Firestarter

The former is a matter of record and so is the latter. These are facts, not spin, not allegations, not smears, and not distortions. He's said the first himself and his votes and ratings from liberal groups prove the second. Where precisely do you see a problem? In the inconsistency? Do you recall that we're discussing John Kerry? Now don't you feel silly?

Incidentally, this deceitful bullshit about "you're a homophobe if you think homosexuals are less important to the country than heterosexuals" should stop right about now. Homosexuals as homosexuals are indeed less important to the country. By and large they don't start families. They don't reproduce. And they don't raise children. That doesn't mean we should send them all to the gas chambers. No one's saying that. No conservative has ever said that. We're simply saying that WHILE gay people can be of value to the country, indeed one gay individual can have more ABSOLUTE value than one straight individual (eg Michael Guest, appointed by President Bush to be United States Ambassador to Roumania), the fact is that AS homosexuals they have do not have A PARTICULAR VALUE which is considered laudable and indeed INDISPENSIBLE by the vast majority of Americans (and that includes all rational homosexuals as well, although these days it seems there aren't very many left). Therefore it is ABSURD to demand that society REWARD them for a value they DO NOT POSSESS, and indeed REPUDIATE and REJECT. Do you cretins get it yet or must I retype this again a few posts down the line? Oh, and go ahead and accuse me of being a homophobe if you like - that should be good for a laugh.

Keep Your Fucking Shit Off My Desk

Brilliant. Using the same reasoning: A marriage is between a man and a woman. Legally, a woman is not a man, and a man is not a woman. Therefore, homosexuals cannot marry. Or can they? - section 9 subsection 1 of the Gender Recognition Bill, and law of the land in the UK Perfect, so let's redefine reality according to our "whims" until no one can possibly be offended by anything anymore. Why can't we all just get along? We can learn a lot from our friends across the Atlantic. If we could just get a "registered medical practitioner" to testify that all of these gays have some form of "gender dysphoria" there wouldn't be any problems...

Huh. People have been calling Ted Kennedy "the conservative senator from Massachusetts" for a while now.

No, they're mocking the leftist "I don't believe it should be for life" attitude you exemplify. He tried to kill someone. I say execute him.

And he, like the governor of your state, is wrong. Your point?

It was hilarious when they all ducked the foreign-born President question. I guess they realised a "yes" would play well in CA but terribly everywhere else.

Yeah, that was annoying me too. A cameraman or something I'd imagine. Not really a Dukakis moment though - they've learned from that, although his "strangle him with my bare hands" attempt fell pretty damn flat. Kerry wouldn't know what genuine emotion was if you handed it to him on porcelain with asparagus on the side. The only other thing I really have to say is that Larry King is a fuckin' putz. Couldn't moderate a debate to save his life. He's grown up sucking celebrity cock, made his ridiculous career with paparazzi facials, and it shows. Doesn't know when to shut his mouth, doesn't have the balls to open it when he should. Everyone, and I mean everyone, rode him like a two-bit whore tonight.

I find this phrase inexpressibly funny.

Heh.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, sums up the basis for decision-making on pretty much every issue on the left.

Ever see this one, Mike? "I had a good time at Guantanamo," says inmate

The key is to stop requiring concealed carry licenses for anyone licensed to possess a firearm in the first place. Make the two permits one and the same. Crime rates would plummet.

It's like talking to a fuckin' wall. Not that I'm surprised; most criminals take a big dose of stupid pills every morning.

England has worst crime rate in world

I'm sure Dean read that in the New Testament somewhere. Maybe in Job...

Can't happen. Like most intelligent homosexuals, I have power of attorney and full rights to determine her medical treatment if she's unable to express her wishes. Like any intelligent person of any sexual orientation, she also has a living will. Try again.

Thought we had these already. Affirmative action? Calling intercourse "rape" if the girl isn't enjoying it?

How about saving taxpayers millions, possibly billions of dollars in subsidies for an "alternative lifestyle" with no commensurate need homosexuals can demonstrate? Married heterosexual couples use the money they save on tax breaks to feed, clothe, and educate their children. In most homosexual couples both partners earn a salary and neither has children. Tax breaks? Government-sanctioned benefits? Societal gratitude, approval, and endorsement? Why? How have they earned it, any of it? What exactly are they giving to the community by getting married?

Maybe becoming a beggar helps him better understand the plight of the poor.

And while I'm here, this is bullshit. I've flamed Tom, Kahran Ramsus, and Brian (when he was still a mod) myself, all in CE. I've never been banned. Why? Because I kept my problems with them in the context of the thread, I didn't take it outside the thread, I didn't whine and snivel about anything afterwards, and I treated them like any other poster in other threads and other folders. Taking a problem you have with a poster or mod outside the thread in which it starts, spreading it to others, and refusing to shut up when you're repeatedly told to do so is when you have problems.

'k, so say a policeman makes a rude gesture at you when you mouth off to him. You complain to him and he tells you to take it to the judge. The judge says nothing much happened and you weren't abused and while the policeman's behaviour was inappropriate you didn't suffer significant loss. At that point you start insulting the judge, following him to his chambers when he tries to leave the court, and haranguing him endlessly about how bad you felt when the policeman flipped you off. The judge tells you to shut up and get out of his chambers and leave him alone. You refuse, and keep yelling at the judge. Finally he has the bailiff toss you in jail for contempt of court. Irony? Get an education, or if you can't afford that, a dictionary.

I've pretty much stayed out of this since it's a huge pointless shitfest that will probably continue until a mod closes this thread as well. But since Sass referred to me, I'll put in my two cents. I had little problem with Ghettoman's use of the word "nigger" in the original thread. He was using it to mock conservatives and it was obvious. No one could possibly have mistaken it for anything else. Tasteless? Sure. Offensive? Possibly, but to conservatives, not blacks. But it wasn't ban-worthy, suspension-worthy, or even (to my mind) warning-worthy. He was warned and suspended nevertheless. Tom overreacted, as he's since admitted, and I and some other people called him on it. Tom apologised to Ghettoman in Site Feedback and that should have been the end of it. It wasn't. After his suspension was over Ghettoman used the same format to mock conservatives yet again, this time painting them as shotgun-toting hicks. At that point I'd had enough and I asked him if every one of his posts was going to be exactly the same. He responded with the usual weak "I don't like labels" crap. After that he was pretty much ignored in CE. But that wasn't enough. He started making snide remarks about Tom in other folders as well - LSD for one, as Sass mentioned. He was warned to stop it. He started a thread in Site Feedback demanding an apology. He got it. He didn't accept it. He demanded a second, unqualified apology and he kept on posting and posting and posting, basically (it seemed) trying to make everyone so goddamned sick of his bitching and whining that they'd crawl on their hands and knees to make him happy. It didn't happened, and his sorry ass was banned. Cry me a river.

I recently read a column that cited "statistics showing 300% greater incidents of child abuse in homosexual households versus traditional marriage homes." Anyone know where that number comes from, who derived it and from what sample, and whether that percentage was adjusted for absolute numbers of heterosexual and homosexual households with children? Haven't found anything myself so far.