*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.
Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds
CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ---->
  |
|
Page 3 of 4
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1940
  
votes: 5
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:01 pm Post subject: Re: Wither Sarah Palin and the Tea Party? |
 |
|
I really have to take this on, DixieCanuck, because it just doesn't fit with the real world in any detail.
| Quote: | | It's social conservatives that tell people what to do with their lives with socially conservative laws and that is a group that she identifies which is a poison pill to many that would otherwise be supportive of the economic policies.... |
This is absolutely not true. Social Conservatives in the USA came into politics because so many special interest groups were trying to achieve political power so they could use the state to force socially progressive policies on them. Not just abortions, but homosexuality. You freaks go nuts at the thought that a woman's right to slaughter her unborn children could be limited in some slight way ... but the people aren't organizing to do that. Where?
If any social policy has been 'forced down out throats', surely it's same sex marriage. That is, no doubt about it, same sex marriage is an invasion of an institution that has nothing to do with homosexuality ... its a special bit of law that, on the face of it is terribly unjust ... unless, that is, you are a heterosexual couple with children. Then, and only then, it makes sense.
Homosexual activists have made this a key because they want to have equal rights with parents in determining what the state will program into our children in the guise of 'Sex Education'. Check it out… http://findarticles.com/p/arti.....n45145592/
| Quote: | | It's fine to BE socially conservative. It's quite another to expect something of someone other than the right to be left alone. As long as someone is not impeding my life, liberty or property, why should I care what they do in their house? |
Please, be specific. What social conservative is bothering you? What socially conservative policy is out there, bothering anybody?
My bet? Nobody.
| Quote: | Valuing personal responsibility and demanding your definition of personal ressponsibility from others is two different things. Ron Paul's libertarian way about personal responsibility is that you can do whatever you want, to yourself, but you also have to deal with the consequences and the government will not be there to help. Charity will help those that make bad personal decisions but nobody should have to bear the cost of others bad behavior.
I think that is a much better way to bring about more personal responsibilty than to tell people what they have to do or face punishment. The punishment should be the natural consequences of bad decisions and the help to those that honestly need help is given by those who voluntarily give it. Since government no longer pays with our taxes, the people have the ability to give to charity and maybe even to volunteer since they may not have to work so much to pay so much tax. Those charities will be much better at deciding who needs help than the government.
We want the same thing, more personal responsibility, and don't disagree that those who don't practice it are bad for themselves and society but libertarian conservatives think it should be done freely and economically. Social conservatives want to inflict punishment if you don't adhere to their brand of personal responsibility. |
Just what exactly are you talking about, concretely? This is all crap that liberals believe ... they think they support personal responsibility, but they don't. If they can't get the government to do it, there's no point. |
|
|
|
 |
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1940
votes: 5
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:02 pm Post subject: Re: Wither Sarah Palin and the Tea Party? |
|
|
I really have to take this on, DixieCanuck, because it just doesn't fit with the real world in any detail.
| Quote: | | It's social conservatives that tell people what to do with their lives with socially conservative laws and that is a group that she identifies which is a poison pill to many that would otherwise be supportive of the economic policies.... |
This is absolutely not true. Social Conservatives in the USA came into politics because so many special interest groups were trying to achieve political power so they could use the state to force socially progressive policies on them. Not just abortions, but homosexuality. You freaks go nuts at the thought that a woman's right to slaughter her unborn children could be limited in some slight way ... but the people aren't organizing to do that. Where?
If any social policy has been 'forced down out throats', surely it's same sex marriage. That is, no doubt about it, same sex marriage is an invasion of an institution that has nothing to do with homosexuality ... its a special bit of law that, on the face of it is terribly unjust ... unless, that is, you are a heterosexual couple with children. Then, and only then, it makes sense.
Homosexual activists have made this a key because they want to have equal rights with parents in determining what the state will program into our children in the guise of 'Sex Education'. Check it out… http://findarticles.com/p/arti.....n45145592/
| Quote: | | It's fine to BE socially conservative. It's quite another to expect something of someone other than the right to be left alone. As long as someone is not impeding my life, liberty or property, why should I care what they do in their house? |
Please, be specific. What social conservative is bothering you? What socially conservative policy is out there, bothering anybody?
My bet? Nobody.
| Quote: | Valuing personal responsibility and demanding your definition of personal ressponsibility from others is two different things. Ron Paul's libertarian way about personal responsibility is that you can do whatever you want, to yourself, but you also have to deal with the consequences and the government will not be there to help. Charity will help those that make bad personal decisions but nobody should have to bear the cost of others bad behavior.
I think that is a much better way to bring about more personal responsibilty than to tell people what they have to do or face punishment. The punishment should be the natural consequences of bad decisions and the help to those that honestly need help is given by those who voluntarily give it. Since government no longer pays with our taxes, the people have the ability to give to charity and maybe even to volunteer since they may not have to work so much to pay so much tax. Those charities will be much better at deciding who needs help than the government.
We want the same thing, more personal responsibility, and don't disagree that those who don't practice it are bad for themselves and society but libertarian conservatives think it should be done freely and economically. Social conservatives want to inflict punishment if you don't adhere to their brand of personal responsibility. |
Just what exactly are you talking about, concretely? This is all crap that liberals believe ... they think they support personal responsibility, but they don't. If they can't get the government to do it, there's no point. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 7:08 am Post subject: Re: Wither Sarah Palin and the Tea Party? |
|
|
| Bugs wrote: |
| Quote: | | It's fine to BE socially conservative. It's quite another to expect something of someone other than the right to be left alone. As long as someone is not impeding my life, liberty or property, why should I care what they do in their house? |
Please, be specific. What social conservative is bothering you? What socially conservative policy is out there, bothering anybody?
My bet? Nobody.. |
I think gay people have a point. Look at the history of anti-sodomy laws in the states. Even into the 90's some still existed and attempts to appeal them met with stiff social conservative resistance. Really, who cares what two people do out of sight?
Look at efforts to prevent gay people from acting as teachers, parents or coaches. Many have also been ignorant as $#% about the issue to. Linking homosexuality with child molestation and other such BS.
Look at gays in the military.
While we are at it, go look at the opposition to teaching evolution in high school. Go look at efforts to ban *all* sex education in schools. Go look at the "Creation museum" and other monuments to human ignorance. Go look at elements of the drug war that have gone to far.
While certainly not all social conservatives hold these views, there are some exteremists out there. |
|
|
|
|
kwlafayette
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dana wrote: | | JBG wrote: | | kwlafayette wrote: | | Ron Paul is a loon. Sarah Palin is not. |
Don't get too high on Sarah. No one quits mid-term from a Governor's post unless something is badly wrong. |
Whether or not Ron is a loon he was not on the receiving end of a full court press, if you'll pardon the puns, as was Mrs. Palin, from the Democrat-media complex.
Is there anything at all they can throw at her now? She writes on her hand?! Oh noes!
There is definitely something wrong when a phalanx of investigators descend on Alaska, and the people of America are told far more about the candidate for VP than the guy in office. And when all the complaints against the Governor are proven unsubstantiated, was that reported by these 'journalists' in bold headlines and cunning sound-bites?
As a private citizen with the financial ability to hire very good lawyers, Sarah does not have to tolerate the media or any other opinion with an asshole failing to obey existing slander and libel laws. |
I think that is, more than anything else, an excellent illustration of exactly who wields power and influence, and who does not. The media ignores Ron Paul, because what he says does not matter to a lot of people. The media has 40,000 full time people following Sarah Palin everywhere she goes because.... she is so dumb and irrelevant? Yeah, that has to be it, right. |
|
|
|
|
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1940
votes: 5
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:47 am Post subject: Re: Wither Sarah Palin and the Tea Party? |
|
|
Oops
Last edited by Bugs on Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1940
votes: 5
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:49 am Post subject: Re: Wither Sarah Palin and the Tea Party? |
|
|
I was hoping Dixiecanuck would respond, because my point was different than yours, fiscalconservative ... because, in fact, social conservatives get very little out of the political process, and even less in these cases.
Fisc said: | Quote: | | I think gay people have a point. Look at the history of anti-sodomy laws in the states. Even into the 90's some still existed and attempts to appeal them met with stiff social conservative resistance. Really, who cares what two people do out of sight? |
Wow. Just exactly what is the gay point, I wonder? Please tell us. Were these laws not the wishes of the people? Perhaps they understood how socially disfunctional homosexuality was? You act as if the acceptance of homosexual practices in front of your face is some kind of proof of gentility, or something. It's not.
Today, the public feels that what you do in your bedroom is nobody's business. But that isn't what's at stake.
Surely, the real position of heterosexuals is 'don't ask, don't tell. Heterosexuals don't want anything from homosexuals except that the have the decency to be discreet in public, and that they leave their kids alone. They get neither.
In fact, heterosexuals are beat up on the issue, because anything short of recognizing sucking dicks to be a triumph of an advancing civilization, isn't good enough.
| Quote: | Look at efforts to prevent gay people from acting as teachers, parents or coaches. Many have also been ignorant as $#% about the issue to. Linking homosexuality with child molestation and other such BS.
Look at gays in the military. |
Yes, all of these are intrusions of homosexuality into existing institutions. Prior to this, the military forces were a no-sex zone, at least officially. What's wrong with that?
Now we pretend women go to war, side by side with men ... but the casualties say otherwise. It's a parallel lie to the one you are supporting, fiscalconservative. You want us to pretend that homosexuals are persecuted in present day Canada, and that they need a remedy.
Besides, since when did social conservatives have any influence in the military?
| Quote: | | While we are at it, go look at the opposition to teaching evolution in high school. Go look at efforts to ban *all* sex education in schools. Go look at the "Creation museum" and other monuments to human ignorance. Go look at elements of the drug war that have gone to far. |
More bullshit, fisc. The great Scopes 'monkey trial' was a test case. So was the famous 'persons case' in Canada -- cases that were set up to clarify the law on the different points of contention. Don't believe that Inherit the Wind is the truth ... it's the liberal fantasy, a story about the bigotry of the masses, which justifies the use of law to beat back attitudes that the elites don't like.
Look at what a lot of homosexual activism is about -- getting a homosexual presence in sexual education classes. The real goal is recruitment, as I said. Why is students being hectored to accept "fisting" as a normal sexual practice -- in school -- a good thing? Because that's what's actually about. Check it out http://gatewaypundit.firstthin.....ding-list/ You think it's about preventing AIDS, but what they are really about changing the attitudes of the students towards homosexuals themselves.
The pretense -- which is accepted without question -- it that homosexuals are like black people, unfairly repressed and oppressed by bands of 'homophobes' -- not wanting your kids by laws intended to prevent them from working or having a normal live, etc. It's nonsense. In Toronto, the last homophobic murder was over 20 years ago. All a homosexual has fully enter social life in Canada is ... nothing. Maybe stop celebrating queer sex? No, as I sit here, I am listening to Mark Tewksbury regaling all of Canada with the tribulations homosexuals have doing the backstroke in the homophobic country. He's recruiting, of course. The real message is you can be queer and play sport, and if you play sports, there's queers in the dressing room with you. Why? When does heteroseuxality get a spokesman, media access, etc? Never, that's why.
Homosexuals have been discriminated against in sensitive occupations, because it was a concern that they could be blackmailed. The Russians recruited and trained spies willing to do anything for their countries .... and we can see how well that worked with the Cambridge spy ring, all of whom were queer, and who betrayed Britain's secrets to the Russian bear at every opportunity.
Those spies are far closer to being 'typical' of homosexuals than American blacks, or any genuinely discriminated against group. Sociologically, homosexuality does not appear in groups where life is hard. It's a product of the leisure classes. There have been times when half the Courts of Europe were so riddled with homosexuality that it is difficult to see what is 'normal'. It's hard to see the persecution. But maybe someone on here can find some ... try it.
What fiscal conservative ignores, of course, is that young men are the target of this effort, and the object is their recruitment into homosexuality. It's not about education in the sense of transmitting information. It's about turning young boys (and, to a far less extent, girls) on.
You want social conservatism go away? It's easy -- stop allowing the various agents of the state from promoting anti-family values and actions. Put the same public resources into sustaining families as we do into recruiting young men into homoseuxality. Why not? |
|
|
|
|
JBG
Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 818
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Forward wrote: |
So you are one of those people who are taking the shots at Palin for the writing on her hand.
You mentioned you are a lawyer, perhaps you shouldn't take too many shots at people. Lawyers are pretty open to shots themselves.
|
You misunderstand.
Yes, I am critical of Sarah Palin. No, not forwriting on her hadn. I was merely pointing ot that sometimes the hand is a perfectly appropriate place to take notes. I prefer discussing the merits of issues, not engaging in petty attacks.
My concern about Sarah Palin doesn't even concern her policies (except for possible Alaska separatism); it concerns her electability. A conservative Republican does not have to make themselves so centrist that they take New York. They do need to pick up some swing states such as Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Virginia. Without those states the G.O.P. has no chance. And even Califonia should be doable. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:22 pm Post subject: Re: Wither Sarah Palin and the Tea Party? |
|
|
| Bugs wrote: |
Surely, the real position of heterosexuals is 'don't ask, don't tell. Heterosexuals don't want anything from homosexuals except that the have the decency to be discreet in public, and that they leave their kids alone. They get neither.
|
I don't know where you live, but I have *never* witnessed an act of homosexual behavior in public.
As for the "leave their kids alone"...I will let you explain that before I jump to conclusions.
| Quote: |
In fact, heterosexuals are beat up on the issue, because anything short of recognizing sucking dicks to be a triumph of an advancing civilization, isn't good enough.
|
I don't know who or what your are talking about, but whatever it is must be a rather small minority
| Quote: |
You want us to pretend that homosexuals are persecuted in present day Canada, and that they need a remedy.
|
These post started off in the context of the United States. I do not believe homosexuals are persecuted in Canada at any organized level. The element that supports persecuting them is simply not powerful enough.
| Quote: |
More bullshit, fisc. The great Scopes 'monkey trial' was a test case. So was the famous 'persons case' in Canada -- cases that were set up to clarify the law on the different points of contention.
|
I was not talking about the Scopes monkey trial. I am talking about what is going on today. There are efforts all over the states to combat the theory of evolution in high schools. Some theatres in the south pulled an IMAX science film because of its references to evolution.
| Quote: |
Look at whatThe real goal is recruitment,
|
YOU CANNOT RECRUIT PEOPLE TO BE GAY!!!.
| Bugs wrote: |
Homosexuals have been discriminated against in sensitive occupations, because it was a concern that they could be blackmailed. The Russians recruited and trained spies willing to do anything for their countries .... and we can see how well that worked with the Cambridge spy ring, all of whom were queer, and who betrayed Britain's secrets to the Russian bear at every opportunity.
|
That is a wonderfully vicious circle. They are discriminated against because they can be blackmailed because they are discriminated against.......
Besides, you don't think a hetrosexual can be blackmailed ? The Russians use to do that all the time too.
Just think it Tiger Woods got a diplomatic post
| Bugs wrote: | I
What fiscal conservative ignores, of course, is that young men are the target of this effort, and the object is their recruitment into homosexuality. It's not about education in the sense of transmitting information. It's about turning young boys (and, to a far less extent, girls) on.
|
How the heck to you recruit some into homosexuality ? Do you read a brochure and decide, "hey, I want to stick a guys dick in my mouth"??? You can't recruit someone into being gay. You are gay or you are not. They say now that the "choice" is made long before you are born. |
|
|
|
|
kwlafayette
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:45 pm Post subject: Re: Wither Sarah Palin and the Tea Party? |
|
|
| Bugs wrote: |
In fact, heterosexuals are beat up on the issue, because anything short of recognizing sucking dicks to be a triumph of an advancing civilization, isn't good enough.
|
That is a good one. People really do not know what the word tolerance means anymore. Modern society is exactly like that South Park episode, where the kids get punished when they complain about a Mr. Garrison putting a gerbil up Mr. Slave's rear. Catholic priests who molest little boys aren't gay, and that is all the church's fault for hiring perverted heterosexuals (who like boys). The world really is upside down, and the most upside down are the most adamant that everything is just great and getting better. |
|
|
|
|
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1940
votes: 5
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
For the Fiscal Conservative
Point #1: I live in Toronto. It isn't hard to see sexual behaviour between same-sex couples ... I don't mean they're doing their version of the nasty, but it isn't hard to see kissing in restaurants, and that level of stuff. It isn't everywhere, and it usually is after work, but some people really find it distasteful.
Beyond that, and more of what I meant, is that organized homosexuality is expert at publicity, and they make a lot of noise. Speaking metaphorically. As Elsie Wayne once said, "When it comes to people who wish to live together, whether they are women or men, why do they have to be out here in the public always debating that they want to call it marriage? Why are they in parades? Why are they dressed up as women on floats?"
A lot of people feel that way, but they're essentially intimidated into silence. This phony debate, -- this elevation of something that (essentially) nobody opposes, into a 'cause' is the hallmark of gay culture. They pretend that homosexuality is 'liberation'. They are constantly pretending their stuggle is like that of blacks, coming back from slavery, the victims of horrible injustices and oppression ... that justifies, by the way, their present excesses. It's all a crock.
Point #2: Are gays really persecuted? Did you know that same sex marriage, in fact, gave Canadian homosexuals no new rights? It was all symbolism, although now it is being used as the basis for more claims on major public institutions.
Homosexual groups attack heterosexual groups all the time. Organized homosexual groups in the USA have a fatwa against Boy Scouts, for instance. The reason? Because the Scouts screen the adults who are put in charge of troops to make sure they aren't homosexual. The homosexual groups that feel ripped off took the case to the Supreme Court. They lost. Since then, these activist groups have targeted the Boy Scouts, trying to bankrupt the organization. They call is 'Lawfare', and it's a strategy that they claim. In other words, they don't care if they lose. They sue on any pretext. This isn't as developed in Canada because, after all, it isn't as easy to sue people.
People get their ideas because of a single incident, like that of Matthew Sheppard, which was horrible, and nobody would wish that on anyone. However, if you put this in context, homosexuals kill a lot of people. Right at the same time that the Sheppard murder took place, there was a killing of a kid by two homosexuals playing a sex game, where they had the kid naked, and tied up, and the game involved putting things like cucumbers up his bottom. They ended up killing the kid, and it the story was stifled. Probably because it would disturb people, and perhaps being a little more cynical about gays. In fact, those kinds of incidents are many times more frequent that the Sheppard story.
I don't say this to suggest that the two things are parallel, or that the sex game was a retaliation on heterosexuals ... I only want to point out that these impressions that you have, fiscalcon, come from media, and homosexuals are all over the media. It's based on the reported versions of a few cases, usually, and doesn't represent the reality, which is far more prosaic.
The basic fact is that there is a huge amount of acceptance -- not tolerance, acceptance -- of homosexuals in urban North America. You have to go looking for opposition, and it isn't that easy to come up with.
Gays are anything but powerless in their milieu, the big cities. In the urban after-work downtown, gays are major players. Anywhere in the pop culture where young people gather, homosexuality is there, from the production to the music to the wait staff ... and, of course, they form a part of the clientele.
In the summer, it seems as if every major park turns into a cruise scene as soon as dusk settles.
Why are heterosexuals on the offensive? -- particularly after the passage of same-sex marriage? What I want to say is, Hey, whatever you're bitching about now, I didn't do it. None of us did it. What do we 'owe' homosexuals? They can take care of themselves, after all, they don't have many responsibilities outside of work. There's no need to go into a lawfare war with heterosexuality.
Which is what homosexual activism is.
What is the real bitch, anyway? Maybe it's that there's something genuinely fulfilling in having a family, at all the stages ... particularly when seen from outside. Maybe there's things that other people value that have nothing to do with homosexuality, and are genuinely beautiful -- like seeing your kids graduate, and get launched in life.
Homosexual gets lonely and pathetic, as they go into old age ... as the hair thins ... and how many times can you defoliate, to look young? But, still, as time goes on ... and it does go on ... that suburban dad, in his Dockers, busily finding things to use his power-washer on ... looks kind of appealing ... A homosexual can marry a guy, but somehow ... he can't seem to get to that sweet spot. The homosexual wife can even make pastry, and have a wonderful colour sense, but he can never make you a dad. Your love will never create a life.
But it's not my fault.
As a last rejoinder, the discrimination of the past -- and which was of its time, and had its own reasons -- has ended. Is anyone trying to claim anything different? It hasn't been like that since the 70ies ...
Point #3: Recruitment. You are just naive if you think people can't be recruited into homosexuality. Men serving long prison sentences often become homosexual. A lot of them un-become when they get out. Women are worse.
Fiscalcon, you probably have a certain amount of revulsion at the thought, am I wrong? You think that you are born with some particular sexual preference, given out on a random basis, but essentially biological. The problem with that is that if this were simply biology, how do you explain a ten fold increase in homosexuality over 60 years? DNA doesn't change that fast.
Homosexuality is growing the way it does not because of biology, but because it offers a more hospitable social environment to young, isolated men.
Imagine two 20 year olds arriving in Toronto from the same home town ... say, Chatham, ore Peterborough. They each know a few people from their home town, but otherwise, they're at Square One, no job, nothing but a room, often a mattress on the floor.
Let's posit, in this little thought experiment, that one is gay and one is not.
If you're a young white guy in Toronto, you have real problems finding work, depending ... but normally, 20 year old guys haven't even had a job. The jobs are in malls, as waiters, or restaurant help ...
Now we compare the two young men, as they marshal their resources to establish themselves in the city.
Time to get a room --- the same.
Time to get a job -- if the two of them have to depend on their own resources to find a job, asking people in stores, etc ... then it would be the same. But the gay guy has an extra edge. As soon as he has some connections in the gay community -- which can start at the first party he attends -- he has another route to success.
So, let's consider, six months after arrival, the gay kid has it all going on. He's got some fashion going for him, he has a large set of parties he can go to, each one capable of opening up new offers, and opportunities. It's 'network city'. I don't want to go overboard here, but trips to New York are certainly in the picture. This gay kid has all the advantages of any young man, plus he can use his sexual favours when it suits him. And people vary a lot in what suits them.
And, six months later, the straight kid is really depressed. He probably can't get much of a job, and exists on a couple of part time, minimum wage jobs. His clothes are what he used to wear to skateboard ... and he has hardly met anybody. Not only that, there is no obvious social entré into larger groups, as there is in the gay world. And the situation with contemporary females is something to chasten one. Because, in the age of the material girl, sexual ethnics have deteriorated into a kind of auctions ... at least so far as the pretty ones are concerned. 20 year old women see opportunity all over the place, and go to school, they get more jobs easier, and they pay better. In the pretty typical 26-30 year old couples that I know -- through my kids, so it's no random sample -- the guys work in things like phone centers, at $12 an hour, tops ... and their girlfriends do part-time social work, or stuff like that, which pays a lot better than the guys can wangle. This is all social policy working out at the level of social relations.
Nonetheless, these women are entirely traditional when it comes to the sex tax days ... Valentines Day, but also birthdays, Christmas, and just because they're them ... a woman wants to feel that her sexual relations are doing something for her. That's in the DNA. For a guy like out example, he's not got good prospects.
That's the missing piece of the puzzle, you have to look at what the straight guy faces to get himself socially launched, particularly if he doesn't have a job. Because he has to deal with something you and I never had to deal with ... the contemporary 20+ female. First of all, he doesn't stand much chance unless he has at least a little money -- enough to 'chill' at some bar or other, or these restaurant hangout places ... most of the time, he'll go through $20-$30 minimum. His task in getting a social circle is made so much more difficult that these kids tend to cluster into little tribes, with people from their home towns, with some of the friends they have made since. For them, a career choice is trying to find a band to join. They get a patchwork of part-time jobs, and if they get two or three of them, they can support themselves ... but it takes time.
For the girls, this is a time for 'friends with benefits' ... they don't want to be waiting for the phone to ring, and it turns out that it's these jobless knobs.
How easy is it for the marginal cases like our example, to get taken into the vortex of the gay high-life, with its drugs, its glitz, and free tickets, CDs, etc? Are you kidding? Add to that, that the gay world is tremendously supportive of any baby step into 'membership' in some strange kind of cult. A group of people from all over the place, tied together by their sexual preference, and almost nothing else. A kid gets picked up, or invited to a party, a common thing ... he goes, with someone he knows ... they have a blast, they get stoned, they get some drinks, likely ... the music is the hottest, and suddenly they have a guy telling them that he could do wonder with their hair ...
It's seductive, but there isn't really any 'community' there. It's like a carnival. Most of the open homosexuals ... if they're there ... go back to the suburbs. It's the fringe ones that make it a total lifestyle in the 'village'. What it amounts to is a cluster of homosexual activists, formed into organizations, as well as a set of those who serve the homosexual clientele ... and make out handsomely as a result ... everything from store owners, restauranteurs, to real estate agents and insurance salesmen. The whole thing is like a yuppie networking thing gone mad.
The net effect is that lots of young men start a process this way, and it leads to a declared homosexual lifestyle. They opt for it, at least in the beginning, as much because what they leave is so barren, contemporary heterosexual relationships being what they are. How does it work? It works because sex is addictive and exciting. (There is something about the anus that is addictive -- ask your doctor. There are people who get addicted to enemas.)
If you find yourself, at 22, having lots of sex with guys, while you find trying to have sexual relations with contemporary women gives you nothing but pain and heartache, why wouldn't someone like that think he really was, inherently, gay? And why wouldn't he be recruited?
Give me a better word.
I sense you want to leap to conclusions ... despite your protestations. Believe me, I am not trying to get the law after queers. I just can't stand the heavy air of political correctness around this topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:57 pm Post subject: Re: Wither Sarah Palin and the Tea Party? |
|
|
| Bugs wrote: | I really have to take this on, DixieCanuck, because it just doesn't fit with the real world in any detail.
| Quote: | | It's social conservatives that tell people what to do with their lives with socially conservative laws and that is a group that she identifies which is a poison pill to many that would otherwise be supportive of the economic policies.... |
This is absolutely not true. Social Conservatives in the USA came into politics because so many special interest groups were trying to achieve political power so they could use the state to force socially progressive policies on them. Not just abortions, but homosexuality. You freaks go nuts at the thought that a woman's right to slaughter her unborn children could be limited in some slight way ... but the people aren't organizing to do that. Where?
If any social policy has been 'forced down out throats', surely it's same sex marriage. That is, no doubt about it, same sex marriage is an invasion of an institution that has nothing to do with homosexuality ... its a special bit of law that, on the face of it is terribly unjust ... unless, that is, you are a heterosexual couple with children. Then, and only then, it makes sense.
Homosexual activists have made this a key because they want to have equal rights with parents in determining what the state will program into our children in the guise of 'Sex Education'. Check it out… http://findarticles.com/p/arti.....n45145592/
|
You seem to assume I'm not a social conservative myself or so I assume by the 'freaks" reference among your many other classy statements. Freedom is freedom from either side, progressive or conservative, inflicting their views upon others.
| Bugs wrote: |
| Quote: | | It's fine to BE socially conservative. It's quite another to expect something of someone other than the right to be left alone. As long as someone is not impeding my life, liberty or property, why should I care what they do in their house? |
Please, be specific. What social conservative is bothering you? What socially conservative policy is out there, bothering anybody?
My bet? Nobody.
|
Again, you miss the point. It's not that a socially conservative law would really affect my day, it's the point of being told what to do by someone else's standard of behavior in the privacy of my own home. I dislike being told what to do by progressives as well and think they're more harmful to themselves and society than conservatives. Out in public is different though.. I oppose pride parades not because they are gay, but because there should be no sexual parades in the streets.
| Bugs wrote: |
| Quote: | Valuing personal responsibility and demanding your definition of personal ressponsibility from others is two different things. Ron Paul's libertarian way about personal responsibility is that you can do whatever you want, to yourself, but you also have to deal with the consequences and the government will not be there to help. Charity will help those that make bad personal decisions but nobody should have to bear the cost of others bad behavior.
I think that is a much better way to bring about more personal responsibilty than to tell people what they have to do or face punishment. The punishment should be the natural consequences of bad decisions and the help to those that honestly need help is given by those who voluntarily give it. Since government no longer pays with our taxes, the people have the ability to give to charity and maybe even to volunteer since they may not have to work so much to pay so much tax. Those charities will be much better at deciding who needs help than the government.
We want the same thing, more personal responsibility, and don't disagree that those who don't practice it are bad for themselves and society but libertarian conservatives think it should be done freely and economically. Social conservatives want to inflict punishment if you don't adhere to their brand of personal responsibility. |
Just what exactly are you talking about, concretely? This is all crap that liberals believe ... they think they support personal responsibility, but they don't. If they can't get the government to do it, there's no point. |
I'm not sure you understand that correctly. It may liberal but in a classic sense but it appears you just might not know the difference between classical liberalism and what we got called liberalism today. It means that people that make poor personal decisions such as junkies or those spend time in scenes that are far more likely to bring disease that you say should be punished, enforced and paid for by us all would instead have to face the personal consequences of those decisions themselves and paid for in money or health with no obligation on our part.
Of course there will be some horrible or sad examples but examples they will be and people might be more likely to choose a better way of their own free will. Those who don't will only be helped by those who choose to, of which there undoubtedly will be many, but their problems will only intrude on your life if you desire it.
I have to say often to those claiming to be socially conservative that we want the same things but I think your way of forcing and punishing is in no way sustainable while the libertarian way of freewill and economics looks a little more achievable with likely better results.
If you believe your life is your own, all other rights come from that. The government is there to protect those rights from being infringed on by other persons, groups, or states. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kwlafayette wrote: | | Dana wrote: | | JBG wrote: | | kwlafayette wrote: | | Ron Paul is a loon. Sarah Palin is not. |
Don't get too high on Sarah. No one quits mid-term from a Governor's post unless something is badly wrong. |
Whether or not Ron is a loon he was not on the receiving end of a full court press, if you'll pardon the puns, as was Mrs. Palin, from the Democrat-media complex.
Is there anything at all they can throw at her now? She writes on her hand?! Oh noes!
There is definitely something wrong when a phalanx of investigators descend on Alaska, and the people of America are told far more about the candidate for VP than the guy in office. And when all the complaints against the Governor are proven unsubstantiated, was that reported by these 'journalists' in bold headlines and cunning sound-bites?
As a private citizen with the financial ability to hire very good lawyers, Sarah does not have to tolerate the media or any other opinion with an asshole failing to obey existing slander and libel laws. |
I think that is, more than anything else, an excellent illustration of exactly who wields power and influence, and who does not. The media ignores Ron Paul, because what he says does not matter to a lot of people. The media has 40,000 full time people following Sarah Palin everywhere she goes because.... she is so dumb and irrelevant? Yeah, that has to be it, right. |
She is in no way a leader of the Tea Party movement after telling the Tea Partiers to pick a party when it's obvious that many are not going to do that. She, like many others fail to realize that many don't see much of a difference between the parties anymore on economic issues and want another option. Of course there are social differences but then again, many in the Tea Party don't care about that or prefer to deal with it at the state level.
At this point, she has way too many negatives to be credible whether it is deserved or not. In her defense she has had the media gunning for her from day one but she just isn't up to it and it's getting more obvious everyday.
| Quote: |
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin urged tea party activists on Tuesday night to “start picking a party.”
In remarks to a fundraising dinner for the Arkansas Republican Party reported by CBS News, Palin praised the anti-tax tea party activists for their independence, but urged the “grand movement” to start thinking about joining one of the two political parties.
“Now the smart thing will be for independents who are such a part of this tea party movement to, I guess, kind of start picking a party,” she said.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s.....z0g2v1FhXk
|
Now, Ron Paul may have been on the fringe of the Republican Party for years and he actually is a 3rd party of one yet has more support than ever. He didn't get paid 100k to speak at a convention, he had his own in '08 in protest of the Republicans paid for by his supporters who are now the core of the Tea Party.
His books like "Revolution" and "End the Fed", on actual policy unlike others, are still everywhere at the rallies and his support seems to be as strong as ever despite all the neocon and left wing attacks. Of course age is a factor, perhaps one that can't be overcome in 2012 but his son Rand will likely be elected for the senate in Kentucky among other libertarian minded people so we'll see how that plays out in regards to the next presidential election.
| Quote: |
Paul: 'The revolution is alive and well'
Ron Paul supporters came out in force on Friday, chanting their support for the Texas Republican congressman.
Paul was the only speaker so far to fill the entire convention hall at the Conservative Political Action Conference, and some of his supporters were turned away after the room reached its capacity of 1,100 people.
With the conference running an hour behind, Paul’s army assembled early, occasionally breaking into chants of “end the Fed” as other speakers tried to address the crowd.
Once Paul finally took the stage – following appearances Friday by some of the conservative movement’s brightest stars – the crowd was louder and more raucous in their support for Paul than they had been for most of the other speakers combined.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s.....z0g2xYh8CG
|
| Quote: |
Ron Paul Rocks CPAC
Rep. Ron Paul, former Republican presidential candidate and leading light of the current libertarian grassroots movement, enjoyed a huge rock star moment at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), as he took the stage Friday to thunderous applause and a standing ovation in a ballroom filled to capacity.
Just two years ago, before the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, Paul was practically persona non grata -- this conservative movement had disdained his warnings about economic collapse and his belief that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were unconstitutional and counterproductive. At the Republican National Convention, some of his delegates were silenced from declaring their vote during the main roll call. Paul himself -- a sitting congressman -- had his access to the floor restricted.
Times have changed. His movement has raised millions of dollars despite his failed candidacy and has gone on to grow grassroots organizations, including the Campaign for Liberty, which made sure it had a huge presence at CPAC this year. Though some libertarians who spoke with Foxnews.com said there are plenty of areas where they disagree, they have felt a better reception at CPAC this year, generally.
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.....latestnews
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bugs wrote: | For the Fiscal Conservative
Point #1: I live in Toronto. It isn't hard to see sexual behaviour between same-sex couples ... I don't mean they're doing their version of the nasty, but it isn't hard to see kissing in restaurants, and that level of stuff. It isn't everywhere, and it usually is after work, but some people really find it distasteful.
. |
I would find that distasteful too...but I have a solution - don't look! I
| Bugs wrote: |
Why are they dressed up as women on floats?"
|
Oh come on. How many gay people really dress as woman on floats??? Probably the same number of social conservatives who banish their women from the house during their period. I would certainly not hold the actions of such a tinny group - and that is what you are talking about in all your posts - against the larger group.
| Bugs wrote: |
Point #2: Are gays really persecuted? Did you know that same sex marriage, in fact, gave Canadian homosexuals no new rights? It was all symbolism, although now it is being used as the basis for more claims on major public institutions.
|
I don't know where and when you went to highschool, but yes they were. Go join the US army and say "I am hetrosexual"...then change your mind and say "I am gay". See what happens.
| Bugs wrote: |
Homosexual groups attack heterosexual groups all the time. Organized homosexual groups in the USA have a fatwa against Boy Scouts, for instance. The reason? Because the Scouts screen the adults who are put in charge of troops to make sure they aren't homosexual.
|
I am not sure about the issue or the "fatwa", but I would be a little pissed if I was told I could not be left around young girls because I am a hetrosexual.
| Bugs wrote: |
People get their ideas because of a single incident, like that of Matthew Sheppard, which was horrible, and nobody would wish that on anyone. However, if you put this in context, homosexuals kill a lot of people. Right at the same time that the Sheppard murder took place, there was a killing of a kid by two homosexuals playing a sex game, where they had the kid naked, and tied up, and the game involved putting things like cucumbers up his bottom.
|
That is just silly. There are sex killers all over the place. The vast majority of them hetrosexual. And, no, Matthew Sheppard was not an isolated incident, at least in my time. Killing someone would be rare, but beating them up would not be. My first sign of any homosexual activity in my life was walking back from the grocery store and seeing two men hold hands as they went under a bridge (they could not really see me). When they came out in everyones view again they stopped. Why ? Fear.
In the summer, it seems as if every major park turns into a cruise scene as soon as dusk settles.
| Bugs wrote: |
Homosexual gets lonely and pathetic, as they go into old age ... as the hair thins ... and how many times can you defoliate, to look young? But, still, as time goes on ... and it does go on ... that suburban dad, in his Dockers, busily finding things to use his power-washer on ... looks kind of appealing ... A homosexual can marry a guy, but somehow ... he can't seem to get to that sweet spot. The homosexual wife can even make pastry, and have a wonderful colour sense, but he can never make you a dad. Your love will never create a life.
|
You are getting surreal here.
| Bugs wrote: |
Point #3: Recruitment. You are just naive if you think people can't be recruited into homosexuality. Men serving long prison sentences often become homosexual. A lot of them un-become when they get out. Women are worse.
|
Really really surreal
| Bugs wrote: |
Fiscalcon, you probably have a certain amount of revulsion at the thought, am I wrong? You think that you are born with some particular sexual preference, given out on a random basis, but essentially biological. The problem with that is that if this were simply biology, how do you explain a ten fold increase in homosexuality over 60 years? DNA doesn't change that fast.
|
Gee, its amazing home many more people admit to something when its not a crime!
| Quote: |
Imagine two 20 year olds arriving in Toronto from the same home town ... say, Chatham, ore Peterborough. They each know a few people from their home town, but otherwise, they're at Square One, no job, nothing but a room, often a mattress on the floor.
Let's posit, in this little thought experiment, that one is gay and one is not.
If you're a young white guy in Toronto, you have real problems finding work, depending ... but normally, 20 year old guys haven't even had a job. The jobs are in malls, as waiters, or restaurant help ...
Now we compare the two young men, as they marshal their resources to establish themselves in the city.
Time to get a room --- the same.
Time to get a job -- if the two of them have to depend on their own resources to find a job, asking people in stores, etc ... then it would be the same. But the gay guy has an extra edge. As soon as he has some connections in the gay community -- which can start at the first party he attends -- he has another route to success.
So, let's consider, six months after arrival, the gay kid has it all going on. He's got some fashion going for him, he has a large set of parties he can go to, each one capable of opening up new offers, and opportunities. It's 'network city'. I don't want to go overboard here, but trips to New York are certainly in the picture. This gay kid has all the advantages of any young man, plus he can use his sexual favours when it suits him. And people vary a lot in what suits them.
And, six months later, the straight kid is really depressed. He probably can't get much of a job, and exists on a couple of part time, minimum wage jobs. His clothes are what he used to wear to skateboard ... and he has hardly met anybody. Not only that, there is no obvious social entré into larger groups, as there is in the gay world. And the situation with contemporary females is something to chasten one. Because, in the age of the material girl, sexual ethnics have deteriorated into a kind of auctions ... at least so far as the pretty ones are concerned. 20 year old women see opportunity all over the place, and go to school, they get more jobs easier, and they pay better. In the pretty typical 26-30 year old couples that I know -- through my kids, so it's no random sample -- the guys work in things like phone centers, at $12 an hour, tops ... and their girlfriends do part-time social work, or stuff like that, which pays a lot better than the guys can wangle. This is all social policy working out at the level of social relations.
Nonetheless, these women are entirely traditional when it comes to the sex tax days ... Valentines Day, but also birthdays, Christmas, and just because they're them ... a woman wants to feel that her sexual relations are doing something for her. That's in the DNA. For a guy like out example, he's not got good prospects.
That's the missing piece of the puzzle, you have to look at what the straight guy faces to get himself socially launched, particularly if he doesn't have a job. Because he has to deal with something you and I never had to deal with ... the contemporary 20+ female. First of all, he doesn't stand much chance unless he has at least a little money -- enough to 'chill' at some bar or other, or these restaurant hangout places ... most of the time, he'll go through $20-$30 minimum. His task in getting a social circle is made so much more difficult that these kids tend to cluster into little tribes, with people from their home towns, with some of the friends they have made since. For them, a career choice is trying to find a band to join. They get a patchwork of part-time jobs, and if they get two or three of them, they can support themselves ... but it takes time.
|
I don't know if you are faced with that problem, but I have never had any urge to be involved in [insert repugnant sex act here]. People may do stuff they don't want to do for money (see Hugh Hefners wives) but that does not change their sexual orrientation. |
|
|
|
|
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1940
votes: 5
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Look, I understand that you are hostile to my post, and don't want to understand my point, and so put every barrier up to understanding. You seem to want to maintain the view that homosexuals are a bunch of people who have been unjustly persecuted ... even though there were essentially no persecutions ...
There's just one thing.
| Bugs wrote: |
Why are they dressed up as women on floats?"
|
Except, I didn't say that. I was quoting Elsie Wayne, and characterizing her opinion as the real position of most heterosexuals -- which I stand by. Fizcon goes on to show us how 'politically correct' he is by dismissing 'gay pride' as a marginal event. | Quote: | | Oh come on. How many gay people really dress as woman on floats??? Probably the same number of social conservatives who banish their women from the house during their period. I would certainly not hold the actions of such a tinny group - and that is what you are talking about in all your posts - against the larger group. |
Well, let me tell you, Pride Week is major event in this city, consuming a weekend ofifically, but going on for at least two weeks with its pre-Pride and Pride after-parties. (It's like the Superbowl.) The promoters claim to draw a million to the parade, and produce $millions for the city. Top civil functionaries are essentially compelled to appear in the parade itself. They now even have a second parade, for lesbians, the day before. Homosexuals claim it is one of the biggest 'draws' of the Toronto summer ... right up with Caribbana. Fiscon is just wrong if his point is that this is inconsequential -- it's just that the consequences fall on others.
| Bugs wrote: |
Homosexual groups attack heterosexual groups all the time. Organized homosexual groups in the USA have a fatwa against Boy Scouts, for instance. The reason? Because the Scouts screen the adults who are put in charge of troops to make sure they aren't homosexual.
|
| Fiscalconservative wrote: | | I am not sure about the issue or the "fatwa", but I would be a little pissed if I was told I could not be left around young girls because I am a hetrosexual. |
Listen, Fisc, this is too stoopid to continue to respond to. I'm sorry, I mistook you for serious person.
if you are so morally off-balance that you don't see the maliciousness in this behaviour, if you don't understand the ugly motivation, if you don't have a clue about th anti-Boy Scout lawfare plans, then why make yourself look like a trivial egoist ... with no societal concerns beyond looking like a liberal?
You misconstrue every point I make, and don't respond to the substance of what I am saying. Your smugness seems impenetrable. Or, I don't care enough.
| Bugs wrote: |
People get their ideas because of a single incident, like that of Matthew Sheppard, which was horrible, and nobody would wish that on anyone. However, if you put this in context, homosexuals kill a lot of people. Right at the same time that the Sheppard murder took place, there was a killing of a kid by two homosexuals playing a sex game, where they had the kid naked, and tied up, and the game involved putting things like cucumbers up his bottom.
|
That is just silly. There are sex killers all over the place. The vast majority of them hetrosexual. [I doubt this is true, on a per capita basis, but perhaps Fisc can share his data with us?-- Bugs] And, no, Matthew Sheppard was not an isolated incident, at least in my time. [Yes it was, bullshitter. Give us another example, with a date of occurance. -- Bugs] Killing someone would be rare, but beating them up would not be. [Does your use of the word 'would be' mean you are must reeling out your stereotypes? Or do you have data?] My first sign of any homosexual activity in my life was walking back from the grocery store and seeing two men hold hands as they went under a bridge (they could not really see me). When they came out in everyones view again they stopped. Why ? Fear. [Maybe embarrassment? Why don't you go under the bridge for some sex, and see how you feel, coming out from under the bridge with your partner? See if you look around when you come out? In my world, people who have sex under bridges in day time, in the presence of children, are ... unusual ... In the homosexual world, not so much.--Bugs]
In the summer, it seems as if every major park turns into a cruise scene as soon as dusk settles.
| Bugs wrote: |
Homosexual gets lonely and pathetic, as they go into old age ... as the hair thins ... and how many times can you defoliate, to look young? But, still, as time goes on ... and it does go on ... that suburban dad, in his Dockers, busily finding things to use his power-washer on ... looks kind of appealing ... A homosexual can marry a guy, but somehow ... he can't seem to get to that sweet spot. The homosexual wife can even make pastry, and have a wonderful colour sense, but he can never make you a dad. Your love will never create a life.
|
You are getting surreal here. [Thanks for the cogent criticism. Why don't you just call me crazy?]
| Bugs wrote: |
Point #3: Recruitment. You are just naive if you think people can't be recruited into homosexuality. Men serving long prison sentences often become homosexual. A lot of them un-become when they get out. Women are worse.
|
Really really surreal [And a really stupidly dismissive remark. Ask any authority about homosexuality in prison, if you can want to get beyond your own narrow and uninformed opinions ...Bugs]
| Bugs wrote: |
Fiscalcon, you probably have a certain amount of revulsion at the thought, am I wrong? You think that you are born with some particular sexual preference, given out on a random basis, but essentially biological. The problem with that is that if this were simply biology, how do you explain a ten fold increase in homosexuality over 60 years? DNA doesn't change that fast.
|
Gee, its amazing home many more people admit to something when its not a crime!
| Quote: |
Imagine two 20 year olds arriving in Toronto from the same home town ... say, Chatham, ore Peterborough. They each know a few people from their home town, but otherwise, they're at Square One, no job, nothing but a room, often a mattress on the floor.
Let's posit, in this little thought experiment, that one is gay and one is not.
If you're a young white guy in Toronto, you have real problems finding work, depending ... but normally, 20 year old guys haven't even had a job. The jobs are in malls, as waiters, or restaurant help ...
Now we compare the two young men, as they marshal their resources to establish themselves in the city.
Time to get a room --- the same.
Time to get a job -- if the two of them have to depend on their own resources to find a job, asking people in stores, etc ... then it would be the same. But the gay guy has an extra edge. As soon as he has some connections in the gay community -- which can start at the first party he attends -- he has another route to success.
So, let's consider, six months after arrival, the gay kid has it all going on. He's got some fashion going for him, he has a large set of parties he can go to, each one capable of opening up new offers, and opportunities. It's 'network city'. I don't want to go overboard here, but trips to New York are certainly in the picture. This gay kid has all the advantages of any young man, plus he can use his sexual favours when it suits him. And people vary a lot in what suits them.
And, six months later, the straight kid is really depressed. He probably can't get much of a job, and exists on a couple of part time, minimum wage jobs. His clothes are what he used to wear to skateboard ... and he has hardly met anybody. Not only that, there is no obvious social entré into larger groups, as there is in the gay world. And the situation with contemporary females is something to chasten one. Because, in the age of the material girl, sexual ethnics have deteriorated into a kind of auctions ... at least so far as the pretty ones are concerned. 20 year old women see opportunity all over the place, and go to school, they get more jobs easier, and they pay better. In the pretty typical 26-30 year old couples that I know -- through my kids, so it's no random sample -- the guys work in things like phone centers, at $12 an hour, tops ... and their girlfriends do part-time social work, or stuff like that, which pays a lot better than the guys can wangle. This is all social policy working out at the level of social relations.
Nonetheless, these women are entirely traditional when it comes to the sex tax days ... Valentines Day, but also birthdays, Christmas, and just because they're them ... a woman wants to feel that her sexual relations are doing something for her. That's in the DNA. For a guy like out example, he's not got good prospects.
That's the missing piece of the puzzle, you have to look at what the straight guy faces to get himself socially launched, particularly if he doesn't have a job. Because he has to deal with something you and I never had to deal with ... the contemporary 20+ female. First of all, he doesn't stand much chance unless he has at least a little money -- enough to 'chill' at some bar or other, or these restaurant hangout places ... most of the time, he'll go through $20-$30 minimum. His task in getting a social circle is made so much more difficult that these kids tend to cluster into little tribes, with people from their home towns, with some of the friends they have made since. For them, a career choice is trying to find a band to join. They get a patchwork of part-time jobs, and if they get two or three of them, they can support themselves ... but it takes time.
|
I don't know if you are faced with that problem, but I have never had any urge to be involved in [insert repugnant sex act here]. People may do stuff they don't want to do for money (see Hugh Hefners wives) but that does not change their sexual orrientation.[/quote]
=============================
I left the rest of Fisc's post in, after I quit the re-fisking.
It's my hope that other readers, less bogged down in their own government-approved, politically correct stereotypes than fiscalconservative, might recognize that widespread homosexuality is an important fact, and that it is associated with negative social consequences, including loosing a bunch of 'activists' on a tolerant society.
It seems to me that Canadians have a right to bring that into the political discussion. Fiscalcon seems to think otherwise.
Other readers might also recognize that a ten-fold increase in homosexuality, over fifty years, is a huge change, and does not 'just happen'. I argue that it is, without a doubt, the result of social policy decisions.
This society makes young white men feel guilty about being male! That's the point -- it is this gender stigmatizing that the fiscalcon is trying to hard to ignore, while he takes his swipes at 'social conservatives'. My point is that 'social liberalism' is what is being forced down the throats of students -- to use the phrase that Fiscalconservative and other members of the 'chattering classes'.
When I try to illustrate it in action, his fuses begin to pop -- not because he has evidence, but ... it'd just because. He doesn't even have the decency to respond to the substance of my post ... he trivializes it with a listing of his naive attitudes, which are entirely conventional.
He can't seem to acknowledge that there is huge acceptance -- not mere tolerance -- acceptance of homosexuals in Canada, probably as much as in any nation of the world outside of Fire Island and San Francisco. He's the proof of the notion that actual tolerance never gets any credit from the smug, who see a discussion like this an an opportunity to put their mindlessness on display. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Other readers might also recognize that a ten-fold increase in homosexuality, over fifty years, is a huge change, and does not 'just happen'. I argue that it is, without a doubt, the result of social policy decisions.
|
50 years ago people use to go to jail for being homosexual. People were beat up in highschools 20 years ago. Police use to pose as homosexuals to arrest them. There use to be a huge social stigma about it. There hasn't been a 10 fold increase, its just that people are open about it now.
Furthermore, research now indicates that gay individuals are physically different from straight ones. There brains react differently to sexual images. There fingers are different lengths (an indicator of sex hormones at a certain stage of development). How does you explain that with policy decisions ?
| Quote: |
My point is that 'social liberalism' is what is being forced down the throats of students -- to use the phrase that Fiscalconservative and other members of the 'chattering classes'.
|
Nothing is being forced down my throat...though from your apparent bitterness maybe something was forced down yours.
| Quote: |
... it'd just because. He doesn't even have the decency to respond to the substance of my post ... he trivializes it with a listing of his naive attitudes, which are entirely conventional.
|
Men in dockers...material girls...what was the substance.?
| Quote: |
He can't seem to acknowledge that there is huge acceptance -- not mere tolerance -- acceptance of homosexuals in Canada, probably as much as in any nation of the world outside of Fire Island and San Francisco. He's the proof of the notion that actual tolerance never gets any credit from the smug, who see a discussion like this an an opportunity to put their mindlessness on display. |
If you go back to my orriginal post, I was refering to the United States. The rest of the world is much better off. As for my ignorance being on display, if you have evidence of your views, hey, point them out. All you are giving is sad little tales of lonely white boys in the big city and dads looking hot in Dockers. Post evidence and I will respond with such.
I will leave you with three words: Faggot, Queer, Homo. Can you think of similar words thrown at Hetrosexuals ?
[/quote] |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 3 of 4
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Wither Sarah Palin and the Tea Party? |
|
phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB |
|
