Another Stupid Republican Opens His Mouth...

Yep, another idiot republican goes and opens his big trap:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-22-santorum-gays_x.htm

I don't know what's worse, being a homophobe or being so stupid to make comments like this in public. If you're for or against gay rights, and you're in the public eye, wouldn't the smart thing to do is to just keep your mouth shut about it? I give this guy a couple weeks before he steps down.

I give NY Madam four minutes before he jumps all over this post . . . bonus points: he'll throw in an anti-homosexual remark, plus call someone a "liberal" or "deviant" . . .

Most likely me.

I agree with with the comments. I don't think a man should have to fear anything for voicing his opinion, regardless of whether they are PC or not. Everyone defended the rights of those left-wing celebs about the war and their 1st admendment rights. Why can't the man express his. He isn't discriminating gays. He isn't predujiced against gays. He just doesn't like butt pirating. Nothing wrong with that. I want to know what my leaders are really thinking.

Not discriminating against gays? Perhaps you didn't read the whole article:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

He equating homosexuality with crimes; incest and polygamy, two VERY different acts.

How can he say that he has: "no problem with homosexuality — I have a problem with homosexual acts."

Let me get this straight....

Liberals, atheists and deviants of all kinds can make all sorts of remarks insulting the majority of the population. Condemning anyone who believes in God. Claiming separation of church and state whenever the word God is mentioned. Crying the state is forcing morality on them...

But the majority of the population is supposed to keep quiet when
laws protecting deviants and immorality is forced upon them through gay agenda legislation, etc.

You and your kind are a bunch of hypocrites. Is there a deviant that you don't support Sean?

Santorum is a good guy. The gays as usual twisted this around. He will not apoligize. Why should he? He stands for family values. People like you and the deviants you support do not.

Even the NY Times isn't making too much of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/23/national/23TALK.html

Sean.. you deviant. The AP misquoted him. The article above has his full quotes. Nice try asshole.

There are PLENTY of actual "deviants" I would LOVE to see put to sleep, like child molesters
murders, and rapists. But if two people of the same sex love each other, and don't hurt anybody, they're not deviant in my book, but Priests who rape little boys ARE, asshole.

Fuck.

22 minutes.

Got everything else, though . . .

Oh, but there aren't that many, Sean . . . a very low number . . .

Only something like 70 in Boston . . . very low number . . .

Gay people are Gay.

Tell me about it. Seems like every week some priest in New England is being brought up on charges.

They both have the same thing in common. They are GAY!.

Anyone with half a brain should realize The Catholic Church is a perfect example of what happens when you fill the ranks with a bunch of gays.

And who's fault is that? In that situation, being gay is not the main problem. Being told that you'll burn in hell if you're gay, and trying to supress that innate urge for years is the problem. Just goes to show how ignorant you are on the subject, being gay doen't mean you'll rape little boys anymore than it means if you're straight, you'll rape little girls.

My bad . . .

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories4/013003_suits.htm

16 priests named for first time in sexual abuse lawsuits

At least three still active; total of accused at 130

By Michael Rezendes and Matt Carroll, Globe Staff, 1/30/2003

The number of priests in the Boston Archdiocese accused of sexually molesting children
grew to 130 yesterday, with the filing of a rash of new lawsuits that name 16 priests as
molesters for the first time.

The new lawsuits, filed on behalf of 70 new alleged victims, include charges of rape, attempted
rape, and fondling of minors against 40 priests and a former church worker who is believed to be
a deacon. At least three of the 40 priests are in active ministry.

Also named as defendants in some of the suits are two former auxiliary bishops in Boston,
Archbishop Daniel A. Cronin of the Hartford archdiocese and Bishop Daniel A. Hart of the
Norwich, Conn., diocese.

They bring to eight the number of bishops, including Cardinal Bernard F. Law, who have been
accused of negligence while they supervised the abusive priests.

Law resigned Dec. 13, but the seven other bishops all head their own dioceses.

Of the 16 newly accused priests, at least three are diocesan priests in active ministry, according to
church records, and one is retired. At least 10 of the other 12 are believed to be dead, according
to attorney Mitchell Garabedian, who filed the lawsuits.

---------------------------

Now, to be fair, let's say 50% of these are false accusations. Is 50% a reasonable number?

That leaves 65 accused priests . . . in just the Boston Archdiocese . . .

That's an ugly number, man, an ugly number . . .

[/QUOTE]And who's fault is that? In that situation, being gay is not the main problem. Being told that you'll burn in hell if you're gay, and trying to supress that innate urge for years is the problem.[/QUOTE]

OK!! So tell us! Where did the bad man touch you???

It's the fault of liberal idiots like you who think gays are normal. Yes being gay is the problem. They ruined the Catholic Church.

Perverts like you want them to go camping with little boys as scout masters.

You will just never get it. I'd be willing to bet money you are a gay yourself. There is no way a normal guy would defend this deviance with such veracity.

Did you save the tear stained pillow.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I've never been hit on by a homosexual. But if a homosexual ever touched my son, I'd have no problem ending his life.

Why wouldn't the guy have the right to voice his opinion? Is he being discriminatory by saying that? No. Has he been caught discriminating against gays? No.

I don't see the problem.

Do we actually have to approve of everything and be PC or can we formulate our own opinions based on personal religious or moral views? I don't have to like everything about everyone. I just have to treat you fairly and with indifference as to your personal choices. Right?

I love it when the RepubliKKKan party shows it's true colors. No matter how hard they try, they just can't seem to escape "what they really are". Gosh, after Lott; they looked so moderate. Ha, ha, ha!

They would be classified as a pedophile, not a homosexual. (Just being P.C.)

Making shit up again to skirt the issue here, huh? Why is it that anyone who believes in equal rights for everyone is gay to you? What are you so afraid of any way Mr. Homophobe?

"can we formulate our own opinions based on personal religious or moral views?"
You and I can. Yes.

The gentleman in question is a legislator. That means he does have to consider his constituents' and party's feelings before spouting off.

If the party and his district don't have a problem with it, then fine. If they do, then tough shit, a politician so stupid as to touch that subject at all deserves to go home . . .

Let me get this straight...

Conservatives: abortion should be illegal. Nobody gets to make their own decision.

Liberals: abortion should be a choice. Not required. Each decides for themselves.

Conservatives: Ten commandments are ok in a courthouse, because we are a christian nation.

Liberals: Ten commandments are NOT ok, but we are NOT a christian nation, but a hodgepodge of MANY beliefs, and nobody in the government should be putting one above the other.

Conservatives: Gay people shouldn't have rights above anyone else. But religion sure can.

Liberals: Gay people should have EQUAL protections against discrimination (not above), just a religion does.

Conservatives: No problem telling people that we should all be living by christian standards.

Liberals: Nobody *has* to live by christian standards.

Conservatives: Our morals are the right morals.

Liberals: Each person has their own morals, and NOBODY has the right to decide how others should live.

The difference? What liberals want does NOT affect individuals in their private lives. What conservatives want CAN affect individuals.

I don't know any liberals personally who *condemn* religion. Just that you can't put it into laws or regulations with the government.

Did you squeal like a pig when the red neck with the "perty mouth" bent you over? How old are you anyway, 12?

I'm not making anything up. I'd bet money you are gay or bi or something like that. Like I said... There is no way a normal guy would defend this deviance with such veracity.

This is not an issue of equal rights. You perverts package it that way. It's an assault on traditional American family values.

Moby... It can also be argued that liberals want to force their immorality on the population.

Issues like this should be voted on by the population at large. Not decided by special interests and deviant politicians.

Need a little help here.....

I read the transcript of the interview and I didn't see any specific reference or comment by Santorum that singled out gays...he seemed to be directing his comments against all groups which don't fall into the traditional "family unit" definition. Which is hardly unusual for a member of the GOP.

TRANSCRIPT
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030422/ap_on_go_co/santorum_gays_excerpts_2

It's not like he said "GAY = EVIL". Personally, I don't know what the fuss is about. At least he's being consistent, unlike NOW who originally was against charging the Peterson bastard with double murder b/c it would hurt their arguments with respect to abortion.

http://www.dailyrecord.com/news/03/04/22/news2-lacifolo.htm


-D

I'm curious how a gay couple next door could damage your family. I want to understand how the deviant hordes of gay men and women living peaceful lives will cause a catastrophic meltdown.

Please explain. Pretend I am just as dumb and backward and gullible as you like to think I am.

Stop giving me fucking rhetoric you pulled off another Website, and spell it out for me. Point form if you don't want to type, I understand how difficult it can be . . .

I want to know just how it is an assault on American family values.
Is it the fear that little Johnny might grow up gay?

Come on, smart-guy . . . give me something to think about . . .

But that's just it...they *aren't* forcing it. They are saying each should live as they see fit. Nobody is telling you that you have to refrain from religious activities. Nobody is telling you that you HAVE to consider abortion if you have a pregnancy.

As far as the congressman... he said what he said, however he meant it. I'm just amused by how he's trying to justify it (regardless of what he meant). Should he apologize? Maybe he should just say he's disappointed that some people may have taken it wrong, but that he won't apologize for actually saying it.

Gay couple. That's a fucking laugh. You make them sound like Ozzie and Harriet. I guess outside of the bath houses they may ride home together.

Maybe a tiny percentage of them live "coupled" monogomous lives. The rest are deviant hordes. They deserve no more legal protection then a man who wants to marry his adult sister. It's wrong regardless of the propaganda your kind endlessly pushes on the public.

You are wrong again Moby. Did you read this link:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/22/BA248780.DTL

I would say there is a lot being forced on the public. California today...everywhere tommorrow. Sen. Kennedy has a similar bill in committee. Don't hire a deviant .. you pay $150,000.

It is fucking WRONG.

"I want to understand how the deviant hordes of gay men and women living peaceful lives will cause a catastrophic meltdown."

Okay.

So skip the "couple" reference. It obviously makes you uneasy . . .

You still didn't answer my question:

How does the lifestyle of homosexuals threaten the American family?
Is it that they make you uneasy? They offend you and your moral sensibilities? Offending you can't really damage your life unless you're so morally bankrupt that you will let it . . .

How do homosexuals threaten the American family?

Come on, you can do better than rhetoric . . . can't you?

"Landlords and businesses that intentionally discriminate face fines up to $150,000 imposed by the Fair Employment and Housing Commission or unlimited damages if a civil lawsuit is filed, just as in race and sex discrimination cases."

Just as in race and sex discrimination cases . . .

Should employers also avoid hiring women and blacks?

So, the cure for this seems not to live in Boston.

HAHA, you just said it, equal rights for everyone. Therefore, there should be no "hate crime" laws written. Being gay doesn't justify you having special laws written.
I don't like women with tatoos across their back, should they be supported under the hate crimes law if someone did something evil to them?

I think there are about a dozen different points being argued back and forth.

I agree with offhisfuckingrocker, hate crimes are a waste of time and energy. Any crime is essentially a hate crime. I don't think anyone should have special rights, and I don't think gays want "special" rights.

Every homosexual I've ever met has wanted equal rights, nothing more. That means they want to be able to have spousal benefits. What the hell is wrong with that? My wife will have excellent healthcare when we tie the knot, we are happy about that. Why can't two homosexuals do the same?

offhisfuckingnut is right--equal rights for everyone.

Now, we get to argue about what really is "equal" . . .

This should be entertaining . . .

I'm not real familiar with what the SF group is doing. I'm not saying there are instances where it might go too far. HOWEVER, it goes both ways. Do some research on Cincinnati and what happens there. There's a reason it has the nickname "Censornazi." The extreme right is in control there.

Let me quess, you're off the med's today. How did "hate crimes" get into the conversation? Homosexuals want EQUAL rights, meaning they want the states to reconize their marriage, and be eligible for the benefits that straight couples receive. As for hate crimes per se, are you saying no additional penalty should be given to someone who kills because the victim was black, Jewish, or gay?

Their lifestyle does not.

Legislating special rights certainly does.

Every organization, religious and private, would be open to attack regardless of the values held by their members.

Every religion (including Islam which is the liberals current favorite and rabidly anti-homosexual) would have to comply with this so-called acceptance designated by law.

Legally protected access to children regardless of the parents values.

Deviants will be adopting children.

Private Health Care companies will be under financial assault with legal gay lovers being covered for AIDS expenses.

Institution of marraige would further crumble.

Hate crimes lawsuits crippling government and business.

More Gay Civil rights lawsuits given teeth with new legislation.

These are just a few. The damage would be much greater on society.

Are you a gay like Sean?

You come off as a classic closet case yourself. Only someone insecure with their own manhood would vigorously denouce homosexuality like you do.

Again...it's not special rights they want. It's EQUAL rights.

Why is it that religion can be protected? It is a choice no matter how you cut it.

If it's their own children, they should have every right to access to them (aside from child abuse).

Can you give examples where it has been *proven* that gays having children has been detrimental to the kids? Not your opinion...but proof that has been accepted by the medical establishment and anyone else who has the authoritative knowledge of it?

Nice try fancy boy. There has never been a liberal, left wing or deviant issue discussed on XOC that you did not favor.

I feel sorry for your son. I would think it's rough being a kid in a house with two mothers without a real man to look up to.

*Every organization, religious and private, would be open to attack regardless of the values held by their members.

--Like these same organizations aren't facing attack by a thousand splintered special-interest groups as it is?

*Every religion (including Islam which is the liberals current favorite and rabidly anti-homosexual) would have to comply with this so-called acceptance designated by law.

--Well, I couldn't give a fuck what happens to any religion. Let 'em suffer . . .

*Legally protected access to children regardless of the parents values.

--Ever heard of private schools? All kinds of assholes already in the Public School System. If you think kids are safe now, you don't care much for children . . . cool, Johnny won't learn what a homosexual is. Good. Just hope he isn't shot on the playground . . .

*Deviants will be adopting children.

--Hell, Susan Smith and Andrea Yates had theirs legally, the old-fashioned way.

Worked out well, eh?

*Private Health Care companies will be under financial assault with legal gay lovers being covered for AIDS expenses.

--Not like those thousands of heterosexual AIDS victims dying across the country weekly . . .

*Institution of marraige would further crumble.

--Nope. The institution of marriage will crumble because men cheat on women, women cheat on men. If you can't make a marriage work, don't blame someone else . . .

*Hate crimes lawsuits crippling government and business.

--As opposed to lawsuits over hot coffee? Fat-making hamburgers? Damn those gays, they'll damage the court system . . .

*More Gay Civil rights lawsuits given teeth with new legislation.

--How about that?

These are just a few. The damage would be much greater on society.

Are you a gay like Sean?

--Don't think so. Maybe I'm gay like you?

Do yourself a favor Capote, just admit you prefer the company of men. I'll bet money the only man you ever looked up to had his balls on your chin.

It isn't a right to be married. It isn't a right to have benefits. These are all privileges. And yes, gays are covered under the hate crime laws. I am not covered under such laws. Where is the equal rights you were talking about?

Why should the states recognize their marriages? It is the vast majority of the population that thinks choosing to be gay is immoral. The needs and wants of the many outweigh the needs and wants of the few, unless you are a liberal.

All men are created equal. It is what you do after being created that brings about deserves and deserves nots.

i wasnt gonna chime in here till i saw this(leave it to madman)

I support gay rights... who are you to say that your values are the only values... ego-maniacal prick

Graham.. you are an idiot. I'm not even going to quote your whole pile of bullshit.

You don't care about about anybody's religion?

The whole argument is all about religion and morality. You have neither.

There is no point in arguing the question any further with you.

Yes you are. Religion. (*note* - I don't disagree that hate crimes might be getting a little out of hand. Murder is murder, regardless of who the victim is. Along the same lines (and I might get flak for this), why does someone who murders a police officer made worse than someone who murders a civilian? I'm not saying they shouldn't...but doesn't this belittle the common citizen who was murdered?. Just a thought.

Quote:

Why should the states recognize their marriages? It is the vast majority of the population that thinks choosing to be gay is immoral.

That is highly suspect. The *vast* majority? I'd say a large number (maybe not a *vast* majority) don't have issues with other people being gay. Sure, they are afraid of it...but they also know it's not their lives.

Quote:

All men are created equal. It is what you do after being created that brings about deserves and deserves nots.

That's all fine and dandy. But since when was it up to *you* to decide who deserves and who doesn't?

You got married, right? Your wife get's your medical benifits, right? If a black man killed you because you're white or Catholic, that's a hate crime, right?

Our founding fathers had the "minority" also in mind when they wrote the consitution, one just has to look at a jury trial for instance.

I agree. Even if you're gay, if you're not hurting anybody, you deserve equal rights too.

I never said my values are the only ones. I would say the majority of the population of this country believes as I do that gays deserve no further rights.

Don't get me started on you. You are probably the most irresponsible bastard that ever wrote a post on XOC.

You got to be king shit on that one.

What Santorum said was idiotic. I say this as a proud RepubliCan.

Being Gay is genetic, there is no morality involved, it is what they are. Comparing consensual sex to the raping of children is assinine.

The Demokkkrats have done more in the last 30 years to keep the black race in thier place than the republiCans ever will. The demokkkrats are the modern day MASSA. Making sure blacks have just enough that they will always need them. Never giving them enough to do it on thier own, because then they would become republiCans. Blacks wouldnt need demokkrats then. So they make so they will always need them. The blacks have been hoodwinked by the demokkkratic party for years. Flame on!

do you assume that moralty and religion have anything to do with each other?

they don't

there are the morals of religion but someone doesn't have to have those morals to have morals

LOL oh god your funny, I mean honestly you remind me of Bahgdad Bob... seriously.

there is just no way you can actually believe the crap you spew.

Please explain how I'm irresponsible, really I'd like to know...

Of course not. Have you not been paying attention?

I think you're a little off topic here. This thread is about homophobic republicans.

:rolleyes:

Todrick... You are the last person here who should lecture anyone about morality.

Where do you get your morality from? You were raised Catholic but you threw all that out the window long ago.

Morality also implies a semblance of responsibility. You don't seem too responsible from what I have seen.

My last post, besides commenting on homosexuals, was in response to xterrapinheads ridiculous statements spelling republican with a KKK. he is a misguided human being living a fantasy life.

Santorum was wrong, does that satisfy your on topic rant teacher?

That was no rant. If you want to read examples of rants, just read anything from NY Closet Case.

again please explain...

just for the record i was not raised catholic(shows how much you pay attention) if i were i probably would have killed myself long ago...

Todrick,

How dare you have the gall to grow up thinking for yourself and questioning all the shit that was shoved down upon you from birth?

Thinking for yourself? Searching for answers that satisfy your curious intellect?

Irresponsible child . . .

Yeah thinking for yourself is the greatest sin one can commit... didn't you know... its right up there with turning in your priest for molesting you

Allegedly!

Allegedly molesting you . . .

Now keep repeating that until Rome cuts you the check, capiche?

I heard you were born Catholic.

You are an irresponsible bastard however.

Didn't you have two kids before you even decided to get married? No drug stores in the area?

Aren't you the guy who begged people on the internet to send him money because you were $44,000 in debt and could barely feed your kids?

Don't you think spending money on your family instead of your toys is more important? Especially when you are in debt? Maybe you could move your kids to a better area away from midnight drug raids by the cops if you were more responsible.

One of these days your wife is going to wake up and leave you.

Isn't your name Jason? How much have you collected from begging? This is you right?

http://members.cox.net/save_jason/

Whoever that Jason is...if he's truly that much in debt...hasn't he ever heard of filing for personal bankruptcy?

Thank you... now lets look at this like adults:



you heard wrong...

so lets get down to it



No, I had two kids after i decided not to get married... honestly the only reason we finally did get married is because eventually it would be common law... why not have a party and get some gifts... marriage is just a piece of paper... i don't need this piece of paper to know i love my wife and kids... marriage by definition is an antiquated concept of a church i don't believe in... sadly government is ruled by the church so eventually they force you to be married, common law, or vegas quicky aside



Hey thanks for checking out the site. It feels good to know people admire my work.

Never said I could barely feed my kids... in fact freelance work while irregular isn't too bad... add that to my wifes steady income we make out with out having to worry about putting food on the table.

I got the idea from the site from Savekaryn.com but she just spent too much, so i figured i'd start a similar sight due to bad luck...

I made some money too thanks to those who helped



so what's your plan?

sell the xterra for less than i owe and still owe the bank money but now have no vehicle with which to drive the kids around?

that aside most of my debts came from before i had children... but my financial situation didn't take a nasty turn till afterwords.



yeah a responsible parent would do that... didn't you read the part about how we moved a week later?

FYI the neighbor Hood was otherwise quiet... in fact it was rather low in crime... just that one incident... kind of like Brentwood CA a quiet upscale neighborhood till OJ had that one incident... but yes, that incident was enough to make me get he hell out.

I now live in a town home in huntington beach... in les s than a month I'm kissing this whole shithole called LA adios and moving back to AZ



why?
We have a very nice open honest relationship...
full of love for each other and our children.

hey thanks for bookmarking my site.

I have made some money... but not lately, just as the site hasn't been updated since shortly after it was put up... almost immediately afterward things really picked up for me... but thanks for your concern...

I took a look at the link you posted... it was funny... i haven't even looked at the site since i made that last update. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

So what have we learned:

1. NYMadman spouts things he "heard" as if they were facts

2. NYMadman has a very narrow and controlling idea of love. Sadly he will likely die a lonely bitter man.

3. NYMadman loves to take things written in black and white and then completely distort the facts to suit his preconceived notions

4. NYMadman has no concept of the economic and employment turmoil the Country is in.

5. NYMadman has no concept of change and resists it with a passion... he believes that because something is true today it will again be true tomorrow

6. NYMadman has no concept of individuality... the idea that anyone could think differently than him and be happy doing so is beyond him... he feels that no one who feels differently than him could possibly find someone else who thinks differently and be happy together(kind of explains his views on gays)

7. NYMadman is an admirer of fine web design... so much so that he will bookmark sites he really enjoys

In closing NY, don't assume shit you don't understand... admit you don't know and learn something...

otherwise you can just expect to get,

the majority of those debts are my xterra and my harley... why decalre bankruptcy when those are two debts i'll carry over...

and no... i'm not anywhere close to that far in debt now... I'm in debt, but its manageable... especially with the job offe ri have in AZ... my Debt should be gone in 1 year

So why not sell the Harley? I completely understand not wanting to, but in the end, is it better to have two vehicles and a load of debt, or one and even more manageable debt?

Keep in mind - I'm not trying to judge you or anything like that. I've got debt, but if I got that far, the Xterra would be gone, as much as I'd hate to do it.

Off topic, maybe. 100% correct, absolutly. Great post mb!

no i understand completely... but the harley is not a big deal... total monthly payment on it is a bit over $100, i could probably sell it and turn out about even, maybe a bit ahead... but it wouldnt make much of a difference and like i said im not in that bad a spot anymore...

truth be told the harley will get stripped to parts and the finance companyt will recieve a frame and the jugs (the only parts with a VIN) befor ei sell the bike, not that it will ever come to that... you see when i bought the bike i was in escrow, had just bought the xterra about 6 months earlier and the finance company got nervous... so my father cosigned... we spent a good 3 hours at the dealership talking and really enjoying each others company as men.. it was a great moment... two weeks later my dad died in my arms... the last time i spent with him was buying that bike... so I'm more than a bit attached to it.

as for the x... like i said i still owe mor ethan its worth... might as well hang on to it... if im gonna pay for something i might as well have possession of it

Where do people get the idea that most child molesters are gay ? I believe the vast majority are heterosexual in their choice of adult partners.

I think it is great that the republikaners can come out of the closet about their opinions, people need to know what they really stand for.

Todrick...

You are full of crap.

You are an irresponsible prick who lives off his wife.

You have never made anything from your beggar web site.

You know you are lying about your advertised debt. It's real estate debt.

You move more often then a crack house.

You are the absolute last guy to ever criticize anyone on this board. You are totally irresponsible.

You are white trash who smokes a bong all day while his wife is out supporting the family.

Tell us about your next move to AZ. Getting evicted again?

Madwoman, do you know what Psychological Projection is? This will be hard for you to understand given that neither the word "liberal" nor the word "deviant" is in it, but give it a shot:

"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

Does this mean anything to you? We can help you, but first you have to admit you have a problem.

Eric,

Swish.
Cha-ching.
Endut, hoch hech.

I appreciate your attempt at psychoanalysis. I guess that's what college courses are teaching you.

I was posting info about Todrick. He is a prick.

He seems to have made a lot of enemies on here. Some have deemed it useful to provide me with this info for some reason. I posted it. I guess he has had some people kicked off the board.

He is still a low life regardless of what you may think.

Okay, this is sooo fucking funny. The liberals on this board, (why do they all seem to be in Graphic Arts) are pissed off and calling for the job/head of someone for voicing his opinion.

Let that sink in hypocrites.

The liberals are mad because someone voiced his opinion.

Aren't you supposed to say, well that is his opinion?

Personally I don't agree with what the guy said, but I think you are all a bunch of fucking whiny bitches. You clamor the first amendment ONLY when it's something you agree with.

Again, let this try to sink in. NOT EVERYONE agrees with the gay people. If you like to suck the root, and have your ass pounded FINE. Everyone else does NOT NOT NOT have to like it as well. Practice what you preach. You can say you prefer sex whatever way you want all day. And anyone else can say they don't like what you do.

Get over it. We're not queer and we're here. Get used to it.

hmmm...I must have missed something. Can you tell me where in this thread anyone called for his job/head?

Anyone can have their opinion. When someone is in a position of leadership/power, they should chose their words wisely (for better or worse). How many people would raise holy hell (no pun intended) if a congressman came out and said, "Well, if we let the Christians run our country, we might as well let molesters, pedophiles, and murderer's of doctors run it?"

You know how many people would have a shit-fit over that? But he was just expressing his opinion, after all. So I guess they should just deal with it?

Oh...I almost forgot... (and I'm only making a point...nothing more)

Again, let this try to sink in. NOT EVERYONE agrees with the christian people. If you like to thump a bible, and need a crutch to get through the day FINE. Everyone else does NOT NOT NOT have to like it as well. Practice what you preach. You can say you prefer the bible on everyone in whatever version you want all day. And anyone else can say they don't like what you do."

Get over it. We're not Jesus Freaks and we're here.

No post needed, my sig says it all.

NY Madboy... would please post in something besides the "club house or alr".....do you even have an X.... you fucking troll...

I hope you've never eaten pork. Or do you only take parts of Leviticus to live by?

So tell me how you really feel:



no that would be you, but thanks for playing.



Irresponsible? if that means being a homophobic-Church gowing-scared of the world outside-jerkin off to the victoroa secrets catalog cause he's too embarassed to buy porn... that would be you.

Prick? yeah people say that sometimes...

Live off my wife? nah but again thanks for playing.



I did make some money... not much but some yes. I would probably have made more if i really tried... like used meta tags for search engine placement... updated the site... you know.



? what the fuck are you smokin... pretty hard to get real estate debt when i've never owned a home... you must be a fuckin crack head. I was in escrow to buy a house when the dot.com i worked for was doing well... but circumstance appeared that made it seem that backing out of escrow would be the best move... obviously with the turn in the economy I was right.



Yeah, it sucks I hate moving... But i seem to do it a lot... I just keep hoping that somewhere out here is not gonna suck... I have finaly realized no where in so cal is gonna compare to AZ...



Actually genious I'm usually one of the first guys to criticize.



haven't touched a Bong in about 8 years... not that I wouldn't enjoy a bowl or have anything against thos ethat do... But I just don't have the desire to be a stoner anymore.

Nope...

In order:

-Got sick of the So Cal attitude...
-Don't want to raise Kids in the environment
-Don't want to raise my kids in this school system
-the excessively liberal government here makes me sick(dear god, now i sound like you)
-Got sick of $1,300/mo for a 900 Sq.ft. Apt. with drug raids
-Got sick of $2.13 for 87 octane(although it is now down to $1.97)
-Missed my friends in AZ
-and most recently got a job offer making more money per month than you make all year sellin your ass down at the bath house.

You know, your funny.... you talk a lot about things you know nothing about...

Tell me,

How long did it take you?

again spoutin shit you have no idea about...

I have no popwer to kick anyone off the board... never have... In fact i have recently gotten a member reinstated... so um, better check your sources there nostradamus.

As for enemies... Yeah I may have made a couple... but nothing compared to the ones you've made... lets compare.

you have 903 posts, and are afraid to show what peopel have rated you...

i have 4588 posts and still manage a 3 rating...

So who is the prick?

your sig quotes Lev 18:22...

so you must know about What the bible says... I'm a bit confused about the following... can you please explain to me.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours.
They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for
her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of
mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27.
How should they die?
i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to
curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the
trouble
of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't
we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Talk about the two extremes! Almost everyone in this thread is so far one way or the other it's disgusting and in some ways frightening! Are you all really like this or just playing it for shits and giggles?

BTW, for those keeping count, I tend to lean more to the right for reasons that have nothing to do with the religious issues, gays, or anything like that. I am just smart enough (barely!) to see that there are morons and/or extremists in both parties. Hmmm, Cliton and Bore come to mind for Democratic morons. The two of them together were maybe a slight bit more intelligent than Dan Quayle. Or maybe not? again!

im not way out to the left... but its definately more fun to take that stance when NYMadman gets off on one of his rants... as for Gay rights... i do support Gay rights... but As a general rule I don't have strong feelings on most subjects(save for religion)

Nah, you're only part way out there! I support equal rights for gays but not "special" rights. This applies to any group. I also support freedom of religion and don't feel the country needs any religion pushed down their throats. Having grown up as a Christian I will be the first person to admit there are more holes in it than swiss cheese and unfortunately most followers are merely brainwashed beyond the ability to make their own decisions. In those respects I am not with the Republicans.

Anyway, the only real reason I replied in the first place was because of the way Sean worded his post as if to say "there are no stupid Democrats; only stupid Republicans!" Well, there are stupid people all over the place and there are certainly more stupid people than there are Republicans so therefore his statement is misleading and wrong.

no i am definately not for special rights... like i think affirmative action is a horrible concept...

the Gay rights issue is complex... the Christian Right liken Homosecuality to Pedophiles and rapists... so to them, Marriage is "special treatment"

The Left Sees Homosexuality as a human trait... like having Blue Eyes... so to them Marriage is an Equal Right

of coarse this goes back to religion and the fact that if religious bias wa sremoved from the equation Homosexuals would be allowed to be married... as it is only the Religious teachings that prevent it.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion, didn't Trent Lott step down recently because he too opened his big trap? Plus I never inferred there wasn't stupid Democrates out there (Gary hart comes to mind back when he challenged the press to find dirt on him). I was mearly emphasizing how yet another republican recently opened his big mouth before thinking first (and to get under NY's skin). I've stated many times, I HATE BOTH parties, and I'm sick of all the infighting in government today, and how nothing is getting done. This thread has proved to me that the battle lines of Democrate vs republican just get wider and wider, to the point where the common person has "Party Affiliation" on the top of their list when deceiding who to associate with.

As for homosexuality, I wouldn't say I was "for" it, but as long as consenting adults keep it private (key word here), and it doesn't hurt anybody, it personally doesn't bother me. I'm secure enough with my sexual idenity that I can talk/work with homosexuals and not let it bother me. There's no such thing as gay "cooties", and contrary to many of you religious types out there, a homosexual CAN'T make a straight person gay, anyone who "converts" was gay to begin with. Homosexuals are BORN gay, it's not their fault, and it's not something they choose on a whim. In this day and age of hate crimes against them, and HEP/HIV running amock, why would ANYONE choose to be gay? What I find really fasinating is how Madman said he received "info" on Todrick from others on this site. I didn't think he had any friends here, must be that some here had hard feelings for Todrick.

Mad man:

If you're looking for dirt on me, keep looking, you won't find any. I'm a straight male, married for 7 years, and I have a 3 1/2 year old son. I have three degrees (most recent a B.S. from Boston University, Bill O'Reilly's old school), I own a house and two SUV's, been working full time for 18 years, I'm a registered Independent (and I vote), and I have no affiliation whatsoever to any church or religion. Most of all I pride myself as being a free thinker, something you are not.

I read this whole damn post just to make a point at the end - wanted to be sure that I wasn't repeating what someone else said.

Basically, wasn't this guy just making a LEGAL POINT?? If a court rules that behavior in the bedroom/home can not be regulated by government, then anything else you do in the privacy of your own home is legal. Instead, the way to go would be to repeal the sodomy laws (like the majority of states have).

I thought it was simply a legal point? Maybe I haven't read enough on it...

Oh please you non-knowing anything pertaining to Christianity. That one chapter was meant for one people in one time. Not everything in the Bible is meant for everyone over all eternity.

WRONG again. See my post to Mobycat above. Where do you people come from. You spew forth all this crap concerning Christianity when you know nothing about it. Nothing at all. You have said you have studied the Bible. You obviously do not know the basics.
Who taught you that everything in the Bible is relevant to YOU? Maybe you should find them, call them on the phone, and tell them they are wrong.

You would be surprised at some of the feedback I have received due to some of our many argument threads we have had here.

I was shocked myself. Even people who have been kicked off the board in the past still read it. I have also been contacted by a few current members. Probably afraid to post because of deviant liberals like you.

Free thinker.. That means diversity training brainwashed asshole.

I would say after Todrick, Graham is the most hated user on this board. Well at least what I have heard.

Yes. You are right. But the deviants think they are above reproach.

They think no one can raise any opinion or objection to their deviance.

Now they are taking a hissy fit. They might just scratch Santorum's eyes out.

I thought it was a "living" book, and that would signify to me, that it should at all times apply to all people.

Oh, I see....so the chapter about pork is for one people at one time. But the chapter on sex isn't? Pick and chose? Give me a break. If you live by one, you should be living by the other.

Isn't the bible a take it or leave it thing for you? Or do you take the bible a la carte?

So in all seriousness...please explain why one chapter IS for all of us, and one isn't?

god this sounds just like snarl... trolling again

Hey, Moby.

I'm not a bible thumper. I didn't bring up religion at all. Is that all you have there lefty? Anytime someone points out your ways of ,ahem, wisdom you have to pull something like that out of (pun intended ) your ass?

I'm just sick of gay people acting like the world hates them and conspires against them. Just BE, and leave the rest of us alone. I'm sorry it offends you that as a man I like women.

Religion has nothing to do with it you hetero-phobe. What exactly are you afraid of, that our women will out shop you or something. Get over it already.

Um...let's see... I said I was only making a point, nothing more.

And to correct your assumption, I prefer women as well.

Get over it.

Oh, and by the way... I noticed you didn't respond to my request to show where anyone called for his job/head.

Hmmm . . .

Yup, I would say that is true. Very true.

I cannot find fault in that statement.

905 posts, and you finally got a factual, truthful statement out. I'm glad to have helped, and to have been a part of it.

I agree, Chuck, there are morons and extremists in both parties. But Clinton AND Gore *maybe* smarter than Quayle? Wow, a bit of a reach there. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar. While Gore's "initiative in creating the Internet" was a definite boner, nothing matches up these gems:

I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have was that I didn't study Latin harder in school so I could converse with those people." -- J. Danforth Quayle

"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." -- J. Danforth Quayle

"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child." -- Vice President Dan Quayle

"Welcome to President Bush, Mrs. Bush, and my fellow astronauts." -- Vice President Dan Quayle

"Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe." -- Vice President Dan Quayle, 8/11/89

"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." -- Vice President Dan Quayle

"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century." -- Vice President Dan Quayle, 9/15/88

"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change." -- Vice President Dan Quayle, 5/22/89

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared'." -- Vice President Dan Quayle, 12/6/89

"May our nation continue to be the beakon of hope to the world." -- The Quayles' 1989 Christmas card. [Not a beacon of literacy, though.]

"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things." -- Vice President Dan Quayle, 11/30/88

"We don't want to go back to tomorrow, we want to go forward." -- Vice President Dan Quayle

"I have made good judgements in the Past. I have made good judgements in the Future." -- Vice President Dan Quayle

"The future will be better tomorrow." -- Vice President Dan Quayle

"We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world." -- Vice President Dan Quayle, 9/21/88

"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Vice President Dan Quayle

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." -- Vice President Dan Quayle to Sam Donaldson, 8/17/89

"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a *part* of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a *part* of Europe." -- Vice President Dan Quayle

"Public speaking is very easy." -- Vice President Dan Quayle to reporters in 10/88

"I am not part of the problem. I am a Republican." -- Vice President Dan Quayle

"I love California, I practically grew up in Phoenix." -- Vice President Dan Quayle

"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls." -- Vice President Dan Quayle

"When I have been asked during these last weeks who caused the riots and the killing in L.A., my answer has been direct and simple: Who is to blame for the riots? The rioters are to blame. Who is to blame for the killings? The killers are to blame." -- Vice President Dan Quayle

"Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having it." -- Vice President Dan Quayle, 5/20/92(reported in Esquire, 8/92)

"Murphy Brown is doing better than I am. At least she knows she still has a job next year." -- Vice President Dan Quayle, 8/18/92

"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur." -- Vice President Dan Quayle, 9/22/90

"For NASA, space is still a high priority." -- Vice President Dan Quayle, 9/5/90

"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children." -- Vice President Dan Quayle, 9/18/90

"The American people would not want to know of any misquotes that Dan Quayle may or may not make." --Vice President Dan Quayle

"We're all capable of mistakes, but I do not care to enlighten you on the mistakes we may or may not have made." --Vice President Dan Quayle

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." -- Vice President Dan Quayle

"[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system." -- Vice President Dan Quayle

I really miss that spotlight on ol' DQ.

Electrobuzz ... Like Dan Quayle don't you?

Everyone can agree that he was not the sharpest politician. He is also not representative of his party. He was however as loyal as a dog.

One thing is certain. The Republican Party is not loaded with radical anti-American scum like the Democratic Party is.

I'm not singling you out Todrick... This goes for everyone. WHAT THE FUCK IS SO COMPLEX ABOUT THE "Gay rights" ISSUE!?? Gays should have the same rights as the rest of us. And they do. The problems come from people who think, for instance, that companies should be forced to provide health coverage for partners of gay employees. I don't believe the government should be forcing companies to insure anyone! It should be the decision of the board of directors. If gays don't like it, they can find jobs at Disney.

Other problems come from the fact that gays cannot marry in many states. There are a variety of reasons why this makes perfect sense. Marriage can change your tax bracket, people (straight or gay) could "marry" to work the system and gain access to each other's social security benefits, medical benefits. There is a much greater chance of fraud.

Santorum's comments had more to do with privacy than with homosexuality. He basically said that if two people consent to having sexual relations, and they do so in the privacy of their own home, and if the "right to privacy" supercedes all other rights, than legally, you can't punish anyone for sexual relations such as incest, polygamy, etc. Its a fact, not his opinion. Where his opinion comes into play is when he talks about "not liking the behavior." I don't see anything wrong with his remarks. I have several homosexual friends and relatives... they are great people. I DON'T like to think about the mechanics of their lovemaking because it disgusts me. Am I bigotted?
No... not really, I really don't like the whole poop chute idea in heterosexuals as well. Yukky poo!

While you might not agree with his politics, Gore is actually very intelligent. He just lacks charisma in a BIG way.

(And I don't know how many times I've seen it...but his comment about the internet was not entirely wrong - even Vint Cerf (one of the original internet people) has said as much.)

NYM,
Qualye was as loyal as a dog. I remember the nomination by 41, he practically licked HDubya's face on stage accepting the nod.

In this great nation, even the term "Anti-American" is subjective. To you, apparently anything left of the far right is "Anti-American". To me, it's anything in the extremes.

Come on Moby... Gore is an idiot.

I am however glad he invented the internet. I have made money from it.

....................

Electro... The Democratic Party is loaded with radicals. The New York City Council is a perfect example. Look at the various state legislatures. The US Senate and The House are also loaded with radicals who don't give a shit about the country and guess what? They are always elected as Democrats.

On the one hand you say gays should have the same rights as everyone else, yet on the other you admit that they should not have the same rights that married couples have.

You agree that being married affords benefits to a couple. You allude to a possibility of fraud. Yet even though there is a possibility that hetero couples can commit fraud (anyone ever know someone who got married in an attempt to get a green-card? No, that never happens . . . ), no one can tell a hetero couple they cannot be married (except in rare cases where bloodlines are suspect, or age is a factor) . . .
Yet you think gay couples should be denied the "privilege" of marriage because there's a chance someone might commit fraud.

I got news for you: Heterosexuals defraud the government and its social assistance programs on a daily basis. I guarantee there will be unscrupulous gay couples working the system, too.

But not nearly as many as y'all fear . . .

I'd like to post my observation. It's the same arguments by the same people; it's just a different day. You guys go at it over and over and over. Nobody is going to change the other guy's views. All you accomplish is consuming XOC bandwidth and storage. Plus you get angrier and angrier with each other; more disdain, more contempt. I'm *not* asking "can't we all get along." Why don't you get a hobby and . I know I don't have to read this stuff. Flaming me won't accomplish anything either, but you're welcome to do so.

SEAN, You are making Santorum's point!!!!!!
Here's how... 'As for INCEST, I wouldn't say I was "for" it, but as long as consenting adults keep it private (key word here), and it doesn't hurt anybody, it personally doesn't bother me.'

Until the country is populated by a bunch of flipper babies!

'As for POLYGAMY, I wouldn't say I was "for" it, but as long as consenting adults keep it private (key word here), and it doesn't hurt anybody, it personally doesn't bother me.'

Actually, I don't think polygamy hurts anybody, but its another example of what Santorum was saying.

'As for PROSTITUTION, I wouldn't say I was "for" it, but as long as consenting adults keep it private (key word here), and it doesn't hurt anybody, it personally doesn't bother me.'

Once again... I don't have a problem with legalizing prostitution, but for now its illegal.

As for homosexuals being born gay, that's not completely true. The fact is, a variety of factors seem to lead people to their lifestyle (including upbringing, genetics, exposure to priests and experiences while growing up). Studies of identical twins show that one may be straight, the other gay. If the government ever recognizes homosexuality as a genetic factor only, I look for some homosexuals to figure out a way to use the Americans with Disabilities Act to bleed millions of dollars from private corporations. (just like everyone else is doing.) :rolleyes:

I got news for ya... I said that there are several reasons that a ban on gay marriage makes perfect sense... I didn't say that I was vehemently opposed as you seem to think. Pull your head out of your ass Graham. Not everyone who has an opposing veiwpoint is as illiterate and 'tarded as you.

That's what you think, numbnuts . . .

You're all just as illiterate and 'tarded as I am!

So there.

Nice come back Graham.. bwhahahah

I know Graham, That's why I included a winky Graemlin after the 's

Andre.... Excellant point regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act.

That was one of the biggest assaults on American business from the Clinton administration.

You own the deviant Graham..

The Clinton administration fucked up so many things. It seems now they are also responsible for the deaths of the space shuttle astronauts too.

I'm talking from an intelligence point of view, and knowledge of subject. Not his view (which I agree, some are downright retarded).

As far as the internet goes...he never said he invented it.

From Vint Cerf (you're a computer guy, you should know who he is):

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” We don’t think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he “invented” the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept.

wow... I'm honored.

Seriously I thought you were the most hate dmember on the board... I feel priviledged to know that I am the one who deserves that title...

wow... that's convenient.

I'll take it one step further... Everything in the bible was meant for people in a long ago time... It is now just an irrelevant work of fiction created to scare the masses into some form of Morality

i cropped off the end of your post and honestly didnt read it... you completely ignored my explaination of why it was complex... otherwise you never would have written your post.

seriously its a view point thing...

if being Gay is an inate genetic quality... like having blue eyes... then they deserve the right to marry and get the benefits associated with it.

If being gay is a choice then the do not.

the problem is in peoples opinion of what makes someone gay

I don't want him!!! (just his beer if he has any)

If you did read my post, you would have found that we agree on everything you listed in this post.

then why did you disagree with me...

the issue is complex because people fight over the details...

when the real argument is not about gay rights at all but about whetehr being gay is a choice or not.

I know I'm straight, and that being gay would not only feel wrong physicly but emotionaly as well...

From conversations I have had Gays feel the same way about heterosexuality...

to me that doesn't leave much of a choice in the issue

Suppose it was a choice, why would that preclude them from getting married?

because then it would have to be OK for people to marry their sons, daughters...

If it is a choice... then they already have equal rights and can marry someone of the opposite sex at anytime

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," Santorum said.

Oddly enough, I heard that the word "gay" was added by the associated press to "clarify" what Santorum said. (That's probably why the AP put parentheses around it). Also, oddly enough, the AP reporter that interviewed Santorum is supposedly the wife of the campaign manager for one of the Democratic Presidential candidates.

You don't think that this campaign against Santorum may be politically based do you???

Read the quote again. The key word is not "gay" (which he did not use), it's the word consensual . Unfortunately, the press is more focused on destroying a republican senator than analyzing what he said. :rolleyes:

Todrick, the reason I disagreed with you is because gays already have the same rights as everybody else. They have the right to get married... its just that marriage is currently defined as heterosexual couples. They still have the right to live together, etc. The complexity comes from the homosexual special interest groups and anti-gay bigots bickering about how immoral the lifestyle is.

For an enlighted individual like me, the issue is crystal clear. Do whatever the hell you want, sleep with whoever you want, just don't expect me to get hysterical when a senator discusses supreme court decisions and his enemies misrepresent his beliefs.

Exactly.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/22/santorum.excerpts.ap/index.html


Shocking.

Sorry Todrick, I edited my previous post while you answered. I explained why I "disagreed" with you.

LOL... yeah, just read it again... it make me look nuts
also... it looks like we agree mor ethan one would think...

the only difference is i think being gayis not a choice and therefore homosexuals should have the right to marry and get all the benefits associated with marraige

I think the topic is a bit astray here... Please, people, read the damn article before spewing worthless crap about which Xterra owner is gay or not.

Call me "liberal," or - in the case of NYMadman, call me a "radical" (haha) - but "Sanitorium" is full of shit. It's quotes like this little gem:

"'I think that while some elites may be upset by those comments, they're pretty much in the mainstream of where most of the country is,' Bauer said."

...that make me lose faith in our society. This moron thinks mainstream society supports these ideals? Um, no.

Or how about this one:

"'If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.'"

What is he smoking, and can he pass that shit? Exactly how far from reality can you be to compare adultery with homosexuality? It's an interesting Republican scare-tactic. God, think of the madness! Before long, we'll be in the midst of giant Democratic orgies! The liberals - excuse me, "radicals" - will be having sex anywhere they PLEASE! We need to put a foot down and stop those homosexuals from having sex.

And finally:

"'The basic liberal philosophy is materialistic, is relativistic, to the point of, you've got candidates for president saying we should condone different types of marriage.'"

"Materialistic?" This guy IS a Republican, right? I mean, he's not just using the party name to get votes...that would be downright...Republican. I mean, we radical left wing wackos are always rolling down the strip in our Mercedes, while our Republican enemies cruise along in VW vans...

The point I'm trying to make here, is that this is an elected official. He represents the state of Penn. and, therefore, he represents a portion of our nation. When fucknuts like this start spewing how THEIR ideas represent the "majority of the American public," it makes me want to yack. Don't vote for pricks like this and we can get back to talking about differentials and tires.

I think you are wrong. Most Americans do not want to kill gays or ship them to another country or anything. Most people believe what you do in your own home is your business.

Most Americans do have a problem with all these fucking rights they are demanding. Most have a problem with the gay agenda being pushed in education, special hate crimes, etc. and all sorts of legislation pushing this crap on the public ... all in the ruse of tolerance. It's bullshit.

It is wrong for 5% of the population... a deviant 5% at that.. to force it's immorality on the overwhelming majority.

Santorum can say what he wants. It's the deviant thought police like you that twist his words and meaning to suit your own agenda.

We now have a new liberal psychotic deviant supporter on the board.

EDIT: This is a perfect example of the gay nazi's in action:

http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=7fb7d5d8-900e-4089-9625-0eca7017ce35

I agree. I never said that Americans wanted to kill gays! This is exactly what I'm talking about - Sanitorium stated that he believes HIS views represent the majority or the population, and he is wrong. You agree with me on that, "most Americans do not want to kill gays or ship them to another country," but Sanitorium does.

So, you think they should have NO rights? Or no "special rights?" Is it YOUR job to decide when they are requesting "special" rights or "equal" rights? No, it's the job of our elected officials. When they do a shitty job of representing the people, the people speak out. So, I'm speaking out. It's called DEMOCRACY. I think your views tend to lean towards a Monarchy. "Just do as the king says, and all will be well."

Where does the "deviant" come into the picture? Exactly how am I "deviant?" Because I use my head? Because I think for myself? Because I don't allow officials - officials that I did not elect - to speak for me? Deviancy and "morals" have nothing to do with Democracy, liberalism, or free speech. Perhaps it would help if you understood what the word means: "to stray especially from a standard, principle, or topic." Let me point you towards a prime example of deviant behavior: Our coke-snorting president.

You're right - he can say whatever he wants. And, after he finds that he's not re-elected, he'll say something different to please the voters. My only "agenda" is to make sure fucknuts like Sanitorium don't represent me when they speak to the media, just like people like you shouldn't represent the views of XOC. "Thought police?" Brilliant. Because I think for myself, I'm considered "deviant."

Who knows. Maybe now you'll learn something.

Again, I think you're confusing your words a bit. Here, you use the word "Nazi" in a derogatory way, indicating that you don't like Nazism. That's good. Nazis are bad. I applaud you on that one. But Nazism and Facism are based on the principals that you embody - you don't like all this "deviant" behavior, where people speak out against the majority - but Nazism is just that: autonomous response to the reich. Maybe you're right - maybe we SHOULD just nod our heads and let our country be purged of all these "gays."

Now you are being an idiot. When the fuck did Santorum ever say he wanted gays dead?

The problem with you liberals is that you see homosexual behavior as normal. It is not normal. It is deviant. They choose this deviant lifestyle.

A sexual preference in no way should be elevated to a legally protected civil right.

You liberals are always screaming the government is forcing morality on everyone everytime the word GOD is mentioned. Most people are sick of you liberals forcing immorality on everyone.

Santorum doesn't represent you. He doesn't speak for you. I am sure he will be re-elected in a landslide. The people of Pennsylvania for the most part are good traditional moral people.

Unlike you psychotic liberals in the North West. You should worry more about psycho politicians closer to home like that Se. Patty Murray. I bet a deranged liberal like you thinks she is great.

It's not a choice (yes, I know, there are many factors). However...let's say that is the case, that it shouldn't be protected because it's a choice, then I want to see all protections for religion removed. Religion is 100% absolute choice. There is no denying that. (If it were inate, how did my family go from Quaker to M.E. to Roman Catholic in 4 generations?)

misguided? :p

Please explain to us why YOU PERSONALLY feel homosexuality is deviant, no quotes or links please, just YOUR rational why it's so bad, and why it's such a threat, and how it's corrupting the "Moral Majority" of this country.

How many times do people have to explain it to you retard? Most homosexuals want EQUAL rights. Sure there are some exstremists out there, but the majority of gays just want to live and receive the benifits given to hetrosexuals, that's it. (it's like talking to a brick wall here, sheez!)

And us free thinkers are sick of you conservatves tring to force your brand of what you call "morals" (brainwashing) on everybody. All I can say is I am SO glad it says "separation of church and state" in the consitution.

Come on Moby...

Usually you put more lucid points across.

Comparing gays to religion is absoloutely ludicrous and ridiculous.

Religion is not protected. The state does not get involved. That's it. We have separation of church and state remember. They are tax exempt but so are a number of non religious entities.

To make your comparison then regarding sexual preferences.. the state should also not get involved. There should be a separation of state and sex. That means no laws giving them any special rights.

Religion DOES have protection, it has to some degree protection under a law you detest so much, "Hate Crimes". Are you saying if a Jew is killed because he/she was Jewish, it wouldn't be prosecuted under the "hate crimes" provision?

:rolleyes:

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

This has to be on of the best quotes I have read. This dude is totally a closet whipping boy. I bet he goes to a Dom once a week for a spanking. We need Larry Flint to get some dirt on him.

This came after the statment that In his opinion right to privacy is not part of the constitution.

I haven't been in on this argument so far, but I do agree with Ny Madman that gays do not deserve separate inclusion in the laws. I disagree in that they do deserve equality, in so much a hetero couple has. And since insurance policies and the like often require that a couple be legally married (through ceremony or common law) and gay marriages are not considered to be legitimate in most states, that is how the law should be decided. By state. States rights...

But, on a side note, NY madman, I really thought you dug into Todrick on a very personal level, and it should be just left out. Let's not let this forum and topic get too personal and too heated. I think it was pretty low to spew out his personal life here. I know some people cut you too, but just leave it off man. I don't know 99% of the people here in any way other than what they type, but the 1% I DO know are also human beings and deserve to be treated with a little dignity, and should return that to you.

This situation has nothing to do with religion. The perpetrator would be charged under the same provisions as if the victim were black.

You have a sick twisted mind Sean. You need someone to explain the mechanics of gay sex? It's not surprising that a sick fuck like you would think it is normal.

You can probably read about it in the instruction manuals your son will be bringing home from the liberal school you will be sending him to. They start them around the first grade up there. All in the name of tolerance and diversity of course.

Or maybe you can wait a few more years until he comes home from his first date complaining his ass hurts.

My mistake - Sanitorium never said that.

Apparently you missed the definition of the word "deviant." Again, it's "going against a predefined standard." Not the majority, mind you, but the "standard." There is no "standard" for sexuality. Heterosexuality is NOT the "standard," and don't even try to convince yourself otherwise. Read a book. Maybe you'd learn that homosexuality has been around since the Greeks.

Exactly where did I mention God? This is about homosexual rights, not God. Again, try READING the posts before responding.

Who are you speaking for? People in New York, or just madmen in general?

Could someone that actually LIVES in Pennsylvania respond to this completely idiotic statement? Does a gay-bashing politician speak for your entire state? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller...Bueller...

There's that liberal use of the words "psycho" and "deviant." Get a fucking thesaurus already. Does anyone else find it ironic that someone with the handle "Madman" calls everyone else "psycho?"

From the Department of Labor website:

EMPLOYMENT
For Employers holding federal contracts or subcontracts:

Executive Order 11246, as amended, prohibits job discrimination on the basis of race, color, RELIGION, sex or national origina and and requires affirmative action to ensure equality of opportunity in all aspects of employment.

For Private Employment, State and Local Governments, Educational Insitutions:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, RELIGION, sex or national origin.

For Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance:

In addition to the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance. Employment discrimination is covered by Title VI if the primary objective of the financial assistance is provision of employment,or where employment discrimination causes or may cause discrimination inproviding services under such programs. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs or activities which receive Federal assistance.

HOUSING (From HUD's website)

Federal law prohibits housing discrimination based on your race, color, national origin, RELIGION, sex, family status, or disability. If you have been trying to buy or rent a home or apartment and you believe your rights have been violated, you can file a fair housing complaint.

Yeah...religion isn't protected. :rolleyes:

Killing someone who is Jewish is not a "hate crime"? Get your head out of your ass.

I had a feeling I wouldn't get any straight answers from you, when you don't know something, you just get personal. Should I send my son to a Catholic school for brainwashing and the off chance he can get raped by a priest? That comment about first date and ass hurting, is that from personal experience? At least my son WILL go to a university.

Alright, I have agreed with some of your points in the past, but posts like this prove you are nothing more than a close-minded hatemonger. You are just as bad as the wackos on the extreme left. Anyone that is not exactly like you is a 'deviant' because everything you do is 'normal'.

Your personal attacks show that you just spew crap you have heard elsewhere, and can not come up with a single original thought without resorting to personal attacks. If you were any were as smart or informed as you seem to think, you would not resort to repetitive name calling, and bullying like you do. The personal attacks make you look like a total jackass. Instead of debating the topic, you do this when you can't counteract someone elses point. So, why don't you do us all a favor and until you have something coherent to say.

I think we should get more Frontier owners to post on this board

Oh, I see....so the chapter about pork is for one people at one time. But the chapter on sex isn't? Pick and chose? Give me a break. If you live by one, you should be living by the other.

Isn't the bible a take it or leave it thing for you? Or do you take the bible a la carte?

So in all seriousness...please explain why one chapter IS for all of us, and one isn't?

---

Ask your expatrioted priest of a brother. I don't have time for your misguidedness this week.