archangel said:
They always bring this garbage up arch. It's an old tired and irrelevant line of crap.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gay politicians
- Thread starter Nuc
- Start date
They always bring this garbage up arch. It's an old tired and irrelevant line of crap.
A
archangel
Guest
... among other actors over the years who interpreted this abomination on history....I have no problem with Peter's interpretation other than it is a outdated one...he is a good actor!nucular said:Have you seen the movie? Peter O'Toole does a great job as Caligula!
A
archangel
Guest
sitarro said:In todays world Caligula would definitely go far within the Democrat party. Wasn't he one of Bill Clinton's idols?
however I think "Calligula" would not spill the seed upon the evidence dress!LOL! Maybe Bill's nemisis Josely(pun) Elders...forgot to give him manners! dunno!( this was purely in jest) Bill and Joselyn were a joke on society to say the least!
mattskramer
Senior Member
GunnyL - Besides being a lying hypocrite, you're a whiner too[/B]
Uh - No, on all counts. I do not lie. I am not a hypocrite, and I am not a whiner. Instead of practically constant name-calling, why don't you come up with specific examples that prove that I fall into any of the 3 categories. I read the rules. The following is posted on the rules:
"I will allow common sense to dictate the difference between one expressing themselves and one who is disruptive to the board.... Overuse of personal attacks as a method of debate is detrimental to the board. Again, the occasional outburst will be tolerated, incessant flaming will not."
I am merely voicing my concern. I would hope that I would be treated equally if I stoop to name-calling even if such name-calling is as incorrect as is yours.
----------------------
Hobbit - Oh, grow up. There's name-calling on all threads, but until it truly goes to insults, most people just take it in stride. This isn't the ACLU, where name-calling is a federal offense. Suck it up and take it like a man. Oh, and if you ever want somebody banned, pm the moderators so you don't look like a jerk.
I am grown. I understand there is name calling. I think that some of it goes to extreme. It goes to insults. While asking for him to be warned or banned, I still take it in stride. If he is not banned, it shows me the limits that moderators will tolerate. Therefore, it fairness, I understand that I am allowed to behave in similar fashion. This is a message board. It is not the ACLU. Name-calling is not a federal crime in the ACLU. I will mention it to the moderators. Thanks for your unsolicited opinion about my looks.
---------------------------
Sitarry - A young man Matt? How young? A couple of months? 3, 4, how many? I guess you are a bit out . . . of the box.
Why are you so interested? Is it relevant to the debate - how so? He was roughly 23. I was roughly 24. I think that we were more than "just friends" for about 4 months. I hope that this satisfies your curiosity.
-----------------------------
OCA - And all those queers are justly being deprived of because what they do is vile as judged by society. Should a heroin addict be allowed visitation rights and medical decision making authority towards his pal to whom he shot up with for many years who now has AIDS? Anyway queers have all these rights already only they have to do the right thing and use these rights for their OPPOSITE SEX PARTNER OR SPOUSE.
Oh and lol, your claim of outdebating me on this topic is downright hilarious, I couldn't have fucked you up anymore this past year even if i'd been there personally to beat you with a tire iron, TALK ABOUT YOUR DEMENTIA! You are out there.
No, they are not being justly deprived. As with so many issues in of the past, society is wrong on this issue too. As for your example: If the patient learned that his "pal" shot him up with AIDS, I doubt that the patient would want to be visited by the "pal". Therefore the issue would be moot. Otherwise, the answer is YES. His life is not yours to dictate. If he wants his pal to have the same rights over him as does a wife to a husband, then so be it.
What is the right thing - Not to allow oneself to form a loving attachment with someone who may be of the same sex - because society does not like it? Why limit in such a way? It is not the right thing. Finally, yes, I have outdebated you time and time again. I have no need to use colorful metaphors. It is as simple as that.
Matts don't you get it? Every fiber of humanity points to this: heterosexual=normal, homosexual=abnormal.......therefore abnormality should be curbed in public and normality should be encouraged. Your so backwards.
Normality is not an issues. "natural law" makes a poor argument. If not, then we should outlaw smoking in public and the wearing of clothing that "clashes". We should outlaw the wearing of clothing. What other animal choose to wear clothes. Let us be seen all-natural. Let us outlaw adoption between races? Is it normal or natural for a Black to raise a White or a White to raise a Black. Stick with people of your own color. Normalcy and "Natural Law" are old and easily refuted arguments. Try again.
Degrees of abnormality Matts, degrees. Is it dangerous to color your hair? Has anyone ever died from it? Has anyone ever died from engaging in homosexual activity? TONS HAVE DIED AND CONTINUE TO DIE EVERYDAY FROM QUEER ACTIVITY......therefore society has deemed that is a dangerous abnormality and rightly so.
People have died from engaging in sex (be it with people of the same sex or with people of the opposite sex). If you engage in sex with someone who has a deadly STD, you stand a chance of getting a deadly STD. If you want to protect people from making bad choices, let us make promiscuity illegal. Let us make the consumption of excess fat illegal. Let us make tobacco illegal.
One more thing that you might find surprising for me to say. I think that casual sex with a homosexual (a person of same sex as you) is, based on statistics, more dangerous than is casual sex with a heterosexual. I don't say this out of bigotry or homophobia, but out of statistically based fact. That being said, I don't think that homosexual behavior should be illegal. I even go so far as to support the notion of homosexual marriage. It is all a matter of degrees. Some things are so dangerous and so abhorrent that they should be illegal. I simply don't consider homosexual behavior to fall into that category.
Uh - No, on all counts. I do not lie. I am not a hypocrite, and I am not a whiner. Instead of practically constant name-calling, why don't you come up with specific examples that prove that I fall into any of the 3 categories. I read the rules. The following is posted on the rules:
"I will allow common sense to dictate the difference between one expressing themselves and one who is disruptive to the board.... Overuse of personal attacks as a method of debate is detrimental to the board. Again, the occasional outburst will be tolerated, incessant flaming will not."
I am merely voicing my concern. I would hope that I would be treated equally if I stoop to name-calling even if such name-calling is as incorrect as is yours.
----------------------
Hobbit - Oh, grow up. There's name-calling on all threads, but until it truly goes to insults, most people just take it in stride. This isn't the ACLU, where name-calling is a federal offense. Suck it up and take it like a man. Oh, and if you ever want somebody banned, pm the moderators so you don't look like a jerk.
I am grown. I understand there is name calling. I think that some of it goes to extreme. It goes to insults. While asking for him to be warned or banned, I still take it in stride. If he is not banned, it shows me the limits that moderators will tolerate. Therefore, it fairness, I understand that I am allowed to behave in similar fashion. This is a message board. It is not the ACLU. Name-calling is not a federal crime in the ACLU. I will mention it to the moderators. Thanks for your unsolicited opinion about my looks.
---------------------------
Sitarry - A young man Matt? How young? A couple of months? 3, 4, how many? I guess you are a bit out . . . of the box.
Why are you so interested? Is it relevant to the debate - how so? He was roughly 23. I was roughly 24. I think that we were more than "just friends" for about 4 months. I hope that this satisfies your curiosity.
-----------------------------
OCA - And all those queers are justly being deprived of because what they do is vile as judged by society. Should a heroin addict be allowed visitation rights and medical decision making authority towards his pal to whom he shot up with for many years who now has AIDS? Anyway queers have all these rights already only they have to do the right thing and use these rights for their OPPOSITE SEX PARTNER OR SPOUSE.
Oh and lol, your claim of outdebating me on this topic is downright hilarious, I couldn't have fucked you up anymore this past year even if i'd been there personally to beat you with a tire iron, TALK ABOUT YOUR DEMENTIA! You are out there.
No, they are not being justly deprived. As with so many issues in of the past, society is wrong on this issue too. As for your example: If the patient learned that his "pal" shot him up with AIDS, I doubt that the patient would want to be visited by the "pal". Therefore the issue would be moot. Otherwise, the answer is YES. His life is not yours to dictate. If he wants his pal to have the same rights over him as does a wife to a husband, then so be it.
What is the right thing - Not to allow oneself to form a loving attachment with someone who may be of the same sex - because society does not like it? Why limit in such a way? It is not the right thing. Finally, yes, I have outdebated you time and time again. I have no need to use colorful metaphors. It is as simple as that.
Matts don't you get it? Every fiber of humanity points to this: heterosexual=normal, homosexual=abnormal.......therefore abnormality should be curbed in public and normality should be encouraged. Your so backwards.
Normality is not an issues. "natural law" makes a poor argument. If not, then we should outlaw smoking in public and the wearing of clothing that "clashes". We should outlaw the wearing of clothing. What other animal choose to wear clothes. Let us be seen all-natural. Let us outlaw adoption between races? Is it normal or natural for a Black to raise a White or a White to raise a Black. Stick with people of your own color. Normalcy and "Natural Law" are old and easily refuted arguments. Try again.
Degrees of abnormality Matts, degrees. Is it dangerous to color your hair? Has anyone ever died from it? Has anyone ever died from engaging in homosexual activity? TONS HAVE DIED AND CONTINUE TO DIE EVERYDAY FROM QUEER ACTIVITY......therefore society has deemed that is a dangerous abnormality and rightly so.
People have died from engaging in sex (be it with people of the same sex or with people of the opposite sex). If you engage in sex with someone who has a deadly STD, you stand a chance of getting a deadly STD. If you want to protect people from making bad choices, let us make promiscuity illegal. Let us make the consumption of excess fat illegal. Let us make tobacco illegal.
One more thing that you might find surprising for me to say. I think that casual sex with a homosexual (a person of same sex as you) is, based on statistics, more dangerous than is casual sex with a heterosexual. I don't say this out of bigotry or homophobia, but out of statistically based fact. That being said, I don't think that homosexual behavior should be illegal. I even go so far as to support the notion of homosexual marriage. It is all a matter of degrees. Some things are so dangerous and so abhorrent that they should be illegal. I simply don't consider homosexual behavior to fall into that category.
I'll tell ya mattsie, you are the best at something... for spewing so much diatribe and saying practically nothing. For that, you take the cake here on this board.
mattskrammer = the consumate fence sitter.
mattskrammer = the consumate fence sitter.
G
Gabriella84
Guest
Pale Rider said:I'll tell ya mattsie, you are the best at something... for spewing so much diatribe and saying practically nothing. For that, you take the cake here on this board.
Look who is talking -- the ultimate non-sensical hate-spewing bullethead. Get a clue.
Gabriella,
I see that you reside in San Frandildo. You must be very proud of the asslick dimwits on your county supervisor board that turned down the placement of the Battleship Iowa in your town because of their objection to the rescue of the Iraqi people and the military's rules towards people that prefer sex with the same gender as themselves. Stockton gladly took the historic ship(one of the worlds largest) that was President Roosevelt's favorite . It was even fitted with a Presidential Bathtub for a trip to Casablanca for the Tehran conference in 1943 .
I could have sworn that San Francisco was a Navy town . . . I guess that was before it became San Frandildo. This is a prime example of a few homopoliticians not representing the people .Self serving asslicks!
Even former Mayor and now Senator Dianne Feinstein was shocked with the decision after securing 3 million dollars for the towing of the Iowa from Rhode Island .
This was from an article in the L.A. Times.
I see that you reside in San Frandildo. You must be very proud of the asslick dimwits on your county supervisor board that turned down the placement of the Battleship Iowa in your town because of their objection to the rescue of the Iraqi people and the military's rules towards people that prefer sex with the same gender as themselves. Stockton gladly took the historic ship(one of the worlds largest) that was President Roosevelt's favorite . It was even fitted with a Presidential Bathtub for a trip to Casablanca for the Tehran conference in 1943 .
I could have sworn that San Francisco was a Navy town . . . I guess that was before it became San Frandildo. This is a prime example of a few homopoliticians not representing the people .Self serving asslicks!
Even former Mayor and now Senator Dianne Feinstein was shocked with the decision after securing 3 million dollars for the towing of the Iowa from Rhode Island .
This was from an article in the L.A. Times.
G
Gabriella84
Guest
So what does any of that have to do with me?
Nuc
Senior Member
- Thread starter
- #191
sitarro said:Gabriella,
I see that you reside in San Frandildo. You must be very proud of the asslick dimwits on your county supervisor board that turned down the placement of the Battleship Iowa in your town because of their objection to the rescue of the Iraqi people and the military's rules towards people that prefer sex with the same gender as themselves. Stockton gladly took the historic ship(one of the worlds largest) that was President Roosevelt's favorite . It was even fitted with a Presidential Bathtub for a trip to Casablanca for the Tehran conference in 1943 .
I could have sworn that San Francisco was a Navy town . . . I guess that was before it became San Frandildo. This is a prime example of a few homopoliticians not representing the people .Self serving asslicks!
Even former Mayor and now Senator Dianne Feinstein was shocked with the decision after securing 3 million dollars for the towing of the Iowa from Rhode Island .
This was from an article in the L.A. Times.
Could you please repost this but in English. Rules of the forum are that the posts must be in English.
Gabriella84 said:Look who is talking -- the ultimate non-sensical hate-spewing bullethead. Get a clue.
You know a lot about hate don't you. You liberals have more HATE than anyone, and you display it in posts like your comments above as if no one is going to see it, or as if you think you're exempt from being called a HATER yourself. Well you're far more caustic than I am. YOU take the cake here for the sassiest little potty mouth. I pity your new husband.
So keep your slack jawed, dull witted, trailer trash, liberal bull shit, name calling gutter sentiments to yourself dough head, unless you want an all out fight on your hands, and I don't think the mods are going to go for that. I believe you've already been warned once, so you're walking on thin ice.
Get a life.
nucular said:Could you please repost this but in English. Rules of the forum are that the posts must be in English.
HaHaHaHaHa you're a riot and such an intellectual.
Hey Dimwit,nucular said:And?
Is your name Gabriella?
Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,864
- 2,040
I don't care if a man want's to do another man or visa versa, BUT WHEN THEY START SHOVING IT DOWN MY THORAT THAT THIS IS NORMAl BULL ..... I will not sit silently by and agree. It is NOT NORMAL. Even the animals that you progressives want us to belive is so rampant HOMOS, I've heard of one chimp species that does this..... The majority of the people feel this is not normal, so I guess the 5 percent who think it is, is more knowledgeable, I don't think so. So you all can argue until your blue in face, but it will never be accepted. And they should guietly live there lives, like the rest of us,(but we know they won't because there are all these other's progressive's who have impowerd them to bully their way into making us accept their bull.....way of living and I can guarntee if one of them get's in my face, and call me a homephobe, well it won't be a pretty scene. 
nucular said:No Numbskull, is your name "I am a repressed homosexual"?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 68
- Views
- 735
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 348
- Replies
- 112
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 163
- Views
- 469
- Replies
- 59
- Views
- 531
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 92
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8079
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-