Libertarian
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 220
- Reaction score
- 0
Maybe we should change the forum name actually. Good thought.Libertarian said:Since Gay marriage is a homosexual political goal, and since there are other posts/topics within the main "Gay marriage" topic, it is the most appropo category to place discussions related to homosexual politics.
That wasn't the point I was making. My point was, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If a small group* of homosexuals are bug chasers/gifters, that doesn't reflect on the whole group of homosexuals. Clinton's views do not reflect the views of all of the presidents and neither do Bush's views.Libertarian said:Re the "for every Clinto their is a Bush analogy", are you suggesting there is an equivalent counterpart subculture in the heterosexual community that actively seeks out HIV seroconversion?
Libertarian said:Since Gay marriage is a homosexual political goal, and since there are other posts/topics within the main "Gay marriage" topic, it is the most appropo category to place discussions related to homosexual politics.
I know all these things I am posting exposing the Homosexual Agneda and their behaviors is a public relations nightmare for you, but try to stay on topic, your thinly veiled desires to politically censor me might leave some people thinking your an advocate for homosexist intolerance, bigotry, mean spiritedness, discrimination and hate.
JustineCredible said::lol: Now you're just getting silly!
Honey, your ad hominem attacks really don't phase me on the whole.They must, otehrwise you would debate the posts instead of upsing scripted epithet "Jamming" techniques strategeized in the Homosexual Agenda as written in "Overhauling Straight America" by homosexual marketers Kirk, Madsen and Pill.
Your insistence to continue your ga-bashing is more and more apparent with each thread you start.
Readers, this again is the "jamming" tactic afrorementioned where the strategy is not not engage in a substnative debate, it is to paint oppositon as unstable, thus the homosexual agenda tatician gets to avoid the debate and deflect from the public relations nightmare homosexual behavior brings.
The fact that you feel it's necessary in a forum discussion on politics is what's truly disturbing.
Should I be silent and not vocally oppose and or expose the Homosexual Agenda?
I'm concerned about the obsession that so many Radcons have with the sex lives of liberals.
Trust me, my sex life is far better and I have had far more fantasies heterosexually fullfilled then the average RadLib. Often times the obsession conservatives have with liberals is they wish they were gettingheterosexually laid more. Most conservatives though are far more heterosexually adventurous then you know...I personally disagree with alot of what conservatives and especially Biblical fundamentalists have to say and think about sexual promiscuity. The way organized Western Religions control their members is by making t?em feel guilty about sexual pleasure, and the way violent societies ensure, encourage and perpetuate violence is by substituting intoleranbce of pleasure for tolerance of violence. You are highly guilty of steroetyping. Remember, I am a libertarian, and I beleive in the core values of libertarianism, and most of the values of conservative republicanism, which is liberty, freedom, and acceptance of a high degree of personal responsibility and accountability, a highly limited government just like Reagan though when he said; "The government that governs the least governs the best.
From Clinton to homosexuals, they take grandstanding to a new level.
Politicians in general are all to a degree guilty of this.....if I here one more politician defending raising taxes on workign stiffs under the laughable claim of "let's do it for the children" as they hold a baby, I think I will barf.
All the while divorce rates among "Christian Conservatives" still FAR out numbers "liberals" and white collar drug use is at an all time HIGH.[/quote
Well, you seem to have issues with Christians, you don't see me defending them although I would prefer them as neighbors over "Tina" using heavy letehrmen pedophile chicken hawk cruisers at a "bug chasing and gifting party" just after they left a Massachuesetts School Board workshop to teach children to homosexually fist eachother..
Prostetution and Pornography are NOT the sole propriety of homosexuals or even liberals for that matter.
We don't disagree, and I personally think both in the right circumstances are beneficial to society, just frequently not the way they are often done. The current popular sub-genre of degradation of women in porn I find disgusting.
Sexual scandals and Right-wingnuts aren't strangers by any means. From Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell, they all have their skeletons in and out of the closet.
It is telling you picked two Christian Fundamentalists. I am unaware of any sex "scandals" by either of the two. I personally couldn't care less about either of their sexual lives, as I certainly thought the liberal medias fascination with Clinton receiving oral sex was none of anyone's business. My sympathy went out to Lewisnky as I though Clinton was not a real man because he didn't return the favor and I personally would be too worried a dry cigar would not bring pleasure to a woman....
Your insistance on dredging up the most disgusting elements of the gay community only shows your personal obsession for what it is.
No, look, let's get a few things straight. Some heterosexuals abuse drugs, some so called Christians have sex with prostitutes and transexuals,some of them have multiple anonymous partners and a host of other behaviors. It is male homosexuals who engage in a DISPROPORTIONATE number of behaviors some would consider revolting that I intend to allude to with evidence, much of it from homosexuals themselves. Maybe if homosexuals didn't deny this public relations nightmare and engage in an incredibly successful campaign of propaganda and denial, that exposing it wouldn't be so easy....and so entertaining since due to the sucess of their propaganda campaign and their use of "The Big Lie" technique from the book that homosexual politial extremists "ActUp!" (Aids Coaltion To Unleash Power) publically has admitted to using when they said they took their tactics from from Hitler's Mein Kampf.
That's horrible. But hey, he's upfront about his HIV status and is a consenting adult. Why should you care?Libertarian said:While looking through homosexual male personal ads looking for sexual partners willing to abuse crystal meth, as I mentioned was rampant in the male homosewxual community and acts as an HIV modulator via immunosupression, I came across this "bug chaser/gifter":
shuamort said:That's horrible. But hey, he's upfront about his HIV status and is a consenting adult. Why should you care?
It's still none of your business of course. But if you want to talk about it, non-smokers do not subsidize smokers' health care insurance. Smokers do that with their higher premiums. An insurance company can create biases based on things that are typically federally protected class (such as age, marital status and gender). So that should alleviate any of your concerns.Libertarian said:Just because these people are sick, twisted, self destructive and perverse, doesn't mean I utterly complete devalue their lives. These filthbags are still someones sons whose parents love them and I never want to see anyone suffer, the cruel, hideous, painful wasting death of their self-induced fatal disease.
Additionally, when people engage in this type of self destructive deliberate behavior, they deliberately tax health insurance and thus remarkably impact premiums that the rest of us normal heterosexual people have to subsidize, and these homosexual shave managed to make it illegal to ask sexual behaviorstatus so insruance companies cancharge higher premiums for male homosexuals (female homosexuals' HIV rates are similar to heterosexuals-sexually vectored HIV is almost non-existant in the U.S.- proving AIDS in fact is a highly discriminatory disease).
Male homosexual behavior should no more be financially subsidized by heterosexuals then non-smokers should subsidize and significantly underwrite the health care insurance of smokers.
shuamort said:It's still none of your business of course. But if you want to talk about it, non-smokers do not subsidize smokers' health care insurance. Smokers do that with their higher premiums. An insurance company can create biases based on things that are typically federally protected class (such as age, marital status and gender). So that should alleviate any of your concerns.
Tobacco doesn't have a lobby? You sure you want to debate down that road?Libertarian said:That is because smokers do not have a lobby and have not adopted the tactic of the negro rights movement like homosexuals have.
What laws are these? Please list them specifically.Libertarian said:I know I for the most part don't subsidize smokers health care, I do subsidize male homosexuals health care, and that is just WRONG!
Male homosexuals have passed laws forcing heterosexual health care buyers to subsidize their deliberate behaviors highly efficient at killing the host at rates in excess of 50%.
shuamort said:That's horrible. But hey, he's upfront about his HIV status and is a consenting adult. Why should you care?
:roll:"While looking through homosexual male personal ads..."
What laws are these? Please list them specifically.
Libertarian said:To ask your political debate opponant of all things research and cite the laws that prohibit insurance companies from charging higher premiums to male homosexuals because they disproportionately seroconvert and tax the pool is not only ludicrous (thanks Mike Tyson), but is a common scripted debate tactic of the loosing side.
It's a bit late to quantify and change your words, when they're hanging out there all pink and naked up above. You explicitly and solely said: That is because smokers do not have a lobby and have not adopted the tactic of the negro rights movement like homosexuals have.Libertarian said:I said smokers don't have a lobby within the context that they have not lobbied to my knowlege to get their behavior listed as a civil right and have not lobbied to make it illegal to charge them higher health insurance rates.
Meh, we'll see how I fare. lol.Libertarian said:That is quite obvious from my post, but you resorted to some very transparent straw arguments.....I must have faith in your abilities more then exist or more likely, more then you admit to, because I think you are far more capable then this....consider that a combination of a backhanded but honest compliment and a simultaneous challenge.
The better question would be, why do you think homosexuals are your adversaries?Libertarian said:JusticeCredible, from a tactical standpoint, do you agree or disagree that it is wise to study the ways of one's adversaries if the goal is to prevail upon them?
Libertarian said:Since Gay marriage is a homosexual political goal, and since there are other posts/topics within the main "Gay marriage" topic, it is the most appropo category to place discussions related to homosexual politics.
I know all these things I am posting exposing the Homosexual Agneda and their behaviors is a public relations nightmare for you, but try to stay on topic, your thinly veiled desires to politically censor me might leave some people thinking your an advocate for homosexist intolerance, bigotry, mean spiritedness, discrimination and hate.
Libertarian said:Re the "for every Clinto their is a Bush analogy", are you suggesting there is an equivalent counterpart subculture in the heterosexual community that actively seeks out HIV seroconversion?
Libertarian said:Additionally, when people engage in this type of self destructive deliberate behavior, they deliberately tax health insurance and thus remarkably impact premiums that the rest of us normal heterosexual people have to subsidize, and these homosexual shave managed to make it illegal to ask sexual behaviorstatus so insruance companies cancharge higher premiums for male homosexuals (female homosexuals' HIV rates are similar to heterosexuals-sexually vectored HIV is almost non-existant in the U.S.- proving AIDS in fact is a highly discriminatory disease).
Male homosexual behavior should no more be financially subsidized by heterosexuals then non-smokers should subsidize and significantly underwrite the health care insurance of smokers.
And don't forget, dueling is illegal, and essentially that is what this is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?