to become a priest?

(Please... no comments from the atheists about the problems with the abusive priests. We all know they were gay).

Can you back this up? What's a link? I just spent twenty minutes trying to come up with a site that quoted her, and haven't found anything.

Any help you can provide would sure be appreciated.

Hillary told her bullshit story on Sept. 17, 2001 on NBC's Dateline. You can get a copy of the transcript here for $12.00

http://www.burrelles.com/transcripts/nbc/date0103.htm

Talk magazine stuff...

http://www.digitalfreeway.com/talkmedia/december2001/home.html

Drudge...

http://web.archive.org/web/20011109210740/www.drudgereport.com/mattch1.htm

Larry Elder with some commentary...

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder111501.asp

Ouch!

Wonder why phone calls to Hillary's office from Drudge went unanswered! hahaha.

The topic of this thread meanders more than Gary Busey on his morning stroll.

The topic of this thread wanders more than Anne Heche coming out of the desert.

Anne Heche .... Isn't she the author of a book called "Hot Dogs and Donuts"?

EDIT: 30 minutes to Rush.....

14 minutes to Rush......

5 minutes to Rush......

(you know I had to add that :p )

39 seconds till I go take a piss . . .

And I know you are going to listen. Every liberal in America will be listening.

1 minute to Rush.....

Shouldn't this be on the Rush Limbaugh thread??

Like I said, Gary Busey.