Re: Stop SB 48 -- Could They Be Winning? -- Judging from the Gay's Shrieking Hysteria -- Yes
African Commissar
Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 05:10:19 -0700 (PDT), Mike Cullinan
> <mgcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 4, 10:16 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 19:32:15 -0700 (PDT), Mike Cullinan
> >>
> >> <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >SB 48 is the bill recently passed in the dysfunctional state of
> >> >California which makes it mandatory to indoctrinate the children with
> >> >a curriculum that gives special attention to the contributions of
> >> >GLBTs.
> >>
> >> Not really special attention, just pointing out who's GLBT.
> >>
> >> LA Weekly has a brilliant series on this!:
> >>
> >> <http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/09/alan_turing_sb_48.php>
> >>
> >> <>
> >>
> >> Apparently, simply pointing out that gay people *exist* is enough to
> >> scare some!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >Stop SB 48 is trying to get an initiative on the ballot that would
> >> >stop it, effectively letting the public ram the bill right back down
> >> >the legislators' throats. Gay activist leaders have as much as
> >> >admitted that should the Stop SB 48 petitioners succeed in getting
> >> >their measure on the ballot, then SB 48 would be toast.
> >>
> >> >The trick is that the Stop SB 48 supporters had to gather about
> >> >506,000 signatures in record time, a matter of weeks. However, with
> >> >the October 12 deadline fast approaching, there are some signs that
> >> >they might make it.
> >>
> >> >What makes me think they might make the deadline and get the Stop 48
> >> >initiative in front of the California voters?
> >>
> >> >Tell-tale rhetoric from the GLBT opposition, like this:
> >>
> >> >NEW: ‘Campaign Of Terror’ Charged on Initiative
> >> >OCT. 4, 2011
> >>
> >> >By KATY GRIMES
> >>
> >> >The tone of a Monday telephone press conference changed dramatically
> >> >from issues surrounding a campaign violation complaint, to charges of
> >> >a “campaign of terror” being waged on LGBT youth.
> >>
> >> >Equality California filed the complaint with the Fair Political
> >> >Practices Commission Monday, charging the Capitol Resource Institute
> >> >with improper campaign record keeping. But that charge doesn’t appear
> >> >to have the legs needed to stop a grassroots ballot initiative
> >> >campaign trying to overturn SB 48.
> >>
> >> >more at:
> >> >http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/10/04/ballot-initiative-campaign-of-t...
> >>
> >> Doesn't really matter, novelty initiatives like this usually gets
> >> struck down as unconstitutional (they usually are), and ignored when
> >> brought up again. This should be no different.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> - ReFlex76
> >>
> >> - <http://twitter.com/ReFlex76>
> >
> >In my high school English classes of the 60s, when we studied Oscar
> >Wilde and Walt Whitman, the teaches made known to us that they were
> >homosexual. Having covered that, we went on to read and study what
> >Wilde and Whitman had written.
> >
> >With SB 48, of course, what Wilde and Whitman contributed to English
> >literature is not the important point. With SB 48, the main point is
> >that they were homosexuals.
Why would their deviant sexual practices have any relevance in
an English lit class? It sounds like that teacher has an agenda
and should be reported to the PTA and school board.
> Wow, not even close! The main point is still their contribution to
> history, the gay thing a "now you know."
>
Indeed. Without "gay history" we'd all still be in the dark
about the meanings of felching, snowballing, fisting,
barebacking, etc.
> --
>
> - ReFlex76
>
> - <http://twitter.com/ReFlex76>
DCI
> In article <sjrp875918jje4s95br9r2lvu0csden...@4ax.com>
in the mind when one chooses darkness.
DCI
Antonio E. Gonzalez
It sounds like that teacher has an agenda
>and should be reported to the PTA and school board.
>
>> Wow, not even close! The main point is still their contribution to
>> history, the gay thing a "now you know."
>>
>
>Indeed. Without "gay history" we'd all still be in the dark
>about the meanings of felching, snowballing, fisting,
>barebacking, etc.
>
This is about pointing out that yes, some people in history
happened to be gay, and sometimes work that into the day's lesson.
Delvin Benet
>>>>
>>>> With SB 48, of course, what Wilde and Whitman contributed to English
>>>> literature is not the important point. With SB 48, the main point is
>>>> that they were homosexuals.
>>
>> Why would their deviant sexual practices have any relevance in
>> an English lit class?
>
> Ummm, this is about gay people, not deviant sexual practices.
practices.
Delvin Benet
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 19:32:15 -0700 (PDT), Mike Cullinan
> <mgcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> SB 48 is the bill recently passed in the dysfunctional state of
>> California which makes it mandatory to indoctrinate the children with
>> a curriculum that gives special attention to the contributions of
>> GLBTs.
>>
>
> Not really special attention, just pointing out who's GLBT.
no reason to seek out queers to "include" them in the curriculum. If a
queer has done something historically significant, it is already
included in the curriculum. Queers who did something meaningful have
not been excluded from the curriculum. No queers should be featured in
the curriculum simply for being queer.
>> NEW: ‘Campaign Of Terror’ Charged on Initiative
>> OCT. 4, 2011
>>
>> By KATY GRIMES
>>
>> The tone of a Monday telephone press conference changed dramatically
>>from issues surrounding a campaign violation complaint, to charges of
>> a “campaign of terror” being waged on LGBT youth.
>>
>> Equality California filed the complaint with the Fair Political
>> Practices Commission Monday, charging the Capitol Resource Institute
>> with improper campaign record keeping. But that charge doesn’t appear
>> to have the legs needed to stop a grassroots ballot initiative
>> campaign trying to overturn SB 48.
>>
>> more at:
> Doesn't really matter, novelty initiatives like this usually gets
> struck down as unconstitutional (they usually are),
Delvin Benet
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 05:10:19 -0700 (PDT), Mike Cullinan
> <mgcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 4, 10:16 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez<AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 19:32:15 -0700 (PDT), Mike Cullinan
>>>
>>> <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> SB 48 is the bill recently passed in the dysfunctional state of
>>>> California which makes it mandatory to indoctrinate the children with
>>>> a curriculum that gives special attention to the contributions of
>>>> GLBTs.
>>>
>>> Not really special attention, just pointing out who's GLBT.
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/09/alan_turing_sb_48.php>
>>>
>>> <>
>>>
>>> Apparently, simply pointing out that gay people *exist* is enough to
>>> scare some!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Stop SB 48 is trying to get an initiative on the ballot that would
>>>> stop it, effectively letting the public ram the bill right back down
>>>> the legislators' throats. Gay activist leaders have as much as
>>>> admitted that should the Stop SB 48 petitioners succeed in getting
>>>> their measure on the ballot, then SB 48 would be toast.
>>>
>>>> The trick is that the Stop SB 48 supporters had to gather about
>>>> 506,000 signatures in record time, a matter of weeks. However, with
>>>> the October 12 deadline fast approaching, there are some signs that
>>>> they might make it.
>>>
>>>> What makes me think they might make the deadline and get the Stop 48
>>>> initiative in front of the California voters?
>>>
>>>> Tell-tale rhetoric from the GLBT opposition, like this:
>>>
>>>> OCT. 4, 2011
>>>
>>>> By KATY GRIMES
>>>
>>>> The tone of a Monday telephone press conference changed dramatically
>>> >from issues surrounding a campaign violation complaint, to charges of
>>>> a “campaign of terror” being waged on LGBT youth.
>>>
>>>> Equality California filed the complaint with the Fair Political
>>>> Practices Commission Monday, charging the Capitol Resource Institute
>>>> with improper campaign record keeping. But that charge doesn’t appear
>>>> to have the legs needed to stop a grassroots ballot initiative
>>>> campaign trying to overturn SB 48.
>>>
>>>> more at:
>>> Doesn't really matter, novelty initiatives like this usually gets
>>> brought up again. This should be no different.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> - ReFlex76
>>>
>>> -<http://twitter.com/ReFlex76>
>>
>> In my high school English classes of the 60s, when we studied Oscar
>> Wilde and Walt Whitman, the teaches made known to us that they were
>> homosexual. Having covered that, we went on to read and study what
>> Wilde and Whitman had written.
>>
>> literature is not the important point. With SB 48, the main point is
>> that they were homosexuals.
>
No, he is exactly right, and that is exactly why SB 48 is bad law.
Delvin Benet
There is no valid reason to work that into the day's lesson.
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
>
> Indeed. Without "gay history" we'd all still be in the dark
> about the meanings of felching, snowballing, fisting,
> barebacking, etc.
Tom Brady??????
Ohhhhhhh.......never mind.
mr dude
African Commissar
sets them apart.
> It sounds like that teacher has an agenda
> >and should be reported to the PTA and school board.
> >
> >> Wow, not even close! The main point is still their contribution to
> >> history, the gay thing a "now you know."
> >>
> >
> >Indeed. Without "gay history" we'd all still be in the dark
> >about the meanings of felching, snowballing, fisting,
> >barebacking, etc.
> >
>
> Wow, what you do behind closed doors is *your* business!
it a social issue, we would not be having this discussion.
> This is about pointing out that yes, some people in history
> happened to be gay, and sometimes work that into the day's lesson.
proper grammar usage.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>> It sounds like that teacher has an agenda
>> >and should be reported to the PTA and school board.
>> >
>> >> Wow, not even close! The main point is still their contribution to
>> >> history, the gay thing a "now you know."
>> >>
>> >
>> >Indeed. Without "gay history" we'd all still be in the dark
>> >about the meanings of felching, snowballing, fisting,
>> >barebacking, etc.
>> >
>>
>> Wow, what you do behind closed doors is *your* business!
>
>Exactly. Had gays kept it that way, not politicised it and made
>it a social issue, we would not be having this discussion.
>
behind closed doors is something else.
>> This is about pointing out that yes, some people in history
>> happened to be gay, and sometimes work that into the day's lesson.
>
>"Gay history" has nothing to do with sentence construction and
>proper grammar usage.
>
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Picked by George Washington to train Continental soldiers at Valley
Forge, this strick Prussian discipilarian helped make American
soldiers into a credible fighting force. Oh, and he was attracted to
men.
Besides teaching history, this could also start a discussion on
historical bans on gays in the military, their inherent wrongness, and
how keeping von Steuben from the Continental Army would likely mean
we'd still be a British colony.
There, that was easy!
Antonio E. Gonzalez
too!
George Plimpton
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:43:41 -0700, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>
>> On 10/5/2011 6:29 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>> On 6 Oct 2011 00:30:10 -0000, "African Commissar"
>>> <ubo...@hanggays.af> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. Without "gay history" we'd all still be in the dark
>>>> about the meanings of felching, snowballing, fisting,
>>>> barebacking, etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wow, what you do behind closed doors is *your* business!
>>>
>>> This is about pointing out that yes, some people in history
>>> happened to be gay, and sometimes work that into the day's lesson.
>>
>> There is no valid reason to work that into the day's lesson.
>
> Here's one: General Frederich Wilhelm von Steuben.
>
> Picked by George Washington to train Continental soldiers at Valley
> Forge, this strick Prussian discipilarian helped make American
> soldiers into a credible fighting force. Oh, and he was attracted to
> men.
that he was a "strick [sic] Prussian discipilarian [sic]" until this moment.
There are only unsubstantiated rumors that he was queer. They are
inconsequential. He was was not openly queer if he was at all, it is
not at all a part of why he is famous, and there is no reason to include
anything about it in the curriculum.
George Plimpton
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>On 10/6/2011 10:08 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
DADT.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>On 10/6/2011 10:09 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
--
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>On 10/6/2011 10:09 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
Yup! It's so!
George Plimpton
> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:59:05 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/6/2011 10:08 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/5/2011 6:29 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>> On 6 Oct 2011 00:30:10 -0000, "African Commissar"
>>>>> <ubo...@hanggays.af> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed. Without "gay history" we'd all still be in the dark
>>>>>> about the meanings of felching, snowballing, fisting,
>>>>>> barebacking, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow, what you do behind closed doors is *your* business!
>>>>>
>>>>> This is about pointing out that yes, some people in history
>>>>> happened to be gay, and sometimes work that into the day's lesson.
>>>>
>>>> There is no valid reason to work that into the day's lesson.
>>>
>>> Here's one: General Frederich Wilhelm von Steuben.
>>>
>>> Picked by George Washington to train Continental soldiers at Valley
>>> Forge, this strick Prussian discipilarian helped make American
>>> soldiers into a credible fighting force. Oh, and he was attracted to
>>> men.
>>
>> I learned about von Steuben when I was young, although I didn't learn
>> that he was a "strick [sic] Prussian discipilarian [sic]" until this moment.
>>
>> There are only unsubstantiated rumors that he was queer. They are
>> inconsequential. He was was not openly queer if he was at all, it is
>> not at all a part of why he is famous, and there is no reason to include
>> anything about it in the curriculum.
>
> Pardon my typos. Anyway, he was gay,
Not proved.
> it's relevant,
It's not relevant.
> especially with DADT.
Had nothing to do with him.
George Plimpton
> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:59:55 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/6/2011 10:09 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>On 10/7/2011 7:22 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:59:05 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/6/2011 10:08 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:43:41 -0700, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.n�t> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/5/2011 6:29 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>> On 6 Oct 2011 00:30:10 -0000, "African Commissar"
>>>>>> <ubo...@hanggays.af> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed. Without "gay history" we'd all still be in the dark
>>>>>>> about the meanings of felching, snowballing, fisting,
>>>>>>> barebacking, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow, what you do behind closed doors is *your* business!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is about pointing out that yes, some people in history
>>>>>> happened to be gay, and sometimes work that into the day's lesson.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no valid reason to work that into the day's lesson.
>>>>
>>>> Here's one: General Frederich Wilhelm von Steuben.
>>>>
>>>> Picked by George Washington to train Continental soldiers at Valley
>>>> Forge, this strick Prussian discipilarian helped make American
>>>> soldiers into a credible fighting force. Oh, and he was attracted to
>>>> men.
>>>
>>> I learned about von Steuben when I was young, although I didn't learn
>>> that he was a "strick [sic] Prussian discipilarian [sic]" until this moment.
>>>
>>> There are only unsubstantiated rumors that he was queer. They are
>>> inconsequential. He was was not openly queer if he was at all, it is
>>> not at all a part of why he is famous, and there is no reason to include
>>> anything about it in the curriculum.
>>
>> Pardon my typos. Anyway, he was gay,
>
>Not proved.
>
>
Yet he was; Washington knew, and didn't care, all he cared about
was a competent leader.
>> it's relevant,
>
>It's not relevant.
>
See below.
>> especially with DADT.
>
>Had nothing to do with him.
So, a policy that boots gays from the military has nothing to do
with a gay man in the military . . .
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Ray O'Hara
"Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:s3p4975uiem25b1mr...@4ax.com...
Pierre L'Enfant, the architect who laid out Washington DC and designed the
public buildings was famously gay too.
George Plimpton
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 22:31:31 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/7/2011 7:22 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:59:05 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/6/2011 10:08 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
If you have evidence, present it. Hint: *not* Wikipedia.
>>> it's relevant,
>>
>> It's not relevant.
>>
>
> See below.
>>> especially with DADT.
>>
>> Had nothing to do with him.
>
> So, a policy that boots gays from the military has nothing to do
> with a gay man in the military . . .
von Steuben is not relevant in any way to today's military.
George Plimpton
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 22:32:40 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/7/2011 7:36 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:59:55 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/6/2011 10:09 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/4/2011 8:16 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 19:32:15 -0700 (PDT), Mike Cullinan
>>>>>>> <mgcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SB 48 is the bill recently passed in the dysfunctional state of
>>>>>>>> California which makes it mandatory to indoctrinate the children with
>>>>>>>> a curriculum that gives special attention to the contributions of
>>>>>>>> GLBTs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not really special attention, just pointing out who's GLBT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no valid pedagogical reason to point out who's queer. There is
>>>>>> no reason to seek out queers to "include" them in the curriculum. If a
>>>>>> queer has done something historically significant, it is already
>>>>>> included in the curriculum. Queers who did something meaningful have
>>>>>> not been excluded from the curriculum. No queers should be featured in
>>>>>> the curriculum simply for being queer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OCT. 4, 2011
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By KATY GRIMES
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The tone of a Monday telephone press conference changed dramatically
>>>>>>> >from issues surrounding a campaign violation complaint, to charges of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Equality California filed the complaint with the Fair Political
>>>>>>>> Practices Commission Monday, charging the Capitol Resource Institute
>>>>>>>> to have the legs needed to stop a grassroots ballot initiative
>>>>>>>> campaign trying to overturn SB 48.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> more at:
>>>>>>>> http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/10/04/ballot-initiative-campaign-of-terror/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doesn't really matter, novelty initiatives like this usually gets
>>>>>>> struck down as unconstitutional (they usually are),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they usually don't, and no, they usually aren't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, they usually do, and yes, htey usually are
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Not so.
>>>
>>> Yup! It's so!
>>
>> It's not so. No amount of wishful queer thinking will make it so.
>
> So, your wishful queer thinking will make it so . . .
Lame attempt at playing The Queer Game noted - noted, laughed at and
dismissed.
George Plimpton
"Famously" - ha ha ha ha ha! One, you've presented no evidence he was a
queer. Two, even if he was, he clearly wasn't "famously" queer - a
search in Google turns up nothing.
L'enfant is included in the curriculum already because he did something
noteworthy. Nothing is to be gained by mentioning that he was a queer,
if in fact he was a queer.
George Plimpton
> news:s3p4975uiem25b1mr...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 22:31:31 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/7/2011 7:22 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:59:05 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/6/2011 10:08 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
was I thinking? Ha ha ha ha ha!
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 10/9/2011 8:45 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 22:32:40 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/7/2011 7:36 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:59:55 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/6/2011 10:09 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/4/2011 8:16 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 19:32:15 -0700 (PDT), Mike Cullinan
>>>>>>>> <mgcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SB 48 is the bill recently passed in the dysfunctional state of
>>>>>>>>> California which makes it mandatory to indoctrinate the children with
>>>>>>>>> a curriculum that gives special attention to the contributions of
>>>>>>>>> GLBTs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not really special attention, just pointing out who's GLBT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no valid pedagogical reason to point out who's queer. There is
>>>>>>> no reason to seek out queers to "include" them in the curriculum. If a
>>>>>>> queer has done something historically significant, it is already
>>>>>>> included in the curriculum. Queers who did something meaningful have
>>>>>>> not been excluded from the curriculum. No queers should be featured in
>>>>>>> the curriculum simply for being queer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By KATY GRIMES
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The tone of a Monday telephone press conference changed dramatically
>>>>>>>> >from issues surrounding a campaign violation complaint, to charges of
>>>>>>>>> Equality California filed the complaint with the Fair Political
>>>>>>>>> Practices Commission Monday, charging the Capitol Resource Institute
>>>>>>>>> campaign trying to overturn SB 48.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> more at:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/10/04/ballot-initiative-campaign-of-terror/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doesn't really matter, novelty initiatives like this usually gets
>>>>>>>> struck down as unconstitutional (they usually are),
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, they usually don't, and no, they usually aren't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, they usually do, and yes, htey usually are
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. Not so.
>>>>
>>>> Yup! It's so!
>>>
>>> It's not so. No amount of wishful queer thinking will make it so.
>>
>> So, your wishful queer thinking will make it so . . .
>
>Lame attempt at playing The Queer Game noted - noted, laughed at and
>dismissed.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>
>>>> it's relevant,
>>>
>>> It's not relevant.
>>>
>>
>> See below.
>
>Bullshit below.
>
>
>>>> especially with DADT.
>>>
>>> Had nothing to do with him.
>>
>> So, a policy that boots gays from the military has nothing to do
>> with a gay man in the military . . .
>
>Not proved that von Steuben was queer.
>
>von Steuben is not relevant in any way to today's military.
George Plimpton
George Plimpton
Got it.
>>>>> it's relevant,
>>>>
>>>> It's not relevant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> See below.
>>
>> Bullshit below.
>>
>
> It's called reality . . .
>>>>> especially with DADT.
>>>>
>>>> Had nothing to do with him.
>>>
>>> So, a policy that boots gays from the military has nothing to do
>>> with a gay man in the military . . .
>>
>> Not proved that von Steuben was queer.
>>
>
> So, you don't know how to use Google . . .
>> von Steuben is not relevant in any way to today's military.
>
> As a gay man, he is
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>
>>>>>> it's relevant,
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See below.
>>>
>>> Bullshit below.
>>>
>>
>> It's called reality . . .
>
>It's called bullshit. It's all the queer agenda has.
>
>
>>>>>> especially with DADT.
>>>>>
>>>>> Had nothing to do with him.
>>>>
>>>> So, a policy that boots gays from the military has nothing to do
>>>> with a gay man in the military . . .
>>>
>>> Not proved that von Steuben was queer.
>>>
>>
>> So, you don't know how to use Google . . .
>
>Your claim is unsubstantiated. That means it's bullshit.
>
>
>
>>> von Steuben is not relevant in any way to today's military.
>>
>> As a gay man, he is
>
>It is not established that von Steuben was a queer.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
George Plimpton
>>
>>>>>>> it's relevant,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not relevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> See below.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit below.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's called reality . . .
>>
>> It's called bullshit. It's all the queer agenda has.
>>
>>
>
> Yup, reality!
>>>>>>> especially with DADT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Had nothing to do with him.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, a policy that boots gays from the military has nothing to do
>>>>> with a gay man in the military . . .
>>>>
>>>> Not proved that von Steuben was queer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you don't know how to use Google . . .
>>
>> Your claim is unsubstantiated. That means it's bullshit.
>>
>>
>
> Fully substantiated indeed!
>>>> von Steuben is not relevant in any way to today's military.
>>>
>>> As a gay man, he is
>>
>> It is not established that von Steuben was a queer.
>
> Maybe not "queer," but certainly gay!
George Plimpton
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:55:20 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/10/2011 8:49 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 21:57:28 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/9/2011 8:45 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 22:32:40 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/7/2011 7:36 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:59:55 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/6/2011 10:09 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/4/2011 8:16 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 19:32:15 -0700 (PDT), Mike Cullinan
>>>>>>>>>>> <mgcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> SB 48 is the bill recently passed in the dysfunctional state of
>>>>>>>>>>>> California which makes it mandatory to indoctrinate the children with
>>>>>>>>>>>> a curriculum that gives special attention to the contributions of
>>>>>>>>>>>> GLBTs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not really special attention, just pointing out who's GLBT.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no valid pedagogical reason to point out who's queer. There is
>>>>>>>>>> no reason to seek out queers to "include" them in the curriculum. If a
>>>>>>>>>> queer has done something historically significant, it is already
>>>>>>>>>> included in the curriculum. Queers who did something meaningful have
>>>>>>>>>> not been excluded from the curriculum. No queers should be featured in
>>>>>>>>>> the curriculum simply for being queer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> OCT. 4, 2011
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> By KATY GRIMES
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The tone of a Monday telephone press conference changed dramatically
>>>>>>>>>>> >from issues surrounding a campaign violation complaint, to charges of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Equality California filed the complaint with the Fair Political
>>>>>>>>>>>> Practices Commission Monday, charging the Capitol Resource Institute
>>>>>>>>>>>> to have the legs needed to stop a grassroots ballot initiative
>>>>>>>>>>>> campaign trying to overturn SB 48.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> more at:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/10/04/ballot-initiative-campaign-of-terror/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't really matter, novelty initiatives like this usually gets
>>>>>>>>>>> struck down as unconstitutional (they usually are),
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, they usually don't, and no, they usually aren't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, they usually do, and yes, htey usually are
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope. Not so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yup! It's so!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not so. No amount of wishful queer thinking will make it so.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, your wishful queer thinking will make it so . . .
>>>>
>>>> Lame attempt at playing The Queer Game noted - noted, laughed at and
>>>> dismissed.
>>>
>>> So, you're playing "The Queer Game" . . .
>>
>> Nope - you were.
>
> I wasn't the one saying it,
Yes, you were: "So, your wishful queer thinking will make it so..."
That was what you wrote, and it was, of course, an attempt at smearing
your opponent as a closet queer - in other words, a lame and *failed*
attempt at playing The Queer Game.
You don't even know what The Queer Game is, you stupid faggot, even
though you were trying to play it.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>On 10/10/2011 9:35 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:55:20 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/10/2011 8:49 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 21:57:28 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/9/2011 8:45 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 22:32:40 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/7/2011 7:36 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:59:55 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/2011 10:09 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:40:41 -0700, Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.n�t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/4/2011 8:16 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 19:32:15 -0700 (PDT), Mike Cullinan
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mgcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SB 48 is the bill recently passed in the dysfunctional state of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> California which makes it mandatory to indoctrinate the children with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a curriculum that gives special attention to the contributions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> GLBTs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not really special attention, just pointing out who's GLBT.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no valid pedagogical reason to point out who's queer. There is
>>>>>>>>>>> no reason to seek out queers to "include" them in the curriculum. If a
>>>>>>>>>>> queer has done something historically significant, it is already
>>>>>>>>>>> included in the curriculum. Queers who did something meaningful have
>>>>>>>>>>> not been excluded from the curriculum. No queers should be featured in
>>>>>>>>>>> the curriculum simply for being queer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NEW: �Campaign Of Terror� Charged on Initiative
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OCT. 4, 2011
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> By KATY GRIMES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The tone of a Monday telephone press conference changed dramatically
>>>>>>>>>>>> >from issues surrounding a campaign violation complaint, to charges of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a �campaign of terror� being waged on LGBT youth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Equality California filed the complaint with the Fair Political
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Practices Commission Monday, charging the Capitol Resource Institute
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with improper campaign record keeping. But that charge doesn�t appear
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have the legs needed to stop a grassroots ballot initiative
>>>>>>>>>>>>> campaign trying to overturn SB 48.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more at:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/10/04/ballot-initiative-campaign-of-terror/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't really matter, novelty initiatives like this usually gets
>>>>>>>>>>>> struck down as unconstitutional (they usually are),
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, they usually don't, and no, they usually aren't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they usually do, and yes, htey usually are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope. Not so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yup! It's so!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not so. No amount of wishful queer thinking will make it so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, your wishful queer thinking will make it so . . .
>>>>>
>>>>> Lame attempt at playing The Queer Game noted - noted, laughed at and
>>>>> dismissed.
>>>>
>>>> So, you're playing "The Queer Game" . . .
>>>
>>> Nope - you were.
>>
>> I wasn't the one saying it,
>
>Yes, you were: "So, your wishful queer thinking will make it so..."
Nope, that was a reply to something already said!
>That was what you wrote, and it was, of course, an attempt at smearing
>your opponent as a closet queer - in other words, a lame and *failed*
>attempt at playing The Queer Game.
>
Nice of you to admit you're in the closet! (explains the
homophobia). Next, step outside!
>You don't even know what The Queer Game is, you stupid faggot, even
>though you were trying to play it.
Ummm, no, I'm not a bundle of sticks . . .
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>On 10/10/2011 9:35 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:56:54 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/10/2011 8:54 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 21:56:24 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/9/2011 8:40 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 22:31:31 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/7/2011 7:22 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:59:05 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/2011 10:08 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
Ok then . . . here ya go!:
>
>>>
>>>>>>>> it's relevant,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not relevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See below.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit below.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's called reality . . .
>>>
>>> It's called bullshit. It's all the queer agenda has.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yup, reality!
>
>Nope - bullshit.
>
*yawn*
See above . . .
>
>>>>>>>> especially with DADT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Had nothing to do with him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, a policy that boots gays from the military has nothing to do
>>>>>> with a gay man in the military . . .
>>>>>
>>>>> Not proved that von Steuben was queer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you don't know how to use Google . . .
>>>
>>> Your claim is unsubstantiated. That means it's bullshit.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Fully substantiated indeed!
>
>No substantiation at all, of course.
>
'Bove please . . .
>
>>>>> von Steuben is not relevant in any way to today's military.
>>>>
>>>> As a gay man, he is
>>>
>>> It is not established that von Steuben was a queer.
>>
>> Maybe not "queer," but certainly gay!
>
>Neither, you dumb queer.
So gay!
George Plimpton
>
> Nice of you to admit you're in the closet!
Lame attempt at playing The Queer Game noted, and mocked.
George Plimpton
>>
>
> Ok then . . . here ya go!:
>
>
> <http://books.google.com/books?id=hZ1T2o280eIC&pg=PA203&dq=Steuben+homosexual&as_brr=0&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Steuben%20homosexual&f=false>
"It has been claimed that Steuben was a homosexual. Indeed he may have
been..."
As far as we need to go. Tentative, not proved.
All the rest is no better.
You're full of shit, you pouncing shrieking homo.
Dänk 42Ø
This is another reason SB 48 should be opposed, since schools will be required to teach about
historical figures SUSPECTED of being gay, which amounts to slanderous gossip. Prior to the
20th century, very few people admitted their homosexuality, meaning there shouldn't be much to
teach under SB 48 unless speculation is allowed.
Could Thomas Edison have been gay? After all, he spent 23 hours a day in his laboratory, time
which could have used to have an illicit same-sex affair instead of inventing the light bulb as
he claimed. Conversely, evil historical figures, like J. Edgar Hoover, who were openly gay will
have their sexuality omitted from the history lesson, as their sexual preferences will be deemed
irrelevant and unsubstantiated rumor.
juanjo
>
> This is another reason SB 48 should be opposed, since schools will be required to teach about
> historical figures SUSPECTED of being gay,
Just what we need - an internet troll who admits he is a drug addict,
unemployed and living with his parents in St. George Utah, not to
mention has been shown repeatedly to be a complete liar, telling us
what we should or should not do.
Dänk 42Ø
Piss off already, faggot.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>On 10/12/2011 7:12 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>
>>
>> Nice of you to admit you're in the closet!
>
>Lame attempt at playing The Queer Game noted, and mocked.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 2011-10-12 23:20, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 10/12/2011 7:48 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>> Ok then . . . here ya go!:
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://books.google.com/books?id=hZ1T2o280eIC&pg=PA203&dq=Steuben+homosexual&as_brr=0&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Steuben%20homosexual&f=false>
>>>
>>
>> "It has been claimed that Steuben was a homosexual. Indeed he may have been..."
>>
>> As far as we need to go. Tentative, not proved.
>
>This is another reason SB 48 should be opposed, since schools will be required to teach about
>historical figures SUSPECTED of being gay, which amounts to slanderous gossip.
Prior to the
>20th century, very few people admitted their homosexuality, meaning there shouldn't be much to
>teach under SB 48 unless speculation is allowed.
>
>Could Thomas Edison have been gay? After all, he spent 23 hours a day in his laboratory, time
>which could have used to have an illicit same-sex affair instead of inventing the light bulb as
>he claimed.
Frederick II, who was quite openly gay.
Conversely, evil historical figures, like J. Edgar Hoover, who were
openly gay will
>have their sexuality omitted from the history lesson, as their sexual preferences will be deemed
>irrelevant and unsubstantiated rumor.
quite a few other teachers.
Anyway, "Stop SB48" has been defeated, knowledge wins!
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 10/12/2011 7:48 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:50:21 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/10/2011 9:35 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:56:54 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/10/2011 8:54 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 21:56:24 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/9/2011 8:40 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 22:31:31 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/7/2011 7:22 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:59:05 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/2011 10:08 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>All the rest is no better.
>
and run."
>You're full of shit, you pouncing shrieking homo.
Anyway, thanks for proving me right, yet again!
George Plimpton
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:17:21 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2011 7:12 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Nice of you to admit you're in the closet!
>>
>> Lame attempt at playing The Queer Game noted, and mocked.
>
> : )
George Plimpton
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:20:37 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2011 7:48 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:50:21 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/10/2011 9:35 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:56:54 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/10/2011 8:54 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 21:56:24 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/9/2011 8:40 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 22:31:31 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/7/2011 7:22 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:59:05 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/2011 10:08 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> All the rest is no better.
>>
>
>
> Translation: "I have no way of dealing with the others, so
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>
>>
>>> All the rest is no better.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Translation: "I have no way of dealing with the others, so
>
>It's all amateurish bullshit.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 10/14/2011 4:02 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:17:21 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/12/2011 7:12 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nice of you to admit you're in the closet!
>>>
>>> Lame attempt at playing The Queer Game noted, and mocked.
>>
>> : )
>
>And mocked again.