America sucks: Well, not really but if it does it's Cleve "Crack Addict" Blakemores fault!
SlayRide
Cleve. Call me crazy but, gun loving, self-aggrandizing, racist pigs like
Cleve, just kinda' give American's that bad rap they have all over the
world. Cleve do us sane folk a favour, and take your bullshit over to
alt.conspiracy.black.helicopters or some other feed where racist loonies can
spew to their hearts content, and leave us normal, decent folk alone.
fuck you very much...
Slay
Brian H.
SlayRide <sl...@ride.com> wrote in message
news:b_B45.3521$j7.1...@news.bc.tac.net...
Quatoria
"SlayRide" <sl...@ride.com> wrote:
> America could be the greatest place on earth, if it wasn't for guys like
>Cleve. Call me crazy but, gun loving, self-aggrandizing, racist pigs like
>Cleve, just kinda' give American's that bad rap they have all over the
>world.
Hey, dipshit. Cleve's an aussie.
-Quatoria
--
In this unpredictable, oftentimes contentious world,
sometimes you just have to sit back, take a moment to
reflect, and say "Well, I'll be a greased Jesus!"
Courageous
>
> America could be the greatest place on earth, if it wasn't for guys like
> Cleve. Call me crazy but, gun loving, self-aggrandizing, racist pigs like
<irony>
Yeah. You're right. Someone should shoot the bastard.
</irony>
C/
Thrasher
wrote:
<more irony>
Yeah. Gun Hatred is an old tradition in the US, dating back to the
beginning. The country didn't start going to shit until the Gun Nuts
started running the place.
</irony>
As for the racism, I've been to dozens of countries and without
exception they had more racial discrimination than the US does. People
who don't realize that about the US need to turn off CNN and get on a
plane once in a while...
pdwyer
>
>Hey, dipshit. Cleve's an aussie.
No he's fucking not, now come and collect him please, he must be
overstaying his visa by now.
How come for someone who's so 'American' he doesn't live there?
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Quatoria
pdwyer <pdwyerN...@ecn.net.au.invalid> wrote:
>No he's fucking not, now come and collect him please, he must be
>overstaying his visa by now.
No way, we don't want him. He voluntarily emigrated, he moved to your
country, he settled, he stayed, he's an aussie, he's your mess now,
and you're welcome to him.
Hong Ooi
<pdwyerN...@ecn.net.au.invalid> wrote:
>Quatoria <quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Hey, dipshit. Cleve's an aussie.
>
>No he's fucking not, now come and collect him please, he must be
>overstaying his visa by now.
Visa? I suspect Cleve's presence is breaking several quarantine
regulations, let alone his visa.
--
Hong Ooi | "P.S. I'm not psychic, I just seem that
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | way because of my astronomical native
http://www.zip.com.au/~hong | intelligence."
Canberra, Australia | -- CMB
Thrasher
<quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote:
>No way, we don't want him. He voluntarily emigrated, he moved to your
>country, he settled, he stayed, he's an aussie, he's your mess now,
>and you're welcome to him.
You talk like a guy and everybody calls you "him", but you use a
woman's name... What's up with that? Not another internet
transvestite, I hope? I realize cross dressing is most likely genetic
or some shit, but it still gives me the creeps :(
pdwyer
>No way, we don't want him. He voluntarily emigrated, he moved
to your
>country, he settled, he stayed, he's an aussie, he's your mess
now,
>and you're welcome to him.
I thought he was fleeing due to a person through the window
incident.
I guess Cleve's too scared to venture outdoors for fear of being
mobbed by Grimoire fans.
As we don't hear from too many of them, I gather they've taken
up residence outside his cave.
Blah
> America could be the greatest place on earth, if it wasn't for guys like
>Cleve. Call me crazy but, gun loving, self-aggrandizing, racist pigs like
>Cleve, just kinda' give American's that bad rap they have all over the
>world. Cleve do us sane folk a favour, and take your bullshit over to
>alt.conspiracy.black.helicopters or some other feed where racist loonies can
>spew to their hearts content, and leave us normal, decent folk alone.
>
>fuck you very much...
>Slay
>
As an American, I agree. Idiots like Cleve should be
lobotomized....for whatever good that would do science.
Ben Flieger
"Courageous" <jkra...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:39530762...@san.rr.com...
> SlayRide wrote:
> >
> > America could be the greatest place on earth, if it wasn't for
guys like
> > Cleve. Call me crazy but, gun loving, self-aggrandizing, racist
pigs like
>
> <irony>
>
> Yeah. You're right. Someone should shoot the bastard.
With a baseball caliber musket?
Quatoria
"Ben Flieger" <a...@primenet.com> wrote:
Wouldn't do any good. He's got the thickest head on earth. No, really.
He brags about it.
Mark Asher
like
> Cleve. Call me crazy but, gun loving, self-aggrandizing, racist pigs like
> world. Cleve do us sane folk a favour, and take your bullshit over to
> alt.conspiracy.black.helicopters or some other feed where racist loonies
can
> spew to their hearts content, and leave us normal, decent folk alone.
Not to defend Cleve, but one of the hallmarks of America is free speech. I
don't know what country your from, but from your post I suppose it doesn't
tolerate extreme viewpoints.
Robert L. Mullen
wrote:
Watch out Mark. I defended his right to his viewpoints above, and now
somehow I've become a racist! All of my black friends are going to be
awfully disappointed in me.
I guess I made the mistake of telling people that he might express a
point or two of truth underneath the rest of his lunatic ramblings.
Oh well. I guess the usenet is like the rest of the world, you are
either good or evil -- right or wrong... you can't be a little of
both. There are alot of "right" people out here and you just defended
a "wrong" one. Now you will be just as wrong and evil as him.
Run now, while you have the chance... the mobs haven't started forming
yet.
Later,
Rob
Patrick Mcginley
: America could be the greatest place on earth, if it wasn't for guys like
: Cleve. Call me crazy but, gun loving, self-aggrandizing, racist pigs like
: Cleve, just kinda' give American's that bad rap they have all over the
: world. Cleve do us sane folk a favour, and take your bullshit over to
: alt.conspiracy.black.helicopters or some other feed where racist loonies can
: spew to their hearts content, and leave us normal, decent folk alone.
Take a couple cc's of lighten up, smeg. America is the greatest place on
earth. Anyone who tells you different is looking for a scapegoat for their
troubles. Go anywhere on earth and tell me how many people would rather be
here.
What are you afraid of, o normal person? His exercise of free speech
will infect the children of the world's minds? Maybe you are conditioned
that people should be censored for thinking/speaking differently than you.
You have my pity.
You are quite the daredevil coming on here and posting how people should
stand up to racism and guns lovers are crazy. Give Rosie O'Donnell a
big fat kiss for me.
--
No path of truth led me where I could walk but the lies that I made led me
out of the swamp. - The Delgados
Ben Flieger
"Quatoria" <quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:075TOVjHQ0wA4o...@4ax.com...
> >> Yeah. You're right. Someone should shoot the bastard.
> >
> >With a baseball caliber musket?
> >
> Wouldn't do any good. He's got the thickest head on earth. No,
really.
> He brags about it.
Man, at the Battle of Hastings medics reported people's arms being
turned into various Italian meals by those muskets! I know that they
were using them against suboptimal genetic strains, but still? At
least a salad or breadsticks would result, wouldn't it?
Ben Flieger
Could me? Is.
if it wasn't for guys like
> Cleve.
Even with guys like Cleve. Maybe, because of guys like Cleve. that we
let them spout their wrongness without sending them to the gulag. We
let people print magazines of this shit, and sell them in public. We
let them run for office(well, not Cleve, since he's a bit out of the
country). A
Call me crazy but, gun loving, self-aggrandizing, racist pigs like
> Cleve, just kinda' give American's that bad rap they have all over
the
> world.
Americans have a bad rap all over the world because we are better than
the rest of you, and that infuriates people. Neener-Neener. I will now
go sleep on a pile of money with many beautiful women.
Cleve do us sane folk a favour, and take your bullshit over to
> alt.conspiracy.black.helicopters or some other feed where racist
loonies can
> spew to their hearts content, and leave us normal, decent folk
alone.
And deprive me of hours of entertainment? Never! Cleve! Cleve! Cleve!
Cleve!
Geoff Black
Thrasher <spect...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:08b8ls47dh2h8gnud...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 02:31:13 GMT, Quatoria
> <quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Woah, you're right. I should take a pseudonym that's masculine and
> >powerful, like, oh, I dunno.
>
> If you are male you should use a male name, not a female name. Unless
> you are posing as a female?
>
Like say Leslie, or Alex, or Jamie, or Chris, or Drew, or Corey, or Jesse,
or Sam, or Taylor, or Jordan, or Morgan, or Kelly, or Ryan, or Bobby.
Whoops, guess anyone of those names can be either male or female (plus many
more). So anyone that has one of those names better change them so that
Thrasher isn't confused. We wouldn't want a confused Thrasher, now would
we?
Geoffrey
Thrasher
wrote:
>> You talk like a guy and everybody calls you "him", but you use a
>> woman's name... What's up with that? Not another internet
>> transvestite, I hope? I realize cross dressing is most likely genetic
>> or some shit, but it still gives me the creeps :(
>
>Genetic? How condescending of you. Free tip: you might want to take a
>closer look at why you're so creeped out by gender ambiguity. You hate
>women who wear suits as well?
Nope, my wife wears jeans and a T-Shirt most the time. It's not the
clothes that bother me. If she started telling people she was a man,
and started acting like a man, that would bother me though. Men who
pretend to be women creep me out because it's _CREEPY_ behavior. Maybe
you should take a closer look at why you are so comfortable with it.
The overwhelming majority of people in the world are not.
Thrasher
(Robert L. Mullen) wrote:
>I guess I made the mistake of telling people that he might express a
>point or two of truth underneath the rest of his lunatic ramblings.
>Oh well. I guess the usenet is like the rest of the world, you are
>either good or evil -- right or wrong... you can't be a little of
>both. There are alot of "right" people out here and you just defended
>a "wrong" one. Now you will be just as wrong and evil as him.
You know what's funny about the way insist on "right thinking"? When
the purge comes they will be first up against the wall, because the
ones running the show will be the ruthless extremists. I'd like to see
how some of these politically correct goofballs would have fared in
the USSR under Stalin, or in China today...
>Run now, while you have the chance... the mobs haven't started forming
>yet.
How scary is a mob made up of sheep? The politically correct have
never toppled a government - or even started a riot, as far as I can
recall. What are they gonna do, break out a large can of peer
pressure?
Thrasher
>As an American, I agree. Idiots like Cleve should be
>lobotomized....for whatever good that would do science.
Are you sure you are american? That's an old russian tradition,
sending dissidents to mental institutions. Really.
Sheitan
thread without even bothering reading any of the messages (along with the
Canada one).
Cheers,
- Sheitan
SlayRide <sl...@ride.com> wrote in message
news:b_B45.3521$j7.1...@news.bc.tac.net...
> America could be the greatest place on earth, if it wasn't for guys
like
> Cleve. Call me crazy but, gun loving, self-aggrandizing, racist pigs like
> Cleve, just kinda' give American's that bad rap they have all over the
> world. Cleve do us sane folk a favour, and take your bullshit over to
> alt.conspiracy.black.helicopters or some other feed where racist loonies
can
> spew to their hearts content, and leave us normal, decent folk alone.
>
Quatoria
Thrasher <spect...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You talk like a guy and everybody calls you "him", but you use a
>woman's name... What's up with that? Not another internet
>transvestite, I hope? I realize cross dressing is most likely genetic
>or some shit, but it still gives me the creeps :(
Woah, you're right. I should take a pseudonym that's masculine and
powerful, like, oh, I dunno. Thrasher! Or, uh, Mangler! Crusher!
Demolisher! Something that will really say to the world "Watch out,
you clueless fuckers, I'm coming in, and I've got a BIG DICK!"
Unlike you, Thrasher, I don't have a darn thing I feel the need to
prove to the world, and my shoulders are blissfully chip free.I've got
no need to cloak myself in a big scary pseudonym that's more suited to
a professional wrestler or the legbreaker in cell block D. Why do you?
Cleve Blakemore
"Ben Flieger" <a...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Americans have a bad rap all over the world because we are better than
> the rest of you, and that infuriates people. Neener-Neener. I will now
> go sleep on a pile of money with many beautiful women.
>
A true empire does not permit "voters" to attend "elections" ...
emperors are crowned by the elites - no plebs allowed in.
<http://www.latimes.com/news/front/20000623/t000059508.html>
The protests are now so frequent and disruptive in that multicultural
empire that all the symbolic "democratic" ceremonies have to be guarded
by hired mercenaries, suppressed in the media and ignored by the upper
crust wine-and-cheese elites as if they were not even happening. This
is all standard behaviour in a rapidly imploding empire held together
only by sheer force. It is like they were following a book of rules
checking off all the points needed before they collapse into civil war.
America has a bad rap because it has been seized by socialists seeking
hegemony over a world socialist government through the United Nations.
America has a bad rap because it is not American any more and has not
been for 40 years. The communists won - they run America now and have
been running it for the past three decades.
America has a bad rap because it is the most evil tyrant nation on
Earth, dedicated to the destruction of national sovereignty and freedom.
On July 4th I plan to burn the so-called "American" flag in a ceremony
on my front lawn. I will be taking photographs and posting them to my
new web site as the imperial rag goes up in greasy smoke as a symbol of
oppression worldwide. All of you fake patriots will put on a little
show for the emperor, I'm sure - wave your little rag flag like a good
imperial subject and clap at the fireworks. Then open your mouth for
the rubber ball and put your nipple clamps back on after the ceremony
ends like a good little imperial slave so you can go back to your tax
revenue generating plows.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Thrasher
<quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote:
>Woah, you're right. I should take a pseudonym that's masculine and
>powerful, like, oh, I dunno.
If you are male you should use a male name, not a female name. Unless
you are posing as a female?
Or maybe you just didn't realize that your "handle" is of Latin
derivation, and like all languages based on Latin, there are male and
female variants for names? Like Maria and Mario? Francesca and
Francesco? Silvio and Silvia?
Quatoria and Quatorio?
Actually, based on the level of ignorance found in your typical post,
it doesn't surprise me in the least that you would use an obviously
female name without realizing it, just because it "sounds" cool.
Right?
Damocles
wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:14:59 GMT, rlmu...@SENDNOSPAMmindspring.com
>(Robert L. Mullen) wrote:
>
>>I guess I made the mistake of telling people that he might express a
>>point or two of truth underneath the rest of his lunatic ramblings.
>>Oh well. I guess the usenet is like the rest of the world, you are
>>either good or evil -- right or wrong... you can't be a little of
>>both. There are alot of "right" people out here and you just defended
>>a "wrong" one. Now you will be just as wrong and evil as him.
>
>You know what's funny about the way insist on "right thinking"? When
>the purge comes they will be first up against the wall, because the
>ones running the show will be the ruthless extremists. I'd like to see
>how some of these politically correct goofballs would have fared in
>the USSR under Stalin, or in China today...
>
Better than guys wearing dresses in Thrasher's utopia, I guess.
Damocles
(Robert L. Mullen) wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:58:25 -0500, "Mark Asher" <ma...@cdmnet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>SlayRide <sl...@ride.com> wrote in message
>>news:b_B45.3521$j7.1...@news.bc.tac.net...
>>> America could be the greatest place on earth, if it wasn't for guys
>>like
>>> Cleve. Call me crazy but, gun loving, self-aggrandizing, racist pigs like
>>> Cleve, just kinda' give American's that bad rap they have all over the
>>> world. Cleve do us sane folk a favour, and take your bullshit over to
>>> alt.conspiracy.black.helicopters or some other feed where racist loonies
>>can
>>> spew to their hearts content, and leave us normal, decent folk alone.
>>
>>Not to defend Cleve, but one of the hallmarks of America is free speech. I
>>don't know what country your from, but from your post I suppose it doesn't
>>tolerate extreme viewpoints.
>>
>>
>
>Watch out Mark. I defended his right to his viewpoints above, and now
>somehow I've become a racist! All of my black friends are going to be
>awfully disappointed in me.
You didn't simply defend his rights (which of course he has and should
always have), you pointed to that incident in Central Park last
weekend as a sign of the oncoming race war, and implied it was being
covered up by "forces unknown" in your own local paper. That's a wee
bit more than defending his right to speak, eh?
Courageous
> Quatoria and Quatorio?
>
> Actually, based on the level of ignorance found in your typical post,
> it doesn't surprise me in the least that you would use an obviously
> female name without realizing it, just because it "sounds" cool.
> Right?
The Quatoria: These are the police and the criminal judges of the republic,
in remote areas they act as both the police, judge and executioner if
warranted can deputize others, in the cities there are various ranks from
patrol-man to Judge, these ranks determine their jobs as well. The Quatoria
is appointed by the Imperia, or temporary Quatoria can be appointed by the
Magistia within their territory.
This was taken from the text of some role playing game which appears
to be based in a Roman world variant.
C/
Quatoria
Courageous <jkra...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>The Quatoria: These are the police and the criminal judges of the republic,
>in remote areas they act as both the police, judge and executioner if
>warranted can deputize others, in the cities there are various ranks from
>patrol-man to Judge, these ranks determine their jobs as well. The Quatoria
>is appointed by the Imperia, or temporary Quatoria can be appointed by the
>Magistia within their territory.
Good lord, man, what are you doing? Are you saying there's nothing
wrong with me using a nickname from a roleplaying game as I post in
the RPG form? Next you'll be making REALLY bizarre assertions, like,
"The sky is blue," or, "It's good to breath!"
Damocles
<clevebl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>On July 4th I plan to burn the so-called "American" flag in a ceremony
>on my front lawn. I will be taking photographs and posting them to my
>new web site as the imperial rag goes up in greasy smoke as a symbol of
>oppression worldwide. All of you fake patriots will put on a little
>show for the emperor, I'm sure - wave your little rag flag like a good
>imperial subject and clap at the fireworks. Then open your mouth for
>the rubber ball and put your nipple clamps back on after the ceremony
>ends like a good little imperial slave so you can go back to your tax
>revenue generating plows.
>
Takes a lot of courage to burn your native flag while living 15,000
miles away.
Courageous
> >The Quatoria: These are the police and the criminal judges of the republic,
> >in remote areas they act as both the police, judge and executioner if
> >warranted can deputize others, in the cities there are various ranks from
> >patrol-man to Judge, these ranks determine their jobs as well. The Quatoria
> >is appointed by the Imperia, or temporary Quatoria can be appointed by the
> >Magistia within their territory.
>
> Good lord, man, what are you doing? Are you saying there's nothing
> wrong with me using a nickname from a roleplaying game as I post in
> the RPG form? Next you'll be making REALLY bizarre assertions, like,
> "The sky is blue," or, "It's good to breath!"
I just think it's funny that this Thrasher fellow had the cojones
to strut his linguistic stuff without taking the all of 10 seconds or
so (yep, that's about all it took) to see if you were borrowing
the name from any obvious sources.
Furthermore, in Latin -ia is not a female ending, but rather is part
of the 2nd declension, as in 'somnium' (singular) and 'somnia' (plural).
So much for a "typical level of ignorance," eh Thrash?
*ironic smile*
C/
kromm
wrote:
>
HUH? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Battle of Hastings in
1066? Before gunpowder? Maybe Cleve's rant about the socialist goal
of dumbing down society is correct. One of us is wrong here, maybe
you maybe me, so maybe Cleve is right? hehehe
kromm
>
kromm
<clevebl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <8j0tcp$g59$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>,
> "Ben Flieger" <a...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Americans have a bad rap all over the world because we are better than
>> the rest of you, and that infuriates people. Neener-Neener. I will now
>> go sleep on a pile of money with many beautiful women.
>>
>
>A true empire does not permit "voters" to attend "elections" ...
>emperors are crowned by the elites - no plebs allowed in.
>
><http://www.latimes.com/news/front/20000623/t000059508.html>
>
>The protests are now so frequent and disruptive in that multicultural
>empire that all the symbolic "democratic" ceremonies have to be guarded
>by hired mercenaries, suppressed in the media and ignored by the upper
>crust wine-and-cheese elites as if they were not even happening. This
>is all standard behaviour in a rapidly imploding empire held together
>only by sheer force. It is like they were following a book of rules
>checking off all the points needed before they collapse into civil war.
>
>America has a bad rap because it has been seized by socialists seeking
>hegemony over a world socialist government through the United Nations.
>
>America has a bad rap because it is not American any more and has not
>been for 40 years. The communists won - they run America now and have
>been running it for the past three decades.
>
>America has a bad rap because it is the most evil tyrant nation on
>Earth, dedicated to the destruction of national sovereignty and freedom.
>
Then Canada should be the first target. Our army is only 30,000
strong, and riddled with inkompatents. But beware, we have in excees
of 100,000 tax collectors.
>On July 4th I plan to burn the so-called "American" flag in a ceremony
>on my front lawn. I will be taking photographs and posting them to my
>new web site as the imperial rag goes up in greasy smoke as a symbol of
>oppression worldwide. All of you fake patriots will put on a little
>show for the emperor, I'm sure - wave your little rag flag like a good
>imperial subject and clap at the fireworks. Then open your mouth for
>the rubber ball and put your nipple clamps back on after the ceremony
>ends like a good little imperial slave so you can go back to your tax
>revenue generating plows.
>
>
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>Actually, based on the level of ignorance found in your typical post,
>it doesn't surprise me in the least that you would use an obviously
>female name without realizing it, just because it "sounds" cool.
>Right?
Sheesh, Thrasher, if you've got a crush on Quatoria, just come out and
tell her so.
--
Hong Ooi | "P.S. I'm not psychic, I just seem that
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | way because of my astronomical native
http://www.zip.com.au/~hong | intelligence."
Sydney, Australia | -- CMB
Cleve Blakemore
The left never debates any point of their insanity, engages in a
reasonable argument or even replies to critics of their mass delusion.
They institutionalize, label their opponents as mentally disturbed,
accuse them of a "witch hunt" or try to pass a law making it an
obligation to kill/imprison such people as soon as they are identified.
But freedom of speech is only for the left - the right is not permitted
any freedoms, period, the moment the left attains any power.
We wouldn't be living in this screwed up Marxist empire if the right
had not tolerated, permitted, debated and countered the left freely for
thirty years. The right has already proved they tolerate dissent, the
left has also proven they won't and can't afford to. Their viewpoint is
sheer idiocy, they can't bear to have it simply exposed for the madness
it is.
For example - name one multicultural society in all of recorded history
that did not collapse into anarchy and civil war within a few short
years of it becoming demographically destabilized. You can't, because
there has never been such a country. Multiculturalism = civil war,
period. The left does not tolerate anybody even saying this out loud.
Look at the gigantic circus around John Rocker for stating the obvious
- he had to undergo "sensitivity training" before he could be
"rehabilitated" into society. America today has zero social differences
from the USSR in it's prime, including the political use of
"psychiatry" to control dissidents. None. Modern America is a mirror
reflection of russian society and politics, you'd never guess these two
countries once claimed to be polar opposites.
Cleve Blakemore
Damocles <phae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You didn't simply defend his rights (which of course he has and should
> always have), you pointed to that incident in Central Park last
> weekend as a sign of the oncoming race war, and implied it was being
> covered up by "forces unknown" in your own local paper. That's a wee
> bit more than defending his right to speak, eh?
>
>
How odd! Now even questioning the truthfulness of the media or the long
term effects of the multicultural creed can get one labeled as a racist.
Trust me, soon you will just give up and accept the label because it is
rapidly becoming associated with almost anybody who had the misfortune
to be born with an IQ higher than 95. Tragic.
Paul Barnes
Cleve Blakemore <clevebl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8j21il$j6o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<snip>
> They institutionalize, label their opponents as mentally disturbed,
> accuse them of a "witch hunt" or try to pass a law making it an
> obligation to kill/imprison such people as soon as they are identified.
> But freedom of speech is only for the left - the right is not permitted
> any freedoms, period, the moment the left attains any power.
>
<pitty for biggoted pricks snipped>
Wow something from this turnip that i agree with(sort of) The extreem left
in society is now, and has always tried to stop all opponents from speaking
against it, and are usually the first to start throwing around the word
racist. If you speak out against "same sex marriages" then your a homophobic
bigot, if you speak out against hiring quotas then your a howling N****
hating racist. If you speak out against government programs that keep
pouring money into ghetto's then your obviously a howling racist. Yet if you
are on the radio and talk about marriage(between a man and a woman) being
more than just a little important, or 2 parent famillies being better than a
1 parent familly, then you can be made to appologise on the air, and
penalized for daring to say something so controversial.
yah, i know, sounds like ranting, but its 6:00 AM and i just got up...lol,
One question thought, now that the human genome project is finally starting
to develop a test, will we be able to find out how to insert titanium into
our bones? Having it there naturally seems to carry to high a price IMHO.
Quatoria
"Paul Barnes" <the....@home.com> wrote:
>If you speak out against "same sex marriages" then your a homophobic
>bigot,
That's probably because if you don't think homosexuals have the right
to get married, you ARE a homophobic bigot. Or maybe you think that so
long as you're not actively kicking trying to kick the shit out of
homosexuals, you're not a homophobe?
Let's change up the statement just a bit, and you tell me if this
sounds bigoted. "I've got nothing against coloreds, I just don't think
they should be given the right to vote! It would destroy the very
institution!" It's bigoted fucking shit, Paul, even if it doesn't
occur to you at the time.
Waver
> America has a bad rap because it is the most evil tyrant nation on
> Earth, dedicated to the destruction of national sovereignty and freedom.
>
I agree. Have a read of some of the things America has forced on countries
by the UN.
eg, America wanted it to make 3rd world countries open up abortion in there
as a means of decreasing their population growth. They actualy wanted to
force abortion clinics in coutrys that the _people_ of the country don't
want... and to use it to help keep their population down!
The Vatican stood up and wouldn't let the _law_ get passed. After a long
time in dead lock the USA backed down. Guess who got aimed at in the western
media? yup.. the Vatican coped a load of heat and slander and was protrayed
as the bad guys... again. Read into that what you want. There not called
"The Holy See" for nothing...
If it looks like it, smells like it, tastes like it... it is.
Waver
Hong Ooi
<clevebl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>How odd! Now even questioning the truthfulness of the media or the long
>term effects of the multicultural creed can get one labeled as a racist.
>
>Trust me, soon you will just give up and accept the label because it is
>rapidly becoming associated with almost anybody who had the misfortune
>to be born with an IQ higher than 95. Tragic.
One-liners from Cleve? You're slipping. At this rate, I'll be forced to
put Thrasher back in my sig.
When's Grimoire coming out?
Quatoria
"Waver" <Wa...@start.com.au> wrote:
>The Vatican stood up and wouldn't let the _law_ get passed. After a long
>time in dead lock the USA backed down. Guess who got aimed at in the western
>media? yup.. the Vatican coped a load of heat and slander and was protrayed
>as the bad guys... again. Read into that what you want. There not called
>"The Holy See" for nothing...
Yeah, it's a good thing that the Vatican opposed with all it's might
all the results of the international women's conference. The last
thing we want is to slow the population growth in predominantly
catholic third world nations with some of the lowest lifespans, worst
infant mortality rates, and poorest standard of living in the world.
Here's a free clue, Waver. Legalizing abortion, along with providing
access to birth control and helping women get an education and the
ability to gain power in the society are all things that help to
reduce the population growth. The more power women in a society have,
the slower the population tends to grow, and that's a really, really
good thing. Do you have any idea how quickly our population is
doubling? How many humans do you think this planet can sustain, the
way we use and abuse our resources?
The catholic church has, traditionally, fought tooth and nail against
any international referendums that seek to improve the status of
women, out of white-knuckle fear that it would reduce the stranglehold
the Church has on those third world nations.
Nexus
This was in one of Cleve's rants, along with the claim that muskets
used ammo the size of baseballs. About as accurate as his other
claims.
Steve Martin
> bigot
Surely if u speak out against same sex marriages then you _are_ a homophobic
bigot?
Cleve Blakemore
Quatoria <quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote:
> In the swirling mists of history, on Sat, 24 Jun 2000 12:37:53 GMT,
> "Paul Barnes" <the....@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> That's probably because if you don't think homosexuals have the right
> to get married, you ARE a homophobic bigot. Or maybe you think that so
> long as you're not actively kicking trying to kick the shit out of
> homosexuals, you're not a homophobe?
This is Quat's refutation ... "If you disagree with me, then you are
reprehensible stereotype X," ... then a rejoinder that you might
possibly go around kicking the sh*t out of homosexuals, being a morally
inferior hetero that you are ... basic lefty gibberish.
Marriage is a Christian invention celebrating the union of man and
woman and the biological production of children within a lifelong
monogamous commitment. Any homosexual who believes he is being denied
his dignity because he is not legally qualified to "marry" another man
is a self-hating homosexual. He is judging himself by a heterosexual
yardstick against a relationship that is quite different in almost
every possible way.
I have a highly intelligent friend who happens to be gay who considers
this kind of politicking as symptomatic of self-loathing homosexuals
attempting to get reinforcement and acceptance from heterosexuals, a
frank admission that he/she is not very well adjusted. I agree
completely with this. Homosexuals with very confused identity think if
they can force the heterosexual community to acknowledge these unions
as "marriages" that they will recover the esteem they believe heteros
are entitled to that they no longer have for themselves. A homosexual
who has never learned to cope with the fact that maybe they aren't
destined for the house with the picket fence and the wife at home and
children in a comfortably secure family seeks to regain this pseudo-
status from a pseudo-society that only exists in his or her mind.
Campaigning for recognition under insurance laws for primary caregivers
and companions is a whole different ballgame, egalitarianism dictates
that people in long loyal relationships should benefit from insurance
payouts on event of death. There are also plenty of existing laws that
already cover support and indemnity between companions who separate.
The majority of homosexuals asking for recognition of homosexual
"marriage" are simply neurotic, badly adjusted people. This isn't any
heterosexual's fault.
I should also point out that my gay friend is not only the only
homosexual I know without a drug/alcohol addiction, he is also one of
the least angry people I have ever known. He's gay. He likes it. He
doesn't hate heteros nor is he furiously trying to prove something to
them, he has found a core of self-esteem that is immune to some phantom
judgement that so many gays seem to suffer under - all in their heads.
Aside from his being gay, he is just a person otherwise like anybody
else. For many homosexuals, they present their sexuality as an
antagonistic political choice not very far off from classic nazism in
its claims of superiority and exclusiveness.
I sometimes suspect that if many gays had the entire world to
themselves and it was all homosexual, many of them would still be some
very furious, unstable, self-destructive and vicious people in their
personal relationships and in general. A lot of these "problems" that
gay people scream for legislation "against" are nothing but projections
from inside their own heads onto the external world. The demand for
recognition of their "marriages" is one of these sick, weird claims.
> Let's change up the statement just a bit, and you tell me if this
> sounds bigoted. "I've got nothing against coloreds, I just don't think
> they should be given the right to vote! It would destroy the very
> institution!" It's bigoted fucking shit, Paul, even if it doesn't
> occur to you at the time.
>
Standard Marxist dialectics - rewrite your words as something nobody
could approve of, claim this was analogous to what you said and then
ask if you are proud of what you were saying. Hegel taught how to win
arguments through guile, not by offering better ideas. Hegel-Marxist
dialectics are the antithesis of everything we believe in the best
tradition of Western civilization. Hegelian speech is alien, foreign,
unnatural, odd and dishonest. We're so used to it that we are no longer
surprised when our entire society speaks this way, even though many of
us are barely even functionally literate. Hegelian dialectics is a game
everybody learns to play at a young age by watching television and
copying the empty rhetoric, sound bites and meaningless ad hominem they
see displayed there trying to pass itself off as conversation. This is
not even a skill compared to the discipline of classic debate. It is
what rushes in to fill a vaccuum.
You're the reactionary nut, Quat.
Brian H.
"Geoff Black" <gbl...@nwrain.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Thrasher <spect...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:08b8ls47dh2h8gnud...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 02:31:13 GMT, Quatoria
> > <quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Woah, you're right. I should take a pseudonym that's masculine and
> > >powerful, like, oh, I dunno.
> >
> > If you are male you should use a male name, not a female name.
Unless
> > you are posing as a female?
> >
>
Jesse,
> or Sam, or Taylor, or Jordan, or Morgan, or Kelly, or Ryan, or Bobby.
>
> Whoops, guess anyone of those names can be either male or female
(plus many
> more). So anyone that has one of those names better change them so
that
> Thrasher isn't confused. We wouldn't want a confused Thrasher, now
would
> we?
I know that "Thrasher" is the name of a bird. So "Thrasher" itself is
neutral, could be male & female. Just think of such a name made me
CREEEEEEEEEPPPPPPYYYYYYYY....
>
> Geoffrey
>
>
--
Brian.
Human beings can send to bh1234...@nospam.please.ismart.net.
Spammers can send to bh1...@my-deja.com because I never use it.
Brian H.
too "intellectual". That would be very boring.
In article <8j2r05$3hh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
--
Brian.
Human beings can send to bh1234...@nospam.please.ismart.net.
Spammers can send to bh1...@my-deja.com because I never use it.
Ben Flieger
"kromm" <mo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39546d91.45273839@news...
> >Man, at the Battle of Hastings medics reported people's arms being
> >turned into various Italian meals by those muskets! I know that
they
> >were using them against suboptimal genetic strains, but still? At
> >least a salad or breadsticks would result, wouldn't it?
> >
> >
> HUH? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Battle of Hastings in
> 1066? Before gunpowder? Maybe Cleve's rant about the socialist
goal
> of dumbing down society is correct. One of us is wrong here, maybe
> you maybe me, so maybe Cleve is right? hehehe
No, it's Cleve. I'm rephrasing one of his best arguments ever.
Best Cleve thread title is definitely STEVE BAUMAN=ALGER HISS.
Is it a coincidence that my spell check wants to replace Bauman with
Badman?
Ben Flieger
"Waver" <Wa...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:3954c3e8$0$31...@motown.iinet.net.au...
>
>
> > America has a bad rap because it is the most evil tyrant nation on
> > Earth, dedicated to the destruction of national sovereignty and
freedom.
> >
>
> I agree. Have a read of some of the things America has forced on
countries
> by the UN.
You do understand that when you put a "s" on the end of a word, you
are saying that there are multiple 'things'? Rather than the
one(wrong) thing you managed to coax from the flaccid gray mass you
cart around inside your skull.
> eg, America wanted it to make 3rd world countries open up abortion
in there
> as a means of decreasing their population growth. They actualy
wanted to
> force abortion clinics in coutrys that the _people_ of the country
don't
> want... and to use it to help keep their population down!
That's so wrong it's funny. People in 3rd world countries who want
abortions can't get them. We wanted to give them the chance. God knows
somebody living in a bullet riddled shack really needs that 7th kid
for the glory of God.
> The Vatican stood up and wouldn't let the _law_ get passed.
It's not really a law. The UN doesn't make individual countries' laws.
After a long
> time in dead lock the USA backed down. Guess who got aimed at in the
western
> media? yup.. the Vatican coped a load of heat and slander and was
protrayed
> as the bad guys... again.
Because they are. The Catholic Church is a backward, manipulative
organization. They want plaudits because they apoligized for sitting
on their hands during the Holocaust?
Steve Martin
>woman and the biological production of children within a lifelong
>monogamous commitment
Marriage is by no means a Christian invention - it has occurred within many
cultures and religions since before there was such a thing as Christianity.
It is also not neccessarily found within monogamous societies.
Jason McCullough
>
>> America has a bad rap because it is the most evil tyrant nation on
>> Earth, dedicated to the destruction of national sovereignty and freedom.
>>
>
>I agree. Have a read of some of the things America has forced on countries
>by the UN.
>
>as a means of decreasing their population growth. They actualy wanted to
>force abortion clinics in coutrys that the _people_ of the country don't
>want... and to use it to help keep their population down!
>
>time in dead lock the USA backed down. Guess who got aimed at in the western
>media? yup.. the Vatican coped a load of heat and slander and was protrayed
>"The Holy See" for nothing...
>
What the hell are you talking about? Here, on the planet Earth,
there's a fight in Congress every few months over UN funding for
family planning. The Republicans have won the last few; the US
currently pretty much don't fund anything that could hypothetically
somehow be used for an abortion. God forbid we let citizens of other
countries do what's legal for US citizens.
Jason McCullough
http://zebco.home.dhs.org/
Quatoria
Cleve Blakemore <clevebl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <2L5UOcyOtYM7URfDYc642XY7tF0=@4ax.com>,
> Quatoria <quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote:
>> In the swirling mists of history, on Sat, 24 Jun 2000 12:37:53 GMT,
>> "Paul Barnes" <the....@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If you speak out against "same sex marriages" then your a homophobic
>> >bigot,
>>
>> That's probably because if you don't think homosexuals have the right
>> to get married, you ARE a homophobic bigot. Or maybe you think that so
>> long as you're not actively kicking trying to kick the shit out of
>> homosexuals, you're not a homophobe?
>
>This is Quat's refutation ... "If you disagree with me, then you are
>reprehensible stereotype X," ... then a rejoinder that you might
>possibly go around kicking the sh*t out of homosexuals, being a morally
>inferior hetero that you are ... basic lefty gibberish.
The thing I love most about you, Clevie, is how it takes almost
nothing to tap into one of your paranoias and send you off on a rant.
I don't blame you for being unable to keep up with the advanced terms
in my argument, such as "not." I'm impressed enough that you manage to
beat the flying pink elephants away from the keyboard long enough to
type what you do.
>Marriage is a Christian invention celebrating the union of man and
>woman and the biological production of children within a lifelong
>monogamous commitment.
Oh. So Jews, Hindu, Taoists, and all the other various sundry and
assorted non-Christians of the world can't get married either? Fuck!
Better start mailing out the divorce papers.
>Any homosexual who believes he is being denied
>his dignity because he is not legally qualified to "marry" another man
>is a self-hating homosexual.
Being denied his "dignity?" Aside from it being state sanctioned
prejudice, it also has economic, medical, and legal consequences. Our
system is set up to officially recognize partners only when married.
The inability of homosexuals to have their marriages legally
recognized can, in several cases, make life much more difficult. Next
of kin laws, medical emergencies requiring family members, insurance
policies that cover spouses, inheritance, etc. The inability of
homosexuals to marry legally creates a world of problems for people
partnered for life.
>He is judging himself by a heterosexual
>yardstick against a relationship that is quite different in almost
>every possible way.
Right. Every possible way. Homosexual partnerships have absolutely
nothing to do with love or commitment, right, Cleve? Or are you,
perhaps, implying that the only reason people get married is so that
they can have children?
>I have a highly intelligent friend who happens to be gay who considers
>this kind of politicking as symptomatic of self-loathing homosexuals
>attempting to get reinforcement and acceptance from heterosexuals, a
>frank admission that he/she is not very well adjusted. I agree
>completely with this. Homosexuals with very confused identity think if
>they can force the heterosexual community to acknowledge these unions
>as "marriages" that they will recover the esteem they believe heteros
>are entitled to that they no longer have for themselves.
Or, perhaps, they recognize that state-sponsored discrimination of any
sort is an abomination to the nature of America, and to the freedoms
you so frequently claim are being trodden upon. I find it the ultimate
irony, Cleve, that you, the noble freedom fighter, who believes we are
all the shackled minions of an evil socialist emperor, are actually
against allowing homosexuals the FREEDOM to marry. Of course, that's
because you don't give two fucks about any freedom but your own, and
are unable to suppress your loathsome bigotry long enough to even
attempt to present to the world a facade of rationality and
cohesiveness.
>A homosexual
>who has never learned to cope with the fact that maybe they aren't
>destined for the house with the picket fence and the wife at home and
>children in a comfortably secure family seeks to regain this pseudo-
>status from a pseudo-society that only exists in his or her mind.
I see. What are homosexuals destined for, Cleve? Leather bars and
seedy hotel rooms? Exactly why is it that they shouldn't be allowed to
have families?
>Campaigning for recognition under insurance laws for primary caregivers
>and companions is a whole different ballgame, egalitarianism dictates
>that people in long loyal relationships should benefit from insurance
>payouts on event of death. There are also plenty of existing laws that
>already cover support and indemnity between companions who separate.
>The majority of homosexuals asking for recognition of homosexual
>"marriage" are simply neurotic, badly adjusted people. This isn't any
>heterosexual's fault.
Aaah, I see. So, you're saying that homosexuals should content
themselves with being "separate but equal", is that right? If they can
change the legal system so that they can obtain the protections and
recognitions of legally married people, they should be content with
the fact that society refuses to recognize their right to live
together in a family unit? Right. And african americans should have
been content to drink from the 'black' fountains. The water was just
as good, after all. What does it matter that society spits on you, so
long as it's not causing you any "real" harm?
>For many homosexuals, they present their sexuality as an
>antagonistic political choice not very far off from classic nazism in
>its claims of superiority and exclusiveness.
Many homosexuals are forced into the position of antagonism by a
society that demonizes them. Do you realize that there are still, to
the best of my knowledge, no laws prohibiting a corporation from
firing gay employees for the fact that they're gay?
>I sometimes suspect that if many gays had the entire world to
>themselves and it was all homosexual, many of them would still be some
>very furious, unstable, self-destructive and vicious people in their
>personal relationships and in general. A lot of these "problems" that
>gay people scream for legislation "against" are nothing but projections
>from inside their own heads onto the external world. The demand for
>recognition of their "marriages" is one of these sick, weird claims.
Right. Would the apocalyptic gay world come before or after the
apocalyptic minority world? I just want to make sure I have the order
of your paranoid, apocalyptic fantasies right. Man, you gotta wonder.
You seem to be a christian. Since, by your statements over the years,
the only people civilized and intelligent enough to live in this world
without destroying it are straight white christians, what the fuck was
god thinking, creating all these other people?
>> Let's change up the statement just a bit, and you tell me if this
>> sounds bigoted. "I've got nothing against coloreds, I just don't think
>> they should be given the right to vote! It would destroy the very
>> institution!" It's bigoted fucking shit, Paul, even if it doesn't
>> occur to you at the time.
>>
>
>Standard Marxist dialectics - rewrite your words as something nobody
>could approve of, claim this was analogous to what you said and then
>ask if you are proud of what you were saying.
Except, of course, that it is analogous, and it is exactly what you're
saying. Gay's should be content to be discriminated against and
treated as second class citizens so long as they're not being
financially or physically harmed by it. That's *exactly* what you've
stated here.
>Hegel taught how to win arguments through guile, not by offering better ideas. Hegel-Marxist
>dialectics are the antithesis of everything we believe in the best
>tradition of Western civilization. Hegelian speech is alien, foreign,
>unnatural, odd and dishonest. We're so used to it that we are no longer
>surprised when our entire society speaks this way, even though many of
>us are barely even functionally literate. Hegelian dialectics is a game
>everybody learns to play at a young age by watching television and
>copying the empty rhetoric, sound bites and meaningless ad hominem they
>see displayed there trying to pass itself off as conversation. This is
>not even a skill compared to the discipline of classic debate. It is
>what rushes in to fill a vaccuum.
>
>You're the reactionary nut, Quat.
Yeah. I react to despicable assholes like you, Cleve. Most of the
time, I react by using humor and sarcasm to make it eminently clear to
as many people as is possible that you are exactly what you are, a
mentally disturbed racist jerk with fantasies of demigodhood.
Occasionally, you post a diatribe so vile or so misguided that I take
the time to dismantle your arguments without humor, illustrating that
you're an ILLOGICAL mentally disturbed racist jerk with fantasies of
demigodhood.
Why don't you get back to telling us that Africans are inferior for
their failure to domesticate the Zebra, or that they (aside from those
pesky damn Nubians) failed to ever contribute anything substantial to
human culture? Ooo, or tell us more about your indestructible titanium
alloy skeleton, your perfect physique, and your ever-growing brain
that still can't seem to form a rational argument or check its facts.
Or, as an alternative, why don't you put on a rubber nose and a jester
cap and go back to amusing me, you twisted little homunculus?
Adrian Jackson
<quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote:
>In the swirling mists of history, on Sat, 24 Jun 2000 12:37:53 GMT,
>"Paul Barnes" <the....@home.com> wrote:
>
>>If you speak out against "same sex marriages" then your a homophobic
>>bigot,
>
>That's probably because if you don't think homosexuals have the right
>to get married, you ARE a homophobic bigot. Or maybe you think that so
>long as you're not actively kicking trying to kick the shit out of
>homosexuals, you're not a homophobe?
So if you think that people who don't think homosexuals have the right
to get married are homophobic bigots, does that make you a homophobic
bigot phobic?
>Let's change up the statement just a bit, and you tell me if this
>sounds bigoted. "I've got nothing against coloreds, I just don't think
>they should be given the right to vote! It would destroy the very
>institution!" It's bigoted fucking shit, Paul, even if it doesn't
>occur to you at the time.
This is bigot bigoting, isn't it? It's saying, "My hate is right
because I'm hating your hate, but your hate is wrong because you're
not hating someone else's hate!" It sounds like a really sneaky way
to be bigotted--the P.C. bigot.
(Yeah, this makes me a bigot bigot bigot. But I'm right, because I'm
hating someone else's hating of hate! :)
Bill Silvey
<snip>
Hi Cleve,
When will Grimoire be out?
Geoff Black
Cleve Blakemore <clevebl...@my-deja.com> wrote
> Marriage is a Christian invention
<boggle> Uh, Cleve, are you sure that you meant to say that?
What exactly were Joseph and Mary, pre Jesus? Just good friends? Maybe
that explains the virgin birth issue, but I expect that there would have
been a lot of that going around, what without marriage and all.
Geoffrey
Mark Asher
> In the swirling mists of history, on Sat, 24 Jun 2000 12:37:53 GMT,
> "Paul Barnes" <the....@home.com> wrote:
>
> >If you speak out against "same sex marriages" then your a homophobic
> >bigot,
>
> That's probably because if you don't think homosexuals have the right
> to get married, you ARE a homophobic bigot. Or maybe you think that so
> long as you're not actively kicking trying to kick the shit out of
> homosexuals, you're not a homophobe?
>
> sounds bigoted. "I've got nothing against coloreds, I just don't think
> they should be given the right to vote! It would destroy the very
> institution!" It's bigoted fucking shit, Paul, even if it doesn't
> occur to you at the time.
One of the great political ironies is those conservatives who complain about
government intrusiveness on one hand and then with the other ask for the
government to regulate what goes on in the bedroom. I've always been
liberal, but I miss the classic Goldwater republicans who have been
displaced by the new breed of politicians married to the religious right.
Courageous
> Marriage is a Christian invention celebrating the union of man and
> woman and the biological production of children within a lifelong
> monogamous commitment.
Marriage is a Christian invention, but the various tax
rules and laws for passing of estate are not.
C/
Paul Barnes
Quatoria <quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2L5UOcyOtYM7URfDYc642XY7tF0=@4ax.com...
>
> to get married, you ARE a homophobic bigot. Or maybe you think that so
> long as you're not actively kicking trying to kick the shit out of
> homosexuals, you're not a homophobe?
wether or not im kicking the shit out of some homosexual has nothing to do
with this, typical leftist bullshit. If i dissagree with something, then i
must be homophobic......ROFLMAO......I am not afraid of homosexuals, i just
disagree with their lifestyle choices, big difference, i agree that they
deserve most of the rights and priveliges that the rest of us enjoy, but 2
men together does not a "married familly" make.
>
> Let's change up the statement just a bit, and you tell me if this
> sounds bigoted. "I've got nothing against coloreds, I just don't think
> they should be given the right to vote! It would destroy the very
> institution!" It's bigoted fucking shit, Paul, even if it doesn't
> occur to you at the time.
>
if i was denying them the right to vote then it would be bigoted fucking
shit, but since im not, i guess your just another bullshit artist, spewing
verbal diahrea to try to disguise the fact that we are not talking about the
same thing. I said marriage, not voting, and last time i looked, you couldnt
choose wether or not your 'colored', unless of course your micheal jackson.
Paul Barnes
Geoff Black <gbl...@nwrain.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:slan65...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Cleve Blakemore <clevebl...@my-deja.com> wrote
>
> > Marriage is a Christian invention
>
>
i doubt they were both men, mabey THATS where the virgin birth came from, it
was really Joseph and Maury.
Paul Barnes
> woman and the biological production of children within a lifelong
> monogamous commitment.
judaism has been(christianity is an offshoot of judaism), I think your
meaning to say that marriage is more of a religious invention, but it still
is there to symbolize the joining of man and wife, and not man and man.
Just as an aside, look at most major cultures that have existed, become
dominant, and then dissapeared. what is the one thing that they all have in
common? could it be that homosexuality becomes so prevalant that it is
actually more popular than hetrosexuality? Egyptian, Babylonian, Roman,
French monarchy, English monarchy, American?
Paul Barnes
Steve Martin <s.p.m...@ex.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8j2o1g$hnaf$1...@athena.ex.ac.uk...
> >If you speak out against "same sex marriages" then your a homophobic
> > bigot
>
homophobic
> bigot?
>
your against something(not someone) you must be a bigot
>
>
surely if you call me a homophobic bigot, then you_are_a Paulaphobic bigot?
Djutmose Buteamon
big race war thingy. It's the new master race, the new species:
*Clevus Sapiens*. Yes, I believe this dude has been suggesting that
he's some kind of evolutionary breakthrough, and his kind will somehow
survive the apocalypse and live to repopulate the earth with those of
similar bone density. That is, if he can find others of his kind to
reproduce with . . (I fully expect a reply from him saying he's already
found a beautiful girl with a 200 IQ, thick ass bones and enormous
taxicab-resistant leg muscles ready to bear him 50 kids to help
repopulate the planet . . .)
Maybe dude is actually doing the world a service. He is, after all,
recommending that like-minded nutballs shut themselves up in holes in
the ground . . .is this a bad thing?--'Mose
Quatoria
"Paul Barnes" <the....@home.com> wrote:
>Just as an aside, look at most major cultures that have existed, become
>dominant, and then dissapeared. what is the one thing that they all have in
>common? could it be that homosexuality becomes so prevalant that it is
>actually more popular than hetrosexuality? Egyptian, Babylonian, Roman,
>French monarchy, English monarchy, American?
Ahem. Pardon me for one moment.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thank you. I feel better now.
Quatoria
"Paul Barnes" <the....@home.com> wrote:
>I said marriage, not voting, and last time i looked, you couldnt
>choose wether or not your 'colored', unless of course your micheal jackson.
Oooh! And homosexuals choose to be gay. Since, of course, like anybody
would, they decided that it sounded like great fun to be persecuted,
attacked, occasionally killed, fired, and discriminated against. Well,
shit! Sign me up!
Nich Hills
> Cleve's an aussie.
Can't be. Australians are renown for their polite, peaceful, tolerant
and informed ways.
And any Seppo that says otherwise will need to take their pants down to
perform dental hygene. :-(
Cheers,
Nich
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nich Hills Email: nhi...@ActOnline.com.au
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nich Hills
<snip>
> Or maybe you just didn't realize that your "handle" is of Latin
> derivation, and like all languages based on Latin, there are male and
> female variants for names? Like Maria and Mario? Francesca and
> Francesco? Silvio and Silvia?
>
> Quatoria and Quatorio?
>
> Actually, based on the level of ignorance found in your typical post,
> it doesn't surprise me in the least that you would use an obviously
> female name without realizing it, just because it "sounds" cool.
> Right?
Dear 'Thr*sher',
For someone who claims to be so erudite in Latin, it surprises me that
your knowledge of world English is so poor that you do not seem to
realise what a vulgar meaning the name 'Thr*sher' is in the slang of
much of the English-speaking world.
Unless of course, you *do* realise, and it's just your way of bragging
about your one-handed typing skills. :-(
Quatoria
"Mark Asher" <ma...@cdmnet.com> wrote:
>One of the great political ironies is those conservatives who complain about
>government intrusiveness on one hand and then with the other ask for the
>government to regulate what goes on in the bedroom. I've always been
>liberal, but I miss the classic Goldwater republicans who have been
>displaced by the new breed of politicians married to the religious right.
That's because today's politicians, by and large, aren't about
politics and idealogies, they're about funding and re-elections. Most
of them will happily be the puppet of whatever institution contributes
the most to their re-election campaign. Not that I hold them solely
responsible. The system seems to be tailor made to engender corruption
in its servants, and guarantee that virtually no one can afford to run
for public office. Not that the increasing consolidation of media
outlets is any great benefit... good luck getting favorable coverage
from a network if your stated positions cut into the bottom line of
their corporate owners.
Damocles
wrote:
>
>One of the great political ironies is those conservatives who complain about
>government intrusiveness on one hand and then with the other ask for the
>government to regulate what goes on in the bedroom. I've always been
>liberal, but I miss the classic Goldwater republicans who have been
>displaced by the new breed of politicians married to the religious right.
>
Yes, it makes life tough on people who lean towards libertarianism. I
happen to despise social conservatism but I've come to be economically
laissez faire in philosophy. That leaves me shit out of luck here in
Canada, where there's the establishment centrist party in power and
the traditional conservative party pulverized and replaced by a
grassroots socially conservative party.
Oh, word to the wise for you Americans: don't compromise on the one
language thing. You REALLY don't want to go down that road, trust me.
It really has nothing to do with immigration...our language / culture
problem began 250 years ago and immigration has actually made it
better.
shadows
>
>> Marriage is a Christian invention celebrating the union of man and
>> woman and the biological production of children within a lifelong
>> monogamous commitment.
>
>rules and laws for passing of estate are not.
No marriage is by far not a christian invention. The Jews were doing
it before the Christians and before them other civilizations had the
concept of the a "bond." Cleve is just blathering.
--
Thamer Al-Herbish <URL http://www.whitefang.com/>
-Buccaneer Heroes- Coming soon. <URL: http://www.whitefang.com/bh/>
There's only one reason not to release source: magic number embarrassment.
Dan Ward
>Or maybe you just didn't realize that your "handle" is of Latin
>derivation, and like all languages based on Latin, there are male and
>female variants for names? Like Maria and Mario? Francesca and
>Francesco? Silvio and Silvia?
You do realize, don't you, that "gender" in the declension of nouns does not
actually imply the gender of the object described by the noun? For example,
here are several first declension ("female") nouns in Latin....
nauta, nautae -- sailor
agricola, agricolae -- farmer
rana, ranae -- frog
Yes, in ancient Rome, *each* and *every* farmer, sailor, and frog was
FEMALE!
Dan
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Courageous
> deserve most of the rights and priveliges that the rest of us enjoy, but 2
> men together does not a "married familly" make.
What you DO believe is that you should be offered legal
rights and priveleges, backed up by force, that homosexuals
should be denied. That's prejudiced, cut and dried.
C/
Cleve Blakemore
"Mark Asher" <ma...@cdmnet.com> wrote:
> Quatoria <quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:2L5UOcyOtYM7URfDYc642XY7tF0=@4ax.com...
> > "Paul Barnes" <the....@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >If you speak out against "same sex marriages" then your a
homophobic
> >
> > That's probably because if you don't think homosexuals have the
right
> > to get married, you ARE a homophobic bigot. Or maybe you think that
so
> > long as you're not actively kicking trying to kick the shit out of
> > homosexuals, you're not a homophobe?
> >
> > sounds bigoted. "I've got nothing against coloreds, I just don't
think
> > they should be given the right to vote! It would destroy the very
> > institution!" It's bigoted fucking shit, Paul, even if it doesn't
> > occur to you at the time.
>
complain about
> government intrusiveness on one hand and then with the other ask for
the
> government to regulate what goes on in the bedroom. I've always been
> liberal, but I miss the classic Goldwater republicans who have been
> displaced by the new breed of politicians married to the religious
right.
>
Goldwater was the last real republican. The latest crop of Republican-
Jesus-Nazis is barely distinguishable from the other side. One side,
the democrats, wants to destroy America with Marxism, the other wants
to destroy it with religious oligarchy. They are all tyrants through
and through, thank god Barry didn't live to see all these sick perverts
and degenerates on both sides attain power. All of them are tainted by
the left to some degree in their thinking which tends to be morbid,
self-loathing and sick.
What goes on in the bedroom is not the government's business. However,
the government is not obligated to reclassify "marriage" in order to
appease the latest tier class in the empire, homosexuals. Much better
they should simply provide the legal underpinnings to recognize the
responsibilities of homosexual couples who separate or spend years
caring for each other during sickness.
As for homosexual adoption of heterosexual children, this is a mistake
and everybody knows it. Here the homosexual class tier is pushing for
more privileges than are owed anybody else. Single men are discouraged
from adoption and they should be. Marxism teaches that the family is an
illusion and pathological, that it provides no support and that any
alternative is just as good. Well, hard scientific research shows this
is all baloney and that children with a mother and a father will always
be a million times better off than in any other arrangement, even IF
the mother and father are no longer in love and even IF the family is
less than ideal. The left hates this information, sort of the same way
they hate gravity and other natural laws governing the universe.
The left hates all reality and this is why they are doomed - reality is
going to strike back with a vengeance and kill those who deny it.
Chances are you don't know any leftist survivalists - they are not
exactly legion. When the food supply is disrupted, these beret wearing
gammy eyed nut legions are going to starve like flies, thereby cleaning
up the gene pool very quickly.
Nigel Slater
not at all - and by becoming an Australian citizen he is required by law to
vote - doesn't fit his dense image.
"Brian H." wrote:
> I suppose Cleve is now an Aussie?
>
> SlayRide <sl...@ride.com> wrote in message
> news:b_B45.3521$j7.1...@news.bc.tac.net...
> > America could be the greatest place on earth, if it wasn't for guys
> like
> > Cleve. Call me crazy but, gun loving, self-aggrandizing, racist pigs like
> > Cleve, just kinda' give American's that bad rap they have all over the
> > world. Cleve do us sane folk a favour, and take your bullshit over to
> > alt.conspiracy.black.helicopters or some other feed where racist loonies
> can
> > spew to their hearts content, and leave us normal, decent folk alone.
> >
> > fuck you very much...
> > Slay
> >
> >
Jason McCullough
>Jesus-Nazis is barely distinguishable from the other side. One side,
>the democrats, wants to destroy America with Marxism, the other wants
>to destroy it with religious oligarchy. They are all tyrants through
>and through, thank god Barry didn't live to see all these sick perverts
>and degenerates on both sides attain power. All of them are tainted by
>the left to some degree in their thinking which tends to be morbid,
>self-loathing and sick.
Um, Cleve, Barry Goldwater only died in 1998. Has this all happened
in the last two years, and the world was a bountiful paradise before
that? Congress changed hands in 1996.
>What goes on in the bedroom is not the government's business. However,
>the government is not obligated to reclassify "marriage" in order to
>appease the latest tier class in the empire, homosexuals. Much better
>they should simply provide the legal underpinnings to recognize the
>responsibilities of homosexual couples who separate or spend years
>caring for each other during sickness.
>
>As for homosexual adoption of heterosexual children, this is a mistake
>and everybody knows it.
Well, Cleve wins. Sorry, I can't think of any rebuttals to this. :)
> Here the homosexual class tier is pushing for
>more privileges than are owed anybody else. Single men are discouraged
>from adoption and they should be. Marxism teaches that the family is an
>illusion and pathological, that it provides no support and that any
>alternative is just as good. Well, hard scientific research shows this
>is all baloney and that children with a mother and a father will always
>be a million times better off than in any other arrangement, even IF
>the mother and father are no longer in love and even IF the family is
>less than ideal. The left hates this information, sort of the same way
>they hate gravity and other natural laws governing the universe.
"The Left hates gravity." Is someone going to add this to Cleve FAQ?
Jason McCullough
http://zebco.home.dhs.org/
Nigel Slater
puppeteering - do politicians ever change?
Quatoria wrote:
> In the swirling mists of history, on Sat, 24 Jun 2000 09:38:18 -0500,
> "Mark Asher" <ma...@cdmnet.com> wrote:
>
> >One of the great political ironies is those conservatives who complain about
> >government intrusiveness on one hand and then with the other ask for the
> >government to regulate what goes on in the bedroom. I've always been
> >liberal, but I miss the classic Goldwater republicans who have been
> >displaced by the new breed of politicians married to the religious right.
>
Led Mirage
wrote:
>Oh, word to the wise for you Americans: don't compromise on the one
>language thing. You REALLY don't want to go down that road, trust me.
>It really has nothing to do with immigration...our language / culture
>problem began 250 years ago and immigration has actually made it
>better.
Well, you should know that the Quebec problem isn't simply an issue of
language, but an issue of culture.
Led Mirage
>Marriage is a Christian invention celebrating the union of man and
>woman and the biological production of children within a lifelong
>monogamous commitment. Any homosexual who believes he is being denied
>his dignity because he is not legally qualified to "marry" another man
>is a self-hating homosexual. He is judging himself by a heterosexual
>yardstick against a relationship that is quite different in almost
>every possible way.
People have been getting married WAY before Christianity was popular.
It's not a Christian invention. What marriage WAS was to signify to
the community that a certain female is now taken by a male, her
husband, as their family's property. Nowadays, it also means you can
get certain cosial benefits and tax credits.
Led Mirage
wrote:
>Just as an aside, look at most major cultures that have existed, become
>dominant, and then dissapeared. what is the one thing that they all have in
>common? could it be that homosexuality becomes so prevalant that it is
>actually more popular than hetrosexuality? Egyptian, Babylonian, Roman,
>French monarchy, English monarchy, American?
Cleopatra certainly wasn't homo. And one certainly can't say Clinton
is homo either. Not sure about Hilary, though.
Led Mirage
wrote:
>Can't be. Australians are renown for their polite, peaceful, tolerant
>and informed ways.
They were sure "tolerant" when they voted for that One Nation bitch.
Anymore "tolerant" of them and they'll be the second South Africa.
Led Mirage
<quat...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote:
>Yeah, it's a good thing that the Vatican opposed with all it's might
>all the results of the international women's conference. The last
>thing we want is to slow the population growth in predominantly
>catholic third world nations with some of the lowest lifespans, worst
>infant mortality rates, and poorest standard of living in the world.
Funny how when the Chinese institue the one child law, everybody
criticised them. But now, the law is starting to have it's effect.
Population growth is starting to slow down. As people are getting
better educated, they don't want to have so many children. The Central
Government is considering loosening the law in Shanghai, the most
westernized city.
>The catholic church has, traditionally, fought tooth and nail against
>any international referendums that seek to improve the status of
>women, out of white-knuckle fear that it would reduce the stranglehold
>the Church has on those third world nations.
The Church can go to hell. They KNOW they will be. These hypocrites
talk about rights and shit, but they still won't allow women to be
priests. Equality, yeah, my ass has 2 equal parts.
Werner Arend
On 23 Jun 2000, Patrick Mcginley wrote:
> I seem to recall SlayRide babbling somthing about:
> : America could be the greatest place on earth, if it wasn't for guys like
> : Cleve. Call me crazy but, gun loving, self-aggrandizing, racist pigs like
> : Cleve, just kinda' give American's that bad rap they have all over the
> : world. Cleve do us sane folk a favour, and take your bullshit over to
> : alt.conspiracy.black.helicopters or some other feed where racist loonies can
> : spew to their hearts content, and leave us normal, decent folk alone.
>
> Take a couple cc's of lighten up, smeg. America is the greatest place on
> earth. Anyone who tells you different is looking for a scapegoat for their
> troubles. Go anywhere on earth and tell me how many people would rather be
> here.
Thanks, but while it has its merits, I'd rather stay in Europe. I like
to live where I can walk down almost any street without being shot,
where people have a saner attitude to sex and a less predatory economy.
To each his own.
Werner
>
> What are you afraid of, o normal person? His exercise of free speech
> will infect the children of the world's minds? Maybe you are conditioned
> that people should be censored for thinking/speaking differently than you.
> You have my pity.
>
> You are quite the daredevil coming on here and posting how people should
> stand up to racism and guns lovers are crazy. Give Rosie O'Donnell a
> big fat kiss for me.
> --
> No path of truth led me where I could walk but the lies that I made led me
> out of the swamp. - The Delgados
>
>
pdwyer
Yep, and now they voted her out. And those twerps that got voted
in at the last state election have split, and most of them will
probably get the shaft at the next election.
Hanson & Co. got mileage out of 'not being policitians'. Of
course, whack them in parliament and off they look just like the
rest.
Seeya!
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Damocles
wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:31:55 GMT, Damocles <phae...@yahoo.com>
But it's language that gives that silly argument teeth. Take a walk
through the south shore of Nova Scotia and tell me it's not a culture
distinct from southern Ontario. It's the linguistic divide that is the
basis for the "distinct society" argument. Why do you think the number
one priority of the Quebec nationalists is to preserve the supremacy
of the French language within Quebec? Bill 101, restrictions on
immigrants entering the province, all directed at keeping the majority
speaking French and francophone culture intact.
Nich Hills
>
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:11:38 GMT, Nich Hills <nhi...@ActOnline.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >Can't be. Australians are renown for their polite, peaceful, tolerant
> >and informed ways.
>
> They were sure "tolerant" when they voted for that One Nation bitch.
> Anymore "tolerant" of them and they'll be the second South Africa.
Pauline Hanson was elected to parliament as an Independent. When she
stood for re-election under the banner of the quasi-fascist Pauline
Hanson's One Nation party (said party since deregistered for being not
so much a party, more a confidence trick played on the gullible) she was
beaten like a red-headed mule.
I don't think we are quite ready to become a second South Africa. While
we have a well-spoken and perfectly-formed Prime Minister, I must say,
he's no Nelson Mandela.
ObRPG: When's Grimoire coming out?
Brendan B. Hannemann
>
> revenue generating plows.
>
Hey everyone!! I just used my revenue generating plow to purchase a
troll-destroying sidearm!! Maybe I can just shoot off and appendage of
his capable of typing. Oh wait, I forgot...he's got regenerating
adamantium for a skeleton...
Anyone getting ideas for a CRPG from this drivel?
Quatoria
"Brendan B. Hannemann" <hann...@mitre.org> wrote:
>
>Anyone getting ideas for a CRPG from this drivel?
Yes, it's called grimoire, but unfortunately, someone has cast the
"Ware of Vapours" spell upon it, so we'll never see it. At least, not
until after the gay war, which is, I *think* before the race war.
Perhaps it's combined, and it's going to be an army of gay mexicans
that kill us all. It really gets hard for me to keep it straight.
The Larch
news:08b8ls47dh2h8gnud...@4ax.com...
>
> If you are male you should use a male name, not a female name. Unless
> you are posing as a female?
You should really look into your feelings about gender ambiguity.
The Larch
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:08:31 GMT, "The Larch" <what's....@all.for>
> wrote:
> >Genetic? How condescending of you. Free tip: you might want to take
a
> >closer look at why you're so creeped out by gender ambiguity. You
hate
> >women who wear suits as well?
>
> Nope, my wife wears jeans and a T-Shirt most the time. It's not the
> clothes that bother me. If she started telling people she was a man,
> and started acting like a man, that would bother me though.
I'm not sure Quatoria ever said he was a woman and I for sure don't know
what you mean by "acting like a man". Does your wife appreciate having
her behavior pigeon-holed by you based on her vagina? Are you upset
when she doesn't cry at a sad movie or enjoys a beer and football game?
> Men who
> pretend to be women creep me out because it's _CREEPY_ behavior.
It's only creepy because the distinction man/woman is so important to
you. If you truly felt safe in your own skin you wouldn't care what
gender(s) other people seemed to be. Truly creepy behavior is
proclaiming to other people how they must act based on whether they have
a penis or a vagina.
> Maybe
> you should take a closer look at why you are so comfortable with it.
> The overwhelming majority of people in the world are not.
You feel better about something because a lot of people feel the same
way? Thinking like that has led to an awful lot of evil in the world.
You might want to come up with a better justification for the fact that
you are at all concerned with what gender anyone else seems to be.
The Larch
> In the swirling mists of history, on Sun, 25 Jun 2000 04:47:13 GMT,
> "Paul Barnes" <the....@home.com> wrote:
>
> >I said marriage, not voting, and last time i looked, you couldnt
> >choose wether or not your 'colored', unless of course your micheal
jackson.
>
> Oooh! And homosexuals choose to be gay. Since, of course, like anybody
> would, they decided that it sounded like great fun to be persecuted,
> attacked, occasionally killed, fired, and discriminated against. Well,
> shit! Sign me up!
This is why I can never understand discrimination based on sexual
orientation. What's next? Lock up all the foot fetishists? How about
the S&M crowd? Well, at least prevent them from getting married, having
kids, and passing along their bondage culture! Free tip: if people are
something they had no choice being and it doesn't directly hurt anyone,
you are not allowed to constrain their behavior. Any other position is
pure discrimination and insults the very concepts of human liberty and
individualism.
Plus, as a parent, I am deeply offended at the notion that homosexuals
necessarily make bad parents because they are turned on by their own
sex. What are they going to do, teach being gay to the young 'uns?
Will they invite the kids into the bedroom to watch? Ridiculous.
The Larch
news:7qg55.31020$ef6.3...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
>
> Steve Martin <s.p.m...@ex.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:8j2o1g$hnaf$1...@athena.ex.ac.uk...
> > >If you speak out against "same sex marriages" then your a
homophobic
> > > bigot
> >
> homophobic
> > bigot?
> >
> see follow up previously posted to the same self serving leftwing
answer, if
> your against something(not someone) you must be a bigot
>
> >
> >
> surely if you call me a homophobic bigot, then you_are_a Paulaphobic
bigot?
>
Surely not. You can choose to hate homosexuals. You cannot choose to
be a homosexual. Big difference.
The Larch
news:3954c3e8$0$31...@motown.iinet.net.au...
>
>
> > America has a bad rap because it is the most evil tyrant nation on
> > Earth, dedicated to the destruction of national sovereignty and
freedom.
> >
>
> I agree. Have a read of some of the things America has forced on
countries
> by the UN.
>
> eg, America wanted it to make 3rd world countries open up abortion in
there
> as a means of decreasing their population growth. They actualy wanted
to
> force abortion clinics in coutrys that the _people_ of the country
don't
> want... and to use it to help keep their population down!
Would they have forced pregnant women in at gunpoint, do you suppose?
Christoph Nahr
wrote:
>This is why I can never understand discrimination based on sexual
>orientation.
The topic was marriage, and marriage is part of the rules set up by
the community. Different communities have different rules for who is
allowed to marry whom. Demanding that the community should refrain
from establishing rules about marriage is tantamount to abolishing the
institution. For an institution regulating sexual cohabitation,
sexual orientation is a perfectly reasonable basis for discrimination.
Obviously the community isn't going to give away its benefits for
free. You want the sanctioned status of "married couple?" Only if
you conform to community's requirements. Don't like that? Too bad,
you'll have to do without those marriage benefits then.
>What's next? Lock up all the foot fetishists?
Oh, so now we're making the jump from not allowing marriage to locking
up people in jail. How cute.
>How about
>the S&M crowd? Well, at least prevent them from getting married, having
>kids, and passing along their bondage culture!
In Western societies, it's been a long time since being married was a
prerequisite to having children. But of course you're not interested
in the topic of marriage, you just wanted to post a generic rant.
>Free tip: if people are
>something they had no choice being and it doesn't directly hurt anyone,
>you are not allowed to constrain their behavior.
Nobody tries to. The topic was marriage, not controlling sex.
>Any other position is
>pure discrimination and insults the very concepts of human liberty and
>individualism.
What an amazingly stupid sentence. The institution of marriage
represents the polar opposite of individualism, regardless of which
people are married. You never thought about a single word you are
using here. You are just parroting fashionable slogans.
>Plus, as a parent, I am deeply offended at the notion that homosexuals
>necessarily make bad parents because they are turned on by their own
>sex. What are they going to do, teach being gay to the young 'uns?
>Will they invite the kids into the bedroom to watch? Ridiculous.
They can't *make* children, oh clueless one. Marriage isn't just
about caretaking, it's about natural perpetuation of your community.
By the way, this does mean that modern double income/no kids couples
fall short of the marriage ideal. DINKs are a perversion similar to
homosexual marriage, only to a lesser degree. Not having any children
was a great misfortune and disgrace for our barbaric ancestors, but
nowadays it's a conscious decision taken by married couples.
It's somewhat understandable that people get wacky ideas about
homosexual marriage since the idea of marriage has been perverted so
much already. The full social and financial benefits of marriage
should only be offered to heterosexual couples that are actually
living together for the purpose of raising their own children, with
automatic termination of the marriage status if these conditions are
no longer met. All other sorts of relationships, homo- or
heterosexual, are better served with specific legislation to deal with
issues such as inheritance, hospital visits etc.
--
Visit http://uuhome.de/christoph.nahr/ for Might & Magic information
and game projects with source code for download: Star Chess & Hexkit
Quatoria
Christoph Nahr <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>The full social and financial benefits of marriage
>should only be offered to heterosexual couples that are actually
>living together for the purpose of raising their own children, with
>automatic termination of the marriage status if these conditions are
>no longer met. All other sorts of relationships, homo- or
>heterosexual, are better served with specific legislation to deal with
>issues such as inheritance, hospital visits etc.
Wow. What a pleasant picture of the world you paint, Christopher. It's
good to know that marriage can be so neatly and throughly quantified
into it's sociological purposes, without anything extraneous, such as
human emotion, cluttering up the picture.
shadows
>On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:46:36 GMT, "The Larch" <what's....@all.for>
>wrote:
>
>>This is why I can never understand discrimination based on sexual
>>orientation.
>
>The topic was marriage, and marriage is part of the rules set up by
>the community. Different communities have different rules for who is
>allowed to marry whom. Demanding that the community should refrain
You are part of the community. You make the rules. Stop using it as
an escape device (which you do in your post).
[snip: sick sick sick deluded post about how it's up to society who
lives with who and under what title]
Christoph Nahr
wrote:
>You are part of the community. You make the rules.
Just because someone is *part* of a rule-making body does not mean
that he *makes* the rules. Such communities are typically kind of
large, and a single individual has about zero influence on their
rules. Discussing rules as if they were imposed by others is
reasonable even for a member of the rule-making body if the body is
sufficiently large to drown out the individual member's input.
>Stop using it as
>an escape device (which you do in your post).
Actually I didn't but I'm not surprised you failed to understand it.
If you want to devise a new set of rules for society go right ahead
and outline them. But the previous posters didn't even bother with
that. They claimed that not allowing homosexual couples into the
*existing* institution of marriage was some kind of evil
discrimination, which is complete bullshit because the community is
free to bestow such benefits by whatever arbitrary rules it sees fit.
>[snip: sick sick sick deluded post about how it's up to society who
> lives with who and under what title]
Who lives with whom wasn't even the issue but I'm not surprised you
missed that. Defining a title is most certainly up to society,
however, if the title comes with benefits provided by said society.
Why should society pay for couples who offer nothing in return?
I can't see how you could call that "sick and deluded" unless you're a
pathetic egotist bum who wants to freeload on his community. Then
again, maybe your ability for logical reasoning is too limited for
even the most basic criminal activity, and you just go into a
quivering frenzy whenever you read something you don't understand.
Quatoria
Christoph Nahr <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>I can't see how you could call that "sick and deluded" unless you're a
>pathetic egotist bum who wants to freeload on his community.
I imagine several of the people who had their marriages instantly
terminated after, say, the wife was forced to have a hisdirectomy, or
after they decided to responsibly wait to have children until they
made more income, would be of the opinion that both you and your view
on marriage were sick and deluded, though they might use stronger
words.
Paul Barnes
The Larch <what's....@all.for> wrote in message
news:0zN55.1593$_b3....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
and i dont hate homosexuals, i dont see homosexual couples in the same light
as i see hetrosexual couples. As couples i dont believe they deserve the
same priveleges, as hetrosexual couples do. However, as individuals i
believe they deserve the same rights that everyone is entitled to.
Quatoria
"Paul Barnes" <the....@home.com> wrote:
> As couples i dont believe they deserve the
>same priveleges, as hetrosexual couples do. However, as individuals i
>believe they deserve the same rights that everyone is entitled to.
Ooooh. Okay. So, they deserve the same rights as everybody else unless
they're fucking, at which time they deserve to be treated as
inferiors. Well, glad we got that straightened out! It's always good
to get set in stone precisely what sort of a bigot you are.
The Larch
news:dsqflskd10s7hbg7p...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:46:36 GMT, "The Larch" <what's....@all.for>
> wrote:
>
> >This is why I can never understand discrimination based on sexual
> >orientation.
>
> The topic was marriage, and marriage is part of the rules set up by
> the community. Different communities have different rules for who is
> allowed to marry whom. Demanding that the community should refrain
> institution. For an institution regulating sexual cohabitation,
> sexual orientation is a perfectly reasonable basis for discrimination.
>
> Obviously the community isn't going to give away its benefits for
> free. You want the sanctioned status of "married couple?" Only if
> you conform to community's requirements. Don't like that? Too bad,
> you'll have to do without those marriage benefits then.
How is it then not discrimination to deny someone the right to marry
whomever they choose?
>
> >What's next? Lock up all the foot fetishists?
>
> Oh, so now we're making the jump from not allowing marriage to locking
> up people in jail. How cute.
Well, it's a technique people use in discussions of this nature, kind of
like an analogy.
> >How about
> >the S&M crowd? Well, at least prevent them from getting married,
having
> >kids, and passing along their bondage culture!
>
> In Western societies, it's been a long time since being married was a
> prerequisite to having children. But of course you're not interested
> in the topic of marriage, you just wanted to post a generic rant.
I am interested in the topic of someone telling me who I can and cannot
marry. If I cannot marry my own sex today, who will I not be able to
marry tomorrow? You know, inter-"racial" marriage was illegal in this
country (USA) until 1962. If my ranting is too generic then I
apologize.
> >Free tip: if people are
> >something they had no choice being and it doesn't directly hurt
anyone,
> >you are not allowed to constrain their behavior.
>
> Nobody tries to. The topic was marriage, not controlling sex.
The behavior of getting married is what I was refering to.
> >Any other position is
> >pure discrimination and insults the very concepts of human liberty
and
> >individualism.
>
> What an amazingly stupid sentence. The institution of marriage
> represents the polar opposite of individualism, regardless of which
> people are married. You never thought about a single word you are
> using here. You are just parroting fashionable slogans.
There is individualism in my ability to freely marry whomever I choose.
> >Plus, as a parent, I am deeply offended at the notion that
homosexuals
> >necessarily make bad parents because they are turned on by their own
> >sex. What are they going to do, teach being gay to the young 'uns?
> >Will they invite the kids into the bedroom to watch? Ridiculous.
>
> They can't *make* children, oh clueless one. Marriage isn't just
> about caretaking, it's about natural perpetuation of your community.
You ever hear of adoption? Surrogate parents? Sperm donors? Marriage
is about nothing more than what the two people involved (plus there
children, if any) make it. That is what is supposed to be so great
about America. We are supposed to be all about the pursuit of
happiness.
> By the way, this does mean that modern double income/no kids couples
> fall short of the marriage ideal. DINKs are a perversion similar to
> homosexual marriage, only to a lesser degree. Not having any children
> was a great misfortune and disgrace for our barbaric ancestors, but
> nowadays it's a conscious decision taken by married couples.
So people who cannot have children are a perversion? My niece has been
trying unsuccessfully to get pregnant for four years. She and her
husband will be so happy to know that you consider them a perversion.
> It's somewhat understandable that people get wacky ideas about
> homosexual marriage since the idea of marriage has been perverted so
> much already. The full social and financial benefits of marriage
> should only be offered to heterosexual couples that are actually
> living together for the purpose of raising their own children,
See above.
> with
> automatic termination of the marriage status if these conditions are
> no longer met.
Achtung, herr Kommandant!
> All other sorts of relationships, homo- or
> heterosexual, are better served with specific legislation to deal with
> issues such as inheritance, hospital visits etc.
Why go through all that fuss when we're just going to end up calling it
a marriage, anyway?
The Larch
>
> The Larch <what's....@all.for> wrote in message
> news:0zN55.1593$_b3....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Paul Barnes <the....@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:7qg55.31020$ef6.3...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> > >
> > > Steve Martin <s.p.m...@ex.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:8j2o1g$hnaf$1...@athena.ex.ac.uk...
> > > > >If you speak out against "same sex marriages" then your a
> > homophobic
> > > > > bigot
> > > >
> > > > Surely if u speak out against same sex marriages then you _are_
a
> > > homophobic
> > > > bigot?
> > > >
> > > see follow up previously posted to the same self serving leftwing
> > answer, if
> > > your against something(not someone) you must be a bigot
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > surely if you call me a homophobic bigot, then you_are_a
Paulaphobic
> > bigot?
> > >
> >
> > Surely not. You can choose to hate homosexuals. You cannot choose
to
> > be a homosexual. Big difference.
> >
> there is where we disagree, i dont see it as a genetic disease, sorry.
I would no more call being gay a "disease" than I would call being
red-headed or enjoying anchovies a disease. Being gay is only a problem
because of the people who would discriminate against you for it.
> and i dont hate homosexuals, i dont see homosexual couples in the same
light
> as i see hetrosexual couples. As couples i dont believe they deserve
the
> same priveleges, as hetrosexual couples do. However, as individuals i
> believe they deserve the same rights that everyone is entitled to.
You might want to notice that you've contradicted yourself here. Taking
away someone's rights when they are a couple ALSO takes away their
individual right to choose to be a couple.