Re: Decency Wins - AGAIN!!!
BE-VA
> In article
> <e21a43b7-65ff-4e6c...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> Osprey <Ospr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> Fact of the matter is, if this issue came down to a vote in my state,
>> I simply wouldn't vote on it. I would remain neutral on it.
>
>
> so, by default and your non-vote, you would support the status quo: a
> ban on gay marriage.
Most people do and the no homosexual marriage thinking will continue to
grow as the arrogance and obnoxiousness of fanatical queerism
increases. We have seen it blossom in the last two states where the
question was put to a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE rather than being forced on
them by judicial and legislative oppression of the will of the people.
>
> what a surprise.
No, all right thinking people are convinced that homosexuality is a
burden on our society and has no place or purpose in the scheme of
mankind -- it could vanish from the earth in the next instant and it
would no adverse effect on mankind.
>
> "You know, I've seen some incredible pussies post to t.a over the
> years, but after seeing his webboard shennannigans, I have to say
> that Heishman is the pussiest of them all."
In what context are you using the word pussies & pussiest, hmmmmmm?
> Matt Pillsbury <m...@seesig.com>
> Message-ID: m2oeso5wmc.fsf@seesig.c
james g. keegan jr.
BE-VA <blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
> On 2009-11-12 19:35:24 -0500, "james g. keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > In article
> > <e21a43b7-65ff-4e6c...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > Osprey <Ospr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >> Fact of the matter is, if this issue came down to a vote in my state,
> >> I simply wouldn't vote on it. I would remain neutral on it.
> >
> >
> > so, by default and your non-vote, you would support the status quo: a
> > ban on gay marriage.
>
> Most people do
you offer no credible evidence to support that assertion.
> and the no homosexual marriage thinking will continue to
> grow as the arrogance and obnoxiousness of fanatical queerism
> increases. We have seen it blossom in the last two states where the
> question was put to a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE rather than being forced on
> them by judicial and legislative oppression of the will of the people.
two states and their shamefull votes don't mean very much.
> > what a surprise.
>
> No, all right thinking people are convinced that homosexuality is a
> burden on our society and has no place or purpose in the scheme of
> mankind -- it could vanish from the earth in the next instant and it
> would no adverse effect on mankind.
i suspect the tiny minority you refer to are commonly thought of as
religious extremists .... the kind of disturbed personalities that wears
a flag in their label while opposing all that the flag stands for.
> > "You know, I've seen some incredible pussies post to t.a over the
> > years, but after seeing his webboard shennannigans, I have to say
> > that Heishman is the pussiest of them all."
>
> In what context are you using the word pussies & pussiest, hmmmmmm?
i didn't.
Moderator
"...The Bolshevik revolution of 1917 unleashed a literally mortal
fight against religion. Stalin, however, introduced appeasements
during the intense battles against Nazi Germany during World War II
(1941-1945) in a bid to win over the support of the religious hearts.
But genuine freedom of consciousness remained the plot of a dream both
during Stalin’s rule and after him. The authorities immediately
trampled under their control the religious associations they had
recently permitted..." - Journal on foreign affairs and international
relations
http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/6/513.html
"...Most American Christians are brought up believing that religious
extremism is a serious problem in the Middle East. They define
religious extremism almost exclusively in terms of that associated
with Islam. They are correct about the dangerous of Islamic extremism,
but they tend to overlook the Christian extremism right here in
America. Religious extremism is a global problem which knows no
boundaries and which has vast implications for shaping the future of
our world..." - Atheist Revolution
http://www.atheistrev.com/2007/07/opposing-religious-extremism-more.html
"...a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory
cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of
committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective
collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties
and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal
restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion..." -
The Anatomy of Fascism, Robert Paxton
"...One theory is that religion and fascism could never have a lasting
connection because both are a "holistic weltanschauung" claiming the
whole of the person.[180] Along these lines, Yale political scientist,
Juan Linz and others have noted that secularization had created a void
which could be filled by a total ideology, making totalitarianism
possible[208][209], and Roger Griffin has characterized fascism as a
type of anti-religious political religion.[210] Such political
religions vie with existing religions, and try, if possible, to
replace or eradicate them..." - The Nature of Fascism: or Essentialism
by Another Name, Roger Eatwell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-209
Moderator
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
"...The Bolshevik revolution of 1917 unleashed a literally mortal
BE-VA
> In article <2009111220010575249-blackwaterevangelist@testlandorg>,
> BE-VA <blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-11-12 19:35:24 -0500, "james g. keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <e21a43b7-65ff-4e6c...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Osprey <Ospr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> Fact of the matter is, if this issue came down to a vote in my state,
>>>> I simply wouldn't vote on it. I would remain neutral on it.
>>>
>>>
>>> so, by default and your non-vote, you would support the status quo: a
>>> ban on gay marriage.
>>
>> Most people do
>
>
> you offer no credible evidence to support that assertion.
I suggest you do some research on the number of states that now have
Constitutional amendments allowing marriage only between men and women,
combine those with the recent votes against homosexual marriage in
Maine and California and I think you will agree that the evidence is
compelling.
>
>> and the no homosexual marriage thinking will continue to
>> grow as the arrogance and obnoxiousness of fanatical queerism
>> increases. We have seen it blossom in the last two states where the
>> question was put to a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE rather than being forced on
>> them by judicial and legislative oppression of the will of the people.
>
> two states and their shamefull votes don't mean very much.
See above
>
>>> what a surprise.
>>
>> No, all right thinking people are convinced that homosexuality is a
>> burden on our society and has no place or purpose in the scheme of
>> mankind -- it could vanish from the earth in the next instant and it
>> would no adverse effect on mankind.
>
> i suspect the tiny minority you refer to are commonly thought of as
> religious extremists .... the kind of disturbed personalities that wears
> a flag in their label while opposing all that the flag stands for.
Explain exactly why you think homosexuality has some value in the
scheme of mankind. I suggest though that you keep in mind that if, as I
have suggested, it were to vanish in the next instant it would have
absolutely no effect on the human race. As for your thinking that it is
only religious extremist that or opposed to homosexuality that segment
of the Homosexual Dogma is so tired that I'm surprised that you even
attempt to use it you must realize that it is now universally
recognized as fallacy
BTW - The flag in the lapel remark fits our current president
perfectly, doesn't it...
james g. keegan jr.
BE-VA <blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
> On 2009-11-12 20:14:05 -0500, "james g. keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com>
> said:
>
> > In article <2009111220010575249-blackwaterevangelist@testlandorg>,
> > BE-VA <blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-11-12 19:35:24 -0500, "james g. keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com>
> >> said:
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> <e21a43b7-65ff-4e6c...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> Osprey <Ospr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>> Fact of the matter is, if this issue came down to a vote in my state,
> >>>> I simply wouldn't vote on it. I would remain neutral on it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> so, by default and your non-vote, you would support the status quo: a
> >>> ban on gay marriage.
> >>
> >> Most people do
> >
> >
> > you offer no credible evidence to support that assertion.
>
> I suggest you do some research on the number of states that now have
> Constitutional amendments allowing marriage only between men and women,
> combine those with the recent votes against homosexual marriage in
> Maine and California and I think you will agree that the evidence is
> compelling.
since you made a claim, were challenged, and posted no credible evidence
to support it, i'll consider your claim to be false until i see evidence
suggesting otherwise.
> >
> >> and the no homosexual marriage thinking will continue to
> >> grow as the arrogance and obnoxiousness of fanatical queerism
> >> increases. We have seen it blossom in the last two states where the
> >> question was put to a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE rather than being forced on
> >> them by judicial and legislative oppression of the will of the people.
> >
> > two states and their shamefull votes don't mean very much.
>
> See above
see above.
> >
> >>> what a surprise.
> >>
> >> No, all right thinking people are convinced that homosexuality is a
> >> burden on our society and has no place or purpose in the scheme of
> >> mankind -- it could vanish from the earth in the next instant and it
> >> would no adverse effect on mankind.
> >
> > i suspect the tiny minority you refer to are commonly thought of as
> > religious extremists .... the kind of disturbed personalities that wears
> > a flag in their label while opposing all that the flag stands for.
>
>
> Explain exactly why you think homosexuality has some value in the
> scheme of mankind. I suggest though that you keep in mind that if, as I
> have suggested, it were to vanish in the next instant it would have
> absolutely no effect on the human race. As for your thinking that it is
> only religious extremist that or opposed to homosexuality that segment
> of the Homosexual Dogma is so tired that I'm surprised that you even
> attempt to use it you must realize that it is now universally
> recognized as fallacy
why are you changing the subject?
are you that insecure defending the oppression of a class of person?
>
> BTW - The flag in the lapel remark fits our current president
> perfectly, doesn't it...
only in the mind of a crazed neocon.
BE-VA
Do you realize that you are admitting that you haven't the slightest
idea what's going on around you haven't you regular access to a TV,
computer or newspaper?
>
>>>
>>>> and the no homosexual marriage thinking will continue to
>>>> grow as the arrogance and obnoxiousness of fanatical queerism
>>>> increases. We have seen it blossom in the last two states where the
>>>> question was put to a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE rather than being forced on
>>>> them by judicial and legislative oppression of the will of the people.
>>>
>>> two states and their shamefull votes don't mean very much.
>>
>> See above
>
> see above.
See above
>
>>>
>>>>> what a surprise.
>>>>
>>>> No, all right thinking people are convinced that homosexuality is a
>>>> burden on our society and has no place or purpose in the scheme of
>>>> mankind -- it could vanish from the earth in the next instant and it
>>>> would no adverse effect on mankind.
>>>
>>> i suspect the tiny minority you refer to are commonly thought of as
>>> religious extremists .... the kind of disturbed personalities that wears
>>> a flag in their label while opposing all that the flag stands for.
>>
>>
>> Explain exactly why you think homosexuality has some value in the
>> scheme of mankind. I suggest though that you keep in mind that if, as I
>> have suggested, it were to vanish in the next instant it would have
>> absolutely no effect on the human race. As for your thinking that it is
>> only religious extremist that or opposed to homosexuality that segment
>> of the Homosexual Dogma is so tired that I'm surprised that you even
>> attempt to use it you must realize that it is now universally
>> recognized as fallacy
>
> why are you changing the subject?
> are you that insecure defending the oppression of a class of person?
It's a fact of the matter and it scares you that why you try to pass it
off as a "change of subject." Further more, insecurity is part and
parcel of your sexual orientation, one fraught with drug and alcohol
abuse, sexual promiscuity, mental illness and an extremely high
incidence of suicide.
>
>>
>> BTW - The flag in the lapel remark fits our current president
>> perfectly, doesn't it...
>
> only in the mind of a crazed neocon.
Oh, look, politics.
BTW - Sentences always begin with a capital letter -- i presume that's
another of the things that you don't know. Please do the readers of
Usenet the favor of using correct structure in your posts.
james g. keegan jr.
BE-VA <blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
i realize you needed to say something silly like that since you have no
credible evidence to support your claim
> >>>
> >>>> and the no homosexual marriage thinking will continue to
> >>>> grow as the arrogance and obnoxiousness of fanatical queerism
> >>>> increases. We have seen it blossom in the last two states where the
> >>>> question was put to a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE rather than being forced on
> >>>> them by judicial and legislative oppression of the will of the people.
> >>>
> >>> two states and their shamefull votes don't mean very much.
> >>
> >> See above
> >
> > see above.
>
> See above
see above
> >>>>> what a surprise.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, all right thinking people are convinced that homosexuality is a
> >>>> burden on our society and has no place or purpose in the scheme of
> >>>> mankind -- it could vanish from the earth in the next instant and it
> >>>> would no adverse effect on mankind.
> >>>
> >>> i suspect the tiny minority you refer to are commonly thought of as
> >>> religious extremists .... the kind of disturbed personalities that wears
> >>> a flag in their label while opposing all that the flag stands for.
> >>
> >>
> >> Explain exactly why you think homosexuality has some value in the
> >> scheme of mankind. I suggest though that you keep in mind that if, as I
> >> have suggested, it were to vanish in the next instant it would have
> >> absolutely no effect on the human race. As for your thinking that it is
> >> only religious extremist that or opposed to homosexuality that segment
> >> of the Homosexual Dogma is so tired that I'm surprised that you even
> >> attempt to use it you must realize that it is now universally
> >> recognized as fallacy
> >
> > why are you changing the subject?
> > are you that insecure defending the oppression of a class of person?
>
>
> It's a fact of the matter and it scares you that why you try to pass it
> off as a "change of subject." Further more, insecurity is part and
> parcel of your sexual orientation, one fraught with drug and alcohol
> abuse, sexual promiscuity, mental illness and an extremely high
> incidence of suicide.
if you think you can fool readers by changing the subject and then
denying it, as you did above, you're even more of a lightweight than i
thought.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> BTW - The flag in the lapel remark fits our current president
> >> perfectly, doesn't it...
> >
> > only in the mind of a crazed neocon.
>
>
> Oh, look, politics.
did an adult help you with that one?
> BTW - Sentences always begin with a capital letter -- i presume that's
> another of the things that you don't know. Please do the readers of
> Usenet the favor of using correct structure in your posts.
"Skitt's law: Spelling or grammar flames always contain spelling or
grammar errors"
http://www.rateitall.com/i-850595-skitts-law-spelling-or-grammar-flames-a
lways-contain-spelling-or-grammar-errors.aspx
BE-VA
Silly? No. The pointing out of your lack of knowledge of current events? Yes.
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and the no homosexual marriage thinking will continue to
>>>>>> grow as the arrogance and obnoxiousness of fanatical queerism
>>>>>> increases. We have seen it blossom in the last two states where the
>>>>>> question was put to a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE rather than being forced on
>>>>>> them by judicial and legislative oppression of the will of the people.
>>>>>
>>>>> two states and their shamefull votes don't mean very much.
>>>>
>>>> See above
>>>
>>> see above.
>>
>> See above
>
> see above
Irrelevant as before.
Your short comings as a homosexual are relative to the thread and I
pointed them out. That you refuse to acknowledge that fact is not my
problem.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW - The flag in the lapel remark fits our current president
>>>> perfectly, doesn't it...
>>>
>>> only in the mind of a crazed neocon.
>>
>>
>> Oh, look, politics.
>
>
> did an adult help you with that one?
Do you think that it would require an adult view to see your blaring
inability to express your self?
>
>> BTW - Sentences always begin with a capital letter -- i presume that's
>> another of the things that you don't know. Please do the readers of
>> Usenet the favor of using correct structure in your posts.
>
>
> "Skitt's law: Spelling or grammar flames always contain spelling or
> grammar errors"
I said nothing about spelling or grammar. Again your short comings
surfaces to cause you added embarrassment.
james g. keegan jr.
BE-VA <blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
i see you still can provide no credible evidence to support your claim.
> >>>>>> and the no homosexual marriage thinking will continue to
> >>>>>> grow as the arrogance and obnoxiousness of fanatical queerism
> >>>>>> increases. We have seen it blossom in the last two states where the
> >>>>>> question was put to a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE rather than being forced on
> >>>>>> them by judicial and legislative oppression of the will of the people.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> two states and their shamefull votes don't mean very much.
> >>>>
> >>>> See above
> >>>
> >>> see above.
> >>
> >> See above
> >
> > see above
>
> Irrelevant as before.
see above.
at least you admit that i appeal to your homosexual tendencies. but your
fantasies will never be realized. try a bus station
> >>>> BTW - The flag in the lapel remark fits our current president
> >>>> perfectly, doesn't it...
> >>>
> >>> only in the mind of a crazed neocon.
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh, look, politics.
> >
> >
> > did an adult help you with that one?
>
> Do you think that it would require an adult view to see your blaring
> inability to express your self?
you appear to be getting upset because you can't support your claim. you
could just admit it was a false claim if you want to feel less shame.
>
> >
> >> BTW - Sentences always begin with a capital letter -- i presume that's
> >> another of the things that you don't know. Please do the readers of
> >> Usenet the favor of using correct structure in your posts.
> >
> >
> > "Skitt's law: Spelling or grammar flames always contain spelling or
> > grammar errors"
>
> I said nothing about spelling or grammar.
you don't know the meaning of grammar, it appears.
Popeye <Popeye
Chilton <jgke...@gmail.com> said:
> since you made a claim, were challenged, and posted no credible evidence
> to support it, i'll consider your claim to be false until i see evidence
> suggesting otherwise.
You and hundreds of other like you are desperately trying to convince
SOMEONE that there might be a few hundred
or so people, among the six billion plus of us who are not homosexuals,
who really cares what you think. A poll
conducted recently by Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. on the
subject of World Wide Opposition to Homosexuality,
Homosexuals and SSM confirms that there isn't,
For your Knowledge Bank:
“Gay” Activists Mull “Organized Terrorism” Against Christians
Pro-Family Leaders Targets of Death Threats
J. Matt Barber
Lynchburg, VA – In the wake of the horrific act of Islamic domestic
terrorism at Fort Hood Texas, it has been learned that militant
homosexual activists recently made similar online postings to those of
Nidal Malik Hasan, threatening additional acts of terrorism against
Christians.
In response to Maine’s natural marriage victory last Tuesday, “gay”
activists have directly threatened to retaliate with “terrorism” and
the “killing” of Christians on the popular homosexual activist
“JoeMyGod” Weblog. Liberty Counsel notified the FBI which is
investigating the matter. As of this morning, the offending blog entry
had been removed. (captured version of post will be available at
www.americansfortruth.com).
Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel’s Director of Cultural Affairs, issued a
statement shortly after Maine’s marriage victory (posted with
additional commentary at AmericansForTruth.com). In reaction to that
statement, blog poster “ColdCountry” wrote: “Will someone please give
me a gun?” Poster “Fritz” warned: “What I fear is that once gay and
lesbian people give up hope of achieving equality through nonviolent
means, there will be radicals who will begin to hunt down haters… All
it will take is a small group of radical zealots who are willing to
kill for their cause.”
In reply to Fritz, “tex” posted: “Fritz….you say this like it’s a bad
thing? Maybe a bit of well organized terrorism is just what we need.”
“This happens in all cases where people are oppressed and lack
representation,” continued Fritz. “We will have gay and lesbian people
strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up churches. All it will
take is one or two more losses like this. If marriage equality is taken
away in one of the landmark states, we will see domestic terrorism
arise very quickly. … In 1991, I witnessed gay and lesbian activists
setting fire to buildings and beating people with baseball bats in Los
Angeles.”
“tex” reiterated: “Still not seeing this as a bad thing Fritz …
[African gay activists] didn’t gain their civil rights through being
passive.”
In addition to Barber, pro-family leaders Peter LaBarbera of Americans
for Truth and Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for
Marriage were specifically named targets.
Mean while, Michael Heath, former director of the Christian Civic
League of Maine, was targeted by a direct death threat shortly after
the passage of Question 1 last week. An anonymous caller telephoned the
League, warning:
“I am calling about Mr. Mike Heath, the Executive of your Christian
Civic League of Maine. He thinks that gay people should have our
rights revoked that we already have. Well I can tell him this – I’m a
gay guy who owns guns, and he’s my next target.”
Law enforcement was immediately notified of the threat against Heath.
Matt Barber commented: “All potential threats of terrorism and murder
are very serious business. As we learned just last week, there are
ideologically driven terrorists who walk among us. After passage of
Proposition 8 in California we saw that many homosexual activists are
capable of threats, vandalism and even violence. Those who either
threaten or attempt to incite terrorism must be immediately brought to
justice. Churches and Christian leaders around the country need to be
on high alert. These threats of homosexual activist terrorism must be
taken very seriously.”
###
Gay writer says “well-organized terrorism” against pro-family leaders
is “just what we need”
Below is a reproduction of comments posted on a homosexual activist
blog “Joe.My.God.” — responding to an article attacking Americans For
Truth titled “Haters vs. Haters: Peter LaBarbera Attacks Maine’s Stand
for Marriage”:
Joe_Jervis_Hatewatch_Fritz-Hunt-Down-LaBarbera-and-Gallagher
Joe_Jervis_Hatewatch-Tex-answers-Fritz-Questions-Bad-Thing_2009
Dear Readers,
Homosexual activist blogger Joe Jervis of “Joe.My.God” website contains
a post attacking AFTAH founder Peter LaBarbera followed by a reader
comment suggesting that “domestic terrorism” against pro-family leaders
who oppose the homosexual agenda is justifiable.
In the post, titled “Haters vs. Haters: Peter LaBarbera Attacks Maine’s
Stand for Marriage” — which has been live online since last Wed., Nov.
4 — a reader named “Fritz” writes:
“What I fear is that once gay and lesbian people give up hope of
achieving equality through nonviolent means, there will be radicals who
will begin to hunt down haters like LaBarbera and [National
Organization for Marriage founder Maggie] Gallagher.
“All [it] will take is a small group of radical zealots along the
line of Craig Chilton of Iowa, who are willing to kill for their
cause….”
Responding to Fritz’s suggestive “warning,” “Tex” writes:
“Fritz … you say this like it’s a bad thing?
“Maybe a bit of well-organized terrorism is just what we need, er,
I mean ‘civil disobedience.’”
Ray Fischer
>On 2009-11-24 12:48:47 -0500, "james g. keegan jr." aka Crazy Craig
>Chilton <jgke...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> since you made a claim, were challenged, and posted no credible evidence
>> to support it, i'll consider your claim to be false until i see evidence
>> suggesting otherwise.
>
>You and hundreds of other like you are desperately trying to convince
>SOMEONE that there might be a few hundred
>or so people, among the six billion plus of us who are not homosexuals,
>who really cares what you think. A poll
>conducted recently by Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. on the
>subject of World Wide Opposition to Homosexuality,
>Homosexuals and SSM confirms that there isn't,
You'd better stop using your computer since the person who create the
foundations for modern computers was homosexual.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net