WHY AREN'T GAY AMERICANS SUPPORTING MISS CALIFORNIA???
Doc Dice
In the "Factor Follow-up" segment tonight: My newspaper column this
week is about the incredibly hypocritical ACLU not sticking up for
Miss California's freedom of speech. It's unbelievable. I also suggest
respectfully that gay Americans should take the lead in supporting
Miss California's right to voice an opinion on gay marriage. After
all, gays want freedom of expression, too, do they not? And where are
the women's groups, as Carrie Prejean has been called all kinds of
vile names?
Joining us now from Los Angeles, Meghan Daum, a columnist for the L.A.
Times and self-described feminist, and from Washington, Cathy Renna,
former spokesperson for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against
Defamation.
Ms. Renna, we begin with you. You know, it would have been very smart
for the homosexual community to say, look, we don't agree with her.
Obviously most of us or many of us want to be married, but she has a
perfect right to say what she wants to say without being vilified and
personally attacked. I didn't hear any gay Americans do that. Why not?
Click here to watch the debate!
CATHY RENNA, FORMER GLAAD SPOKESPERSON: Well, you are not listening to
the same people I am. I've certainly heard from plenty of people in
the community who completely, you know, same way I would defend your
right to free speech we would defend her right to free speech and the
right to have her personal views and values. But here's where I think
the problem really lies is that the question that Perez answered was a
smart question, was a good question, was a timely and appropriate
question for Miss California. Her answer was just poorly done. First
of all, some of it was inaccurate. Second of all, she's supposed to be
representing a state of diverse people. And she should have said this
is my view and I know that other people have other views.
Column Archive
* Why Aren't Gay Americans Supporting Miss California?
* Ann Coulter on GOP Infighting, Shoot-out With Joy Behar
* Karl Rove on Re-energizing the Republican Party
* Laura Ingraham vs. Feminist Over Attacks on Miss California
* Newt Gingrich on Whether U.S. Is Becoming One-Party Country
Full-page Interview Archive
Video
* Watch the debate!
Show Info
Airs Monday through Friday at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET
* E-mail the show: ore...@foxnews.com
* Bill O'Reilly's Bio
* Talking Points Archive
* Transcript Archive
* Click here to get signed copies of Bill's books!
FOXNews.com does not endorse content on external sites
O'REILLY: Well, she did. She said I was raised, this was the way I was
raised and no offense. But let's get back to my original point. I
haven't seen one op- ed piece. I haven't seen anybody on television
from the gay community or on the radio say, you know, we don't agree,
but the woman is entitled to her opinion and shouldn't be vilified.
Nowhere.
RENNA: You've got me. I'm saying it right now.
O'REILLY: OK.
RENNA: I don't agree with her at all.
O'REILLY: But right now, we invited you on for this discussion. And I
applaud you for saying it, but it's about three weeks too late, all
right? That should have happened immediately.
Now let's get to you, Ms. Down, about now when you have a woman 21
years old now being vilified, called terrible names, awful, attacked
by the NBC News operation in an unprecedented way, I expected the
feminists to be hey, we don't agree, but you can't be doing this kind
of stuff. And I didn't hear a thing from them. Why not?
MEGHAN DAUM, L.A. TIMES WEEKLY OPINION COLUMNIST: Well, I think most
thinking people, unless they're representing the overnight pseudo-
celebrity anti-defamation league have bigger fish to fry.
O'REILLY: Whoa, whoa.
DAUM: You're absolutely right, Bill.
O'REILLY: Bigger fish to fry than a worldwide…
DAUM: Yes, I do. Look.
O'REILLY: ...exposition? This is the biggest — it may not the most
intellectual, but as far as a populist issue, Ms. Daum, you're a
newspaper woman. Everybody's engaged on this debate now. This is
enormous. And you're saying it's not big enough for them to pay
attention to? This is the time for feminists to rise up and say we're
fair-minded people.
DAUM: This is not, look.
O'REILLY: We'll support you even if we don't agree with you. Go ahead.
DAUM: You're absolutely right. Ms. Prejean has been the subject of
vile and atrocious commentary by certain people in the blogosphere.,
certain gossip columnists, various people on the Internet. But look,
the blogosphere and the gossip world is a vile reprehensible place.
And the fact is…
O'REILLY: NBC News, Ms. Daum.
DAUM: Bill.
O'REILLY: Come on, that's huge.
DAUM: Carrie Prejean, she is a grown up. She is not a wilting violet.
She doesn't need anybody, let alone women's organizations.
O'REILLY: Oh, so what I'm hearing from you then, Madam, is this, no,
no. Here's what I'm hearing now.
DAUM: Well.
O'REILLY: I'm hearing you that any adult woman, that any adult woman
is not entitled to any protection from the National Organization for
Women or any of the other — because they're grown-ups. So you go after
them as much as you can. That doesn't make any sense. Why is there a
National Organization for Women then?
DAUM: Bill, the job of the National Organization of Women is not to
defend people who are celebrities.
O'REILLY: It's to defend women. That's what it is there for.
DAUM: No, I have to respectfully say, look, I think I'm with Cathy.
She was asked a question. She gave an answer that while I don't
personally agree with, it was absolutely within her rights.
O'REILLY: That's right. And nobody stuck up for her except me and a
few other people. And that was wrong. Now let me get over to the gay
thing again.
DAUM: I don't know.
O'REILLY: Do a search.
DAUM: You have got to get out more, Bill.
O'REILLY: Do a search. Look, we did a search, okay. We don't come on
here and blowing smoke. We did the research. Nobody in the liberal
community stuck up for her. Nobody. No gay people, no feminist people.
Nobody. All right? And if you guys are big freedom of speech, ACLU.
ACLU, my butt, OK? They couldn't care less about her freedom of
speech.
Now, the gay thing, Ms. Renna, look, you guys are supposed to want,
and correct me if I'm wrong, to win hearts and minds. You're saying we
don't want to be persecuted or denied rights in any way because of our
expression of homosexuality. And that is a legitimate debating point,
it is. So, this woman says here is my upbringing. This is what I
believe and gets killed for it. You guys would have been so smart to
say no, no. We're going to defend her because this is exactly what we
want. Do you see my point here Ms. Renna?
RENNA: I see your point. First of all, just to — your question about
the feminists, probably outside protesting the pageant. So I really
honestly, I don't — I think that…
O'REILLY: Different issue.
RENNA: ...she probably doesn't consider herself.
O'REILLY: Different issue.
RENNA: I understand that but, pertinent to this because I'm sure that
she doesn't really consider herself a feminist in the way the women at
the National Organization for Women consider themselves feminists.
O'REILLY: It doesn't matter.
RENNA: But here's the — it does matter.
O'REILLY: No, she's a woman.
RENNA: Here is the reality here. I think what the gay community did
and what a lot of other people did that was really support of her,
which maybe she didn't understand, was we condemned the insulting
language that Perez Hilton used.
O'REILLY: Yeah, where?
RENNA: When he…
O'REILLY: Where?
RENNA: Where?
O'REILLY: Yeah, where was it?
RENNA: Every other cable network. I watched a panel of women and men,
Republican and Democrat come out so strongly.
O'REILLY: I didn't see anybody from the gay community, anybody do it.
RENNA: We have, you're not…
O'REILLY: And if you can point to me tomorrow night on this program
I'll put it up and I'll say here's where it was, but I didn't see
anything.
RENNA: I'll be happy to.
O'REILLY: All right.
RENNA: Everybody from Lisa Bloom on CNN to gay and lesbian activists
and people who were very unhappy with what he said.
O'REILLY: All right.
RENNA: And frankly, I know Perez. He reacted poorly, but he asked a
smart question. She answered it badly. And she's been adopted by the
religious right.
O'REILLY: OK, I got to go. We'll be looking forward to the
documentation of the gay community standing up and supporting her
right to expression. Ladies, thanks very much. We appreciate it
Anlatt the Builder
may disagree with her, say mean things about her, or even be angry at
her. That's THEIR freedom of expression.
Miss California also has the freedom to marry. She can join the
military, if she wants. Her civil rights - as a woman, and as a member
of her religion - are guaranteed by federal law. So I'm not too
worried about her. She has full and equal rights under the law.
Gays do not. And that's the heart of the matter. Why should gays - or
anybody - be required to "support" someone who is opposed to them
having equal rights under the law? They should (and mainly do) support
her freedom of expression, of course. But why should they raise one
finger to support her, when she wants them to remain second-class
citizens by law?
Miss California has also gotten more publicity and more support by
coming out against equality than she ever would have by winning the
crown. Speaking engagements; a book deal to come, I bet - she and her
entourage should be thrilled at the criticism directed at her, since
it is making her famous and rich.
The right-wing religious branch of this country loves their martyrs.
Miss California is doing just fine; she is being celebrated by anti-
gay groups everywhere. She should try being gay for a couple of months
- then she might find out a little bit about what not having rights is
all about.
I will add: Perez Hilton should not have been selected as a judge for
the Miss USA contest. Not because he's gay, but because he made his
"reputation" (such as it is) by being crude, vulgar, and mean-
spirited. He is a jerk and does not speak for all gays by any means.
He should never have called Miss California a "dumb bitch," which is
both rude and gives her more attention and credibility than she
deserves.
But that's why he was picked, wasn't he? To do something outrageous
and get headlines for the contest. This couldn't have worked better if
he, Miss California, and Donald Trump had gotten together and worked
it all out in advance. I notice that Trump, while announcing that Miss
CA gets to keep her title, said that Hilton would be invited back to
judge. Why not? It's good for the careers of all three of them.
It's not good for gay people, and entirely distorts the marriage
equality question - but it's great show business!
wichitaf...@gmail.com
Hilton (Come the fuck on, what man in his right mind would wanna
idolize Paris Hilton) was trying to put Ms CA in a bad position while
extending his own agenda. He wanted her to say, "Blah, blah, blah, Im
all about gay rights" When she didnt, the look on his face was
priceless. She is a true idol to Americans but liberals "and
democrats" subscribe to the thought of, "we believe in self
expression and everyone elses opinion makes them an ignorant racist".
Did anyone see Girafalo and her rant about everyone at the Tea
parties were just a bunch of "ignorant racists"?. Ive come to the
conclusion thats the only two words in a liberals vocabulary.
Guillaume de Normandie
> BILL O'REILLY, HOST:
LOL
Anyway, the thing is that gays make up a LOT of what the pageant is
actually about.
Get rid of the gay audience, and even Trump will wonder, WTF?!??!
Lars Eighner
<35761fc4-86fe-450f...@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented Doc Dice broadcast on alt.atheism:
> BILL O'REILLY, HOST:
> In the "Factor Follow-up" segment tonight: My newspaper column this
> week is about the incredibly hypocritical ACLU not sticking up for
> Miss California's freedom of speech.
No freedom of speech issue is involved. Freedom of speech does not mean
freedom from the consequences of what you say. It does not mean you have
the right to use someone else's microphone to say whatever you want. It
does not mean freedom from criticism for what you say.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
112 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
John in WI
> In our last episode,
> <35761fc4-86fe-450f...@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, the
> lovely and talented Doc Dice broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
>> BILL O'REILLY, HOST:
>
>> In the "Factor Follow-up" segment tonight: My newspaper column this
>> week is about the incredibly hypocritical ACLU not sticking up for
>> Miss California's freedom of speech.
>
> No freedom of speech issue is involved. Freedom of speech does not mean
> freedom from the consequences of what you say. It does not mean you have
> the right to use someone else's microphone to say whatever you want. It
> does not mean freedom from criticism for what you say.
>
It's more an issue of tolerance.....or lack thereof. The side that
preaches tolerance....tolerance....tolerance.....only want everyone to
be tolerant of what THEY believe but when the shoe is on the other foot,
they're the most intolerant of all.
The "tolerant" left just can't come to grips with someone having and
articulating an opinion that differs from theirs.
A little bit ironic....don't you think?
Lars Eighner
<gud6q0$jqd$1...@news.motzarella.org>,
the lovely and talented John in WI
broadcast on alt.atheism:
> Lars Eighner wrote:
>> In our last episode,
>> <35761fc4-86fe-450f...@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, the
>> lovely and talented Doc Dice broadcast on alt.atheism:
>>
>>> BILL O'REILLY, HOST:
>>
>>> In the "Factor Follow-up" segment tonight: My newspaper column this
>>> week is about the incredibly hypocritical ACLU not sticking up for
>>> Miss California's freedom of speech.
>>
>> No freedom of speech issue is involved. Freedom of speech does not mean
>> freedom from the consequences of what you say. It does not mean you have
>> the right to use someone else's microphone to say whatever you want. It
>> does not mean freedom from criticism for what you say.
>>
> It's more an issue of tolerance.....or lack thereof. The side that
> preaches tolerance....tolerance....tolerance.....only want everyone to
> be tolerant of what THEY believe but when the shoe is on the other foot,
> they're the most intolerant of all.
Nonsense. There is no duty to tolerate slavery. There is no duty to
tolerate racism, sexism, or homophobia. There is no duty to tolerate the
denial of basic human rights. There is no duty to tolerate the denial of
the equal protections of the law.
> The "tolerant" left just can't come to grips with someone having and
> articulating an opinion that differs from theirs.
> A little bit ironic....don't you think?
Not at all. She decided to become the spokesperson for evil. She should
not be surprised that there are consequences. You cannot expect to serve
evil as she did without it coming back at you one way or another.
Vladimir Tschenko
<use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>Nonsense. There is no duty to tolerate slavery. There is no duty to
>tolerate racism, sexism, or homophobia.
And apparently no duty to tolerate the 1st Amendment Freedom Of
Speech.
No One
> BILL O'REILLY, HOST:
>
> In the "Factor Follow-up" segment tonight: My newspaper column this
> week is about the incredibly hypocritical ACLU not sticking up for
> Miss California's freedom of speech. It's unbelievable. I also suggest
> respectfully that gay Americans should take the lead in supporting
> Miss California's right to voice an opinion on gay marriage.
Bill O'Reilly is an idiot if he said that. Carrie Prejean's right
to freedom of speach was never in question. It's not like the
police came by and put her under arrest.
All that happened is that *one judge* in a beauty contest asked
her a question and gave her a zero because the judge didn't like
the answer. The judge's freedom of speach includes the right to
give Carrie Prejean that score. At no point did the judge silence
Carrie Prejean. He just said he didn't like her answer.
Fundamentally, this is no different than inviting a critic to
review a play - he is not obligated to give you a favorable
review.
You may think the judge in question is a boor for calling Prejean
various names afterwards, but freedom of speach gives him the right to
be a boor, and it gives the rest of us the right to call him a boor,
if we so choose. We also have the right to ignore him.
Let It Rock
wrote:
>All that happened is that *one judge* in a beauty contest asked
>her a question
One faggot judge who already knew of her mindset on faggotry.
Which is also Nobama's mindset, incidentally.
Doc Dice
> Miss California has complete and utter freedom of expression. People
> may disagree with her, say mean things about her, or even be angry at
> her. That's THEIR freedom of expression.
>
> Miss California also has the freedom to marry.
Her right as a straight woman.
> She can join the
> military, if she wants.
Her right as a straight woman.
Her civil rights - as a woman, and as a member
> of her religion - are guaranteed by federal law.
Her rights guaranteed by God.
> So I'm not too
> worried about her. She has full and equal rights under the law.
And now she is a high profile advocate for normalcy.
>
> Gays do not.
Duh, really??
> And that's the heart of the matter. Why should gays - or
> anybody - be required to "support" someone who is opposed to them
I'll remember that the next time one of these queers gets on the
"breeder" kick again.
> having equal rights under the law? They should (and mainly do) support
> her freedom of expression, of course. But why should they raise one
> finger to support her, when she wants them to remain second-class
> citizens by law?
>
> Miss California has also gotten more publicity and more support by
> coming out against equality than she ever would have by winning the
> crown. Speaking engagements; a book deal to come, I bet - she and her
> entourage should be thrilled at the criticism directed at her, since
> it is making her famous and rich.
Don't forget her new role as our advocate.
>
> The right-wing religious branch of this country loves their martyrs.
> Miss California is doing just fine; she is being celebrated by anti-
> gay groups everywhere. She should try being gay for a couple of months
> - then she might find out a little bit about what not having rights is
> all about.
>
> I will add: Perez Hilton should not have been selected as a judge for
> the Miss USA contest. Not because he's gay, but because he made his
> "reputation" (such as it is) by being crude, vulgar, and mean-
> spirited. He is a jerk and does not speak for all gays by any means.
> He should never have called Miss California a "dumb bitch," which is
> both rude and gives her more attention and credibility than she
> deserves.
>
> But that's why he was picked, wasn't he? To do something outrageous
> and get headlines for the contest. This couldn't have worked better if
> he, Miss California, and Donald Trump had gotten together and worked
> it all out in advance. I notice that Trump, while announcing that Miss
> CA gets to keep her title, said that Hilton would be invited back to
> judge. Why not? It's good for the careers of all three of them.
We'll see if fag boy actually makes it back.
DD
american...@hotmail.com
No One
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:27:40 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>All that happened is that *one judge* in a beauty contest asked
>>her a question
>
> One faggot judge who already knew of her mindset on faggotry.
The judge's sexual orientation is not relevant.
Boo Radley
"Doc Dice" <steven_...@graffiti.net> wrote in message
news:35761fc4-86fe-450f...@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
<snip bullshit>
Why would the ACLU get involved? Has Ms California had her rights violated?
Do you understand what the ACLU does? The ACLU protects the individual's
right to free speech which means if someone tries to restrain free speech
they will defend their rights. NO ONE HAS RESTRAINED HER RIGHT TO FREE
SPEECH! You seem to think that the ACLU should agree with her or something,
Ms California has the right to be a stupid sack of shit moron just like you
do and since no one has breached her freedom of speech there is no need for
the ACLU. Do you understand moron? Or do I have to come to your trailor and
stomp your ignorant stupid moronic ass into the pavement because you are a
stupid motherfucker that should not be allowed to breathe another breath of
my air?
Let It Rock
wrote:
>Her...@Home.org (Let It Rock) writes:
>
>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:27:40 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>All that happened is that *one judge* in a beauty contest asked
>>>her a question
>>
>> One faggot judge who already knew of her mindset on faggotry.
>
>The judge's sexual orientation is not relevant.
The queen knew of her fundy Christian background and anti-homosexual
position, and was bound-and-determined to crucify her ass.
You queers should know that hell hath no fury like that of a male
queen.
Vladimir Tschenko
wrote:
Yup.
He had that question with her name on it.
The queens here are quite aware of that fact.
Restless
wrote:
>Her...@Home.org (Let It Rock) writes:
>
>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:27:40 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>All that happened is that *one judge* in a beauty contest asked
>>>her a question
>>
>> One faggot judge who already knew of her mindset on faggotry.
>
>The judge's sexual orientation is not relevant.
Nigrahs in the 2008 election denied homosexual marriages.
Whatchoo think of that, Percy?
No One
No One
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:54:31 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Her...@Home.org (Let It Rock) writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:27:40 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>All that happened is that *one judge* in a beauty contest asked
>>>>her a question
>>>
>>> One faggot judge who already knew of her mindset on faggotry.
>>
>>The judge's sexual orientation is not relevant.
>
> The queen knew of her fundy Christian background and anti-homosexual
> position, and was bound-and-determined to crucify her ass.
The queen? Was the contest in England? If you mean one specific
contest judge, you have no way of knowing what he knew in advance nor
what his intentions were when he asked that question.
> You queers should know that hell hath no fury like that of a male
> queen.
Oh, so it is "you queers" for pointing out that there was no freedom
of speach issue when there in fact wasn't?
You really are a moron.
Lars Eighner
talented Vladimir Tschenko broadcast on alt.atheism:
There is no 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech issue involved. She wasn't
arrested. The FCC did not fine the stations that broadcast the commercial
venture that is the Miss USA contest. No state or locality has charged her
with any crime.
She has been criticized for what she said. And guess what? Criticism is
free speech too. Her adherence to the rules of the Miss USA pageant and her
truthfulness in apply for the pageant has been questioned. It certainly
appears she was not in compliance with the written rules and that she made
misrepresentations. But Miss USA is a business venture, so it is ultimately
subject to the Golden Rule, and Donald Trump has the gold. He has said that
she will stay as Miss California and that Perez Hilton will return as a
judge. Gosh, funny isn't it that entertainment ventures of Mr. Trump are
so often plagued with controversy which draws attention and publicity to
them.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. Freedom of speech
does not mean freedom from consequences. Freedom of speech does not convey
the right to use someone else's megaphone. Freedom of speech does not
include the right to force people listen.
Anlatt the Builder
> Lars Eighner wrote:
> > In our last episode,
I have no trouble with people who have an opinion different from mine.
I have a friend who thinks the Loch Ness Monster exists. I don't. We
get along fine.
I DO have a problem with a person who thinks one group of people
should have fewer rights under the law than another group. Whether the
group who has fewer rights is blacks, women, Catholics, or gays, I
think that is prejudice and discrimination.
How "tolerant" are we supposed to be about prejudice? If Miss
California said that Mromons shouldn't be allowed to be
schoolteachers, or blacks should sit at the back of the bus, would it
be "ironic" if people were offended by her "different opinion"?
Of Course, I fully support Miss California's right to freely express
her opinion. But there's nothing ironic, strange, hypocritical, or
wrong about opposing that opinion 100%.
Anlatt the Builder
Stop being ridiculous. Nobody is trying to take away Miss California's
right to free speech. Or yours.
Vladimir Tschenko
<use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>In our last episode, <4a0a21bc...@news.datemas.de>, the lovely and
>talented Vladimir Tschenko broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 01:21:14 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
>><use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>
>>>Nonsense. There is no duty to tolerate slavery. There is no duty to
>>>tolerate racism, sexism, or homophobia.
>
>> And apparently no duty to tolerate the 1st Amendment Freedom Of
>> Speech.
>
>There is no 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech issue involved. She wasn't
>arrested. The FCC did not fine the stations that broadcast the commercial
>venture that is the Miss USA contest. No state or locality has charged her
>with any crime.
>
>She has been criticized for what she said.
Was Messiah Obammy criticized for saying the same thing?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22413.html
(...)
At a press conference addressing Carrie Prejean�s disputed title in
the Miss USA competition, pageant owner Donald Trump compared
Prejean�s stated views on gay marriage to Obama�s.
�It's the same answer that the president of the United States gave,�
Trump said. �She gave an honorable answer. She gave an answer from her
heart.�
In her own remarks moments later, Prejean echoed Trump�s statement,
telling reporters: �The president of the United States, the secretary
of state, and many Americans agree with me in this belief.�
(...)
Vladimir Tschenko
wrote:
>Her...@Home.org (Let It Rock) writes:
>
>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:54:31 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Her...@Home.org (Let It Rock) writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:27:40 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>All that happened is that *one judge* in a beauty contest asked
>>>>>her a question
>>>>
>>>> One faggot judge who already knew of her mindset on faggotry.
>>>
>>>The judge's sexual orientation is not relevant.
>>
>> The queen knew of her fundy Christian background and anti-homosexual
>> position, and was bound-and-determined to crucify her ass.
>
>The queen? Was the contest in England? If you mean one specific
>contest judge, you have no way of knowing what he knew in advance nor
>what his intentions were when he asked that question.
Yeah, the queen knew.
Ol' Perez had a wild hair up its ass to nail Prejean.
>> You queers should know that hell hath no fury like that of a male
>> queen.
>
>Oh, so it is "you queers" for pointing out that there was no freedom
>of speach issue when there in fact wasn't?
>
>You really are a moron.
Did you queers criticize Obammy for saying the same thing as Miss
California?
Eh?
Restless
wrote:
>ho...@home.net (Restless) writes:
>
>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:54:31 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Her...@Home.org (Let It Rock) writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:27:40 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>All that happened is that *one judge* in a beauty contest asked
>>>>>her a question
>>>>
>>>> One faggot judge who already knew of her mindset on faggotry.
>>>
>>>The judge's sexual orientation is not relevant.
>>
>> Nigrahs in the 2008 election denied homosexual marriages.
>>
>> Whatchoo think of that, Percy?
>
>Idiot.
The uncomfortable politically-incorrect truth makes them run away.
Lars Eighner
talented Vladimir Tschenko broadcast on alt.atheism:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 04:00:41 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
><use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>>In our last episode, <4a0a21bc...@news.datemas.de>, the lovely and
>>talented Vladimir Tschenko broadcast on alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 01:21:14 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
>>><use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Nonsense. There is no duty to tolerate slavery. There is no duty to
>>>>tolerate racism, sexism, or homophobia.
>>
>>> And apparently no duty to tolerate the 1st Amendment Freedom Of
>>> Speech.
>>
>>There is no 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech issue involved. She wasn't
>>arrested. The FCC did not fine the stations that broadcast the commercial
>>venture that is the Miss USA contest. No state or locality has charged her
>>with any crime.
>>
>>She has been criticized for what she said.
> Was Messiah Obammy criticized for saying the same thing?
I don't know of anyone named 'Messiah Obammy'
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22413.html
> (...)
>
> At a press conference addressing Carrie Prejean�s disputed title in
> the Miss USA competition, pageant owner Donald Trump compared
> Prejean�s stated views on gay marriage to Obama�s.
So? He owns the pageant. It's the Golden Rule. Who has the gold, makes
the rules.
> �It's the same answer that the president of the United States gave,�
> Trump said. �She gave an honorable answer. She gave an answer from her
> heart.�
So. She is still wrong. She still got fake tits for the contest. She
still lied about making naked pictures.
> In her own remarks moments later, Prejean echoed Trump�s statement,
> telling reporters: �The president of the United States, the secretary
> of state, and many Americans agree with me in this belief.�
So? That doesn't make her anything but a bigot.
Doc Dice
> In our last episode, <4a0a21bc...@news.datemas.de>, the lovely and
> talented Vladimir Tschenko broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
> > On Wed, 13 May 2009 01:21:14 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
> ><use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>
> >>Nonsense. There is no duty to tolerate slavery. There is no duty to
> >>tolerate racism, sexism, or homophobia.
>
> > And apparently no duty to tolerate the 1st Amendment Freedom Of
> > Speech.
>
> There is no 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech issue involved. She wasn't
> arrested. The FCC did not fine the stations that broadcast the commercial
> venture that is the Miss USA contest. No state or locality has charged her
> with any crime.
>
> She has been criticized for what she said. And guess what? Criticism is
> free speech too.
Does that mean we can call Perez a cock sucking bitch?
Her adherence to the rules of the Miss USA pageant and her
> truthfulness in apply for the pageant has been questioned. It certainly
> appears she was not in compliance with the written rules and that she made
> misrepresentations. But Miss USA is a business venture, so it is ultimately
> subject to the Golden Rule, and Donald Trump has the gold. He has said that
> she will stay as Miss California and that Perez Hilton will return as a
> judge.
Wanna bet on whether or not you ever see fag boy back to cause
trouble? That's all the fags are worth.
DD
Lars Eighner
<8c5983b6-729e-4ce3...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented Doc Dice broadcast on alt.atheism:
> Wanna bet on whether or not you ever see fag boy back to cause
> trouble? That's all the fags are worth.
I thought I answered your question. Oh wait, I did:
> Lars Eighner wrote:
>> Gosh, funny isn't it that entertainment ventures of Mr. Trump are
>> so often plagued with controversy which draws attention and publicity to
>> them.
The reason Trump is rich and you are living in a trailer with your
Sister-Mom, is Trump knows better than to kill the goose that lays the
golden egg.
Vladimir Tschenko
<use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>In our last episode, <4a0ab65c...@news.datemas.de>, the lovely and
>talented Vladimir Tschenko broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 04:00:41 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
>><use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>
>>>In our last episode, <4a0a21bc...@news.datemas.de>, the lovely and
>>>talented Vladimir Tschenko broadcast on alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 01:21:14 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
>>>><use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Nonsense. There is no duty to tolerate slavery. There is no duty to
>>>>>tolerate racism, sexism, or homophobia.
>>>
>>>> And apparently no duty to tolerate the 1st Amendment Freedom Of
>>>> Speech.
>>>
>>>There is no 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech issue involved. She wasn't
>>>arrested. The FCC did not fine the stations that broadcast the commercial
>>>venture that is the Miss USA contest. No state or locality has charged her
>>>with any crime.
>>>
>>>She has been criticized for what she said.
>
>> Was Messiah Obammy criticized for saying the same thing?
>
>I don't know of anyone named 'Messiah Obammy'
The Marxist dweeb whose Kool-Aid has intoxicated you the past few
years.
>> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22413.html
>
>> (...)
>>
>> At a press conference addressing Carrie Prejean�s disputed title in
>> the Miss USA competition, pageant owner Donald Trump compared
>> Prejean�s stated views on gay marriage to Obama�s.
>
>So? He owns the pageant. It's the Golden Rule. Who has the gold, makes
>the rules.
He hit the nail on the head.
>> �It's the same answer that the president of the United States gave,�
>> Trump said. �She gave an honorable answer. She gave an answer from her
>> heart.�
>
>So. She is still wrong. She still got fake tits for the contest. She
>still lied about making naked pictures.
Huh? You seem to be drifting from the subject, sparky.
>> In her own remarks moments later, Prejean echoed Trump�s statement,
>> telling reporters: �The president of the United States, the secretary
>> of state, and many Americans agree with me in this belief.�
>
>So? That doesn't make her anything but a bigot.
Then Obammy is a bigot too.
David H.
"Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrnh0k7vd....@debranded.larseighner.com...
: In our last episode,
What an oddly religious-like thing to say. That last bit could have come
from Jerry Falwell...
Barack Obama
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:44:29 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
>
>
>
> >In our last episode, <4a0ab65c.1557...@news.datemas.de>, the lovely and
> >talented Vladimir Tschenko broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
> >> On Wed, 13 May 2009 04:00:41 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
>
> >>>In our last episode, <4a0a21bc.52817...@news.datemas.de>, the lovely and
> >>>talented Vladimir Tschenko broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
> >>>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 01:21:14 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
> >>>><use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>tolerate racism, sexism, or homophobia.
>
Hey, I resemble that!
No One
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 20:16:21 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>>> Nigrahs in the 2008 election denied homosexual marriages.
>>>
>>> Whatchoo think of that, Percy?
>>
>>Idiot.
>
> The uncomfortable politically-incorrect truth makes them run away.
Idiot. It turns out that religion was the key factor, not race, with
the relatively high African American vote for Proposition Eight merely
being due to a relatively high fraction of African Americans being in
socially-conservative churches. It was described on a different thread.
Use Google to find it.
Restless
wrote:
>ho...@home.net (Restless) writes:
>
>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 20:16:21 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>>> Nigrahs in the 2008 election denied homosexual marriages.
>>>>
>>>> Whatchoo think of that, Percy?
>>>
>>>Idiot.
>>
>> The uncomfortable politically-incorrect truth makes them run away.
>
>Idiot. It turns out that religion was the key factor, not race, with
>the relatively high African American vote for Proposition Eight merely
>being due to a relatively high fraction of African Americans being in
>socially-conservative churches. It was described on a different thread.
>Use Google to find it.
Negroes .... conservative?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
96% of 'em vote leftist candidates.
Dumbass.
And they vote all lib ideology, whatever their left-wing massuhs tell
them .... except for faggotry, apparently.
No One
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:39:55 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>ho...@home.net (Restless) writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 20:16:21 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Nigrahs in the 2008 election denied homosexual marriages.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatchoo think of that, Percy?
>>>>
>>>>Idiot.
>>>
>>> The uncomfortable politically-incorrect truth makes them run away.
>>
>>Idiot. It turns out that religion was the key factor, not race, with
>>the relatively high African American vote for Proposition Eight merely
>>being due to a relatively high fraction of African Americans being in
>>socially-conservative churches. It was described on a different thread.
>>Use Google to find it.
>
> Negroes .... conservative?
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Do you understand what the phrase "socially-conservative churches" means?
Of course you don't, because you are a complete and utter idiot.
655321
> Lars Eighner wrote:
>> In our last episode, <4a0a21bc...@news.datemas.de>, the lovely and
>> talented Vladimir Tschenko broadcast on alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 01:21:14 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
>>> <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>>>> Nonsense. There is no duty to tolerate slavery. There is no duty to
>>>> tolerate racism, sexism, or homophobia.
>>> And apparently no duty to tolerate the 1st Amendment Freedom Of
>>> Speech.
>> There is no 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech issue involved. She wasn't
>> arrested. The FCC did not fine the stations that broadcast the commercial
>> venture that is the Miss USA contest. No state or locality has charged her
>> with any crime.
>>
>> She has been criticized for what she said. And guess what? Criticism is
>> free speech too.
>
> Does that mean we can call Perez a cock sucking bitch?
Yes you can, so long as you don't do so on the air. The FCC, Standards &
Practices and all that.
Meanwhile, I can call him an inconsequential gossip-monger whom cultural
conservatives are trying very hard to turn into something other than an
inconsequential gossip-monger.
And looking ridiculous in the process.
Despite your attempts to have it be otherwise, Perez Hilton is *not* the
left's Rush Limbaugh, or even its Bill O'Reilly.
Hilton is a clown, but no one of importance sees him as anything other
than a diversion. (And I'd bet that Hilton wouldn't have it any other way.)
>> Her adherence to the rules of the Miss USA pageant and her
>> truthfulness in apply for the pageant has been questioned. It certainly
>> appears she was not in compliance with the written rules and that she made
>> misrepresentations. But Miss USA is a business venture, so it is ultimately
>> subject to the Golden Rule, and Donald Trump has the gold. He has said that
>> she will stay as Miss California and that Perez Hilton will return as a
>> judge.
>
> Wanna bet on whether or not you ever see fag boy back to cause
> trouble? That's all the fags are worth.
That doesn't even make any sense.
>> Gosh, funny isn't it that entertainment ventures of Mr. Trump are
>> so often plagued with controversy which draws attention and publicity to
>> them.
Trump, like Ms. Prejean, is an attention queen who sees controversy as a
marketing tool, so it doesn't surprise me that he let her break the rules.
--
655321
Brian_Manchester_UK
PINBALL?
If I wanted to read about 'Miss California' and gay (or anti gay)
views, then I would go to a gay issues discussion group.
And before I get flamed about my comment - I am gay, and get sick and
tired of the strident militant attitude many gays have.
This group is about PINBALL. Lets get back to it.
655321
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:27:40 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>> All that happened is that *one judge* in a beauty contest asked
>> her a question
>
> One faggot judge who already knew of her mindset on faggotry.
Maybe so. Who cares?
> Which is also President Obama's mindset, incidentally.
Not quite the same, but I see where you're going. It's amusing how the
lame "Obama Defense" has been trotted out in this context. I believe
that Drama Queen Trump used it as well.
To the degree that the President opposes same-sex marriage, I also
disagree with him. (Shock! Awe!)
I am aware, however, that he opposed Prop. 8 in California (you know,
that "country" from which my supposed "representative" hails) and other
such legislative attempts to make or keep same-sex marriage illegal, so
I don't see him crusading for your side in this matter.
--
655321
Restless
wrote:
So, uh, what happened to the 96% of blacks who voted Obama?
Did they simply ignore the Prop 8 Question and didn't vote one way or
the other, while the black Bible-thumpers voted it?
The fact is that blacks voted against homosexual unions, while whites
and Asians were more-or-less 50-50 in the three States.
Whether it's religion or whatever prompted the black vote, the fact is
that blacks are against it.
Restless
<Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>Let It Rock wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:27:40 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> All that happened is that *one judge* in a beauty contest asked
>>> her a question
>>
>> One faggot judge who already knew of her mindset on faggotry.
>
>Maybe so. Who cares?
It reveals his agenda.
Duh.
>> Which is also President Obama's mindset, incidentally.
>
>Not quite the same, but I see where you're going. It's amusing how the
>lame "Obama Defense" has been trotted out in this context. I believe
>that Drama Queen Trump used it as well.
Lame?
Translation: Let's not criticize Obama; keep the Marxist dweeb
isolated from criticism at all costs.
655321
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 11:20:07 -0700, "655321"
> <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>
>> Let It Rock wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:27:40 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All that happened is that *one judge* in a beauty contest asked
>>>> her a question
>>> One faggot judge who already knew of her mindset on faggotry.
>> Maybe so. Who cares?
>
> It reveals his agenda.
>
> Duh.
All of the contestants were asked controversial questions. The agenda
was apparently to see how they would deal with controversy in the middle
of the glossy, puffy titillation that is a beauty pageant.
>>> Which is also President Obama's mindset, incidentally.
>> Not quite the same, but I see where you're going. It's amusing how the
>> lame "Obama Defense" has been trotted out in this context. I believe
>> that Drama Queen Trump used it as well.
>
> Lame?
Very.
> Translation: Let's not criticize Obama; keep the Marxist dweeb
> isolated from criticism at all costs.
Criticizing the President is fine by me. The notion that supporters of
Obama cannot disagree with him is an invention by conservative hacks who
cannot handle having lost so severely in the last election cycle.
Among other things, I disagree with his belief that marriage should be
kept "opposite," though I do support his ACTIONS (you know, those things
that mean more than words) in support of legalizing same-sex marriage
despite his own personal beliefs.
I voted No on Prop. 8 (which Obama himself opposed) and for Obama (both
in the primary and the general election), and see no internal
contradiction in that.
--
655321
Restless
<Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>Restless wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 11:20:07 -0700, "655321"
>> <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>>
>>> Let It Rock wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:27:40 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All that happened is that *one judge* in a beauty contest asked
>>>>> her a question
>>>> One faggot judge who already knew of her mindset on faggotry.
>>> Maybe so. Who cares?
>>
>> It reveals his agenda.
>>
>> Duh.
>
>All of the contestants were asked controversial questions. The agenda
>was apparently to see how they would deal with controversy in the middle
>of the glossy, puffy titillation that is a beauty pageant.
The queen made sure that he would ask the homo union question of
Prejean.
>>>> Which is also President Obama's mindset, incidentally.
>>> Not quite the same, but I see where you're going. It's amusing how the
>>> lame "Obama Defense" has been trotted out in this context. I believe
>>> that Drama Queen Trump used it as well.
>>
>> Lame?
>
>Very.
Not lame when it's true.
>> Translation: Let's not criticize Obama; keep the Marxist dweeb
>> isolated from criticism at all costs.
>
>Criticizing the President is fine by me. The notion that supporters of
>Obama cannot disagree with him is an invention by conservative hacks who
>cannot handle having lost so severely in the last election cycle.
Actually, conservatism didn't lose. That's the problem: there were no
conservative candidates.
Many true conservaties just could not hold their noses and vote for a
liberal like McCain and so they stayed home.
Might as well let the Marxist have it.
>Among other things, I disagree with his belief that marriage should be
>kept "opposite," though I do support his ACTIONS (you know, those things
>that mean more than words) in support of legalizing same-sex marriage
>despite his own personal beliefs.
>
>I voted No on Prop. 8 (which Obama himself opposed) and for Obama (both
>in the primary and the general election), and see no internal
>contradiction in that.
>--
>655321
Fact is that his personal beliefs parallel those of Miss California
and yet he gets a pass vis-a-vis the reaction to a mere beauty queen.
655321
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:47:56 -0700, "655321"
> <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>
>> Restless wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 11:20:07 -0700, "655321"
>>> <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let It Rock wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:27:40 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> All that happened is that *one judge* in a beauty contest asked
>>>>>> her a question
>>>>> One faggot judge who already knew of her mindset on faggotry.
>>>> Maybe so. Who cares?
>>> It reveals his agenda.
>>>
>>> Duh.
>> All of the contestants were asked controversial questions. The agenda
>> was apparently to see how they would deal with controversy in the middle
>> of the glossy, puffy titillation that is a beauty pageant.
>
> The queen made sure that he would ask the homo union question of
> Prejean.
You know this for a fact?
But anyway, so what if he was gunning for her? They all were apparently
given controversial topics to contend with; she stumbled over the
question and wound up *not* *answering* *it*. And she came in second.
(Do you know what the winner [Miss What'shername from wherever] was
asked and how she handled it?)
>>>>> Which is also President Obama's mindset, incidentally.
>>>> Not quite the same, but I see where you're going. It's amusing how the
>>>> lame "Obama Defense" has been trotted out in this context. I believe
>>>> that Drama Queen Trump used it as well.
>>> Lame?
>> Very.
>
> Not lame when it's true.
It was a lame defense because it was irrelevant and stupid. By the time
Queen Trump set up the "come look at me and my funny hair," Ms. CA had
broken a number of pageant corporate rules. So, Queen Trump saw an
opportunity and held the "come look at me etc." and rambled on about how
Ms. CA was beautiful and hot so what she said was important (!), and
there's that time when Barack Obama said that one thing and oh by the
way look at me and the hottie next to me.
Lame City.
>>> Translation: Let's not criticize Obama; keep the Marxist dweeb
>>> isolated from criticism at all costs.
>> Criticizing the President is fine by me. The notion that supporters of
>> Obama cannot disagree with him is an invention by conservative hacks who
>> cannot handle having lost so severely in the last election cycle.
>
> Actually, conservatism didn't lose. That's the problem: there were no
> conservative candidates.
I didn't say conservatism lost. I said that conservative hacks lost.
They played the secret Mulsim card; they played the
radical-Wright-Christian card; they played the citizenship card; they
played the race card; they played the socialism card; they played the
fascism card; they played the terrorist-bump card; they played the
Harvard elitist card AND the "dirty nigger" card; they played the
experience card, they played the Arab card; they played the "community
organizer" card; they played the egghead card; they played the bad
bowler card...
Never mind that many of the cards they played were false and/or
self-contradictory. They played them anyway, and they savored every
minute of it. And they failed miserably, on a national and regional level.
But that's neither here nor there. My point was that one byproduct of
this *huge*, brutal loss despite such a MAJOR concerted effort by these
hacks to beat Obama is the creation of the *FICTION* that his supporters
see him as some sort of deity whose every thought, whose every fart
even, is made of spun gold encrusted with diamonds.
Yet another card that these hacks (present company included) continue to
play.
And Queen Trump became one of those hacks by trying to drag Obama into
his defensive screed.
Why? So people would pay more attention to him. It helps his enterprise,
part of which is Ms. CA.
> Many true conservaties just could not hold their noses and vote for a
> liberal like McCain and so they stayed home.
Sounds like rationalization for failure to me. Where were the "true
conservatives" during the GOP primary?
> Might as well let the Marxist have it.
He's not a Marxist, but that's another topic. The topic here is a cadre
of self-victimizing, pseudo-disenfranchised pseudo-outsiders clutching
at straws like Ms. CA's confused rambling.
If conservatives would let go of these stupid, superficial culture-war
symbols and focus directly on the issue of fiscal responsibility, they
wouldn't look like such hacks.
But it appears more fun for these hacks (and you, apparently) to trot
out a little-known Internet clown like Perez Hilton and pretend he's
more important than he actually is, and then try to link him to
President Obama by way of Queen Trump.
Crazy plot that. Just crazy enough to work!
Ha!
>> Among other things, I disagree with his belief that marriage should be
>> kept "opposite," though I do support his ACTIONS (you know, those things
>> that mean more than words) in support of legalizing same-sex marriage
>> despite his own personal beliefs.
>>
>> I voted No on Prop. 8 (which Obama himself opposed) and for Obama (both
>> in the primary and the general election), and see no internal
>> contradiction in that.
>
> Fact is that his personal beliefs parallel those of Miss California
> and yet he gets a pass vis-a-vis the reaction to a mere beauty queen.
He didn't really get a pass. Back when he made his statements he pissed
people off. But then he also stated his opposition to Prop. 8, so he was
seen as being reasonable when it came to the issue of rights.
It's called nuance, something the conservative hacks (and apparently
you) have no use for.
Anyway, if Obama *did* get a pass then so did *she* in the end. She beat
out all but one contestant, she still has the Ms. CA crown, and she has
benefited greatly from the controversy... as has Queen Trump. As has
Perez Hilton, by the way.
(Who was the winner again?)
--
655321
Restless
<Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
His actions afterward lead me to infer that he was gunning for her.
Did you think that he'd admit it?
>>>>>> Which is also President Obama's mindset, incidentally.
>>>>> Not quite the same, but I see where you're going. It's amusing how the
>>>>> lame "Obama Defense" has been trotted out in this context. I believe
>>>>> that Drama Queen Trump used it as well.
>>>> Lame?
>>> Very.
>>
>> Not lame when it's true.
>
>It was a lame defense because it was irrelevant and stupid. By the time
>Queen Trump set up the "come look at me and my funny hair," Ms. CA had
>broken a number of pageant corporate rules. So, Queen Trump saw an
>opportunity and held the "come look at me etc." and rambled on about how
>Ms. CA was beautiful and hot so what she said was important (!), and
>there's that time when Barack Obama said that one thing and oh by the
>way look at me and the hottie next to me.
>
>Lame City.
Point is that her views parallel Obama's.
Ergo, Trump's allusions to same not lame.
>>>> Translation: Let's not criticize Obama; keep the Marxist dweeb
>>>> isolated from criticism at all costs.
>>> Criticizing the President is fine by me. The notion that supporters of
>>> Obama cannot disagree with him is an invention by conservative hacks who
>>> cannot handle having lost so severely in the last election cycle.
>>
>> Actually, conservatism didn't lose. That's the problem: there were no
>> conservative candidates.
>
>I didn't say conservatism lost. I said that conservative hacks lost.
>They played the secret Mulsim card; they played the
>radical-Wright-Christian card; they played the citizenship card; they
>played the race card; they played the socialism card; they played the
>fascism card; they played the terrorist-bump card; they played the
>Harvard elitist card AND the "dirty nigger" card; they played the
>experience card, they played the Arab card; they played the "community
>organizer" card; they played the egghead card; they played the bad
>bowler card...
Pretty good cards.
Most of them veracious.
>Never mind that many of the cards they played were false and/or
>self-contradictory. They played them anyway, and they savored every
>minute of it. And they failed miserably, on a national and regional level.
>
>But that's neither here nor there. My point was that one byproduct of
>this *huge*, brutal loss despite such a MAJOR concerted effort by these
>hacks to beat Obama is the creation of the *FICTION* that his supporters
>see him as some sort of deity whose every thought, whose every fart
>even, is made of spun gold encrusted with diamonds.
>
>Yet another card that these hacks (present company included) continue to
>play.
>
>And Queen Trump became one of those hacks by trying to drag Obama into
>his defensive screed.
>
>Why? So people would pay more attention to him. It helps his enterprise,
>part of which is Ms. CA.
Why Obama won, in no particular order:
1) Liberal white guilt.
2) Hatred of Bush.
3) Mainstream Media bias
4) The other side put up a weak candidate who didn't reallt seem like
he wanted to win.
Still, 57% of white males and 53% of white females voted for McC.
So there's hope for America, perhaps in 2010 America can wrest
Congress away from the socialists who have hijacked it.
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/ExitPolls2008#Pres_All
__________
O McC
White men (36%) 41% 57%
White women (39%) 46% 53%
Black men (5%) 95% 5%
Black women (7%) 96% 3%
Latino men (4%) 64% 33%
Latino women (5%) 68% 30%
All other races (5%) 64% 32%
>> Many true conservaties just could not hold their noses and vote for a
>> liberal like McCain and so they stayed home.
>
>Sounds like rationalization for failure to me. Where were the "true
>conservatives" during the GOP primary?
Where were the true condervative candidates?
>> Might as well let the Marxist have it.
>
>He's not a Marxist, but that's another topic. The topic here is a cadre
>of self-victimizing, pseudo-disenfranchised pseudo-outsiders clutching
>at straws like Ms. CA's confused rambling.
>
>If conservatives would let go of these stupid, superficial culture-war
>symbols and focus directly on the issue of fiscal responsibility, they
>wouldn't look like such hacks.
>
>But it appears more fun for these hacks (and you, apparently) to trot
>out a little-known Internet clown like Perez Hilton and pretend he's
>more important than he actually is, and then try to link him to
>President Obama by way of Queen Trump.
>
>Crazy plot that. Just crazy enough to work!
>
>Ha!
Of course he's a fucking Marxist. He has openly supported *global*
redistribution of wealth.
He's angry; believes that those who achieved wealth dis so on the back
of the underclass.
Very 1965 Berkeley-ish.
>>> Among other things, I disagree with his belief that marriage should be
>>> kept "opposite," though I do support his ACTIONS (you know, those things
>>> that mean more than words) in support of legalizing same-sex marriage
>>> despite his own personal beliefs.
>>>
>>> I voted No on Prop. 8 (which Obama himself opposed) and for Obama (both
>>> in the primary and the general election), and see no internal
>>> contradiction in that.
>>
>> Fact is that his personal beliefs parallel those of Miss California
>> and yet he gets a pass vis-a-vis the reaction to a mere beauty queen.
>
>He didn't really get a pass. Back when he made his statements he pissed
>people off. But then he also stated his opposition to Prop. 8, so he was
>seen as being reasonable when it came to the issue of rights.
>
>It's called nuance, something the conservative hacks (and apparently
>you) have no use for.
>
>Anyway, if Obama *did* get a pass then so did *she* in the end. She beat
>out all but one contestant, she still has the Ms. CA crown, and she has
>benefited greatly from the controversy... as has Queen Trump. As has
>Perez Hilton, by the way.
>
>(Who was the winner again?)
>--
>655321
We're talking about the Prez vs. a nobody. All the flak comes down on
the nobody yet Barry shares her sentiments.
Thou shalt not send any flak Barry's way -- 11th Commandment.
Vladimir Tschenko
>Why Obama won, in no particular order:
>
>1) Liberal white guilt.
>
>2) Hatred of Bush.
>
>3) Mainstream Media bias
>
>4) The other side put up a weak candidate who didn't reallt seem like
>he wanted to win.
He also mesmerized the empty-headed, starry-eyed under 30 crowd who
look on him as 1950s groupies did on Elvis.
These libs you're addressing have been brainwashed by the mainstream
media which has been to the left since Uncle Walter Cronkite who never
met a communist banana republic he didn't like to today's leftist
pseudo-journalists.
No One
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 10:30:08 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>ho...@home.net (Restless) writes:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The uncomfortable politically-incorrect truth makes them run away.
>>>>
>>>>Idiot. It turns out that religion was the key factor, not race, with
>>>>the relatively high African American vote for Proposition Eight merely
>>>>being due to a relatively high fraction of African Americans being in
>>>>socially-conservative churches. It was described on a different thread.
>>>>Use Google to find it.
>>>
>>> Negroes .... conservative?
>>
>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>
>>Do you understand what the phrase "socially-conservative churches" means?
>>Of course you don't, because you are a complete and utter idiot.
>>
> So, uh, what happened to the 96% of blacks who voted Obama?
Nothing - it is not a mutually exclusive choice: you can vote for
Obama on a Tuesday after spending an hour on Sunday getting all worked
up about how we are all "sinners" and how those who don't repent,
particularly if sex was involved, are headed for Hell.
Basicly, they can listen to the preacher to protect their virtue and
vote for Obama to protect their pocketbooks (an ailing economy is
particularly hard on the poor as they lose their jobs and don't have
the financial resources to wait it out).
Now, why is it that this has to be spelled out for you?
Don Martin
>Lars Eighner wrote:
>> In our last episode,
>> <35761fc4-86fe-450f...@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, the
>> lovely and talented Doc Dice broadcast on alt.atheism:
>>
>>> BILL O'REILLY, HOST:
>>
>>> In the "Factor Follow-up" segment tonight: My newspaper column this
>>> week is about the incredibly hypocritical ACLU not sticking up for
>>> Miss California's freedom of speech.
>>
>> No freedom of speech issue is involved. Freedom of speech does not mean
>> freedom from the consequences of what you say. It does not mean you have
>> the right to use someone else's microphone to say whatever you want. It
>> does not mean freedom from criticism for what you say.
>>
>
>It's more an issue of tolerance.....or lack thereof. The side that
>preaches tolerance....tolerance....tolerance.....only want everyone to
>be tolerant of what THEY believe but when the shoe is on the other foot,
>they're the most intolerant of all.
>
>The "tolerant" left just can't come to grips with someone having and
>articulating an opinion that differs from theirs.
>
>A little bit ironic....don't you think?
Being tolerant of bigotry? Not terribly.
-
aa #2278 If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
655321
Dunno. Don't care. I do know that he apologized for the personal insult.
Something he, a catty Internet gossip, didn't have to do.
>>>>>>> Which is also President Obama's mindset, incidentally.
>>>>>> Not quite the same, but I see where you're going. It's amusing how the
>>>>>> lame "Obama Defense" has been trotted out in this context. I believe
>>>>>> that Drama Queen Trump used it as well.
>>>>> Lame?
>>>> Very.
>>> Not lame when it's true.
>> It was a lame defense because it was irrelevant and stupid. By the time
>> Queen Trump set up the "come look at me and my funny hair," Ms. CA had
>> broken a number of pageant corporate rules. So, Queen Trump saw an
>> opportunity and held the "come look at me etc." and rambled on about how
>> Ms. CA was beautiful and hot so what she said was important (!), and
>> there's that time when Barack Obama said that one thing and oh by the
>> way look at me and the hottie next to me.
>>
>> Lame City.
>
> Point is that her views parallel Obama's.
But they don't.
You don't see Obama signing up with groups established to oppose
legalizing same-sex marriage, as Ms. CA has done -- against pageant
rules. You *do* see him speaking out against making said unions illegal.
> Ergo, Trump's allusions to same not lame.
Sorry... totally lame.
>>>>> Translation: Let's not criticize Obama; keep the Marxist dweeb
>>>>> isolated from criticism at all costs.
>>>> Criticizing the President is fine by me. The notion that supporters of
>>>> Obama cannot disagree with him is an invention by conservative hacks who
>>>> cannot handle having lost so severely in the last election cycle.
>>> Actually, conservatism didn't lose. That's the problem: there were no
>>> conservative candidates.
>> I didn't say conservatism lost. I said that conservative hacks lost.
>> They played the secret Mulsim card; they played the
>> radical-Wright-Christian card; they played the citizenship card; they
>> played the race card; they played the socialism card; they played the
>> fascism card; they played the terrorist-bump card; they played the
>> Harvard elitist card AND the "dirty nigger" card; they played the
>> experience card, they played the Arab card; they played the "community
>> organizer" card; they played the egghead card; they played the bad
>> bowler card...
>
> Pretty good cards.
Not if they fail.
> Most of them veracious.
Most of them irrelevant and stupid, and shown to be so.
>> Never mind that many of the cards they played were false and/or
>> self-contradictory. They played them anyway, and they savored every
>> minute of it. And they failed miserably, on a national and regional level.
>>
>> But that's neither here nor there. My point was that one byproduct of
>> this *huge*, brutal loss despite such a MAJOR concerted effort by these
>> hacks to beat Obama is the creation of the *FICTION* that his supporters
>> see him as some sort of deity whose every thought, whose every fart
>> even, is made of spun gold encrusted with diamonds.
>>
>> Yet another card that these hacks (present company included) continue to
>> play.
>>
>> And Queen Trump became one of those hacks by trying to drag Obama into
>> his defensive screed.
>>
>> Why? So people would pay more attention to him. It helps his enterprise,
>> part of which is Ms. CA.
>
> Why Obama won, in no particular order:
[snip off-topic speculation based on analytical bias]
Again, that's neither here nor there.
>>> Many true conservaties just could not hold their noses and vote for a
>>> liberal like McCain and so they stayed home.
>> Sounds like rationalization for failure to me. Where were the "true
>> conservatives" during the GOP primary?
>
> Where were the true condervative candidates?
It's not my job to make that call, is it? I'm certainly not what you
would call a conservative.
Isn't it your job to identify and support such a candidate, or at least
to point one out to me so I can take a gander at him or her and evaluate
his or her qualifications?
>>> Might as well let the Marxist have it.
>> He's not a Marxist, but that's another topic. The topic here is a cadre
>> of self-victimizing, pseudo-disenfranchised pseudo-outsiders clutching
>> at straws like Ms. CA's confused rambling.
>>
>> If conservatives would let go of these stupid, superficial culture-war
>> symbols and focus directly on the issue of fiscal responsibility, they
>> wouldn't look like such hacks.
>>
>> But it appears more fun for these hacks (and you, apparently) to trot
>> out a little-known Internet clown like Perez Hilton and pretend he's
>> more important than he actually is, and then try to link him to
>> President Obama by way of Queen Trump.
>>
>> Crazy plot that. Just crazy enough to work!
>>
>> Ha!
>
> Of course he's a fucking Marxist. He has openly supported *global*
> redistribution of wealth.
Capitalism is that, by definition. But setting that aside, every action
by every government in the world involves redistributing wealth in a
number of directions, including outside the country.
> He's angry;
You're his shrink now? A psychic?
> believes that those who achieved wealth dis so on the back
> of the underclass.
(I'm sure you have a euphemism for this.)
> Very 1965 Berkeley-ish.
This is why I don't want to go into this. First, it's off topic. Second,
there's clearly no interest in actually addressing the facts. It's
easier to just toss out Fox-friendly catch-phrases.
'Nuff said about that.
>>>> Among other things, I disagree with his belief that marriage should be
>>>> kept "opposite," though I do support his ACTIONS (you know, those things
>>>> that mean more than words) in support of legalizing same-sex marriage
>>>> despite his own personal beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> I voted No on Prop. 8 (which Obama himself opposed) and for Obama (both
>>>> in the primary and the general election), and see no internal
>>>> contradiction in that.
>>> Fact is that his personal beliefs parallel those of Miss California
>>> and yet he gets a pass vis-a-vis the reaction to a mere beauty queen.
>> He didn't really get a pass. Back when he made his statements he pissed
>> people off. But then he also stated his opposition to Prop. 8, so he was
>> seen as being reasonable when it came to the issue of rights.
>>
>> It's called nuance, something the conservative hacks (and apparently
>> you) have no use for.
>>
>> Anyway, if Obama *did* get a pass then so did *she* in the end. She beat
>> out all but one contestant, she still has the Ms. CA crown, and she has
>> benefited greatly from the controversy... as has Queen Trump. As has
>> Perez Hilton, by the way.
>>
>> (Who was the winner again?)
>
> We're talking about the Prez vs. a nobody. All the flak comes down on
> the nobody yet Barry shares her sentiments.
First, the flak she received was largely *from* nobodies.
Second, she's no longer a nobody, so long as attention-hogs and
conservative hacks want to keep her from becoming one.
And to say that Obama received and receives no flak is just plain
*wrong*. I live in California; I remember the Prop. 8 campaign. I read
the editorials. I heard the commentaries. I remember social
conservatives trying to convince people that Obama supported Prop. 8.
It's just an amusing yet somewhat tiresome *fiction* that you treasure.
> Thou shalt not send any flak Barry's way -- 11th Commandment.
Case in point.
You and the TeeVee hacks can amuse yourselves by chanting that lie (long
may it be useful), but it doesn't make it any more of a lie.
--
655321
Restless
wrote:
The original point is valid.
Blacks in the 2008 election said "NO" to homosexual unions, regardless
of their personal reasons.
Whites and Asians were more or less evenly divided.
Read what I wrote and tell me what part you are having trouble
grasping.
Restless
<Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
Doesn't obviate the point I made.
>>>>>>>> Which is also President Obama's mindset, incidentally.
>>>>>>> Not quite the same, but I see where you're going. It's amusing how the
>>>>>>> lame "Obama Defense" has been trotted out in this context. I believe
>>>>>>> that Drama Queen Trump used it as well.
>>>>>> Lame?
>>>>> Very.
>>>> Not lame when it's true.
>>> It was a lame defense because it was irrelevant and stupid. By the time
>>> Queen Trump set up the "come look at me and my funny hair," Ms. CA had
>>> broken a number of pageant corporate rules. So, Queen Trump saw an
>>> opportunity and held the "come look at me etc." and rambled on about how
>>> Ms. CA was beautiful and hot so what she said was important (!), and
>>> there's that time when Barack Obama said that one thing and oh by the
>>> way look at me and the hottie next to me.
>>>
>>> Lame City.
>>
>> Point is that her views parallel Obama's.
>
>But they don't.
>
>You don't see Obama signing up with groups established to oppose
>legalizing same-sex marriage, as Ms. CA has done -- against pageant
>rules. You *do* see him speaking out against making said unions illegal.
Her sentiments are the same as his.
The rest of it is playing politics.
>> Ergo, Trump's allusions to same not lame.
>
>Sorry... totally lame.
Nope, right on the money.
>>>>>> Translation: Let's not criticize Obama; keep the Marxist dweeb
>>>>>> isolated from criticism at all costs.
>>>>> Criticizing the President is fine by me. The notion that supporters of
>>>>> Obama cannot disagree with him is an invention by conservative hacks who
>>>>> cannot handle having lost so severely in the last election cycle.
>>>> Actually, conservatism didn't lose. That's the problem: there were no
>>>> conservative candidates.
>>> I didn't say conservatism lost. I said that conservative hacks lost.
>>> They played the secret Mulsim card; they played the
>>> radical-Wright-Christian card; they played the citizenship card; they
>>> played the race card; they played the socialism card; they played the
>>> fascism card; they played the terrorist-bump card; they played the
>>> Harvard elitist card AND the "dirty nigger" card; they played the
>>> experience card, they played the Arab card; they played the "community
>>> organizer" card; they played the egghead card; they played the bad
>>> bowler card...
>>
>> Pretty good cards.
>
>Not if they fail.
I was talking about their veracity.
>> Most of them veracious.
>
>Most of them irrelevant and stupid, and shown to be so.
To those who have drunk the Kool-Aid.
>>> Never mind that many of the cards they played were false and/or
>>> self-contradictory. They played them anyway, and they savored every
>>> minute of it. And they failed miserably, on a national and regional level.
>>>
>>> But that's neither here nor there. My point was that one byproduct of
>>> this *huge*, brutal loss despite such a MAJOR concerted effort by these
>>> hacks to beat Obama is the creation of the *FICTION* that his supporters
>>> see him as some sort of deity whose every thought, whose every fart
>>> even, is made of spun gold encrusted with diamonds.
>>>
>>> Yet another card that these hacks (present company included) continue to
>>> play.
>>>
>>> And Queen Trump became one of those hacks by trying to drag Obama into
>>> his defensive screed.
>>>
>>> Why? So people would pay more attention to him. It helps his enterprise,
>>> part of which is Ms. CA.
>>
>> Why Obama won, in no particular order:
>
>[snip off-topic speculation based on analytical bias]
>
>
>Again, that's neither here nor there.
Just true.
>>>> Many true conservaties just could not hold their noses and vote for a
>>>> liberal like McCain and so they stayed home.
>>> Sounds like rationalization for failure to me. Where were the "true
>>> conservatives" during the GOP primary?
>>
>> Where were the true condervative candidates?
>
>It's not my job to make that call, is it? I'm certainly not what you
>would call a conservative.
>
>Isn't it your job to identify and support such a candidate, or at least
>to point one out to me so I can take a gander at him or her and evaluate
>his or her qualifications?
The so-called conservatives caved. They went along to get along,
e.g., the former conservative Lindsey Graham is bow Lindsey Gramnesty.
>>>> Might as well let the Marxist have it.
>>> He's not a Marxist, but that's another topic. The topic here is a cadre
>>> of self-victimizing, pseudo-disenfranchised pseudo-outsiders clutching
>>> at straws like Ms. CA's confused rambling.
>>>
>>> If conservatives would let go of these stupid, superficial culture-war
>>> symbols and focus directly on the issue of fiscal responsibility, they
>>> wouldn't look like such hacks.
>>>
>>> But it appears more fun for these hacks (and you, apparently) to trot
>>> out a little-known Internet clown like Perez Hilton and pretend he's
>>> more important than he actually is, and then try to link him to
>>> President Obama by way of Queen Trump.
>>>
>>> Crazy plot that. Just crazy enough to work!
>>>
>>> Ha!
>>
>> Of course he's a fucking Marxist. He has openly supported *global*
>> redistribution of wealth.
>
>Capitalism is that, by definition. But setting that aside, every action
>by every government in the world involves redistributing wealth in a
>number of directions, including outside the country.
In addition to his share-the-wealth, there is the elimination of
personal freedom. He's telling corporations how to run their
businesses. Next-up at bat, socialized medicine with loss of medical
privacy, and this will of course entail removal of our lifestyle
choices if we want to be treated. Hell, during the campaign he told
us to cut back on food so that there will be more for the 3rd world.
He wants loss of secret ballot regarding unionization (here comes Tony
Soprano). And wait'll ya get a load of the cap-and-trade costs.
>> He's angry;
>
>You're his shrink now? A psychic?
Don't need to be Sigmund to see it.
>> believes that those who achieved wealth dis so on the back
>> of the underclass.
>
>(I'm sure you have a euphemism for this.)
>
>> Very 1965 Berkeley-ish.
>
>This is why I don't want to go into this. First, it's off topic. Second,
>there's clearly no interest in actually addressing the facts. It's
>easier to just toss out Fox-friendly catch-phrases.
As opposed to Katie, Charlie, Brian, CNN (Castro's megaphone), major
dailies like the NYTimes AKA Pravda of the West, Time, Newsweek, NPR,
PBS and those other mainstream bastions of "objective" journalism.
Yeah, I'll take Fox.
>'Nuff said about that.
>
>>>>> Among other things, I disagree with his belief that marriage should be
>>>>> kept "opposite," though I do support his ACTIONS (you know, those things
>>>>> that mean more than words) in support of legalizing same-sex marriage
>>>>> despite his own personal beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> I voted No on Prop. 8 (which Obama himself opposed) and for Obama (both
>>>>> in the primary and the general election), and see no internal
>>>>> contradiction in that.
>>>> Fact is that his personal beliefs parallel those of Miss California
>>>> and yet he gets a pass vis-a-vis the reaction to a mere beauty queen.
>>> He didn't really get a pass. Back when he made his statements he pissed
>>> people off. But then he also stated his opposition to Prop. 8, so he was
>>> seen as being reasonable when it came to the issue of rights.
>>>
>>> It's called nuance, something the conservative hacks (and apparently
>>> you) have no use for.
>>>
>>> Anyway, if Obama *did* get a pass then so did *she* in the end. She beat
>>> out all but one contestant, she still has the Ms. CA crown, and she has
>>> benefited greatly from the controversy... as has Queen Trump. As has
>>> Perez Hilton, by the way.
>>>
>>> (Who was the winner again?)
>>
>> We're talking about the Prez vs. a nobody. All the flak comes down on
>> the nobody yet Barry shares her sentiments.
>
>First, the flak she received was largely *from* nobodies.
Maybe some of those nobodies should consider criticizing Obama for
having the same sentiments.
See anyone here?
>Second, she's no longer a nobody, so long as attention-hogs and
>conservative hacks want to keep her from becoming one.
Good.
>And to say that Obama received and receives no flak is just plain
>*wrong*. I live in California; I remember the Prop. 8 campaign. I read
>the editorials. I heard the commentaries. I remember social
>conservatives trying to convince people that Obama supported Prop. 8.
Obama skates. He lives a charmed existence thanks to the media and
the indoctrinated public.
>It's just an amusing yet somewhat tiresome *fiction* that you treasure.
You're the one on the kool-aid.
>> Thou shalt not send any flak Barry's way -- 11th Commandment.
>
>Case in point.
>
>You and the TeeVee hacks can amuse yourselves by chanting that lie (long
>may it be useful), but it doesn't make it any more of a lie.
>--
>655321
The bulk of the TV hax in the past 50 years have been from the left
side of the fence.
655321
wrote:
What point?
> >>>>>>>> Which is also President Obama's mindset, incidentally.
> >>>>>>> Not quite the same, but I see where you're going. It's amusing how
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> lame "Obama Defense" has been trotted out in this context. I believe
> >>>>>>> that Drama Queen Trump used it as well.
> >>>>>> Lame?
> >>>>> Very.
> >>>> Not lame when it's true.
> >>> It was a lame defense because it was irrelevant and stupid. By the time
> >>> Queen Trump set up the "come look at me and my funny hair," Ms. CA had
> >>> broken a number of pageant corporate rules. So, Queen Trump saw an
> >>> opportunity and held the "come look at me etc." and rambled on about how
> >>> Ms. CA was beautiful and hot so what she said was important (!), and
> >>> there's that time when Barack Obama said that one thing and oh by the
> >>> way look at me and the hottie next to me.
> >>>
> >>> Lame City.
> >>
> >> Point is that her views parallel Obama's.
> >
> >But they don't.
> >
> >You don't see Obama signing up with groups established to oppose
> >legalizing same-sex marriage, as Ms. CA has done -- against pageant
> >rules. You *do* see him speaking out against making said unions illegal.
>
> Her sentiments are the same as his.
Not exactly. Her actions after the pageant betrayed a significant
difference in sentiment between her own and the President's.
> The rest of it is playing politics.
No, that's YOU playing politics.
> >> Ergo, Trump's allusions to same not lame.
> >
> >Sorry... totally lame.
>
> Nope, right on the money.
You can say it all you want; it doesn't make it true.
> >>>>>> Translation: Let's not criticize Obama; keep the Marxist dweeb
> >>>>>> isolated from criticism at all costs.
> >>>>> Criticizing the President is fine by me. The notion that supporters of
> >>>>> Obama cannot disagree with him is an invention by conservative hacks
> >>>>> who
> >>>>> cannot handle having lost so severely in the last election cycle.
> >>>> Actually, conservatism didn't lose. That's the problem: there were no
> >>>> conservative candidates.
> >>> I didn't say conservatism lost. I said that conservative hacks lost.
> >>> They played the secret Mulsim card; they played the
> >>> radical-Wright-Christian card; they played the citizenship card; they
> >>> played the race card; they played the socialism card; they played the
> >>> fascism card; they played the terrorist-bump card; they played the
> >>> Harvard elitist card AND the "dirty nigger" card; they played the
> >>> experience card, they played the Arab card; they played the "community
> >>> organizer" card; they played the egghead card; they played the bad
> >>> bowler card...
> >>
> >> Pretty good cards.
> >
> >Not if they fail.
>
> I was talking about their veracity.
But the bulk of them weren't even true.
> >> Most of them veracious.
> >
> >Most of them irrelevant and stupid, and shown to be so.
>
> To those who have drunk the Kool-Aid.
This is why I don't want to get into this with you. It's all about
baseless accusations and Fox-friendly news-bites.
"Drank the Kool-Aid"?
Come on.
What is that supposed to accomplish?
> >>> Never mind that many of the cards they played were false and/or
> >>> self-contradictory. They played them anyway, and they savored every
> >>> minute of it. And they failed miserably, on a national and regional
> >>> level.
> >>>
> >>> But that's neither here nor there. My point was that one byproduct of
> >>> this *huge*, brutal loss despite such a MAJOR concerted effort by these
> >>> hacks to beat Obama is the creation of the *FICTION* that his supporters
> >>> see him as some sort of deity whose every thought, whose every fart
> >>> even, is made of spun gold encrusted with diamonds.
> >>>
> >>> Yet another card that these hacks (present company included) continue to
> >>> play.
> >>>
> >>> And Queen Trump became one of those hacks by trying to drag Obama into
> >>> his defensive screed.
> >>>
> >>> Why? So people would pay more attention to him. It helps his enterprise,
> >>> part of which is Ms. CA.
> >>
> >> Why Obama won, in no particular order:
> >
> >[snip off-topic speculation based on analytical bias]
> >
> >
> >Again, that's neither here nor there.
>
> Just true.
No, it's speculation based on bias. Which means it's likely untrue.
> >>>> Many true conservaties just could not hold their noses and vote for a
> >>>> liberal like McCain and so they stayed home.
> >>> Sounds like rationalization for failure to me. Where were the "true
> >>> conservatives" during the GOP primary?
> >>
> >> Where were the true condervative candidates?
> >
> >It's not my job to make that call, is it? I'm certainly not what you
> >would call a conservative.
> >
> >Isn't it your job to identify and support such a candidate, or at least
> >to point one out to me so I can take a gander at him or her and evaluate
> >his or her qualifications?
>
> The so-called conservatives caved. They went along to get along,
> e.g., the former conservative Lindsey Graham is bow Lindsey Gramnesty.
It's not my battle.
Conservative, like liberal, is in the eye of the beholder.
Them's some fine, vapid conservative talking points. Take 'em up in
another thread.
> >> He's angry;
> >
> >You're his shrink now? A psychic?
>
> Don't need to be Sigmund to see it.
Whatever. Take it up in another thread.
> >> believes that those who achieved wealth dis so on the back
> >> of the underclass.
> >
> >(I'm sure you have a euphemism for this.)
> >
> >> Very 1965 Berkeley-ish.
> >
> >This is why I don't want to go into this. First, it's off topic. Second,
> >there's clearly no interest in actually addressing the facts. It's
> >easier to just toss out Fox-friendly catch-phrases.
>
> As opposed to Katie, Charlie, Brian, CNN (Castro's megaphone), major
> dailies like the NYTimes AKA Pravda of the West, Time, Newsweek, NPR,
> PBS and those other mainstream bastions of "objective" journalism.
>
> Yeah, I'll take Fox.
>
> >'Nuff said about that.
Again: 'Nuff said.
Are you blind? He *did* receive criticism. But that was in the past.
> >Second, she's no longer a nobody, so long as attention-hogs and
> >conservative hacks want to keep her from becoming one.
>
> Good.
They'll fail soon enough.
> >And to say that Obama received and receives no flak is just plain
> >*wrong*. I live in California; I remember the Prop. 8 campaign. I read
> >the editorials. I heard the commentaries. I remember social
> >conservatives trying to convince people that Obama supported Prop. 8.
>
> Obama skates. He lives a charmed existence thanks to the media and
> the indoctrinated public.
In this particular case, Obama understands the difference between
personal beliefs and what should be law.
That is all.
> >It's just an amusing yet somewhat tiresome *fiction* that you treasure.
>
> You're the one on the kool-aid.
Because you say so? I told you I have some issues with Obama's policies.
I always have.
Oops. Did you forget to ignore me that time?
(Probably not.)
> >> Thou shalt not send any flak Barry's way -- 11th Commandment.
> >
> >Case in point.
> >
> >You and the TeeVee hacks can amuse yourselves by chanting that lie (long
> >may it be useful), but it doesn't make it any less of a lie.
> The bulk of the TV hax in the past 50 years have been from the left
> side of the fence.
Nice dodge. I repeat: You and the TeeVee hacks can amuse yourselves by
chanting that lie (long may it be useful), but it doesn't make it any
less of a lie.
--
655321
"We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi
No One
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:47:12 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>ho...@home.net (Restless) writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 10:30:08 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So, uh, what happened to the 96% of blacks who voted Obama?
>>
>>Nothing - it is not a mutually exclusive choice: you can vote for
>>Obama on a Tuesday after spending an hour on Sunday getting all worked
>>up about how we are all "sinners" and how those who don't repent,
>>particularly if sex was involved, are headed for Hell.
>>
>>Basicly, they can listen to the preacher to protect their virtue and
>>vote for Obama to protect their pocketbooks (an ailing economy is
>>particularly hard on the poor as they lose their jobs and don't have
>>the financial resources to wait it out).
>>
>>Now, why is it that this has to be spelled out for you?
>
> The original point is valid.
No it isn't.
> Blacks in the 2008 election said "NO" to homosexual unions, regardless
> of their personal reasons.
>
> Whites and Asians were more or less evenly divided.
>
> Read what I wrote and tell me what part you are having trouble
> grasping.
What you are having trouble grasping is that religion, not race, is
the determining factor, and the high numbers for blacks simply reflects
the types of churches they attend. When you factor out religion,
the numbers for blacks supporting Proposition Eight are far lower.
And the distinction really is important, regardless of your inability
to understand it - it tells you something useful about how to influence
voters when an initiative repealing Proposition Eight goes on the
ballot (assuming the California Supreme Court upholds Proposition
Eight).
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented Hnic Hastogo broadcast on alt.atheism:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 01:21:14 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
><use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>>There is no duty to tolerate slavery. There is no duty to
>>tolerate racism, sexism, or homophobia.
> Slavery is against the law in he United States and has been for some
> years now. A person can't (unless they do so willingly) change their
> gender neither can person change their race.
But they could, for example, change their religion.
The final proof does not exist yet whether sexuality is genetically
determined like skin color or chosen like religion, or whether it is some
mixture of the two, or if it is genetic in some people and chosen in others.
What is clear is that it is immutible after about age four, whereas people
easily change such things as hairstyle or religion much later in life.
> There sex and their race must be tolerated according to the laws of the
> land. Homophobia only exist in the minds of homosexuals, homophiles and
> liberals.
You are an excellent example that it is real.
> If a heterosexual chooses to be intolerant in his/her think about
> homosexuality they are perfectly with in their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to do
> so.
It doesn't follow that other people have to reward that choice.
> "Miss California" simply expressed her intolerance for homosexual marriage
> because of her moral beliefs.
But posing tits-out, making herself over with plastic, and lying on entry
documents are evidently consistent with her moral beliefs. She used someone
else's forum, and is very fortunate for her that it was someone who welcomes
controversy and publicity.
> She didn't say what she said because she was afraid of homosexuality, but
> rather because she believes in a certain level of morality.
She posed for porn shots. So much for her claim to morality. She's a whore
who takes off her clothes for the camera. No one said she was afraid of
homosexuality. That is not what homophobia means.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
113 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
Ray Fischer
> Lars Eighner
>>There is no duty to tolerate slavery. There is no duty to
>>tolerate racism, sexism, or homophobia.
>
>Slavery is against the law in he United States and has been for some
>years now. A person can't (unless they do so willingly) change their
>must be tolerated according to the laws of the land. Homophobia only
>exist in the minds of homosexuals, homophiles and liberals.
And homophobic bigots like yourself
> If a
>heterosexual chooses to be intolerant in his/her think about
>homosexuality they are perfectly with in their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
>to do so.
And if sane people choose to be intolerant of rabid homphobic bigots
then they are perfectly with in their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to do so.
> "Miss California" simply expressed her intolerance for
>homosexual marriage because of her moral beliefs.
Those beliefs aren't moral.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
markandr...@gmail.com
Restless
wrote:
The reasoning is irrelevant.
If blacks are"religious" on the matter of homosexual unions, so be it.
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1378391.html
(...)
Weston, 44, is one of an overwhelming number � 70 percent � of black
voters in California who voted for Proposition 8 and helped secure its
passage, according to exit polling conducted by Edison Media Research
and Mitofsky International.
(...)
Latinos were 18 percent of California's voters, and through sheer
numbers also contributed to Proposition 8's success. But 53 percent of
Latino voters supported the measure, a much lower percentage than
black voters. Among white and Asian voters, 49 percent voted for the
measure.
(...)
____________
My point is still valid.
Restless
<Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
She and Obama share the same sentiments.
Yet she is being excoriated here while nothing is said about Barry.
>> >>>>>>>> Which is also President Obama's mindset, incidentally.
>> >>>>>>> Not quite the same, but I see where you're going. It's amusing how
>> >>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>> lame "Obama Defense" has been trotted out in this context. I believe
>> >>>>>>> that Drama Queen Trump used it as well.
>> >>>>>> Lame?
>> >>>>> Very.
>> >>>> Not lame when it's true.
>> >>> It was a lame defense because it was irrelevant and stupid. By the time
>> >>> Queen Trump set up the "come look at me and my funny hair," Ms. CA had
>> >>> broken a number of pageant corporate rules. So, Queen Trump saw an
>> >>> opportunity and held the "come look at me etc." and rambled on about how
>> >>> Ms. CA was beautiful and hot so what she said was important (!), and
>> >>> there's that time when Barack Obama said that one thing and oh by the
>> >>> way look at me and the hottie next to me.
>> >>>
>> >>> Lame City.
>> >>
>> >> Point is that her views parallel Obama's.
>> >
>> >But they don't.
>> >
>> >You don't see Obama signing up with groups established to oppose
>> >legalizing same-sex marriage, as Ms. CA has done -- against pageant
>> >rules. You *do* see him speaking out against making said unions illegal.
>>
>> Her sentiments are the same as his.
>
>Not exactly. Her actions after the pageant betrayed a significant
>difference in sentiment between her own and the President's.
Nope.
Same sentiments.
>> The rest of it is playing politics.
>
>No, that's YOU playing politics.
No, Barry doesn't want to offend the queers and so he says that he
won't legally oppose the unions.
She's not in a political position and therefore doesn't care.
>> >> Ergo, Trump's allusions to same not lame.
>> >
>> >Sorry... totally lame.
>>
>> Nope, right on the money.
>
>You can say it all you want; it doesn't make it true.
Whether I say it .... it is true.
>> >>>>>> Translation: Let's not criticize Obama; keep the Marxist dweeb
>> >>>>>> isolated from criticism at all costs.
>> >>>>> Criticizing the President is fine by me. The notion that supporters of
>> >>>>> Obama cannot disagree with him is an invention by conservative hacks
>> >>>>> who
>> >>>>> cannot handle having lost so severely in the last election cycle.
>> >>>> Actually, conservatism didn't lose. That's the problem: there were no
>> >>>> conservative candidates.
>> >>> I didn't say conservatism lost. I said that conservative hacks lost.
>> >>> They played the secret Mulsim card; they played the
>> >>> radical-Wright-Christian card; they played the citizenship card; they
>> >>> played the race card; they played the socialism card; they played the
>> >>> fascism card; they played the terrorist-bump card; they played the
>> >>> Harvard elitist card AND the "dirty nigger" card; they played the
>> >>> experience card, they played the Arab card; they played the "community
>> >>> organizer" card; they played the egghead card; they played the bad
>> >>> bowler card...
>> >>
>> >> Pretty good cards.
>> >
>> >Not if they fail.
>>
>> I was talking about their veracity.
>
>But the bulk of them weren't even true.
The bulk are true.
>> >> Most of them veracious.
>> >
>> >Most of them irrelevant and stupid, and shown to be so.
>>
>> To those who have drunk the Kool-Aid.
>
>This is why I don't want to get into this with you. It's all about
>baseless accusations and Fox-friendly news-bites.
It's all about reality.
>"Drank the Kool-Aid"?
>
>Come on.
>
>What is that supposed to accomplish?
drink, drank, have drunk.
>> >>> Never mind that many of the cards they played were false and/or
>> >>> self-contradictory. They played them anyway, and they savored every
>> >>> minute of it. And they failed miserably, on a national and regional
>> >>> level.
>> >>>
>> >>> But that's neither here nor there. My point was that one byproduct of
>> >>> this *huge*, brutal loss despite such a MAJOR concerted effort by these
>> >>> hacks to beat Obama is the creation of the *FICTION* that his supporters
>> >>> see him as some sort of deity whose every thought, whose every fart
>> >>> even, is made of spun gold encrusted with diamonds.
>> >>>
>> >>> Yet another card that these hacks (present company included) continue to
>> >>> play.
>> >>>
>> >>> And Queen Trump became one of those hacks by trying to drag Obama into
>> >>> his defensive screed.
>> >>>
>> >>> Why? So people would pay more attention to him. It helps his enterprise,
>> >>> part of which is Ms. CA.
>> >>
>> >> Why Obama won, in no particular order:
>> >
>> >[snip off-topic speculation based on analytical bias]
>> >
>> >
>> >Again, that's neither here nor there.
>>
>> Just true.
>
>No, it's speculation based on bias. Which means it's likely untrue.
Curious that the left has agreed with the "speculation" that you
snipped.
>> >>>> Many true conservaties just could not hold their noses and vote for a
>> >>>> liberal like McCain and so they stayed home.
>> >>> Sounds like rationalization for failure to me. Where were the "true
>> >>> conservatives" during the GOP primary?
>> >>
>> >> Where were the true condervative candidates?
>> >
>> >It's not my job to make that call, is it? I'm certainly not what you
>> >would call a conservative.
>> >
>> >Isn't it your job to identify and support such a candidate, or at least
>> >to point one out to me so I can take a gander at him or her and evaluate
>> >his or her qualifications?
>>
>> The so-called conservatives caved. They went along to get along,
>> e.g., the former conservative Lindsey Graham is bow Lindsey Gramnesty.
>
>It's not my battle.
But it's true.
>Conservative, like liberal, is in the eye of the beholder.
Parameters can be demonstrated.
>> >>>> Might as well let the Marxist have it.
>> >>> He's not a Marxist, but that's another topic. The topic here is a cadre
>> >>> of self-victimizing, pseudo-disenfranchised pseudo-outsiders clutching
>> >>> at straws like Ms. CA's confused rambling.
>> >>>
>> >>> If conservatives would let go of these stupid, superficial culture-war
>> >>> symbols and focus directly on the issue of fiscal responsibility, they
>> >>> wouldn't look like such hacks.
>> >>>
>> >>> But it appears more fun for these hacks (and you, apparently) to trot
>> >>> out a little-known Internet clown like Perez Hilton and pretend he's
>> >>> more important than he actually is, and then try to link him to
>> >>> President Obama by way of Queen Trump.
>> >>>
>> >>> Crazy plot that. Just crazy enough to work!
>> >>>
>> >>> Ha!
>> >>
>> >> Of course he's a fucking Marxist. He has openly supported *global*
>> >> redistribution of wealth.
>> >
>> >Capitalism is that, by definition. But setting that aside, every action
>> >by every government in the world involves redistributing wealth in a
>> >number of directions, including outside the country.
Capitalism does not contemplate "share-according-to-need," comrade.
>> In addition to his share-the-wealth, there is the elimination of
>> personal freedom. He's telling corporations how to run their
>> businesses. Next-up at bat, socialized medicine with loss of medical
>> privacy, and this will of course entail removal of our lifestyle
>> choices if we want to be treated. Hell, during the campaign he told
>> us to cut back on food so that there will be more for the 3rd world.
>> He wants loss of secret ballot regarding unionization (here comes Tony
>> Soprano). And wait'll ya get a load of the cap-and-trade costs.
>
>Them's some fine, vapid conservative talking points. Take 'em up in
>another thread.
I do.
>> >> He's angry;
>> >
>> >You're his shrink now? A psychic?
>>
>> Don't need to be Sigmund to see it.
>
>Whatever. Take it up in another thread.
I do.
>> >> believes that those who achieved wealth dis so on the back
>> >> of the underclass.
>> >
>> >(I'm sure you have a euphemism for this.)
>> >
>> >> Very 1965 Berkeley-ish.
>> >
>> >This is why I don't want to go into this. First, it's off topic. Second,
>> >there's clearly no interest in actually addressing the facts. It's
>> >easier to just toss out Fox-friendly catch-phrases.
>>
>> As opposed to Katie, Charlie, Brian, CNN (Castro's megaphone), major
>> dailies like the NYTimes AKA Pravda of the West, Time, Newsweek, NPR,
>> PBS and those other mainstream bastions of "objective" journalism.
>>
>> Yeah, I'll take Fox.
>>
>> >'Nuff said about that.
>
>Again: 'Nuff said.
Fox commentators shade right, just as practically all of the other
outlets shade left.
Difference is the journalism: Fox is balanced; the others are biased
left.
Talking about Usenet; talking about the MSM which condemns this nobody
while barely brushing Barry.
>> >Second, she's no longer a nobody, so long as attention-hogs and
>> >conservative hacks want to keep her from becoming one.
>>
>> Good.
>
>They'll fail soon enough.
The best thing about ol' fatso Rush is that your lot is for whatever
reason terrified of him ... a mere AM radio personality who doesn't
reach nearly as many as the left-biased MSM. Furthermore, he's just a
commentator, not a journalist who are supposed to report only when,
where, what, and how.
Just the facts, ma'am. But they shade the facts and often fail to
report what should be reported.
>> >And to say that Obama received and receives no flak is just plain
>> >*wrong*. I live in California; I remember the Prop. 8 campaign. I read
>> >the editorials. I heard the commentaries. I remember social
>> >conservatives trying to convince people that Obama supported Prop. 8.
>>
>> Obama skates. He lives a charmed existence thanks to the media and
>> the indoctrinated public.
>
>In this particular case, Obama understands the difference between
>personal beliefs and what should be law.
>
>That is all.
A true pol.
>> >It's just an amusing yet somewhat tiresome *fiction* that you treasure.
>>
>> You're the one on the kool-aid.
>
>Because you say so? I told you I have some issues with Obama's policies.
>I always have.
>
>Oops. Did you forget to ignore me that time?
>
>(Probably not.)
Yeah, you're pissed that he didn't bring the troops home Jan. 22.
>> >> Thou shalt not send any flak Barry's way -- 11th Commandment.
>> >
>> >Case in point.
>> >
>> >You and the TeeVee hacks can amuse yourselves by chanting that lie (long
>> >may it be useful), but it doesn't make it any less of a lie.
>
>> The bulk of the TV hax in the past 50 years have been from the left
>> side of the fence.
>
>Nice dodge. I repeat: You and the TeeVee hacks can amuse yourselves by
>chanting that lie (long may it be useful), but it doesn't make it any
>less of a lie.
The bulk of the TV hax are left: commentators like Chris "Obama makes
my legs tingle" Matthews, and, unfortunately, journalists.
Vladimir Tschenko
You're not getting through to the idiot.
Let Vladimir take over.
No One
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:43:01 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>ho...@home.net (Restless) writes:
>>> Read what I wrote and tell me what part you are having trouble
>>> grasping.
>>
>>What you are having trouble grasping is that religion, not race, is
>>the determining factor, and the high numbers for blacks simply reflects
>>the types of churches they attend. When you factor out religion,
>>the numbers for blacks supporting Proposition Eight are far lower.
>>
>>And the distinction really is important, regardless of your inability
>>to understand it - it tells you something useful about how to influence
>>voters when an initiative repealing Proposition Eight goes on the
>>ballot (assuming the California Supreme Court upholds Proposition
>>Eight).
>
> The reasoning is irrelevant.
??? We were talking about causes, not reasoning.
> If blacks are"religious" on the matter of homosexual unions, so be it.
Are you really that dense? The important factor was not race but
religion. It merely turns out that blacks are more religious than
the average over the U.S. population. It is being religious in
general, not "religious" on one issue.
BTW, the NAACP opposes Proposition Eight
(<http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_10712.php>).
Perhaps you can try to fit that fact into your "theory".
No One
>
> You're not getting through to the idiot.
>
> Let Vladimir take over.
You are an idiot.
Vladimir Tschenko
wrote:
Now let's see .... you queers ripped the Mormons who are by-and-large
white boys and girls for religious bigotry.
But not a peep against black fundies. Noooooooooo, can't do that;
can't attack a PC group, especially the pet minority group.
Chickenshits aincha.
655321
Similar, but not the same.
> Yet she is being excoriated here while nothing is said about Barry.
"Nothing is said"?
I call BS. Plenty was said. I was there. I heard it all.
But I've said this before. And you continue to repeat the lie.
What's your problem?
Yep.
> Same sentiments.
Not the same. I'll go with similar.
Look it up.
>>> The rest of it is playing politics.
>> No, that's YOU playing politics.
>
> No, Barry doesn't want to offend the queers and so he says that he
> won't legally oppose the unions.
Now you're being a psychic again. His stated position is tenable, and
lots of people share it.
I don't, but then I don't share his religious views, either.
> She's not in a political position and therefore doesn't care.
She has put herself in a political position by joining that group.
>>>>> Ergo, Trump's allusions to same not lame.
>>>> Sorry... totally lame.
>>> Nope, right on the money.
>> You can say it all you want; it doesn't make it true.
>
> Whether I say it .... it is true.
Or not.
In this case, not.
>>>>>>>>> Translation: Let's not criticize Obama; keep the Marxist dweeb
>>>>>>>>> isolated from criticism at all costs.
>>>>>>>> Criticizing the President is fine by me. The notion that supporters of
>>>>>>>> Obama cannot disagree with him is an invention by conservative hacks
>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> cannot handle having lost so severely in the last election cycle.
>>>>>>> Actually, conservatism didn't lose. That's the problem: there were no
>>>>>>> conservative candidates.
>>>>>> I didn't say conservatism lost. I said that conservative hacks lost.
>>>>>> They played the secret Mulsim card; they played the
>>>>>> radical-Wright-Christian card; they played the citizenship card; they
>>>>>> played the race card; they played the socialism card; they played the
>>>>>> fascism card; they played the terrorist-bump card; they played the
>>>>>> Harvard elitist card AND the "dirty nigger" card; they played the
>>>>>> experience card, they played the Arab card; they played the "community
>>>>>> organizer" card; they played the egghead card; they played the bad
>>>>>> bowler card...
>>>>> Pretty good cards.
>>>> Not if they fail.
>>> I was talking about their veracity.
>> But the bulk of them weren't even true.
>
> The bulk are true.
They aren't.
>>>>> Most of them veracious.
>>>> Most of them irrelevant and stupid, and shown to be so.
>>> To those who have drunk the Kool-Aid.
>> This is why I don't want to get into this with you. It's all about
>> baseless accusations and Fox-friendly news-bites.
>
> It's all about reality.
I know. That's my point.
>> "Drank the Kool-Aid"?
>>
>> Come on.
>>
>> What is that supposed to accomplish?
>
> drink, drank, have drunk.
How does it taste?
>>>>>> Never mind that many of the cards they played were false and/or
>>>>>> self-contradictory. They played them anyway, and they savored every
>>>>>> minute of it. And they failed miserably, on a national and regional
>>>>>> level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that's neither here nor there. My point was that one byproduct of
>>>>>> this *huge*, brutal loss despite such a MAJOR concerted effort by these
>>>>>> hacks to beat Obama is the creation of the *FICTION* that his supporters
>>>>>> see him as some sort of deity whose every thought, whose every fart
>>>>>> even, is made of spun gold encrusted with diamonds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet another card that these hacks (present company included) continue to
>>>>>> play.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And Queen Trump became one of those hacks by trying to drag Obama into
>>>>>> his defensive screed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? So people would pay more attention to him. It helps his enterprise,
>>>>>> part of which is Ms. CA.
>>>>> Why Obama won, in no particular order:
>>>> [snip off-topic speculation based on analytical bias]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, that's neither here nor there.
>>> Just true.
>> No, it's speculation based on bias. Which means it's likely untrue.
>
> Curious that the left has agreed with the "speculation" that you
> snipped.
I snipped it because it was speculative and off topic.
Wanna talk about it? Take it up in a different thread or with one of the
choir.
>>>>>>> Many true conservaties just could not hold their noses and vote for a
>>>>>>> liberal like McCain and so they stayed home.
>>>>>> Sounds like rationalization for failure to me. Where were the "true
>>>>>> conservatives" during the GOP primary?
>>>>> Where were the true condervative candidates?
>>>> It's not my job to make that call, is it? I'm certainly not what you
>>>> would call a conservative.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it your job to identify and support such a candidate, or at least
>>>> to point one out to me so I can take a gander at him or her and evaluate
>>>> his or her qualifications?
>>> The so-called conservatives caved. They went along to get along,
>>> e.g., the former conservative Lindsey Graham is bow Lindsey Gramnesty.
>> It's not my battle.
>
> But it's true.
Don't care. It's not my concern.
>> Conservative, like liberal, is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> Parameters can be demonstrated.
Yet the margins are fuzzy. Fiscal conservatives may disagree on other
issues. Social conservatives may have more liberal views on economic
matters.
>>>>>>> Might as well let the Marxist have it.
>>>>>> He's not a Marxist, but that's another topic. The topic here is a cadre
>>>>>> of self-victimizing, pseudo-disenfranchised pseudo-outsiders clutching
>>>>>> at straws like Ms. CA's confused rambling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If conservatives would let go of these stupid, superficial culture-war
>>>>>> symbols and focus directly on the issue of fiscal responsibility, they
>>>>>> wouldn't look like such hacks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it appears more fun for these hacks (and you, apparently) to trot
>>>>>> out a little-known Internet clown like Perez Hilton and pretend he's
>>>>>> more important than he actually is, and then try to link him to
>>>>>> President Obama by way of Queen Trump.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Crazy plot that. Just crazy enough to work!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ha!
>>>>> Of course he's a fucking Marxist. He has openly supported *global*
>>>>> redistribution of wealth.
>>>> Capitalism is that, by definition. But setting that aside, every action
>>>> by every government in the world involves redistributing wealth in a
>>>> number of directions, including outside the country.
>
> Capitalism does not contemplate "share-according-to-need," comrade.
Capitalism does not "contemplate" anything.
>>> In addition to his share-the-wealth, there is the elimination of
>>> personal freedom. He's telling corporations how to run their
>>> businesses. Next-up at bat, socialized medicine with loss of medical
>>> privacy, and this will of course entail removal of our lifestyle
>>> choices if we want to be treated. Hell, during the campaign he told
>>> us to cut back on food so that there will be more for the 3rd world.
>>> He wants loss of secret ballot regarding unionization (here comes Tony
>>> Soprano). And wait'll ya get a load of the cap-and-trade costs.
>> Them's some fine, vapid conservative talking points. Take 'em up in
>> another thread.
>
> I do.
Good. Have fun with that.
>>>>> He's angry;
>>>> You're his shrink now? A psychic?
>>> Don't need to be Sigmund to see it.
>> Whatever. Take it up in another thread.
>
> I do.
Good. Have fun with that.
>>>>> believes that those who achieved wealth dis so on the back
>>>>> of the underclass.
>>>> (I'm sure you have a euphemism for this.)
>>>>
>>>>> Very 1965 Berkeley-ish.
>>>> This is why I don't want to go into this. First, it's off topic. Second,
>>>> there's clearly no interest in actually addressing the facts. It's
>>>> easier to just toss out Fox-friendly catch-phrases.
>>> As opposed to Katie, Charlie, Brian, CNN (Castro's megaphone), major
>>> dailies like the NYTimes AKA Pravda of the West, Time, Newsweek, NPR,
>>> PBS and those other mainstream bastions of "objective" journalism.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I'll take Fox.
>>>
>>>> 'Nuff said about that.
>> Again: 'Nuff said.
>
> Fox commentators shade right, just as practically all of the other
> outlets shade left.
>
> Difference is the journalism: Fox is balanced; the others are biased
> left.
To be honest, not much real *journalism* is done by *any* of the TeeVee
outlets. Squawking heads are cheaper and, for some reason, retain larger
audiences.
I don't see any of them as "balanced," whatever you might mean by that.
There's what happened, and what people will say about what happened.
Again. This "nobody" is being propped up by certain, er, interests who
want to lionize her, and she's sucking it up.
Of *course* she is going to be investigated; there is some short-term
sensationalism there. The result of said investigation? Soft-core porn
and rule-breaking. None of which could be blamed on the MSM.
On the other hand, Obama made some comments LAST NOVEMBER (forever ago
in news-cycle terms) about his mixed feelings about same-sex marriage.
His comments DID generate a reaction, as I have said, but just not the
lasting, knee-jerk reaction folks like you and Queen Trump are hoping
for NOW, so you selectively blame the MSM for not returning to that old
story.
Simply put:
Sexy, seminude pictures of a newly-minted conservative icon make a story
HOT.
Months-old statements by a political figure about the conflict between
his personal feelings and his opinion regarding public policy make a
story, well, kinda dusty and moth-eaten.
>>>> Second, she's no longer a nobody, so long as attention-hogs and
>>>> conservative hacks want to keep her from becoming one.
>>> Good.
>> They'll fail soon enough.
>
> The best thing about ol' fatso Rush is that your lot is for whatever
> reason terrified of him
Yeah... we are laughing in terror.
Not.
The fear is coming from Republican politicians, who seem to be taking
cues from him.
> ... a mere AM radio personality who doesn't
> reach nearly as many as the left-biased MSM.
One wonders why the RNC cares so much about what he has to say.
> Furthermore, he's just a
> commentator, not a journalist who are supposed to report only when,
> where, what, and how.
I agree with the above, but the only people who seem to fear him are
those who need his endorsement.
> Just the facts, ma'am. But they shade the facts and often fail to
> report what should be reported.
>
>>>> And to say that Obama received and receives no flak is just plain
>>>> *wrong*. I live in California; I remember the Prop. 8 campaign. I read
>>>> the editorials. I heard the commentaries. I remember social
>>>> conservatives trying to convince people that Obama supported Prop. 8.
>>> Obama skates. He lives a charmed existence thanks to the media and
>>> the indoctrinated public.
>> In this particular case, Obama understands the difference between
>> personal beliefs and what should be law.
>>
>> That is all.
>
> A true pol.
A sensible person. An adult. Someone who appreciates that the world
should not revolve around his own feelings.
Don't you have personal feelings that you don't think should be
translated into legislation?
>>>> It's just an amusing yet somewhat tiresome *fiction* that you treasure.
>>> You're the one on the kool-aid.
>> Because you say so? I told you I have some issues with Obama's policies.
>> I always have.
>>
>> Oops. Did you forget to ignore me that time?
>>
>> (Probably not.)
>
> Yeah, you're pissed that he didn't bring the troops home Jan. 22.
So you are admitting you *did* ignore me before.
>>>>> Thou shalt not send any flak Barry's way -- 11th Commandment.
>>>> Case in point.
>>>>
>>>> You and the TeeVee hacks can amuse yourselves by chanting that lie (long
>>>> may it be useful), but it doesn't make it any less of a lie.
>>> The bulk of the TV hax in the past 50 years have been from the left
>>> side of the fence.
>> Nice dodge. I repeat: You and the TeeVee hacks can amuse yourselves by
>> chanting that lie (long may it be useful), but it doesn't make it any
>> less of a lie.
>
> The bulk of the TV hax are left: commentators like Chris "Obama makes
> my legs tingle" Matthews, and, unfortunately, journalists.
Or, facts have a liberal bias.
;-)
--
655321
Restless
<Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
Same sentiments.
>> Yet she is being excoriated here while nothing is said about Barry.
>
>"Nothing is said"?
What I said.
>I call BS. Plenty was said. I was there. I heard it all.
Cite.
>But I've said this before. And you continue to repeat the lie.
Cite.
>What's your problem?
No problem.
Nope.
>> Same sentiments.
>
>Not the same. I'll go with similar.
>
>Look it up.
Same sentiments.
>>>> The rest of it is playing politics.
>>> No, that's YOU playing politics.
>>
>> No, Barry doesn't want to offend the queers and so he says that he
>> won't legally oppose the unions.
>
>Now you're being a psychic again. His stated position is tenable, and
>lots of people share it.
>
>I don't, but then I don't share his religious views, either.
He has the same sentiments on the issue as Miss Calif.
>> She's not in a political position and therefore doesn't care.
>
>She has put herself in a political position by joining that group.
She has no power to set policy.
>>>>>> Ergo, Trump's allusions to same not lame.
>>>>> Sorry... totally lame.
>>>> Nope, right on the money.
>>> You can say it all you want; it doesn't make it true.
>>
>> Whether I say it .... it is true.
>
>Or not.
>
>In this case, not.
Nope. What I say is true.
>>>>>>>>>> Translation: Let's not criticize Obama; keep the Marxist dweeb
>>>>>>>>>> isolated from criticism at all costs.
>>>>>>>>> Criticizing the President is fine by me. The notion that supporters of
>>>>>>>>> Obama cannot disagree with him is an invention by conservative hacks
>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>> cannot handle having lost so severely in the last election cycle.
>>>>>>>> Actually, conservatism didn't lose. That's the problem: there were no
>>>>>>>> conservative candidates.
>>>>>>> I didn't say conservatism lost. I said that conservative hacks lost.
>>>>>>> They played the secret Mulsim card; they played the
>>>>>>> radical-Wright-Christian card; they played the citizenship card; they
>>>>>>> played the race card; they played the socialism card; they played the
>>>>>>> fascism card; they played the terrorist-bump card; they played the
>>>>>>> Harvard elitist card AND the "dirty nigger" card; they played the
>>>>>>> experience card, they played the Arab card; they played the "community
>>>>>>> organizer" card; they played the egghead card; they played the bad
>>>>>>> bowler card...
>>>>>> Pretty good cards.
>>>>> Not if they fail.
>>>> I was talking about their veracity.
>>> But the bulk of them weren't even true.
>>
>> The bulk are true.
>
>They aren't.
Yes they are.
>>>>>> Most of them veracious.
>>>>> Most of them irrelevant and stupid, and shown to be so.
>>>> To those who have drunk the Kool-Aid.
>>> This is why I don't want to get into this with you. It's all about
>>> baseless accusations and Fox-friendly news-bites.
>>
>> It's all about reality.
>
>I know. That's my point.
Then you agree.
>>> "Drank the Kool-Aid"?
>>>
>>> Come on.
>>>
>>> What is that supposed to accomplish?
>>
>> drink, drank, have drunk.
>
>How does it taste?
Didn't drink any.
>>>>>>> Never mind that many of the cards they played were false and/or
>>>>>>> self-contradictory. They played them anyway, and they savored every
>>>>>>> minute of it. And they failed miserably, on a national and regional
>>>>>>> level.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that's neither here nor there. My point was that one byproduct of
>>>>>>> this *huge*, brutal loss despite such a MAJOR concerted effort by these
>>>>>>> hacks to beat Obama is the creation of the *FICTION* that his supporters
>>>>>>> see him as some sort of deity whose every thought, whose every fart
>>>>>>> even, is made of spun gold encrusted with diamonds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet another card that these hacks (present company included) continue to
>>>>>>> play.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And Queen Trump became one of those hacks by trying to drag Obama into
>>>>>>> his defensive screed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why? So people would pay more attention to him. It helps his enterprise,
>>>>>>> part of which is Ms. CA.
>>>>>> Why Obama won, in no particular order:
>>>>> [snip off-topic speculation based on analytical bias]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, that's neither here nor there.
>>>> Just true.
>>> No, it's speculation based on bias. Which means it's likely untrue.
>>
>> Curious that the left has agreed with the "speculation" that you
>> snipped.
>
>I snipped it because it was speculative and off topic.
No one disputes the reasons you snipped.
>Wanna talk about it? Take it up in a different thread or with one of the
>choir.
I have. Often.
]
>>>>>>>> Many true conservaties just could not hold their noses and vote for a
>>>>>>>> liberal like McCain and so they stayed home.
>>>>>>> Sounds like rationalization for failure to me. Where were the "true
>>>>>>> conservatives" during the GOP primary?
>>>>>> Where were the true condervative candidates?
>>>>> It's not my job to make that call, is it? I'm certainly not what you
>>>>> would call a conservative.
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it your job to identify and support such a candidate, or at least
>>>>> to point one out to me so I can take a gander at him or her and evaluate
>>>>> his or her qualifications?
>>>> The so-called conservatives caved. They went along to get along,
>>>> e.g., the former conservative Lindsey Graham is bow Lindsey Gramnesty.
>>> It's not my battle.
>>
>> But it's true.
>
>Don't care. It's not my concern.
So-called conservatives have become wimps.
>>> Conservative, like liberal, is in the eye of the beholder.
>>
>> Parameters can be demonstrated.
>
>Yet the margins are fuzzy. Fiscal conservatives may disagree on other
>issues. Social conservatives may have more liberal views on economic
>matters.
No one individual is 100% conservative or liberal.
Parameters can still be demonstrated.
>>>>>>>> Might as well let the Marxist have it.
>>>>>>> He's not a Marxist, but that's another topic. The topic here is a cadre
>>>>>>> of self-victimizing, pseudo-disenfranchised pseudo-outsiders clutching
>>>>>>> at straws like Ms. CA's confused rambling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If conservatives would let go of these stupid, superficial culture-war
>>>>>>> symbols and focus directly on the issue of fiscal responsibility, they
>>>>>>> wouldn't look like such hacks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it appears more fun for these hacks (and you, apparently) to trot
>>>>>>> out a little-known Internet clown like Perez Hilton and pretend he's
>>>>>>> more important than he actually is, and then try to link him to
>>>>>>> President Obama by way of Queen Trump.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Crazy plot that. Just crazy enough to work!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ha!
>>>>>> Of course he's a fucking Marxist. He has openly supported *global*
>>>>>> redistribution of wealth.
>>>>> Capitalism is that, by definition. But setting that aside, every action
>>>>> by every government in the world involves redistributing wealth in a
>>>>> number of directions, including outside the country.
>>
>> Capitalism does not contemplate "share-according-to-need," comrade.
>
>Capitalism does not "contemplate" anything.
anything to do with "share-according-to-need."
>>>> In addition to his share-the-wealth, there is the elimination of
>>>> personal freedom. He's telling corporations how to run their
>>>> businesses. Next-up at bat, socialized medicine with loss of medical
>>>> privacy, and this will of course entail removal of our lifestyle
>>>> choices if we want to be treated. Hell, during the campaign he told
>>>> us to cut back on food so that there will be more for the 3rd world.
>>>> He wants loss of secret ballot regarding unionization (here comes Tony
>>>> Soprano). And wait'll ya get a load of the cap-and-trade costs.
>>> Them's some fine, vapid conservative talking points. Take 'em up in
>>> another thread.
>>
>> I do.
>
>Good. Have fun with that.
I do.
>>>>>> He's angry;
>>>>> You're his shrink now? A psychic?
>>>> Don't need to be Sigmund to see it.
>>> Whatever. Take it up in another thread.
>>
>> I do.
>
>Good. Have fun with that.
I do.
>>>>>> believes that those who achieved wealth dis so on the back
>>>>>> of the underclass.
>>>>> (I'm sure you have a euphemism for this.)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Very 1965 Berkeley-ish.
>>>>> This is why I don't want to go into this. First, it's off topic. Second,
>>>>> there's clearly no interest in actually addressing the facts. It's
>>>>> easier to just toss out Fox-friendly catch-phrases.
>>>> As opposed to Katie, Charlie, Brian, CNN (Castro's megaphone), major
>>>> dailies like the NYTimes AKA Pravda of the West, Time, Newsweek, NPR,
>>>> PBS and those other mainstream bastions of "objective" journalism.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I'll take Fox.
>>>>
>>>>> 'Nuff said about that.
>>> Again: 'Nuff said.
>>
>> Fox commentators shade right, just as practically all of the other
>> outlets shade left.
>>
>> Difference is the journalism: Fox is balanced; the others are biased
>> left.
>
>To be honest, not much real *journalism* is done by *any* of the TeeVee
>outlets. Squawking heads are cheaper and, for some reason, retain larger
>audiences.
>
>I don't see any of them as "balanced," whatever you might mean by that.
>There's what happened, and what people will say about what happened.
They are balanced in reporting what, who, why, and when.
As for the MSM. it's not just how they report but also what they don't
report, e.g., hate crimes by "protected" minority groups.
Truly a double std.
Let her enjoy it while she can.
>Of *course* she is going to be investigated; there is some short-term
>sensationalism there. The result of said investigation? Soft-core porn
>and rule-breaking. None of which could be blamed on the MSM.
Yeah, they'll probably micro-scrutinize her a la Palin and Joe the
Plumber.
>On the other hand, Obama made some comments LAST NOVEMBER (forever ago
>in news-cycle terms) about his mixed feelings about same-sex marriage.
Now there's a boy who needs a little more scrutiny.
Won't happen, though.
>His comments DID generate a reaction, as I have said, but just not the
>lasting, knee-jerk reaction folks like you and Queen Trump are hoping
>for NOW, so you selectively blame the MSM for not returning to that old
>story.
>
>Simply put:
>
>Sexy, seminude pictures of a newly-minted conservative icon make a story
>HOT.
>
>Months-old statements by a political figure about the conflict between
>his personal feelings and his opinion regarding public policy make a
>story, well, kinda dusty and moth-eaten.
Truly a double-std. the way the left and its shill media protects him.
>>>>> Second, she's no longer a nobody, so long as attention-hogs and
>>>>> conservative hacks want to keep her from becoming one.
>>>> Good.
>>> They'll fail soon enough.
>>
>> The best thing about ol' fatso Rush is that your lot is for whatever
>> reason terrified of him
>
>Yeah... we are laughing in terror.
>
>Not.
Even Obama the CIC gets nervous about ol' Fatso.
>The fear is coming from Republican politicians, who seem to be taking
>cues from him.
On what planet? The Repubs are rubber-legged, cave-in, go along to
get along wimps.
Other than Cheney ... who's not in a position to do anything.
>> ... a mere AM radio personality who doesn't
>> reach nearly as many as the left-biased MSM.
>
>One wonders why the RNC cares so much about what he has to say.
They don't.
Ever hear Michael Steele fawn over the race hustling John Holder?
>> Furthermore, he's just a
>> commentator, not a journalist who are supposed to report only when,
>> where, what, and how.
>
>I agree with the above, but the only people who seem to fear him are
>those who need his endorsement.
The left doesn't need his endorsement.
Dumbass.
>> Just the facts, ma'am. But they shade the facts and often fail to
>> report what should be reported.
>>
>>>>> And to say that Obama received and receives no flak is just plain
>>>>> *wrong*. I live in California; I remember the Prop. 8 campaign. I read
>>>>> the editorials. I heard the commentaries. I remember social
>>>>> conservatives trying to convince people that Obama supported Prop. 8.
>>>> Obama skates. He lives a charmed existence thanks to the media and
>>>> the indoctrinated public.
>>> In this particular case, Obama understands the difference between
>>> personal beliefs and what should be law.
>>>
>>> That is all.
>>
>> A true pol.
>
>A sensible person. An adult. Someone who appreciates that the world
>should not revolve around his own feelings.
>Don't you have personal feelings that you don't think should be
>translated into legislation?
He's a pol.
Speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
>
>>>>> It's just an amusing yet somewhat tiresome *fiction* that you treasure.
>>>> You're the one on the kool-aid.
>>> Because you say so? I told you I have some issues with Obama's policies.
>>> I always have.
>>>
>>> Oops. Did you forget to ignore me that time?
>>>
>>> (Probably not.)
>>
>> Yeah, you're pissed that he didn't bring the troops home Jan. 22.
>
>So you are admitting you *did* ignore me before.
Huh?
>>>>>> Thou shalt not send any flak Barry's way -- 11th Commandment.
>>>>> Case in point.
>>>>>
>>>>> You and the TeeVee hacks can amuse yourselves by chanting that lie (long
>>>>> may it be useful), but it doesn't make it any less of a lie.
>>>> The bulk of the TV hax in the past 50 years have been from the left
>>>> side of the fence.
>>> Nice dodge. I repeat: You and the TeeVee hacks can amuse yourselves by
>>> chanting that lie (long may it be useful), but it doesn't make it any
>>> less of a lie.
>>
>> The bulk of the TV hax are left: commentators like Chris "Obama makes
>> my legs tingle" Matthews, and, unfortunately, journalists.
>
>Or, facts have a liberal bias.
Facts have no bias .... except in the MSM.
>;-)
>--
>655321
Guillaume de Normandie
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 08:38:37 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >h...@home.net (Restless) writes:
>
> >> On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:43:01 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>> Read what I wrote and tell me what part you are having trouble
> >>>> grasping.
>
> >>>What you are having trouble grasping is that religion, not race, is
> >>>the determining factor, and the high numbers for blacks simply reflects
> >>>the types of churches they attend. When you factor out religion,
> >>>the numbers for blacks supporting Proposition Eight are far lower.
>
> >>>And the distinction really is important, regardless of your inability
> >>>to understand it - it tells you something useful about how to influence
> >>>voters when an initiative repealing Proposition Eight goes on the
> >>>ballot (assuming the California Supreme Court upholds Proposition
> >>>Eight).
>
> >> The reasoning is irrelevant.
>
> >??? We were talking about causes, not reasoning.
>
> >> If blacks are"religious" on the matter of homosexual unions, so be it.
>
> >Are you really that dense? The important factor was not race but
> >religion. It merely turns out that blacks are more religious than
> >the average over the U.S. population. It is being religious in
> >general, not "religious" on one issue.
>
> >BTW, the NAACP opposes Proposition Eight
> >(<http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_10712.php>).
> >Perhaps you can try to fit that fact into your "theory".
>
> Now let's see .... you queers ripped the Mormons who are by-and-large
> white boys and girls for religious bigotry.
We're still ripping them. But in reality -- in the real world --
believe it or not, individual Mormons are coming around.
> But not a peep against black fundies. Noooooooooo, can't do that;
> can't attack a PC group, especially the pet minority group.
As with the Mormons, we wish this group to understand that their
religious beliefs are personal to them, and should not be forced on
everyone else in society.
This group is particular creates such a paradox that even those who
study this population can't quite figure it out. But rest assured:
the answer is religious in nature, just as it is with all who are anti-
gay, whether they claim to subscribe to a religious belief or not.
Doc Dice
Who's "we" fag boy"
You and your hiv infection?
zr1...@sbcglobal.net
> Miss California has complete and utter freedom of expression. People
> may disagree with her, say mean things about her, or even be angry at
> her. That's THEIR freedom of expression.
>
> Miss California also has the freedom to marry. She can join the
> military, if she wants. Her civil rights - as a woman, and as a member
> of her religion - are guaranteed by federal law. So I'm not too
> worried about her. She has full and equal rights under the law.
>
> Gays do not. And that's the heart of the matter. Why should gays - or
> anybody - be required to "support" someone who is opposed to them
> having equal rights under the law? They should (and mainly do) support
> her freedom of expression, of course. But why should they raise one
> finger to support her, when she wants them to remain second-class
> citizens by law?
>
> Miss California has also gotten more publicity and more support by
> coming out against equality than she ever would have by winning the
> crown. Speaking engagements; a book deal to come, I bet - she and her
> entourage should be thrilled at the criticism directed at her, since
> it is making her famous and rich.
>
> The right-wing religious branch of this country loves their martyrs.
> Miss California is doing just fine; she is being celebrated by anti-
> gay groups everywhere. She should try being gay for a couple of months
> - then she might find out a little bit about what not having rights is
> all about.
>
> I will add: Perez Hilton should not have been selected as a judge for
> the Miss USA contest. Not because he's gay, but because he made his
> "reputation" (such as it is) by being crude, vulgar, and mean-
> spirited. He is a jerk and does not speak for all gays by any means.
> He should never have called Miss California a "dumb bitch," which is
> both rude and gives her more attention and credibility than she
> deserves.
>
> But that's why he was picked, wasn't he? To do something outrageous
> and get headlines for the contest. This couldn't have worked better if
> he, Miss California, and Donald Trump had gotten together and worked
> it all out in advance. I notice that Trump, while announcing that Miss
> CA gets to keep her title, said that Hilton would be invited back to
> judge. Why not? It's good for the careers of all three of them.
>
> It's not good for gay people, and entirely distorts the marriage
> equality question - but it's great show business!
Heres some info for ya
No One
> Now let's see .... you queers ripped the Mormons who are by-and-large
> white boys and girls for religious bigotry.
Lying idiot.
The moron thinks anyone who disagrees him is "queer" and lies about
why the Mormons were being criticized - the issue being questionable
ways of making fundraising to support a political campaign tax free.
Abby Normal
bimbo beauty queen or some bottom feeding gossip blogger thinks?
Unless they are going to face each other in Thunderdome that is. My
money is on the bimbo, she looks scrappy!
Vladimir Tschenko
wrote:
>n...@work.org (Vladimir Tschenko) writes:
You fellows tore the hell out of the Mormons.
As for blacks, many of them have converted to Islam and we know how
Islam feels about homosexualss. In fact, under Sharia law, they are
put to death.
Let's hear some criticism of the Muzzies as well as the Christian
fundy blacks.
Nooooooooooo. Can't do that can we?
Restless
wrote:
> It merely turns out that blacks are more religious than
>the average over the U.S. population.
Cites?
And if so, why aren't you protesting that their religious beliefs deny
you civil rights and equality?
zr1...@sbcglobal.net
Dont worry Abby, you can take her and If I were to choose you or her
to keep I would pick you. Lucky you huh. Ill bet she is way to foofy
for my taste.
Syd
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 20:16:21 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >h...@home.net (Restless) writes:
>
> >> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:54:31 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>Here...@Home.org (Let It Rock) writes:
>
> >>>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:27:40 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>All that happened is that *one judge* in a beauty contest asked
> >>>>>her a question
>
> >>>> One faggot judge who already knew of her mindset on faggotry.
>
>
> >> Nigrahs in the 2008 election denied homosexual marriages.
>
> >> Whatchoo think of that, Percy?
>
> >Idiot.
>
> The uncomfortable politically-incorrect truth makes them run away.
Too bad you've failed to post any 'truth', bigot.
PDW
Vladimir Tschenko
wrote:
>On May 13, 8:00=A0am, h...@home.net (Restless) wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 20:16:21 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >h...@home.net (Restless) writes:
>>
>> >> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:54:31 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>>Here...@Home.org (Let It Rock) writes:
>>
>> >>>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:27:40 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net=
>>
>> >>>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>All that happened is that *one judge* in a beauty contest asked
>> >>>>>her a question
>>
>> >>>> One faggot judge who already knew of her mindset on faggotry.
>>
>> >>>The judge's sexual orientation is not relevant.
>>
>> >> Nigrahs in the 2008 election denied homosexual marriages.
>>
>> >> Whatchoo think of that, Percy?
>>
>> >Idiot.
>>
>> The uncomfortable politically-incorrect truth makes them run away.
>
>Too bad you've failed to post any 'truth', bigot.
As long as you keep drinking the Obammy Kool-Aid, you'll be too
intoxicated to see the truth, Ruth.
No One
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 12:55:29 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>n...@work.org (Vladimir Tschenko) writes:
>>
>>> Now let's see .... you queers ripped the Mormons who are by-and-large
>>> white boys and girls for religious bigotry.
>>
>>Lying idiot.
>>
>>The moron thinks anyone who disagrees him is "queer" and lies about
>>why the Mormons were being criticized - the issue being questionable
>>ways of making fundraising to support a political campaign tax free.
>
> You fellows tore the hell out of the Mormons.
Lying idiot.
<rest of nonsense ignored>
Ray Fischer
>On Thu, 14 May 2009 12:55:29 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>wrote:
>
>>n...@work.org (Vladimir Tschenko) writes:
>>
>>> Now let's see .... you queers ripped the Mormons who are by-and-large
>>> white boys and girls for religious bigotry.
>>
>>Lying idiot.
>>
>>The moron thinks anyone who disagrees him is "queer" and lies about
>>why the Mormons were being criticized - the issue being questionable
>>ways of making fundraising to support a political campaign tax free.
>
>You fellows tore the hell out of the Mormons.
You nazis killed a bunch of Jews.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Vladimir
wrote:
>n...@work.org (Vladimir Tschenko) writes:
>
>> On Thu, 14 May 2009 12:55:29 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>n...@work.org (Vladimir Tschenko) writes:
>>>
>>>> Now let's see .... you queers ripped the Mormons who are by-and-large
>>>> white boys and girls for religious bigotry.
>>>
>>>Lying idiot.
>>>
>>>The moron thinks anyone who disagrees him is "queer" and lies about
>>>why the Mormons were being criticized - the issue being questionable
>>>ways of making fundraising to support a political campaign tax free.
>>
>> You fellows tore the hell out of the Mormons.
>
>Lying idiot.
>
><rest of nonsense ignored>
Oh oh.
Pansy is running.
This one didn't last too long.
Vladimir
Actually, my dad killed lots of nazis, and scored two Purple Hearts
and a Bronze Star in the process so that anti-American socialists like
you would be free to run your mouths.
No One
Restless
This is the marshmallow who lasts about 3 posts, then snips without
refuting, hiding his head in the sand, and then runs away altogether.
They don't make liberals like they used to, Vlad. Can't even keep up
with an old fart like you.
No One
The trolls are mad because people aren't taking their rantings seriously
and wasting time on them.
Restless
wrote:
>ho...@home.net (Restless) writes:
Smells like a cop out.
Heh.
Syd
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:13:52 -0700 (PDT), Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com>
Nope.
I'm not the one posting lies and bigotry, sport.
PDW
Restless
wrote:
>I'm not the one posting lies and bigotry, sport.
You're the one reading the lies in the mainstream media, cupcake.
The things you don�t read about Barack Obama
Sat. May 2 - 5:46 AM
(...)
So here is a small selection of news on the most powerful man on Earth
which has been deemed unfit to print:
�Obama�s first two major bills alone, the "stimulus" and "omnibus,"
cost nearly twice as much as was spent on Iraq over six years � $1.2
trillion vs. $650 billion.
�Obama abandoned his campaign promise of "a net spending cut," his
first annual deficit � not counting bailouts � being three times the
worst deficit under President George W. Bush.
�Obama�s objective in his first G20 summit � commitments to spend our
way to prosperity with massive stimulus boondoggles across the G20 �
was rejected out of hand.
�Obama�s objective in his first NATO summit � commitments to combat
troops for Afghanistan from "our European allies," which Obama and his
party imagined were ready and willing to fight if only someone
"enlightened" like him were running things � was predictably refused,
with some more European non-combat contingents offered as a token.
�Obama�s Defence Department announced cuts of $1.4 billion to missile
defence, the day after North Korea test-fired its long-range,
multi-stage ballistic missile.
�Obama�s economics were criticized by Warren Buffet, whose endorsement
had been candidate Obama�s highest economic credential.
�Obama reversed the free trade Bush policy that had allowed about 100
Mexican tractor-trailers into the United States, which the Mexican
government immediately used as an excuse to levy tariffs on 90
American goods amounting to $2.4 billion in U.S. exports.
�Obama�s "tax cuts for 95 per cent" turned out to mean $13 a week from
June to December, to be clawed back to $8 a week in January � as
compared with President Bush�s 2008 tax rebates of $600 to $1,200 plus
$300 per child, which were notably scoffed at during the election
campaign by Michelle Obama.
�Obama�s campaign promise of a $3,000-per-employee tax credit for
businesses that hired new workers � repeated ad nauseam for weeks
before the election � was discreetly retired even before inauguration
day.
�Obama abandoned his campaign promise that "lobbyists won�t work in my
White House," waiving his no-lobbyist executive order or conveniently
re-defining his appointees� past lobbying work to allow 30 lobbyists
into his administration.
�Obama abandoned his campaign promise to reform earmarks, signing the
omnibus bill which contained 8,816 of them.
�Obama took more money from AIG than any other politician in 2008 �
over $100,000 � and signed into law the provision guaranteeing the AIG
bonuses which later had him in front of the cameras "shaking with
outrage" and siccing the pitchfork crowd on law-abiding citizens who
had fulfilled their end of a contract and had their payment upheld by
Obama�s own legislation.
Why should these points, and many more like them, have to be made by
some obscure contributor to The Chronicle Herald�s opinion pages?
Fox News Channel is the butt of jokes and the target of attacks like
no other media outlet in the English-speaking world, not least by
people who fancy themselves the guardians of a free press. But Fox
News is today the lone television news service in the English-speaking
world capable of serious skepticism and scrutiny of the sitting
president and the Congress of the United States.
Fox News is also the second most-watched channel in all American cable
television. It long ago became by far the most-watched cable news
channel; more Americans watched Fox News than CNN and MSNBC combined
in every time slot from 6 a.m. to midnight in April. Now, while The
New York Times is $1.3 billion in debt, Fox has expanded its
operations with a business channel and a juggernaut Internet presence.
There�s a lesson there, though Fox News will be just as well pleased
if the impeccably "mainstream" news business remains clueless about
it.
The people need a Fourth Estate, not yet another adulator of Barack
Obama, yet another smearer of Sarah Palin, yet another patrician
editor to keep out anything disagreeable to progressive sensibilities,
yet another laptop-and-latte journalism-schooler to spit on everything
pre-dating 1968. And they wonder why the news business has come on
hard times.
No One
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 08:10:00 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>ho...@home.net (Restless) writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 11:14:44 GMT, he...@home.net (Vladimir) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>This one didn't last too long.
>>>
>>> This is the marshmallow who lasts about 3 posts, then snips without
>>> refuting, hiding his head in the sand, and then runs away altogether.
>>>
>>> They don't make liberals like they used to, Vlad. Can't even keep up
>>> with an old fart like you.
>>
>>The trolls are mad because people aren't taking their rantings seriously
>>and wasting time on them.
>
> Smells like a cop out.
> Heh.
Idiots.
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Vladimir Tschenko <n...@work.org> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 14 May 2009 12:55:29 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>n...@work.org (Vladimir Tschenko) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Now let's see .... you queers ripped the Mormons who are by-and-large
>>>>> white boys and girls for religious bigotry.
>>>>
>>>>Lying idiot.
>>>>
>>>>The moron thinks anyone who disagrees him is "queer" and lies about
>>>>why the Mormons were being criticized - the issue being questionable
>>>>ways of making fundraising to support a political campaign tax free.
>>>
>>>You fellows tore the hell out of the Mormons.
>>
>>You nazis killed a bunch of Jews.
>
>Actually, my dad killed lots of nazis, and scored two Purple Hearts
Nothing like the Big Lie in order to divert from your anti-American racism.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> Syd <pdwri...@yahoo.com>
>>I'm not the one posting lies and bigotry, sport.
>
>You're the one reading the lies in the mainstream media, cupcake.
You are.
>The things you don�t read about Barack Obama
>
>Sat. May 2 - 5:46 AM
>
>(...)
>
>So here is a small selection of news on the most powerful man on Earth
>which has been deemed unfit to print:
>
>�Obama�s first two major bills alone, the "stimulus" and "omnibus,"
>cost nearly twice as much as was spent on Iraq over six years � $1.2
>trillion vs. $650 billion.
Typical of the rightard to lie and deceive.
1) The wars cost is up to about $900 billion and it is money that will
never be repaid.
2) The stimulus spending, which is needed because of rightard
corruption, may be repaid because it has bought equity in many
corporations.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Vladimir Tschenko
You white niggers think you're scoring points with blacks.
You aren't.
They laugh at you behind your backs.
Vladimir Tschenko
Keynesian exuberance for the powers of stimulating demand or the
'consumer' has been in vogue since the 1930s. It is sheer nonsense
which is taught in every school across the globe. Keynesian economics
is little more than intellectual pablum used by those in power or by a
technocratic and largely illiterate elite to increase their power;
enhance government; print money and otherwise destroy normal economic
relationships. Keynes' theory, so believed by professors is in
practice a disaster.
Keynes was a left wing wall flower and a member of the deranged
Bloomsbury group of inter-World War British pacifists. He was an
arrogant theorist who truly believed in the magical elixir of large
government and in the technocratic dream of controlling billions of
personal, business and economic decisions, to programmatically
construct a perfect world order. Keynes gave intellect and jargon
filled cover and rationale to politicians and demagogues who would
cite his book, 'The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money',
to justify state interventionism.
And just today Obama is moaning about the debt. Too late, Barry,
should have thought of that before you're massive spending.
Ray Fischer
>On 15 May 2009 17:49:47 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Vladimir <he...@home.net> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>Vladimir Tschenko <n...@work.org> wrote:
>>>>>On Thu, 14 May 2009 12:55:29 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>n...@work.org (Vladimir Tschenko) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now let's see .... you queers ripped the Mormons who are by-and-large
>>>>>>> white boys and girls for religious bigotry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Lying idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The moron thinks anyone who disagrees him is "queer" and lies about
>>>>>>why the Mormons were being criticized - the issue being questionable
>>>>>>ways of making fundraising to support a political campaign tax free.
>>>>>
>>>>>You fellows tore the hell out of the Mormons.
>>>>
>>>>You nazis killed a bunch of Jews.
>>>
>>>Actually, my dad killed lots of nazis, and scored two Purple Hearts
>>
>>Nothing like the Big Lie in order to divert from your anti-American racism.
>
>You white niggers
You America-hating turds do more damage to this country than any
terrorist ever did.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Obamammy embraces Keynes; it doesn't work.
Racist neonazi changes the subject when confronted with the fact that
it's the corruption of the rightards that has produced the current
recession.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Syd
> On 15 May 2009 17:49:47 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>
>
> >Vladimir <h...@home.net> wrote:
> >> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >>>Vladimir Tschenko <n...@work.org> wrote:
> >>>>On Thu, 14 May 2009 12:55:29 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> >>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>n...@work.org (Vladimir Tschenko) writes:
>
> >>>>>> Now let's see .... you queers ripped the Mormons who are by-and-large
> >>>>>> white boys and girls for religious bigotry.
>
> >>>>>Lying idiot.
>
> >>>>>The moron thinks anyone who disagrees him is "queer" and lies about
> >>>>>why the Mormons were being criticized - the issue being questionable
> >>>>>ways of making fundraising to support a political campaign tax free.
>
> >>>>You fellows tore the hell out of the Mormons.
>
> >>>You nazis killed a bunch of Jews.
>
> >>Actually, my dad killed lots of nazis, and scored two Purple Hearts
>
> >Nothing like the Big Lie in order to divert from your anti-American racism.
>
> You white niggers think you're scoring points with blacks.
>
Boy, it didn't take long for you to reveal yourself, did it, bigot?
PDW
Vladimir
wrote:
>On May 15, 2:01=A0pm, n...@work.org (Vladimir Tschenko) wrote:
>> On 15 May 2009 17:49:47 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Vladimir <h...@home.net> wrote:
>> >> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >>>Vladimir Tschenko <n...@work.org> wrote:
>> >>>>On Thu, 14 May 2009 12:55:29 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>> >>>>wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>n...@work.org (Vladimir Tschenko) writes:
>>
>> >>>>>> Now let's see .... you queers ripped the Mormons who are by-and-la=
>rge
>> >>>>>> white boys and girls for religious bigotry.
>>
>> >>>>>Lying idiot.
>>
>> >>>>>The moron thinks anyone who disagrees him is "queer" and lies about
>> >>>>>why the Mormons were being criticized - the issue being questionable
>> >>>>>ways of making fundraising to support a political campaign tax free.
>>
>> >>>>You fellows tore the hell out of the Mormons.
>>
>> >>>You nazis killed a bunch of Jews.
>>
>> >>Actually, my dad killed lots of nazis, and scored two Purple Hearts
>>
>> >Nothing like the Big Lie in order to divert from your anti-American raci=
>sm.
>>
>> You white niggers think you're scoring points with blacks.
>>
>
>Boy, it didn't take long for you to reveal yourself, did it, bigot?
Actually, the term "white nigger" (whigger) was coined by blacks to
describe those white teenagers who try to embrace inner city culture
(rap music, baggy pants, ebonics). Blacks laugh at those sissy
wanna-bes.
I have expanded the term to include those white liberals who refuse to
let blacks take personal responsibility. They want to keep blacks on
the victim planatation. This is especially true of white liberal
politicians who throw crumbs to the blacks, while hoping they remain
dumbed-down, doped-up, dependent, angry, and most importantly, voting
for them.
Vladimir
When the black race hustlers and their pet white nigger liberal
sycophants keep insisting that blacks are victims, it doesn't help
blacks.
Just makes 'em more dependent.
And so the beat goes on
Vladimir
>Vladimir Tschenko <n...@work.org> wrote:
>>Obamammy embraces Keynes; it doesn't work.
>
>Racist neonazi changes the subject when confronted with the fact that
>it's the corruption of the rightards that has produced the current
>recession.
Actually, it was triggered by affirmative action loans to deadbeats.
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Vladimir Tschenko <n...@work.org> wrote:
>>>On 15 May 2009 17:49:47 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Vladimir <he...@home.net> wrote:
>>>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>Vladimir Tschenko <n...@work.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Thu, 14 May 2009 12:55:29 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>n...@work.org (Vladimir Tschenko) writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now let's see .... you queers ripped the Mormons who are by-and-large
>>>>>>>>> white boys and girls for religious bigotry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Lying idiot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The moron thinks anyone who disagrees him is "queer" and lies about
>>>>>>>>why the Mormons were being criticized - the issue being questionable
>>>>>>>>ways of making fundraising to support a political campaign tax free.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You fellows tore the hell out of the Mormons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You nazis killed a bunch of Jews.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, my dad killed lots of nazis, and scored two Purple Hearts
>>>>
>>>>Nothing like the Big Lie in order to divert from your anti-American racism.
>>>
>>>You white niggers
>>
>>You America-hating turds do more damage to this country than any
>>terrorist ever did.
>
>When the black race hustlers and
Lynch any blacks lately, loser?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
A claim wich is soundly refuted by the actual facts, but you racist
losers will cling to any lie to justify your hatred.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net