The Homosexual Dilemma

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, I feel I should interject here... we discuss rumors and accusations, all the time. We just usually do so because the intellectually less fortunate present them as fact.

I'm impressed that you stood up and confessed that you are among the intellectually less fortunate. Bravo!

Well... that's the best you could've done. And you should be comforted through the knowledge that no one here expects any more from ya.

Deflection: Yields to the standing point; default concession.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

How is it possible for someone of your dimwitted level to expect anything above your pay grade?

OH! ... Hmmm ... nope... I have no idea what you were gropin' for in that mess.

Take another stab at it and this time... maybe look up 'cogency' and set that as your goal.

I really don't know how stabbing you again would allow you to get the point since you have the intellectual capacity of a chicken. OMG, I just insulted a chicken.

Oh my... ya didn't look it up.

Oh well.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I actually think it's possible for 26 women to go after the same man, telling the same lie and for the same reason. Money. Look how many women told their children to say Michael Jackson molested them. Because women are not as economically able to care for themselves, they are the majority of plaintiffs in frivolous lawsuits. The woman who "found" a finger in a bowl of Wendy's chili is a good example. I'm surprised that it isn't 50 women trying to stake their claim in the Cosby estate. All they have to do is make a consenting interaction with him a "rape" and then cash in..

The problem they have is that the statute of limitations has expired. So enters Gloria Allred to demand that Cosby do the "right thing", attempting to shame him into throwing money at the problem like Michael Jackson did. All of this will die down when the gold diggers find out they can't get anyone except the far Left jackals to believe their bullshit story and their transparent grab for personal enrichment.

Thankfully, most people are intelligent and don't predicate their decisions on a woman who found a finger in a bowl. The only woman who received money from a lawsuit regarding Cosby's sexual abuse of her was Andrea Constand. Why do you think he gave her money? Maybe she found his finger in her ....

Rich people throw money at their problems. You and I aren't rich, so we don't understand that money trumps principle in the world of rich people. Michael Jackson threw money at his problems and they went away...for a little while. Then other accusations came and his lawyers advised him if he didn't fight them, there would be no end in sight. So fight them he did, and he prevailed because the accusers were gold digging lying assholes, just like the women who accused Bill Cosby. Fortunately Cosby has come to the same epiphany as Michael Jackson did and he's not giving them anything. And Gloria Allred can stuff that one up her snatch.

 

[Syriusly]

Wow- that is a stunning piece of misrepresentation- even by your own low standards

Here is what you claimed:
"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie. Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....

Stop lying, Fish breath!"

Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago

Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times

I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.

In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.

Oh and your claim about

That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity.

Here is a whole article about Supreme Court Justices cracking jokes in court.

Can you present a case where justices "laughed out loud" during the serious portions of proceedings such as when oral arguments are being presented?

No? Then STFU!

You made a claim, it was proven false. Move on.

No, you made a claim that was proven false. Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.

I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.

No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG. Your claim, which was bullshit. Now we know you're a liar.

Like I pointed out before Saintboy-

Here is what you claimed:
"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie. Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....

Stop lying, Fish breath!"

Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago

Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times

I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.

In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.

 

[Syriusly]

[ that homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty .

You mean you think that the Vatican= like you and Greenboy also cannot tell the difference between rape and adults who happen to be attracted to the same gender?

What is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Can you present a case where justices "laughed out loud" during the serious portions of proceedings such as when oral arguments are being presented?

No? Then STFU!

You made a claim, it was proven false. Move on.

No, you made a claim that was proven false. Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.

I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.

No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG. Your claim, which was bullshit. Now we know you're a liar.

Like I pointed out before Saintboy-

Here is what you claimed:
"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie. Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....

Stop lying, Fish breath!"

Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago

Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times

I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.

In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.

Supreme Court justices do not laugh out loud when oral arguments are being presented. Either find a case that refutes that or STFU.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

[ that homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty .

You mean you think that the Vatican= like you and Greenboy also cannot tell the difference between rape and adults who happen to be attracted to the same gender?

What is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender?

Actually, the Vatican deferred to the same expert research that I do which indicates a strong link between homosexuality and pederasty. It's not to say all homosexuals bugger boys, but that enough of them do that homosexuals should not be allowed to be priests out of an abundance of caution.

50 shades of gay. You can't escape from the truth.

 

[GreenBean]

He can't do it because he's guilty.

So what makes him guilty - his penis or your vegina ??

Do you always hide behind your scatological humor? Sickening!

You didn't answer the question sweetheart - should I rephrase it for you ?

Do you believe he is guilty because he is a male ? .... and you are prejudiced against all males a/k/a thinking with your c*nt

 

[GreenBean]

I actually think it's possible for 26 women to go after the same man, telling the same lie and for the same reason. Money. Look how many women told their children to say Michael Jackson molested them. Because women are not as economically able to care for themselves, they are the majority of plaintiffs in frivolous lawsuits. The woman who "found" a finger in a bowl of Wendy's chili is a good example. I'm surprised that it isn't 50 women trying to stake their claim in the Cosby estate. All they have to do is make a consenting interaction with him a "rape" and then cash in..

The problem they have is that the statute of limitations has expired. So enters Gloria Allred to demand that Cosby do the "right thing", attempting to shame him into throwing money at the problem like Michael Jackson did. All of this will die down when the gold diggers find out they can't get anyone except the far Left jackals to believe their bullshit story and their transparent grab for personal enrichment.

I don't really believe that they are all lying -I think he is probably guilty - what I do believe is that he is being pre-judged by Leftists, libtards and feminazis based on his masculinity . He is a man- his accusers are female therefore he is guilty based on masculinity alone - their convoluted logic as well as the liberal narrative dictates such - and I hope you do forgive me if my posts this night are not up to my usual queer bashing standards -but I've been downing Jack daniels since ...... whenever ....and I fell .... groovy baby

 

[GreenBean]

somebody who tells blacks to stop listening to liberals and start taking responsibility for themselves.

Under the Fascist Liberal machine , firmly controlled by the Democrats, even during Republican administrations, the Liberal Fascists dictate, manipulate and devastate the poor, and poor families, in particular African Americans. The bumbling Fascists and liberal bureaucracy which on the surface claims that it attempts to end poverty are a fucking sick joke vomited onto society and have only succeeded in forming a new type of slavery , slavery to the Liberal machine.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I actually think it's possible for 26 women to go after the same man, telling the same lie and for the same reason. Money. Look how many women told their children to say Michael Jackson molested them. Because women are not as economically able to care for themselves, they are the majority of plaintiffs in frivolous lawsuits. The woman who "found" a finger in a bowl of Wendy's chili is a good example. I'm surprised that it isn't 50 women trying to stake their claim in the Cosby estate. All they have to do is make a consenting interaction with him a "rape" and then cash in..

The problem they have is that the statute of limitations has expired. So enters Gloria Allred to demand that Cosby do the "right thing", attempting to shame him into throwing money at the problem like Michael Jackson did. All of this will die down when the gold diggers find out they can't get anyone except the far Left jackals to believe their bullshit story and their transparent grab for personal enrichment.

I don't really believe that they are all lying -I think he is probably guilty - what I do believe is that he is being pre-judged by Leftists, libtards and feminazis based on his masculinity . He is a man- his accusers are female therefore he is guilty based on masculinity alone - their convoluted logic as well as the liberal narrative dictates such - and I hope you do forgive me if my posts this night are not up to my usual queer bashing standards -but I've been downing Jack daniels since ...... whenever ....and I fell .... groovy baby

Southern Comfort for me tonight. 100 proof.

 

[GreenBean]

I hate bullies, so stop bullying me. As I've mentioned, if Cosby is an innocent little lamb, then he should stand before his accusers, look them in the eye, and call them liars. He can't do it because he's guilty.

Cosby doesn't have to defend himself, the DISGUSTING FILTH in the Lame Stream Media is doing that for him.

No way 30+ older women, many of them now married and/or with adult children, are going to come forward and claim 'rape' with the stigma that accusation places on them personally.

Do I think it happens once in a while between one woman crying rape to try to shake down one man? Usually for money?

No. I think it happens A LOT.

But not here. Cosby is a rapist and the DISGUSTING FILTH is going to protect him until they can't anymore. If that day ever comes.

He's one of them. And we all know how scumbags stick together. The entire leftist movement sticks together like thieves because...... Well, that's what they are.

Wake up dude, they smell money. Thats all this is about, shaking down a rich black guy who spoke out against the black ghetto culture.

Why is the 90 year-old man coming forth? For the money and fame?

Even though I'm drunk as a mother fkin skunk -its pretty fkin obvious that whatever you intended to convey with that half sassed post was a classic fail - what "90 year-old man" are you referring to ? Big Billy Boy cosby - ....he came forward ?with what ? - he may have cum ... but he didn't come forward with anything but denials... so WTF are you talking about !?

 

[GreenBean]

I actually think it's possible for 26 women to go after the same man, telling the same lie and for the same reason. Money. Look how many women told their children to say Michael Jackson molested them. Because women are not as economically able to care for themselves, they are the majority of plaintiffs in frivolous lawsuits. The woman who "found" a finger in a bowl of Wendy's chili is a good example. I'm surprised that it isn't 50 women trying to stake their claim in the Cosby estate. All they have to do is make a consenting interaction with him a "rape" and then cash in..

The problem they have is that the statute of limitations has expired. So enters Gloria Allred to demand that Cosby do the "right thing", attempting to shame him into throwing money at the problem like Michael Jackson did. All of this will die down when the gold diggers find out they can't get anyone except the far Left jackals to believe their bullshit story and their transparent grab for personal enrichment.

I don't really believe that they are all lying -I think he is probably guilty - what I do believe is that he is being pre-judged by Leftists, libtards and feminazis based on his masculinity . He is a man- his accusers are female therefore he is guilty based on masculinity alone - their convoluted logic as well as the liberal narrative dictates such - and I hope you do forgive me if my posts this night are not up to my usual queer bashing standards -but I've been downing Jack daniels since ...... whenever ....and I fell .... groovy baby

Southern Comfort for me tonight. 100 proof.

Southern comfort is cool -wild turkey too - but I like my Jack daniels sour mash Tennessee whiskey .... straight out the bottle ... I'd run my ass up the liquor store and get me another fifth but I don't drink and drive ....Happy MLK Day to all my Republican brothers ..... In honor of our fellow Republican murdered by a liberal Democratic piece of shit scumbag

 

[GreenBean]

According to Tina Fey, he put de pills into de peoples, and de peoples didn't want them.

So you're grafting Bill Cosby into the conversation based on that? An accusation is a foregone conclusion for you? That's not even remotely a standard of proof needed for intelligent conversation. You just outed yourself as an idiot.

When twenty-six women come forward to tell their stories about an American icon without seeking monetary damages, I for one, believe them.. When a 90 year-old man, who worked for NBC during the Cosby Show as Cosby's facilities manager, says Cosby had everybody fooled because he was in charge of arranging payments to the women Cosby had affairs with, I believe him.
I'm including Cosby into the conversation because I believe him to be a sexual pervert; someone who has hurt many, many women.
Why doesn't Cosby face the accusers, look them in face, and deny the charges instead of hiding behind high-priced lawyers?

You believing them is not proof. Bill Cosby is not an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations. You really suck at intellectual conversation don't you? We discuss facts, not accusations and rumors. You're too stupid to see the futility in your strategy so I have to point it out to you.

Well, I feel I should interject here... we discuss rumors and accusations, all the time. We just usually do so because the intellectually less fortunate present them as fact.

I'm impressed that you stood u and confessed that you are among the intellectually less fortunate. Bravo!

So what say the Fag queen about Bryan Sanger -molester of little boys and darling of Hollywood gay mafioso - I guess that the bitch is innocent of the molestation charges leveled against him ..... based on what logic ? .... well he is a faggot of course ...and the liberal narrative demands that "thou shalt not suffer a faggot to die" die faggot die ..... Director Bryan Singer Accused of Sexually Abusing 17-Year-Old Boy in 1999 - The Hollywood Reporter


Ands what about that lowlife piece of sh*t sc*mbag poster boy fore the Queers Harvey MF Milk dirt bag scum...drug pedaling , child molestor Google Groups

 

[MaryL]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Heterosexuals just keep on keepin' on having babies and all that. DAMN, gays need special rights and special biological engineering, and social engineering. And lots of money an lawyers. That is all equal rights are about. How much money do you have? And does that buy you rights? You like little girls? or Animals? Polygamy? What is next?

 

[GreenBean]

Hey Faggot LIberal Muthafukkers ... go to hell ... eat shit and drop dead soon. Oh yeah...... sleep tight ...don't let the bed bugs bite ....ya fkn sc*mbags

 

[Seawytch]

Wow- that is a stunning piece of misrepresentation- even by your own low standards

Here is what you claimed:
"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie. Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....

Stop lying, Fish breath!"

Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago

Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times

I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.

In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.

Oh and your claim about

That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity.

Here is a whole article about Supreme Court Justices cracking jokes in court.

Can you present a case where justices "laughed out loud" during the serious portions of proceedings such as when oral arguments are being presented?

No? Then STFU!

You made a claim, it was proven false. Move on.

No, you made a claim that was proven false. Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.

I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.

No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG. Your claim, which was bullshit. Now we know you're a liar.

You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Hey Faggot LIberal Muthafukkers ... go to hell ... eat shit and drop dead soon. Oh yeah...... sleep tight ...don't let the bed bugs bite ....ya fkn sc*mbags

Mean drunk?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Can you present a case where justices "laughed out loud" during the serious portions of proceedings such as when oral arguments are being presented?

No? Then STFU!

You made a claim, it was proven false. Move on.

No, you made a claim that was proven false. Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.

I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.

No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG. Your claim, which was bullshit. Now we know you're a liar.

You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.

Your lies have been exposed. I'm moving on.

 

[Seawytch]

You made a claim, it was proven false. Move on.

No, you made a claim that was proven false. Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.

I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.

No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG. Your claim, which was bullshit. Now we know you're a liar.

You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.

Your lies have been exposed. I'm moving on.

Classic projection. I've not lied, I simply pointed out where you were mistaken. Here's the timeline of events:

1. Another poster claimed that justices laughed out loud at an argument made that was similar to yours and then provided audio of the 1967 case in question. You did not listen to the audio and still denied it happened.

2. You then claimed, and I quote: "Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments."

3. I then provided evidence where, during oral arguments in the Prop 8 case, the justices did, in fact, laugh out loud...proving you mistaken in your claims.

It's no wonder you wish to move on...as I suggested when I first pointed out you were mistaken in your claims.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Hey Faggot LIberal Muthafukkers ... go to hell ... eat shit and drop dead soon. Oh yeah...... sleep tight ...don't let the bed bugs bite ....ya fkn sc*mbags

Try a better bourbon. The cheap stuff clearly kills more brain cells.