Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Civil Rights & Abortion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Civil Rights & Abortion Discuss What? Homosexuals are worse than terrorists? at the Political Forums; Just to be crystal clear, this is what I'm talking about. The incarceration rate in state or federal prison or ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71 (permalink)  
Old 04-09-2008, 11:50 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,561
Thanks: 7,064
Thanked 10,910 Times in 6,427 Posts
Post Re: What? Homosexuals are worse than terrorists?

Just to be crystal clear, this is what I'm talking about.
The incarceration rate in state or federal prison or jail for men was 1,384 per 100,000 residents, for women 134 per 100,000 residents. The rate for white men was 736 per 100,000, for black men 4,789 per 100,000, for Hispanic men 1,862 per 100,000. The rate for white women was 94 per 100,000, for black women 358 per 100,000, and for Hispanic women 152 per 100,000.
At the start of the 1990s, the U.S. had more Black men (between the ages of 20 and 29) under the control of the nation's criminal justice system than the total number in college.
One in three black men between the ages of 20 and 29 years old is under correctional supervision or control.
Drug War Facts: Race, Prison, and the Drug Laws

So a mother of a black child's "chances" are one in three that her kid will be in trouble with the law (or at least caught, not counting not caught) by the time the kid turns thirty.
Some people might say that is a lot bigger of an issue than "not giving grand-children"...
Reply With Quote
  #72 (permalink)  
Old 04-09-2008, 01:12 PM
fxashun's Avatar
SIMPLETON
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ga
Gender: Male
Posts: 636
Thanks: 130
Thanked 72 Times in 67 Posts
Default Re: What? Homosexuals are worse than terrorists?

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Just to be crystal clear, this is what I'm talking about.
The incarceration rate in state or federal prison or jail for men was 1,384 per 100,000 residents, for women 134 per 100,000 residents. The rate for white men was 736 per 100,000, for black men 4,789 per 100,000, for Hispanic men 1,862 per 100,000. The rate for white women was 94 per 100,000, for black women 358 per 100,000, and for Hispanic women 152 per 100,000.
At the start of the 1990s, the U.S. had more Black men (between the ages of 20 and 29) under the control of the nation's criminal justice system than the total number in college.
One in three black men between the ages of 20 and 29 years old is under correctional supervision or control.
Drug War Facts: Race, Prison, and the Drug Laws

So a mother of a black child's "chances" are one in three that her kid will be in trouble with the law (or at least caught, not counting not caught) by the time the kid turns thirty.
Some people might say that is a lot bigger of an issue than "not giving grand-children"...
But that's not gonna make a woman have an abortion because her child is [insert race here] if she purposely had sex with a person of [insert race here]. That's still ignorant. The statistics are worse for male vs. female crime and male crime perpetrated against females. Your ignorant premise is just as stupid as a woman aborting a male child because he might be a criminal. Or maybe a poor woman will abort her child because poor people commit a large percentage of crime. No such indication of a mother of a teenager kicking her teenager out because he is black, poor, or male. But gay? 26% of them in the U.S. which you claim is so "tolerant". I seriously doubt your "analogy" really is as analogous as you would like. Especially since you are stuck on American crime statistics and I'm talking about human beings. Not just Americans, or black people, or white folk.
__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)
Reply With Quote
  #73 (permalink)  
Old 04-09-2008, 01:52 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,561
Thanks: 7,064
Thanked 10,910 Times in 6,427 Posts
Post Re: What? Homosexuals are worse than terrorists?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun View Post
But that's not gonna make a woman have an abortion because her child is [insert race here] if she purposely had sex with a person of [insert race here].
I swear.
He really is this stupid, isn't he.
NOBODY IS SAYING that they are aborting just because of "kid is same race as father".

If you had half a brain-cell, you would realize that EVERY aborted kid falls in the category of "kid is same race as father".
Your complaints are often so ridiculously meaningless, that it's bizarre you even post them thinking you've said something...


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
The statistics are worse for male vs. female crime and male crime perpetrated against females.
Say whaaa?
ONE in THREE black men, 20 to 29.
I have NEVER seen ANY statistics anywhere near that.

I welcome you to try for your claim of "male vs female crime", but of course we both know that you were just lying.
AGAIN...


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
Your ignorant premise is just as stupid as a woman aborting a male child because he might be a criminal.
One in three for blacks.
What's the chances that any man will be a criminal?


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
No such indication of a mother of a teenager kicking her teenager out because he is black, poor, or male.
I suspect that's just because the black culture is so tolerant of the criminal presence.
It abounds in the rap music, and everybody knows somebody who is in jail.
Which is part of the reason why I talked about a WHITE parent thing in the first place...


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
But gay? 26% of them in the U.S. which you claim is so "tolerant".
I swear. Dumb as mud.
I never said the U.S. had no intolerance.
I even pointed out the whole "parents kicking gay kids out of the homes" crap, so of COURSE I admit intolerance exists.

It's stupid. Ignorant. Bigotted.
And it exists.

Perhaps one day you'll learn enough to realize that pointing that out is not refuting anything I am saying...
Maybe I'm just an optimist...


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
I seriously doubt your "analogy" really is as analogous as you would like. Especially since you are stuck on American crime statistics and I'm talking about human beings. Not just Americans, or black people, or white folk.
Why the heck does "American crime statistics" make such a sticking point?
Does the fact that I talk about Americans, in America, somehow invalidate anything?

And how can you complain about the distinguishing between "black or white", when you have done essentially the same for "gay or straight"?

The truth is that you don't want to broach my analogy, cause you can't handle the basic issue at hand.
You have NEVER EVEN COMMENTED on whether or not the ignorant and inaccurate assessment of "can't give a grand-kid" is worth more or less than "1 in 3 chance of growing up a criminal".

When you complain about the potential for my hypothetical, and then I point out that YOUR hypothetical also has serious problems, you completely avoid discussing those problems. You can't address the fact that a "genetic test" for homosexuality CAN NOT EXIST in a world where identical twins, having the same DNA, can see one twin straight and one twin gay.

But still you byatch and moan. Pretend you're saying something smart when the truth is you're making meaningless muling sounds.
Reply With Quote
  #74 (permalink)  
Old 04-11-2008, 05:03 PM
fxashun's Avatar
SIMPLETON
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ga
Gender: Male
Posts: 636
Thanks: 130
Thanked 72 Times in 67 Posts
Default Re: What? Homosexuals are worse than terrorists?

Straight from the Associated Press...And after all these long ass posts, the whole thing was a ruse by homosexual activists. Whome we know would never stoop to re-editing words to make someone appear to say something that they didn't.

Supporters rally for OK lawmaker who criticized homosexuality (OneNewsNow.com)

Homosexual activists secretly recorded Kern's January 10 speech to a GOP group in Oklahoma City. They edited the recording and posted excerpts on YouTube making it appear that Kern had stated that homosexuality is worse than terrorism.


Once again, it seems this whole thread is much ado about nothing. Not only was our exchange based on your not actually reading my post, but the whole situation is the result of homosexual activists throwing poo.
__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)
Reply With Quote
  #75 (permalink)  
Old 04-13-2008, 03:53 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,561
Thanks: 7,064
Thanked 10,910 Times in 6,427 Posts
Post Re: What? Homosexuals are worse than terrorists?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun View Post
Straight from the Associated Press...
Or maybe not...
I cut and paste phrases from the editorial into google, and attempted to find any other web-site repeating this "AP" story.
Surprise. NONE!

Try for yourself. Try either sentence from the paragraph that should tell even the most common village idiot that this was NOT an "AP" release, but rather somebody AFA associated trying to denigrate gays...
"Homosexual activists secretly recorded Kern's January 10 speech to a GOP group in Oklahoma City. They edited the recording and posted excerpts on YouTube making it appear that Kern had stated that homosexuality is worse than terrorism."

Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
And after all these long ass posts, the whole thing was a ruse by homosexual activists.
And thus, another idiot falls for the AFA line, hook and sinker.
Earlier in this thread, I gave an UNEDITED link to this woman's speech.

There is no "ruse" here, except for the one fxashun fell for.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
Whome we know would never stoop to re-editing words to make someone appear to say something that they didn't.
You are such an idiot.
Earlier, I gave a link to the FULL speech audio.
HERE is a link to a TRANSCRIPT of her speech.
Box Turtle Bulletin Sally Kern: Out of Context? The Complete Transcript
You know, it’s not a lifestyle that is good for this nation. Matter of fact, studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it’s the death knell for this country. I honestly think it’s the biggest threat even, that our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat, okay.
(I had to repeat the "few decades" comment because it's such a ridiculously absurd lie that demonstrates this woman's stupidity.)

It wasn't "edited" to change the words.
It was cut for content, cause the entire speech was too damn long to listen to.

One thing that even that idiot fxashun should have realized is that if this story really was "out of context", a good news article showing that WOULD SHOW THE ACTUAL CONTEXT of the statements made.

But that is completely absent.

And if you want to talk about "editing", take a look at the sneaky little comment put in small font at the bottom of the article: "OneNewsNow.com editor Jeff Johnson contributed to this report."

The REAL story here is that there WAS a legitimate AP story, that the "onenewsnow.com" people INSERTED THEIR OWN COMMENTARY INTO, claiming it was an "AP" story.

But of course, fxashun ain't bright enough to figure out ANY of this.
He sees somebody attacking gays, and without even bothering to determine legitimacy or to see the glaring manipulation that WAS performed on this news story, he posts it.
All he has done is proven (like anybody needed it proving) the dishonesty of the anti-gay bigots...


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
Once again, it seems this whole thread is much ado about nothing. Not only was our exchange based on your not actually reading my post...
And speaking of lies from anti-gay bigots.
I have repeatedly stated this is false.
I have challenged fxashun to prove his claim.
Instead, the coward keeps repeating it, hoping that somebody will ignore the NUMEROUS arguments he avoids while trying to bolster his claim with glaring lies.

Maybe he has a future with the AFA?


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
... but the whole situation is the result of homosexual activists throwing poo.
And now he repeats somebody else's lie.
A challenge to you fxashun, if you're stupid enough to actually try to continue with your already disproven claim.
SHOW THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT of the words and HOW THEY ARE DIFFERENT from the original context.

In any intelligent "you're taking it out of context" argument, THAT is a necessity. But neither fxashun nor the altered news article attempt to do so....
Not surprised!

Any bets on whether or not fxashun will even try to respond on this thread, considering how badly he has been spanked on it?
Reply With Quote
  #76 (permalink)  
Old 04-13-2008, 05:19 PM
tristanrobin's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 2,633
Thanks: 964
Thanked 2,009 Times in 1,049 Posts
Default Re: What? Homosexuals are worse than terrorists?

one can only hope that he'd curl his tail between his spanked cheeks and never return

but we all know that's not the action of a troll, so that won't be happening
Reply With Quote
  #77 (permalink)  
Old 04-14-2008, 08:00 AM
fxashun's Avatar
SIMPLETON
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ga
Gender: Male
Posts: 636
Thanks: 130
Thanked 72 Times in 67 Posts
Default Re: What? Homosexuals are worse than terrorists?

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Or maybe not...
I cut and paste phrases from the editorial into google, and attempted to find any other web-site repeating this "AP" story.
Surprise. NONE!

Try for yourself. Try either sentence from the paragraph that should tell even the most common village idiot that this was NOT an "AP" release, but rather somebody AFA associated trying to denigrate gays...
I agree. It got me. Just like the original story about her son being gay. Damn.

Quote:
And thus, another idiot falls for the AFA line, hook and sinker.
Earlier in this thread, I gave an UNEDITED link to this woman's speech.
There is no "ruse" here, except for the one fxashun fell for.
I "fell for" what? The story about her son being gay from a couple of gay oriented media releases too. Gay media would never stoop their own shenanigans huh. I got caught by both sides of the argument. Good thing we never really discussed what she actually said. Not a single comment about whether homosexuality is worse than terrorism. It seems you are the idiot in that you were stuck on my comment about grandkids.

Quote:
You are such an idiot.
Earlier, I gave a link to the FULL speech audio.
I never listened to the speech actually. We've never debated the material, we've been too busy talking about grandkids. Who's the bigger idiot? The one who made a short blurb about a false statement, or the one who stretched something totally unrelated into all this bullsh#t. My vote is you.

Quote:
One thing that even that idiot fxashun should have realized is that if this story really was "out of context", a good news article showing that WOULD SHOW THE ACTUAL CONTEXT of the statements made.
But that is completely absent.
Never discussed the context, maybe you shoulda brought that up while you were on the grandchildren angle.

Quote:
And if you want to talk about "editing", take a look at the sneaky little comment put in small font at the bottom of the article: "OneNewsNow.com editor Jeff Johnson contributed to this report."

The REAL story here is that there WAS a legitimate AP story, that the "onenewsnow.com" people INSERTED THEIR OWN COMMENTARY INTO, claiming it was an "AP" story.
Yeah, ain't that a bitch. I wonder why you weren't so thorough in researching the story about her gay son. We could have avoided all this talk about grandkids and your making up colorful names and such.

Quote:
But of course, fxashun ain't bright enough to figure out ANY of this.
He sees somebody attacking gays, and without even bothering to determine legitimacy or to see the glaring manipulation that WAS performed on this news story, he posts it.
All he has done is proven (like anybody needed it proving) the dishonesty of the anti-gay bigots...
And who posted the story about her gay son? The story which also had someone who embellished it with their own "color" commentary. Which went unresearched by our resident fact checker?
I never even listened to her comments, my OP was based on the "her son might be gay" post. Seems as I said, the whole exchange has been based on bullsh#t.

Quote:
And speaking of lies from anti-gay bigots.
I have repeatedly stated this is false.
I have challenged fxashun to prove his claim.
I have repeatedly pointed out that the only statement you have directly responded to was the "grandkids" statement, even after I reposted my original post. I lost interest after a while though.

Quote:
Maybe he has a future with the AFA?
Naa, maybe I'll work for Bgay.com who started this mess.

Quote:
And now he repeats somebody else's lie.
A challenge to you fxashun, if you're stupid enough to actually try to continue with your already disproven claim.
SHOW THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT of the words and HOW THEY ARE DIFFERENT from the original context.
Not necessary. We've never discussed context or anything about the actual speech. I never said anything but maybe she's upset about her son being gay based on another supposedly false news story. Why would I start a debate I have no interest in?

Quote:
In any intelligent "you're taking it out of context" argument, THAT is a necessity. But neither fxashun nor the altered news article attempt to do so....
Not surprised!
Agreed.

Quote:
Any bets on whether or not fxashun will even try to respond on this thread, considering how badly he has been spanked on it?
You know me better than that. You haven't spanked anything. Get over yourself.
__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)
Reply With Quote
  #78 (permalink)  
Old 04-14-2008, 10:05 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,561
Thanks: 7,064
Thanked 10,910 Times in 6,427 Posts
Post Re: What? Homosexuals are worse than terrorists?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun View Post
I agree. It got me. Just like the original story about her son being gay. Damn.
and then he says...
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
I "fell for" what?
THIS is why these posts keep getting longer and longer.
The ENTIRE POST was about how he fell for the AFA lies, he ADMITS they got him, and in the very next segment he forgets...


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
The story about her son being gay from a couple of gay oriented media releases too. Gay media would never stoop their own shenanigans huh.
Did you even read that story?
They claimed they had a source.
One individual claiming he was gay.
While the individual may have lied and the news organization fell for it (like that hasn't happened on a national scale for the 2004 election...), that is NOTHING compared to actually taking an AP name, altering a legitimate news article, and then keeping the "AP" title.
If that's what they even did. Perhaps the AP had nothing to do with the article at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
I got caught by both sides of the argument.
No. You just assumed whatever was convenient.
Even when I pointed the son wasn't gay, you insisted he was EVEN THOUGH HE DENIED IT because it was convenient for you...


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
Good thing we never really discussed what she actually said.
"Good thing"?
Actually, that's not a "good thing" at all.
And I TRIED to get you to take an intelligent look at what she said, but doing so wasn't convenient for you so you refused.
How is it a "good thing" for you to maintain a level of ignorance that allowed you to get suckered into an obvious lie?
How is it a "good thing" for you to stay stupid on the facts, so it allows you to be manipulated?

The only "good thing" I can see is that it allows you the excuse of ignorance to try and save face. Which is pretty damn pathetic!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
Not a single comment about whether homosexuality is worse than terrorism.

You knew you couldn't win it, so you didn't pursue it.
You KNEW that pursuing it, and trying to defend it, would show you as a bigot.
You KNEW that actually talking about that would expose her as nothing but a bigot, but whenever I point out the REAL root of the problem, bigotry, you just try to excuse it.

And again, I TRIED to talk about this junk to demonstrate that your idiotic muling of excuses were false.
You were a coward. You refused to face facts which would destroy your approach.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
It seems you are the idiot in that you were stuck on my comment about grandkids.

You made AND DEFENDED that comment.
And the really sad part was that it was the best attempt out of the bunch. Kind of like pointing to the "cleanest pig" in a pig sty where all the pigs are filthy.

I went back and made arguments at "other" portions of your post.
You didn't even try to defend them.
So quite frankly, considering I talked about the only thing you appeared willing to talk about, I was pretty smart.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
I never listened to the speech actually. We've never debated the material, we've been too busy talking about grandkids.
1) I posted it.
You preferred ignorance.
Again, your own fault.

2) I TRIED to debate the material to show that the REAL SOURCE of her speech was bigotry and ignorance.
You knew you couldn't defend against that, so you avoided it.
We only ended up talking about grandkids because your ABSOLUTELY IDIOTIC attempt to try to justify her anger based on a hypothetical you thought you could defend.

And then you REFUSED to acknowledge that your hypothetical had absolutely no application to this reality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
Who's the bigger idiot? The one who made a short blurb about a false statement, or the one who stretched something totally unrelated into all this bullsh#t. My vote is you.
And you would be voting alone.
You just admitted that you got suckered in not once, but TWICE. Making you twice the idiot.
YOU are the idiot who brought up the "something totally unrelated" in the first place, and you blame me for actually talking about what YOU BROUGHT UP?

You are the bigger idiot by far.
And I think you know that...


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
Never discussed the context, maybe you shoulda brought that up while you were on the grandchildren angle.
And this is where fxashun again says something completely nonsensical, and I would have to spend a paragraph or two dumbing it down to his level.
Instead, I'll just point out his stupidity by saying "I tried to discuss her content (which would have covered context), but you chickened out. I couldn't have discussed the "context" of the lie BEFORE the lie was even posted, you flaming retard."


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
Yeah, ain't that a bitch. I wonder why you weren't so thorough in researching the story about her gay son.
What the hell are you babbling about?
I never supported that story.
I shot it down as was necessary.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
We could have avoided all this talk about grandkids and your making up colorful names and such.
See, THIS is where he just gets even more stupid, if that was possible.
I pointed out that the son WAS CELIBATE, so there is no reason to "avoid all this talk about grandkids" at all.
It should have been a CONTINUING POINT on the REAL REASON for why her son was not going to give grandkids.
But "celibate" isn't your prejudice de juor.
Gay is.
And you can't gain ground against celibates, so you refused to broach the issue of why she wasn't bashing "celibates" instead of "gays".

Under your previous hypothetical model, she was supposedly bashing gays because of her son's sexual orientation.
But under REALITY, applying your model, she should have been bashing CELIBATES instead.
And you lacked the cajones to own up to that fact.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
And who posted the story about her gay son? The story which also had someone who embellished it with their own "color" commentary. Which went unresearched by our resident fact checker?
Are you a complete idiot?
I DID RESEARCH IT.
I was the one who posted the article to the OWN SON saying he wasn't gay.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
I have repeatedly pointed out that the only statement you have directly responded to was the "grandkids" statement, even after I reposted my original post.
That is a lie.
I went back and responded to the more idiotic parts I had hoped you were just jesting about.
You completely failed to respond to me tearing it apart.

The only reason I responded to the "grandkids" statement was because I thought it was the only argument in their that might hold water. And even then, it was like trying to get a sieve to hold water.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
Not necessary. We've never discussed context or anything about the actual speech.
You really are this stupid.
I am talking about GENERIC ARGUMENTS.
When a person claims "you took that out of context", the only way to prove that point is to SHOW the context, and then show HOW the statements were taken OUT OF context.
That's the REAL way to do that, unless you're just looking for flimsy excuses.

YOU never discussed context when you WERE MAKING THAT VERY ARGUMENT that it was taken out of context.
To show the idiocy level of that, it's like trying to put forth an argument of "the house is red", but you never even try to look at the color of the house.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
You know me better than that. You haven't spanked anything. Get over yourself.
I remember the first time you tucked tail and ran. Except I think that just picqued your interest...

And after that, you came back. But your cowardice in maintaining the discussion just shifted techniques. THEN, you refused to discuss what was really being said, and instead took to sprinkling the conversation with little tidbits of off-topic crap while avoiding the subject matter.

Except in this thread, I haven't left you anything open for that. Not much weasel room to try your usual crap.

The "grandkids" thing is something you can't defend at all anymore.
You haven't even tried to respond to the other arguments I made on your original post.
The "abortion" thing was decimated when you tried to avoid the "black crime" analogy by fixating on the unfeasability of it, and you completely dropped it.
And your latest attempt to malign gays just blew up in your face.

The only thing you got left is your redundant attempts to parrot "He didn't read my first post fully" like it has some importance (which it doesn't), but the obvious truth of the matter is that since I DID respond to the other parts of that post, and you haven't responded back, it is YOU who isn't reading my post.

You're really not that good at this.
Your whole purpose is based on bigotry, and you pretend that nobody can see the truth.
And it seems that your real reason for being here, no matter how badly you get shown up, is just because you want somebody to talk to.

For the record, Tristan had the right response.
We DO know you enough to realize that you aren't going to tuck tail and run.
You have no shame. That was the real point of my question. Tristan got it.
It went WAYYY over your head.
Reply With Quote
  #79 (permalink)  
Old 04-14-2008, 01:35 PM
fxashun's Avatar
SIMPLETON
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ga
Gender: Male
Posts: 636
Thanks: 130
Thanked 72 Times in 67 Posts
Default Re: What? Homosexuals are worse than terrorists?

THIS is why these posts keep getting longer and longer.
The ENTIRE POST was about how he fell for the AFA lies, he ADMITS they got him, and in the very next segment he forgets... [/QUOTE]
No, the reason these posts get longer is the BS that you just tried... I didn't just say "I fell for what"? I said....

I "fell for" what? The story about her son being gay from a couple of gay oriented media releases too. Gay media would never stoop their own shenanigans huh. I got caught by both sides of the argument. Good thing we never really discussed what she actually said. Not a single comment about whether homosexuality is worse than terrorism. It seems you are the idiot in that you were stuck on my comment about grandkids.


Quote:
Did you even read that story?
They claimed they had a source.
One individual claiming he was gay.
While the individual may have lied and the news organization fell for it (like that hasn't happened on a national scale for the 2004 election...), that is NOTHING compared to actually taking an AP name, altering a legitimate news article, and then keeping the "AP" title.
If that's what they even did. Perhaps the AP had nothing to do with the article at all.
I wasn't the first. And my post came 4 days after the her gay son post arrived. If you had such a problem with those facts, you had plenty of time to address them. I just gave my take on the information being discussed.

Quote:
No. You just assumed whatever was convenient.
Even when I pointed the son wasn't gay, you insisted he was EVEN THOUGH HE DENIED IT because it was convenient for you...
The same reason you didn't refute it until it was convenient. I guess we took the path of most convenience.

Quote:
"Good thing"?
Actually, that's not a "good thing" at all.
And I TRIED to get you to take an intelligent look at what she said, but doing so wasn't convenient for you so you refused.
How is it a "good thing" for you to maintain a level of ignorance that allowed you to get suckered into an obvious lie?
How is it a "good thing" for you to stay stupid on the facts, so it allows you to be manipulated?
Why would I take a look at what she said? We were too busy talking about grandkids.

Quote:
The only "good thing" I can see is that it allows you the excuse of ignorance to try and save face. Which is pretty damn pathetic!
What is pathetic is that we both have typed this much crap for nothing. I'm ashamed. I should have just left it with my 4 or 5 sentence post.

Quote:

You knew you couldn't win it, so you didn't pursue it.
You KNEW that pursuing it, and trying to defend it, would show you as a bigot.
You KNEW that actually talking about that would expose her as nothing but a bigot, but whenever I point out the REAL root of the problem, bigotry, you just try to excuse it.
But I never said ANYTHING about the content, I only said I could understand the statements coming from a woman who has a gay son. That's it. Whether homosexuality is worse than terrorists? I wouldn't say that. But I also wouldn't place the whole argument on the bible like she did.

Quote:
And again, I TRIED to talk about this junk to demonstrate that your idiotic muling of excuses were false.
You were a coward. You refused to face facts which would destroy your approach.
My "approach" was totally contrived by you. I said exactly what I meant to say. A disappointed mother might say anything. You started ranting about grandkids. I don't remember you ever bringing up the actual contents of her speech. Could you point that out?

Quote:

You made AND DEFENDED that comment.
And the really sad part was that it was the best attempt out of the bunch. Kind of like pointing to the "cleanest pig" in a pig sty where all the pigs are filthy.
I made that comment and I gave a reference that repeated it nearly verbatim. I don't see your problem with that.

Quote:
I went back and made arguments at "other" portions of your post.
You didn't even try to defend them.
So quite frankly, considering I talked about the only thing you appeared willing to talk about, I was pretty smart.
By them, this was getting old. Moving on. I quit reading.

Quote:
1) I posted it.
You preferred ignorance.
Again, your own fault.
You posted it after I'd actually lost interest.

Quote:
2) I TRIED to debate the material to show that the REAL SOURCE of her speech was bigotry and ignorance.
You knew you couldn't defend against that, so you avoided it.
We only ended up talking about grandkids because your ABSOLUTELY IDIOTIC attempt to try to justify her anger based on a hypothetical you thought you could defend.
We started talking about grandkids in your very first post to me. See.

Quote:
And then you REFUSED to acknowledge that your hypothetical had absolutely no application to this reality.
We quit talking about "this" reality in that first post above. You started talking about Chinese people and wanting boy immediately.

Quote:
And you would be voting alone.
You just admitted that you got suckered in not once, but TWICE. Making you twice the idiot.
YOU are the idiot who brought up the "something totally unrelated" in the first place, and you blame me for actually talking about what YOU BROUGHT UP?
Yeah. If it was that unrelated, why would you post an entire pager of bullsh#t. A simple "irrelevant" would have sufficed. Either you are just as bored as I am or much stupider than you have ever accused me of being.

Quote:
You are the bigger idiot by far.
And I think you know that...
Naa, I am inclined to think you have the idiot market cornered.

Quote:
And this is where fxashun again says something completely nonsensical, and I would have to spend a paragraph or two dumbing it down to his level.
Instead, I'll just point out his stupidity by saying "I tried to discuss her content (which would have covered context), but you chickened out. I couldn't have discussed the "context" of the lie BEFORE the lie was even posted, you flaming retard."
No, see this is where you say something totally idiotic that any one can read from the post I linked to above, turns out to be false. Not to mention talking to that mysterious other person. In all that crap you post, it took you THAT long to get to the point? Why did you do all that typing about grandkids then? I didn't chicken out, I just got tired of pulling your string.

Quote:
What the hell are you babbling about?
I never supported that story.
I shot it down as was necessary.
Oh, you mean when it was convenient? LOL.

Quote:
See, THIS is where he just gets even more stupid, if that was possible.
I pointed out that the son WAS CELIBATE, so there is no reason to "avoid all this talk about grandkids" at all.
It should have been a CONTINUING POINT on the REAL REASON for why her son was not going to give grandkids.
But "celibate" isn't your prejudice de juor.
Gay is.
And you can't gain ground against celibates, so you refused to broach the issue of why she wasn't bashing "celibates" instead of "gays".
Not what I meant. If you hadn't been waiting til it was convenient and applied your superior research skills on the story that people were accusing the senator of kicking her son out, disowning him, and calling her a bitch, maybe we could have avoided all this. You sure did make thing inconvenient. LOL.

Quote:
Under your previous hypothetical model, she was supposedly bashing gays because of her son's sexual orientation.
But under REALITY, applying your model, she should have been bashing CELIBATES instead.
And you lacked the cajones to own up to that fact.
Maybe "she" should have, but I still stand by my original post that a mother would be very disappointed to find out her son/daughter was gay. And they might just say some pretty harsh things as a result. I'll own up to my statements. Anything else?

Quote:
Are you a complete idiot?
I DID RESEARCH IT.
I was the one who posted the article to the OWN SON saying he wasn't gay.
4 days later when it was "convenient". I guess you were busy before that. LOL.

Quote:
That is a lie.
I went back and responded to the more idiotic parts I had hoped you were just jesting about.
You completely failed to respond to me tearing it apart.
Just as you completely failed to read them or something the first time you read them. I guess that "grandkids" thing hit a nerve or something.

Quote:
The only reason I responded to the "grandkids" statement was because I thought it was the only argument in their that might hold water. And even then, it was like trying to get a sieve to hold water.
Naaa, it held. I'm satisfied that that is one of the reasons a person would be devastated to hear their son/daughter is gay.

Quote:
You really are this stupid.
I am talking about GENERIC ARGUMENTS.
When a person claims "you took that out of context", the only way to prove that point is to SHOW the context, and then show HOW the statements were taken OUT OF context.
That's the REAL way to do that, unless you're just looking for flimsy excuses.
But I never said anything about context or the actual speech. I just said a person might be devastated to hear they have a gay child. No excuses, just verbatim what I said. You went your own convoluted way after that as usual.
__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)
Reply With Quote
  #80 (permalink)  
Old 04-14-2008, 01:35 PM
fxashun's Avatar
SIMPLETON
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ga
Gender: Male
Posts: 636
Thanks: 130
Thanked 72 Times in 67 Posts
Default Re: What? Homosexuals are worse than terrorists?

Quote:
YOU never discussed context when you WERE MAKING THAT VERY ARGUMENT that it was taken out of context.
To show the idiocy level of that, it's like trying to put forth an argument of "the house is red", but you never even try to look at the color of the house.
Or you could say, "some people paint their house red", and not have to look at the house.

Quote:
I remember the first time you tucked tail and ran. Except I think that just picqued your interest...
And after that, you came back. But your cowardice in maintaining the discussion just shifted techniques. THEN, you refused to discuss what was really being said, and instead took to sprinkling the conversation with little tidbits of off-topic crap while avoiding the subject matter.
Really, we haven't discussed the subject matter of this thread in a l+LONG time. If ever. I have never tucked tail and ran. I just lose interest in your long ass posts.

Quote:
Except in this thread, I haven't left you anything open for that. Not much weasel room to try your usual crap.
The "grandkids" thing is something you can't defend at all anymore.
I thought when I gave a post where someone specifically said that that thought crossed their mind was enough. What more information do you need?

Quote:
You haven't even tried to respond to the other arguments I made on your original post.
The "abortion" thing was decimated when you tried to avoid the "black crime" analogy by fixating on the unfeasability of it, and you completely dropped it.
And your latest attempt to malign gays just blew up in your face.
Your "black crime" and a mother deciding to abort her own child is idiotic. No mother is gonna abort a child for being black because of crime statistics, but she would if she was told her child was defective. The connection you tried to make was fatally broken. That didn't blow up in my face anywhere near as completely as that stillborn fallacy.

Quote:
The only thing you got left is your redundant attempts to parrot "He didn't read my first post fully" like it has some importance (which it doesn't), but the obvious truth of the matter is that since I DID respond to the other parts of that post, and you haven't responded back, it is YOU who isn't reading my post.
Yeah I know. My bad. Moved on.

Quote:
You're really not that good at this.
Your whole purpose is based on bigotry, and you pretend that nobody can see the truth.
And it seems that your real reason for being here, no matter how badly you get shown up, is just because you want somebody to talk to.
I'm quite good at this. If I were so obvious, why are you wasting your time posting? Why are you here though?

Quote:
For the record, Tristan had the right response.
We DO know you enough to realize that you aren't going to tuck tail and run.
You have no shame. That was the real point of my question. Tristan got it.
It went WAYYY over your head.
What?
__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
are, homosexuals, terrorists, than, what, worse

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0