Ramallah withdrawal

[Guest]

Complete tolerance is of course undesirable. Our society is naturally intolerant of things like murder, torture, and bearing false witness. This is both desirable and necessary, because such activities produce certain harm. However, the sexual practices of consenting adults cannot be conclusively demonstrated to harm anyone, and thus are none of society's damned business, and none of Schlessinger's business either.

[Guest Risk]

Isn't she a licensed doctor in psychology?  It seems it is her business.  She isn't trying to harm the people who practice it, she is stating her opinion, whether it is right or wrong isn't the point.  She isn't encouraging violence on them.  I think it is a little extreme to call her "evil" when people are hijacking planes and sending Anthrax in the mail.

[Guest]

Isn't she a licensed doctor in psychology?

Nope, she's nothing of the sort.

 

It seems it is her business.

Nope, her business is making a spectacle of herself, touting her own values (while violating them herself at every turn), and cruelly belittling vulnerable people while doing so.

 

she is stating her opinion, whether it is right or wrong isn't the point.

It may not be your point, but it is mine. Would you call an atheist a "biological error?" How about a black? Would you label an entire group of people inherently "destructive" to society?

Calling her evil may be blunt, but it isn't extreme. There are degrees of evil and degrees of significance. Schlessinger is less significant than Osama bin Laden, but they're both quite evil. Whether one is more evil than the other, I don't know enough to say. My suspicion would be that he has the edge, because she's a hypocrite and he's sincere.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<<That's a really lame defence of that creature, Mike. I have the same problem with "Dr" Laura (she's just a physiologist) that I do with other people who advocate hate and intolerance. You have to buy and read Goebbel's writings, just like you have to tune in to or call Schlessinger, but I still consider both of them disgusting pieces of subhuman filth.

Here are some remarks from those two. Which is more vicious than the other?

 

"If you're gay or a lesbian, it's a biological error that inhibits you from relating normally to the opposite sex.

If a marital convenant is not needed for gays and lesbians, it sure it isn't need [sic] for heterosexuals. Consequently, we see the destruction of the core of society.

I personally have been agonizing over this. I've always told people, who opposed homosexuality, that they were homophobic, bad, bigoted and idiotic. I was wrong. It is destructive."

 

"There may be a certain tragedy inherent in the nature of the Jews, but it is our fault that this race works destructively among the peoples and is a constant danger to their domestic and international security?">>>

 

 

I could mention that she does A LOT of charity work for numerous gay associations. Has for years. Tammy Bruce (I believe that's her name---former head of the L.A chapter of NOW) actually applauded Dr. Laura for her desire to help the children of homosexuals and young homosexuals.

 

One can hate the "sin" but love the sinner.

 

 

<<<Or, more directly, from the Reich Legal Director, Hans Frank:

"Particular attention should be addressed to homosexuality, which is clearly expressive of a disposition opposed to the normal national community. Homosexual activity means the negation of the community as it must be constituted if the race is not to perish. That is why homosexual behaviour, in particular, merits no mercy."

 

The only difference I can see is that the Nazis were more eloquent. >>>

 

 

Dr. Laura does not advocate violence or sterilzation.

 

She is an opponent of the lifestyle and she is free to say that it is wrong.

 

As for the biological error, I have actually heard her explain the comment (I'm not a listener to her show)by stating that it's a "biological error" because homosexuals cannot reproduce. Thus, it's a group that is not self-sustaining.

                  -=Mike

[Guest Risk]

I think TheMikeSC summed it up pretty well.

[Guest]

One can hate the "sin" but love the sinner.

Please explain why you put that word in quotation marks and tell me clearly whether or not you believe homosexuality is a sin. If you do, we have nothing to talk about.

 

I could mention that she does A LOT of charity work for numerous gay associations. Has for years.

I've never heard of this. If she does, I'm GLAAD, but I'd like to see evidence, and I'd like to see her stop talking out of both sides of her mouth. She's made countless documented defamatory and scurrilous remarks about homosexuals. These are on the record, and if you want to see them for yourself, follow the link.

 

she is free to say that it is wrong.

Haven't we been through this before? Do you never get tired of trotting out the First Amendment at the slightest excuse? No one is saying that she isn't. Again, she is just as free to say that homosexuality is wrong as I am to say that she's a vile, intolerant witch who would have been happier in Germany during the Third Reich.

 

it's a "biological error" because homosexuals cannot reproduce. Thus, it's a group that is not self-sustaining.

Her argument is deceitful and stupid, like almost everything else she says. Her lifestyle is not self-sustaining. Your lifestyle is not self-sustaining. My lifestyle (ignoring my sexuality for the nonce) is not self-sustaining. I couldn't survive if someone dropped me off in the Appalachians and told me to fend for myself for nine years. Could you?

We are all consumers. Other people are producers. Both are constructive members of society in a larger context. The exact same reasoning applies to children. Unless gay people one day outnumber straight people by a margin greater than the average number of children produced by straight people, and gay people refuse (or aren't allowed) en masse to adopt children, society will trundle along just fine. Hatemongers like Schlessinger use a lot of scarewords but none of them have any substance.

And if you're not a regular listener of the show, I suggest you read some of the transcripts I linked to above before you continue to defend this evil person. I'd like to think that you won't want to after you do.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

From an earlier post: Isn't it amazing how the same liberals who preach tolerance and understanding always jump on Rush over his former obesity?

 

On a side note, anyone listen to a guy from Calif. called Mike Savage? We get him in Cincy from 7-10 and he is quite entertaining. Awesome bumper music, too.

[Guest]

That's called a personal preference, slugger. I'm not saying he's evil because he's fat. I just don't like fat people.

Isn't it amazing how the same blinkered "conservatives" who preach tolerance for hate speech fall all over themselves to condemn others for far less serious transgressions, if it affects one of their icons? Christ, you're a hypocrite. I guess that's why you like Rush Limbaugh...

 

Anyway, while my social views are liberal, my political views are very conservative. So calling me a "liberal" is not only a cheap shot, it's also laughably inaccurate. Your label simply doesn't stick. Here, let me slap it onto your forehead until you can rewrite the text.

You can write, can't you? Oh, good. Try this: "Politically conservative social liberal libertarian homosexual female who values tolerance, freedom, justice, the preservation of human life, and living ethically with the consequences of one's choices (aka honour) above all else." What's that? It won't fit? Goodness. What a pity.

Now, if you think about this really, really hard, you might find that you've learned a valuable lesson.

[Guest Risk]

Isn't it a little closed-minded (she may be too, but that is not exactly what I'm talking about) to call her arguments "stupid"?  I think if you are going to critisise Mike, you should look at yourself first, no offence, because I can see you're a good guy.  I THINK the reason Mike put sin in quotes was because some people think it's a sin, while others don't, I think he was just trying not to push a certain view on people.  He did it, I think, so it could be looked at from both sides.

 

I could be wrong, but I'm sure he'll answer you soon.  Aren't you kind of "hating" too?  You seem to have a deep filled rage against her, much like what you claim she has against homosexuals.  After all, we DON'T know exactly where homosexuality comes from, her theory COULD be true.  The point is, we don't know.

 

And until we know, it IS debatable and open to opinion.

[Guest Risk]

I'd also like to say this: Not EVERYONE who doesn't agree with homosexuality is a homophobe.  Homophobia is like any other phobia, it is a physcological problem.  It essencially means FEAR and DISTRUST of homosexuals and homosexuality, it isn't ALWAYS hate.

[Guest Risk]

I also think TOO MANY people use name calling or mud-slinging to get their points across.

[Guest]

I can see you're a good guy

You're delusional. I'm not a guy. <g>

 

I THINK the reason Mike put sin in quotes was because some people think it's a sin, while others don't, I think he was just trying not to push a certain view on people.  He did it, I think, so it could be looked at from both sides.

That sounds reasonable to me, but I'd like a clarification from him. Until then I'll reserve judgement.

 

Aren't you kind of "hating" too?  You seem to have a deep filled rage against her, much like what you claim she has against homosexuals.

Sure. But I hate her for what she says and does. She hates all homosexuals as a group for what they are. There's a huge difference. It's like hating one homeless black man because he, unprovoked, screamed obscenities at you in public, versus hating all homeless people because they're poor, or hating all black men because they don't look like you.

 

After all, we DON'T know exactly where homosexuality comes from, her theory COULD be true.  The point is, we don't know. And until we know, it IS debatable and open to opinion.

Saying that she does know when neither she nor anyone else knows anything of the sort isn't an opinion. It's a lie. She doesn't present these opinions as theories. She presents them as facts. Kindly read Schlessinger's comments before attempting to defend her.

 

I also think TOO MANY people use name calling or mud-slinging to get their points across.

I don't do it to get my point across; I do it to pass the time. Sarcasm and name-calling are fun, and they help to alleviate the tedium of writing long, pointless posts addressed to people I don't know about abstruse subjects which, in all probability, neither side will seriously reconsider. Really, mud-slinging is the only point of these threads. I don't get paid by the word. I don't think Mike does either, though it sometimes seems like it.

[Guest Risk]

I'm not really trying to defend her, per say.  But, do you really KNOW she hates homosexuals?  Has she said she hates all homosexuals?  Or are you assuming she does?

[Guest]

Yes. Yes. No.

Follow the link. Read the direct quotes in this thread.

 

Oh, and Martha Stewart is also evil.

[Guest Risk]

The GLAAD link?

[Guest]

Yep. They have transcripts of her most offensive rants.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Quote  

One can hate the "sin" but love the sinner.

Please explain why you put that word in quotation marks and tell me clearly whether or not you believe homosexuality is a sin. If you do, we have nothing to talk about.>>>

 

 

I don't think it's a sin---but, truthfully, I don't CARE one way or the other. Some argue the Bible says it's a sin (I don't know the verse myself and, more importantly, I don't really care one way or the other to check) while others (such as me) say that we could not possibly care less. It doesn't affect ME personally. If somebody is gay, so be it. I don't want to see it in public---just as I disdain watching heterosexual couples making out in public.

 

 

<<<Quote  

I could mention that she does A LOT of charity work for numerous gay associations. Has for years.

I've never heard of this. If she does, I'm GLAAD, but I'd like to see evidence, and I'd like to see her stop talking out of both sides of her mouth.>>>

 

 

I don't buy into the GLAAD bilge because, to me, they're no different than NOW, NAACP, or any other "civil rights" groups. Just another cookie-cutter, left-leaning group that wants the courts to give them things that they have no prayer of winning via the political process.

 

They whine about things that are untrue. Ellen Degeneres' first show did very poorly in the ratings at the end. Was it because she admitted she were gay?

 

No---her admitting she was gay was HARDLY a shocker. The ratings bombed because the show, quite honestly, sucked.

 

When gay rights groups complain about Hollywood, they seem to mention the Ellen's troubles A LOT without actually noticing the absence of good writing or ANY humor on her shows (amazing, considering that as a stand-up, she was f'n hilarious usually).

 

They actively search for a scapegoat when, occasionally, one does not exist. They attack people remotely critical of the lifestyle even when the criticism is correct.

 

Do you know how much crap I'd take if I ever said, while at college, that male homosexual behavior (I'm trying to be as clean as possible with terminology) is the highest-possible risk AIDS behavior there is (which it is) and that is a large reason why homosexual males have been overwhelmingly devastated by AIDS in America?

 

If somebody dared to say that AIDS doesn't affect heterosexuals all that often and likely won't become the scourge of the heterosexual community that it was of the homosexual community, they'd be ripped to shreds.

 

They'd also be very much accurate.

 

I don't remember the names of the charities, but Bruce did mention them in her book when discussing Dr. Laura. And Bruce is also a lesbian, so I doubt she has any inherent desire to defend Dr. Laura.

 

 

<<<She's made countless documented defamatory and scurrilous remarks about homosexuals. These are on the record, and if you want to see them for yourself, follow the link.>>>

 

 

When I heard her description of why she says the homosexual lifestyle is not self-sustaining, I've learned to do a better job of ignoring quotes attributed to her without any context given.

 

 

<<<Quote  

she is free to say that it is wrong.

Haven't we been through this before? Do you never get tired of trotting out the First Amendment at the slightest excuse? No one is saying that she isn't. Again, she is just as free to say that homosexuality is wrong as I am to say that she's a vile, intolerant witch who would have been happier in Germany during the Third Reich.>>>

 

 

I've never heard her paint homosexuals in terms that approach the terms that you are painting her, to be honest.

 

And, keep in mind, I don't even mildly LIKE her show. I'll defend her, though, because gay rights groups raised more hell about her TV show than they did about Elton John singing a duet with friggin' Eminem.

 

Apparently, if you're going to utter anti-homosexual comments, you had BEST be a crappy rapper or ELSE!

 

 

<<<Quote  

it's a "biological error" because homosexuals cannot reproduce. Thus, it's a group that is not self-sustaining.

Her argument is deceitful and stupid, like almost everything else she says. Her lifestyle is not self-sustaining. Your lifestyle is not self-sustaining. My lifestyle (ignoring my sexuality for the nonce) is not self-sustaining. I couldn't survive if someone dropped me off in the Appalachians and told me to fend for myself for nine years. Could you?>>>

 

 

What she means is that homosexuals are unable to reproduce. No matter how you cut it, two men or two women cannot have a child unless they involve somebody of the opposite sex in the equation.

 

Thus, homosexuals cannot reproduce. Heterosexuals can.

 

 

<<<We are all consumers. Other people are producers. Both are constructive members of society in a larger context. The exact same reasoning applies to children. Unless gay people one day outnumber straight people by a margin greater than the average number of children produced by straight people, and gay people refuse (or aren't allowed) en masse to adopt children, society will trundle along just fine.>>>

 

 

Again, homosexuals cannot reproduce unless the opposite sex is involved in some way.

 

And do I support homosexual adoption? If there are no heterosexual families available, sure.

 

But, the BEST case scenario for children is a mother and a father. Anything else is less than ideal---but less than ideal is usually better than foster care.

 

 

<<<Hatemongers like Schlessinger use a lot of scarewords but none of them have any substance.

And if you're not a regular listener of the show, I suggest you read some of the transcripts I linked to above before you continue to defend this evil person. I'd like to think that you won't want to after you do. >>>

 

 

 

I'd, honestly, put as much stock in GLAAD'S attacks on Dr. Laura as I would of the Rainbow Coalition if they decided to attack Bill O'Reilly.

               -=Mike

 

...Not a homophobe. Not pro-homosexual. Just doesn't care.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<<Quote  

Aren't you kind of "hating" too?  You seem to have a deep filled rage against her, much like what you claim she has against homosexuals.

 

Sure. But I hate her for what she says and does. She hates all homosexuals as a group for what they are.>>>

 

 

Does she hate homosexuals (the people) or homosexuality (the act/lifestyle/whatever)?

 

Back to the love the "sinner", hate the "sin" belief.

 

Who knows? Homosexuals have qualities that go far beyond their sexual orientation.

 

I'm sure she likes quite a bit of some of the (non-sexual) stuff that they do---she just severely disapproves of the lifestyle.

 

I hate drug usage. I don't hate my friends that use drugs. I just hate that they do it.

 

 

<<<There's a huge difference. It's like hating one homeless black man because he, unprovoked, screamed obscenities at you in public, versus hating all homeless people because they're poor, or hating all black men because they don't look like you.>>>

 

 

BUT, can't you hate HOMELESSNESS and, yet, not hate the homeless?

 

 

<<<Quote  

After all, we DON'T know exactly where homosexuality comes from, her theory COULD be true.  The point is, we don't know. And until we know, it IS debatable and open to opinion.

 

Saying that she does know when neither she nor anyone else knows anything of the sort isn't an opinion. It's a lie. She doesn't present these opinions as theories.>>>

 

 

EVERYTHING she says on her show should be viewed as her opinion. If somebody thinks it's untouchable truth, then they're total idiots and not worthy of scorn.

 

 

<<<She presents them as facts. Kindly read Schlessinger's comments before attempting to defend her.>>>

 

 

Who DOESN'T present their opinions as facts?

 

I say Arafat is a sub-human terrorist. Is it a KNOWN fact? No, because Yassir is quite good at maintaining a never-ending cloak of plausible deniability (and because the press isn't interested in pursuing it).

 

I'll still say it's the truth though.

 

 

<<<Quote  

I also think TOO MANY people use name calling or mud-slinging to get their points across.

I don't do it to get my point across; I do it to pass the time. Sarcasm and name-calling are fun, and they help to alleviate the tedium of writing long, pointless posts addressed to people I don't know about abstruse subjects which, in all probability, neither side will seriously reconsider. Really, mud-slinging is the only point of these threads. I don't get paid by the word. I don't think Mike does either, though it sometimes seems like it. >>>

 

 

I actually attempt to provide answers of similar intellectual level of the questions asked.

 

I could easily dumb down my responses if you'd like.

                      -=Mike

[Guest]

Not a homophobe. Not pro-homosexual. Just doesn't care.

Ditto. I wish more people felt the way you do.

 

Again, homosexuals cannot reproduce unless the opposite sex is involved in some way.

Irrelevant. They are not inherently destructive to society, and that is what Schlessinger claims. I've quoted her with plenty of context. GLAAD's transcripts contain even more.

Before you dismiss GLAAD's attacks on Schlessinger as those of just another cookie-cutter, left-leaning group dependent on judicial activism, I suggest you read them, and what caused them. Arguing from ignorance is not a strong position.

 

I won't address the DeGeneres show comments or the AIDS comments. The first, because I never watched it, and you may well be right; the second, because you are right. But no amount of blind prejudice on the left excuses the vicious bigotry of a specific person on the right. (And vice versa. If I have to hear Louis Farrakhan one more time in any context, in any media, I'm climbing a tree next to the Nation of Islam's HQ armed with a sniper rifle and a thirst for justice. Christ, that guy annoys me.)

 

I say Arafat is a sub-human terrorist. Is it a KNOWN fact? No

Yes. It's a documented fact. "Sub-human" is opinion; "terrorist" is as much fact as the proposition that apples will not start falling up tomorrow. Just because there's a slim possibility that they might doesn't mean that I'm going to flip over my fruit bowl.

 

Who knows? Homosexuals have qualities that go far beyond their sexual orientation.

I'm sure she likes quite a bit of some of the (non-sexual) stuff that they do---she just severely disapproves of the lifestyle.

Your speculation about her beliefs would be more convincing if you were actually familiar with her documented statements.

Conscious actions don't exist without people. I hate terrorist acts. And yes, that does mean I hate terrorists too. A homosexual act is a conscious choice. Hating the act means that you hate homosexuals too.

Hating the homeless is not the same, because their homelessness is not a choice. It is something that they are. It may have been caused by choices, but it is not in and of itself a choice. (Usually.)

[Guest Risk]

Wow.  You're pretty good at this Mike.

[Guest]

If you really want to give him a blowjob, could you make the offer in email, please?

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<<Quote  

Again, homosexuals cannot reproduce unless the opposite sex is involved in some way.

 

Irrelevant.>>>

 

 

Completely relevant since that, according to her, is what she was referring to when she made the "biological error" comment. And since the "biological error" comment is the only one I'm attempting to explain (it's the only one I've heard her try to explain), it is the relevant point.

 

 

<<<They are not inherently destructive to society, and that is what Schlessinger claims.>>>

 

 

And have I, in any way, supported that claim? I simply expressed what SHE said she meant by the "biological error" comment. I'd like to believe that you'd let the accused at least express her side of the story. Anything else she says I don't know about---nor do I care enough to find out.

 

 

<<<I've quoted her with plenty of context. GLAAD's transcripts contain even more.

Before you dismiss GLAAD's attacks on Schlessinger as those of just another cookie-cutter, left-leaning group dependent on judicial activism, I suggest you read them, and what caused them. Arguing from ignorance is not a strong position.>>>

 

 

You can wish it, but I won't do it. The homosexual community and gay rights groups have so many massive problems do deal with (why the heck DON'T gay rights groups unload on NAMBLA, anyway? I don't care if they are "allies", what they advocate is simply wrong) that I wish to have nothing to do with them.

 

 

<<<I won't address the DeGeneres show comments or the AIDS comments. The first, because I never watched it, and you may well be right>>>

 

 

Believe me, I'm right. Horrible show. Think of a show that MTV would turn down and you get an idea.

 

 

<<<; the second, because you are right. But no amount of blind prejudice on the left excuses the vicious bigotry of a specific person on the right. (And vice versa. If I have to hear Louis Farrakhan one more time in any context, in any media, I'm climbing a tree next to the Nation of Islam's HQ armed with a sniper rifle and a thirst for justice. Christ, that guy annoys me.)>>>

 

 

Did I say Laura was right? Did I say I even agree with her?

 

No, on both counts. I don't HATE her (I think she's dull and repetitive---and I hate hearing shows where more than half of the calls involve women crying on the phone) but I don't LIKE her, either.

 

I'm quite ambivalent.

 

 

<<<Quote  

I say Arafat is a sub-human terrorist. Is it a KNOWN fact? No

 

Yes. It's a documented fact. "Sub-human" is opinion; "terrorist" is as much fact as the proposition that apples will not start falling up tomorrow. Just because there's a slim possibility that they might doesn't mean that I'm going to flip over my fruit bowl.>>>

 

 

However, the fact that some people view terrorism differently than others means that my view---as completely accurate as it may be---is not a fact.

 

It's true---but not a fact.

 

 

<<<Quote  

Who knows? Homosexuals have qualities that go far beyond their sexual orientation.

I'm sure she likes quite a bit of some of the (non-sexual) stuff that they do---she just severely disapproves of the lifestyle.

Your speculation about her beliefs would be more convincing if you were actually familiar with her documented statements.

Conscious actions don't exist without people. I hate terrorist acts. And yes, that does mean I hate terrorists too. A homosexual act is a conscious choice. Hating the act means that you hate homosexuals too.>>>

 

 

Hardly.

 

Let's say your, say, younger brother/sister, one who you had been close to for years, developed a heroin addiction.

 

Could you not hate that he/she is an addict---yet NOT hate him/her? Could you not seperate that his/her ACTIONS are terrible yet STILL love that person?

 

If people couldn't love others who did bad things, things like drug rehab would be impossible.

 

I have friends who do drugs. I don't know ALL of the drugs they do (my choice to not know), but I know that it goes beyond pot---and they know that they had best never tell me.

 

I HATE that they're a bunch of junkies. The misery in their lives, IMO, is their own fault and if they gripe to me, they've learned that I have precious little patience for it.

 

And I won't sugarcoat it by calling it a sickness because, darn it, it's not one. I'll tell them what they have is a weakness and if they don't like it, tough.

 

But, I don't hate THEM. I want THEM to overcome this and move on. In the end, I LOVE these people and hate to see them suffer.

 

 

<<<Hating the homeless is not the same, because their homelessness is not a choice. It is something that they are. It may have been caused by choices, but it is not in and of itself a choice. (Usually.) >>>

 

 

Homelessness is usually caused by somebody having ether a serious drug problem or major psychological disorder.

 

It seldom "just happens"

                 -=Mike

[Guest]

You can wish it, but I won't do it.

I don't wish it. I'm merely pointing out that your argument is based in ignorance if you don't.

 

However, the fact that some people view terrorism differently than others means that my view---as completely accurate as it may be---is not a fact.

There is both right and wrong in the world and the distinction is not hard to draw. You're right and they're wrong. End of story.

(This is amusing. I'm trying to convince Mike that he's right. Whoever could have imagined this would be necessary? Or that I would do it if it were?)

 

Let's say your, say, younger brother/sister, one who you had been close to for years, developed a heroin addiction.

Could you not hate that he/she is an addict---yet NOT hate him/her? Could you not seperate that his/her ACTIONS are terrible yet STILL love that person?

Yeah, you're right on this one, insofar as we're both incorrectly using words like hate and love as absolutes. But I think what we're really saying is that you might hate what your sister does, and hate her for that to a degree, but nevertheless love her more than you hate her. "Hate" is a really strong word, and we usually shy away from it for that reason: "Do you hate me for doing drugs?" We would properly respond "No," but a more accurate response might be "Yes, BUT I love you more than I hate you, and I wish you'd let me stop hating you."

 

Homelessness is usually caused by somebody having ether a serious drug problem or major psychological disorder.

It seldom "just happens"

There are also people who are just plain poor. Nevertheless, the cause is irrelevant if the condition, not an action, is what arouses hate.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Quote  

You can wish it, but I won't do it.

I don't wish it. I'm merely pointing out that your argument is based in ignorance if you don't.>>>

 

 

I'll go by their public pronouncements---which usually are inane.

 

 

<<<Quote  

Let's say your, say, younger brother/sister, one who you had been close to for years, developed a heroin addiction.

Could you not hate that he/she is an addict---yet NOT hate him/her? Could you not seperate that his/her ACTIONS are terrible yet STILL love that person?

 

Yeah, you're right on this one, insofar as we're both incorrectly using words like hate and love as absolutes. But I think what we're really saying is that you might hate what your sister does, and hate her for that to a degree, but nevertheless love her more than you hate her. "Hate" is a really strong word, and we usually shy away from it for that reason: "Do you hate me for doing drugs?" We would properly respond "No," but a more accurate response might be "Yes, BUT I love you more than I hate you, and I wish you'd let me stop hating you.">>>

 

 

Then perhaps that's how Laura feels about homosexuals.

 

I won't believe what GLAAD says, though, because, in the end, there's no money when there's no enemy. If Laura came out tomorrow and said "Everything I've ever said I repudiate", I doubt GLAAD would let her go because, in the end, she's a cash cow for the group.

 

I've seen the way other groups portray people they don't like.

 

I've seen the way NOW blasts Rush Limbaugh for his "Feminazi" comment---even though he has stated, repeatedly, that there are precious few "Feminazis" in the world (they're the feminists who's ONLY concern seems to be the maintaining of abortion) and that he hasn't uttered the word in years.

 

I've seen the way the NAACP will paint ANY opponent of them as being racist (I've also seen their unintentionally hypocritical attack on ANY black that opposes them; apparently, there IS only way for blacks o think according to them) even when evidence to back it up is virtually non-existent.

 

Why should I expect GLAAD to be any different?

                          -=Mike

 

...It'd be like me expecting a Middle Eastern Muslim country to be free.

[Guest]

Why should I expect GLAAD to be any different?

Because if they had misrepresented Schlessinger's comments on their website she would have sued them for libel long ago. She hasn't. Therefore they are accurately citing her comments. Her comments speak for themselves, and demonstrate conclusively that your suppositions of her beliefs are completely incorrect.

 

You're right that all groups tend to paint their opponents as unreasoning bigots - just as all critics of Ariel Sharon are often called anti-Semites, just as all people who refuse to back the war on terrorism are often called bleeding-heart liberal doves and terrorist sympathisers. But if transcripts of Schlessinger's own uncontested words unequivocally damn her as a virulent homophobe, you can hardly blame her critics for being unfair.

[Guest Risk]

If you really want to give him a blowjob, could you make the offer in email, please?

 

What was that for?  I was just saying I thought Mike was good at debating.  How does that deserve a comment like that?  Geez.

[Guest]

You've said it twice now. And I'm sure he was very thoroughly convinced of that long before you opened your mouth.

If you want to pay a sincere compliment, do it privately. If you want to fawn ostentatiously, carry on.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Quote  

Why should I expect GLAAD to be any different?

Because if they had misrepresented Schlessinger's comments on their website she would have sued them for libel long ago. She hasn't. Therefore they are accurately citing her comments. Her comments speak for themselves, and demonstrate conclusively that your suppositions of her beliefs are completely incorrect.>>>

 

 

 

Do you know how difficult it is to nail somebody for libel for quoting you out of context?

 

Why do you think Rush never sued NOW? Why do you think people targeted by the NAACP never sue them?

 

Because it's highly unlikely they will be able to win and IF they do win, they'll still lose in the eyes of public opinion.

 

There are fights worth fighting and fights not worth fighting.

 

 

<<<You're right that all groups tend to paint their opponents as unreasoning bigots - just as all critics of Ariel Sharon are often called anti-Semites, just as all people who refuse to back the war on terrorism are often called bleeding-heart liberal doves and terrorist sympathisers. But if transcripts of Schlessinger's own uncontested words unequivocally damn her as a virulent homophobe, you can hardly blame her critics for being unfair. >>>

 

 

You can take anybody's quotes out of context and paint them as whatever you want.

 

The Democrats tried to paint Judge Charles Pickering as a friggin' racist when the Mississippi State NAACP STATED he was not one. They took quotes out of context and decided to smear him.

 

Can Pickering SUE them? Probably not.

 

Does that make their claims against him accurate? Good lord no.

                             -=Mike

[Guest]

Mike, one more time. YOU HAVEN'T READ GLAAD'S TRANSCRIPTS OF SCHLESSINGER'S COMMENTS. There is FULL CONTEXT. Do I need a jackhammer to get this through your skull? They HAVE NOT misrepresented her in ANY way. And yes, I've both read the transcripts AND listened to her show. The transcripts are ABSOLUTELY FAIR.

 

You.

Are.

Wrong.

 

I'm NOT defending the NAACP and I'm NOT saying that other groups haven't misrepresented other conservatives. I AM saying that GLAAD hasn't misrepresented Schlessinger.

 

Goddess. Have I reached you yet? How the fuck can you rationalise your position? "Well, other groups have misrepresented other people, and I won't read the FULLY CONTEXTUALISED TRANSCRIPTS myself, but I'll just claim that they're unfair EVEN THOUGH I DON'T FUCKING KNOW."

 

What the fuck are you smoking, boy? I thought you didn't like drugs?

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<<Mike, one more time. YOU HAVEN'T READ GLAAD'S TRANSCRIPTS OF SCHLESSINGER'S COMMENTS. There is FULL CONTEXT. Do I need a jackhammer to get this through your skull? They HAVE NOT misrepresented her in ANY way. And yes, I've both read the transcripts AND listened to her show. The transcripts are ABSOLUTELY FAIR.>>>

 

 

Of course, you have also expressed hatred for the woman, so your opinion, no offense (heck, take offense. I can't stop you) is hardly impartial.

 

I don't CARE enough to read whatever crap GLAAD has on their site. I won't even give them the privelege of getting a page hit from me.

 

 

<<<You.

Are.

Wrong.>>>

 

 

Nope.

 

But if it makes you happy to think so, feel free.

 

 

<<<I'm NOT defending the NAACP and I'm NOT saying that other groups haven't misrepresented other conservatives. I AM saying that GLAAD hasn't misrepresented Schlessinger.>>>

 

 

Because, as usual, the group YOU support would NEVER do that.

 

Uh-uh.

 

No chance of THAT happening whatsoever.

 

Silly of me to think otherwise.

 

 

<<<Goddess. Have I reached you yet?>>>

 

 

Nope. But, at this point, I'm just continuing because getting you so bent out of shape due to your non-existent abilities to express an idea and support it is rather fun.

 

And, still, I manage to avoid the childish name-calling in the process.

 

I RULE!!!

 

 

<<<How the fuck can you rationalise your position? "Well, other groups have misrepresented other people, and I won't read the FULLY CONTEXTUALISED TRANSCRIPTS myself, but I'll just claim that they're unfair EVEN THOUGH I DON'T FUCKING KNOW.">>>

 

 

I didn't say they WERE inaccurate.

 

Just that EVERY single political group in the world misquotes for their own good and that while GLAAD MIGHT be the exception to the rule, I doubt they are.

 

Combine that with the fact that I don't CARE about Dr. Laura and I can find any of a good number of things to do to occupy my time besides going to GLAAD's site.

 

 

<<<What the fuck are you smoking, boy? I thought you didn't like drugs? >>>

 

 

Getting you so upset that you resort to name-calling---that's MY anti-drug.

                     -=Mike

 

...I'd say out-debating you, but lord, we passed that ramp a while back now.