*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 4 of 4
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | 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 ? |
Typical Liberal tactic. B.S.
Studies show.....
Experts say.....
Research indicates.....
Reference your "study" & allow it to be examined or it's just your B.S. :roll:
| Quote: | | Nothing is being forced down my throat...though from your apparent bitterness maybe something was forced down yours. |
Are you trying to insinuate that Bugs is a homosexual? I've seen this in other threads, when a Liberal wants to attack someone protesting gay activism then, at some point they usually insinuate that thhe person is gay.
If homosexuality is such a wonderful natural attribute, then why would you make such an insinuation? Maybe you're not as "tolerant" as you thought. --- just PC
| Quote: | | Men in dockers...material girls...what was the substance.? |
Bugs, when fiscon can't argue with a point he willfully ignores it and tries to misconstrue it into something else.
| Quote: | | I will leave you with three words |
How about " I WON'T RETURN" ? That would be three good words.
| Quote: | | I will leave you with three words: Faggot, Queer, Homo. Can you think of similar words thrown at Hetrosexuals ? |
So what? There are many ways to insult a person. People will pick the one they think will hurt the most for the harshest effect. People who are ugly are picked on, short, fat, red haired, dirty, drunk. for example, you're an idiot. The list is endless.
Gay people wield political authority that is absurdly out of proportion to their numbers.
They intimidate politicians, judges, the press, corporations. You name it.
They use this as a means to attack social conservatives and intimidate others into attacking social conservatives. They attack socons because socons are not jumping on the bandwagon. Socons are fighting back. If you think socons are such a margianl group then what's the harm in them voicing disagreement with gay activism?
This is the problem I have with the CPC. It is just as intimidated by shrieking special interest groups as the Liberals.
This is why I'm not voting for them. |
|
|
|
 |
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1942
  
votes: 5
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
None so blind as those who will not see.
And for your information, fiscon, I have voted NDP is the last three elections. I am not a member of any political party. You should vote for whomever you like.
I don't post to change anyone's vote. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Forward wrote: | | Quote: | | 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 ? |
Typical Liberal tactic. B.S.
Studies show.....
Experts say.....
Research indicates.....
Reference your "study" & allow it to be examined or it's just your B.S. :roll:
|
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....064433.htm
http://scq.ubc.ca/papers/Finge.....tation.pdf
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH.....html?imw=Y
All that took was a couple minutes on Google. You should try it sometime. To me this sort of stuff was common knowledge and I didn't think I need to post the links.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I will leave you with three words: Faggot, Queer, Homo. Can you think of similar words thrown at Hetrosexuals ? |
So what? There are many ways to insult a person. People will pick the one they think will hurt the most for the harshest effect. People who are ugly are picked on, short, fat, red haired, dirty, drunk. for example, you're an idiot. The list is endless.
|
You miss the point (gee, go figure). I said can you think of similar words thrown at hetrosexuals. The words you mention are thrown at everyone.
| Quote: |
They use this as a means to attack social conservatives and intimidate others into attacking social conservatives. They attack socons because socons are not jumping on the bandwagon. Socons are fighting back. If you think socons are such a margianl group then what's the harm in them voicing disagreement with gay activism?
|
I am not refering to all socons. The Canadian ones realise that this one - in terms of basic rights - is lost. I am more refering to the ones in the states who do not want gay people as teachers or parents. They are fighting a battle they have clearly lost.
| Quote: |
This is the problem I have with the CPC. It is just as intimidated by shrieking special interest groups as the Liberals.
This is why I'm not voting for them. |
Good for you! The bottom line is that there are a lot more gay people, people who wear turbans, people who speak french, people who read books than people like you. We can win a majority while you are out spitting in peoples food. |
|
|
|
|
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1942
votes: 5
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I took a peek at your three studies. I gotta say, they really show how decadent science is becoming. You'd like to think that resources would be used on something that would have a 'payoff'. Say this is even true -- what scientific payoff will there be? None.
Basically, this has been found after an extensive search to find a physiological basis for homosexuality, and failing to find anything significant, this weird observation has been noted ... there is a certain tone that, it seems, that echoes differently in the inner ear of lesbians and ... straight women. This on the basis of ... 60 homosexual/bisexual women, and a control group of the same size. So says Science Daily, probably not a peer-reviewed journal. (Psst wouldn't it matter who was the top and who was the bottom? Would being versatile make improve your hearing?
Let's say this is a promising lead. Nothing more than that. The finger-length thing is even flakier. It's pretty hard to see how there's any connection to anything. It's easier to see how younger brothers are more susceptible ... they are often the indulged ones.
The third ... a social scientist who's wondering if gaydar is real? CNN's little bit of the bizarre, just to spice up a slow news day?
What is clear is that there are probably a lot of gay grad students who are on a mission to deny that all they do, in their 'community behaviour', is cruise ... looking for young stuff. Fresh young stuff. Finger-lickin' good, better than chicken.
=================================
| Quote: | | I said can you think of similar words [faggot, etc] thrown at hetrosexuals. The words you mention are thrown at everyone. |
What does 'breeders' mean? Seems pretty hateful. And some of that Lesbian so-called literature is full of hate. The worst feminists are often lesbians with an attitude ... in fact, all these gender warriors are seriously off-center, and I mean more than their sexual practices. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bugs wrote: |
Let's say this is a promising lead. Nothing more than that. The finger-length thing is even flakier. It's pretty hard to see how there's any connection to anything. It's easier to see how younger brothers are more susceptible ... they are often the indulged ones.
|
The finger ratio thing is important. Its been used as a measure for other things before it was applied to homosexuals. I believe its been used in studies of criminals because it gives evidence of the levels of sex hormones during a particular point in the brains development. Here is one reference to it. This was before the connection to homosexuals was made.
http://www.livescience.com/hea.....ength.html
Searching for these links, I found an even bigger difference. Gay women are 90% more likely to be left handed or ambidextrous (or however you spell it) than straight women. Men show the same difference, although not to the same magnitude.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....071931.htm
This is again not some made up statistic, there have been all sorts of studies that many people are left handed because of some pre-natal brain development screw up. People with certain learning problems and mental illness have a much high rate of being left handed. (before I get flames from lefties....its just some okay)
| Bugs wrote: |
The third ... a social scientist who's wondering if gaydar is real? CNN's little bit of the bizarre, just to spice up a slow news day?
|
I am sure it was in the "slow newsday file"
| Bugs wrote: |
What does 'breeders' mean? Seems pretty hateful. And some of that Lesbian so-called literature is full of hate. The worst feminists are often lesbians with an attitude ... in fact, all these gender warriors are seriously off-center, and I mean more than their sexual practices. |
Well, I have never read lesbian literature so I could not tell you. I can tell you that "faggots" were beaten up for decades because they were gay. They were arrested for decades because they were gay. I don't think you can say the same of hetrosexuals.
As for what does breeders mean...you got me. I can assume what it means, but I have never heard it, and I am an extremely well read guy. |
|
|
|
|
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1942
votes: 5
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fiscalconservative wrote: | I can tell you that "faggots" were beaten up for decades because they were gay. They were arrested for decades because they were gay. I don't think you can say the same of hetrosexuals.
As for what does breeders mean...you got me. I can assume what it means, but I have never heard it, and I am an extremely well read guy. |
You mean, cruising homosexuals have gotten themselves a black eye because they put their hand on the half-back's thigh? What is the status of an unwanted advance? Do homosexuals have a human right to check prospects out?
Still, this kind of thing certainly happens at some low level of frequency. I can remember a murder in High Park ... a cruising hairdresser seems to have been chased and beaten to death by a gang of immigrant kids from Parkdale. Must have been thirty years ago ... so, I know it happens ... on rare occasions. (There were, by the way, arrests and convictions.)
But I never did it. There's no reason to think that 'heterosexuals' in general can be held responsible for it -- or 'owe' anything any special honours to a rag-tag group of people whose only common factor is they find anonymous, furtive sex in parked cars, or public washrooms to be exciting.
In my day, r-e-s-p -e-c-t was something someone earned, not something someone demanded. That's probably what our disagreement goes back to. You seem to think that that sucking someone's dick makes that person more worthy as a person. That's hard for me to understand, because, to me ... it's ... well ... repulsive.
Ask around. I'd bet there are people on this thread who think that, for them, sucking a guy's dick is repulsive in the extreme -- never mind the messy stuff homosexuals do. Such people aren't rare. So, we all wish that that homosexuals would just shut up, and do what they have to do behind closed doors ... with stress on the 'shut up' part of it.
It's a democratic consensus. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bugs wrote: |
You mean, cruising homosexuals have gotten themselves a black eye because they put their hand on the half-back's thigh? What is the status of an unwanted advance? Do homosexuals have a human right to check prospects out?
|
I am talking about a group of people attacking another because of their sexual orrientation. This certainly does not occur much any more, but I could see why people might have a chip on their shoulder Perhaps I am in a different part of the world, or perhaps my butt is not as cute as yours, but I have never had a gay person in any way touch me. Or proposition me for that matter. If I were gay I would simply go to an estabilshment that catered to that sort of thing,
| Quote: |
You seem to think that that sucking someone's dick makes that person more worthy as a person.
. |
Can you point to where I said that or implied it ? Or is that just a standard line you toss into these discussions.
. | Quote: |
Ask around. I'd bet there are people on this thread who think that, for them, sucking a guy's dick is repulsive in the extreme -- never mind the messy stuff homosexuals do.
|
Guess what, I find that act offensive as well......but I have never witnessed it occuring (with homosexuals). They have never done it in front of me, so its none of my business. [/quote] |
|
|
|
|
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1942
votes: 5
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fiscalconservative wrote: | | Bugs wrote: |
You mean, cruising homosexuals have gotten themselves a black eye because they put their hand on the half-back's thigh? What is the status of an unwanted advance? Do homosexuals have a human right to check prospects out?
|
I am talking about a group of people attacking another because of their sexual orrientation. | Quote: |
You seem to think that that sucking someone's dick makes that person more worthy as a person.
. |
Can you point to where I said that or implied it ? Or is that just a standard line you toss into these discussions.
|
I bring it up because you seem zealous in defending the human and legal rights of homosexuals, and indifferent about those of others. Where does this obligation that you seem to assume -- that is, that it is the responsibility of the heterosexual community to give homosexuals a spot in the sun, so that it can prosper -- come from? It's a preposterous notion. People are supposed to compete for those spots, and there's no limitation on homosexuals. In many ways, they are advantaged. They have no responsibility for a family, for example. It's no little thing.
There is this muddled-headed notion afoot in the land that all problems, social, moral, psychological, can be solved by the allocating a special 'right' to someone.
Where the struggle -- if that's what you call it -- for homosexual rights at the present? In fact, as you know, Canada is one of the most homosexual-tolerant places on the face of the earth, and yet, according to you, we must vigilant. Some once imagined that homosexuals were discriminated against because they couldn't marry. But they could marry, and marry on precisely the same terms that heterosexuals could marry. By the legal test in Canadian courts, at the time, marriage was not discriminatory. So, everybody just pretends it was.
The struggle now is over who is to have control of the sexual education of children, as exercised by schools.
It is probably already the case that homosexual lobby groups have more in put into that curriculum than parents do! In Germany, children are actually being taught to 'touch' each other, at really young ages, and parents who refuse to allow it have gone to jail. You have to wonder -- what's up here?
Do you imagine yourself just being open-minded, against my bigotry? Don't flatter yourself. I interact with homosexuals all the time, without a problem. In fact, I like parts of that scene. What I am talking about is organized homosexuality, and how it interacts with the other local institutions.
Are you going to make up some 'human right' for homosexual practices to be placed in a compulsory curriculum of sex education, as normal options for budding adolescents, while parents are allowed no input? Are you going to pretend that non-parents have 'rights' here, when, de facto, parents have none?
It isn't about 'being fair'. It's about having skin in the game. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Good for you! The bottom line is that there are a lot more gay people, people who wear turbans, people who speak french, people who read books than people like you. We can win a majority while you are out spitting in peoples food. |
:D So? In many previous cooments I have made it clear that since I no longer trust the CPC to act conservatively it really doesn't matter tome if they win a majority.
I was ruled by a Liberal majority in the past and I fully expect to be ruled by a Liberal majority in the future. Really, what difference does it make if that majority calls itself conservative?
So, you go on out and round up your turban wearing, french speaking, newly married gay friends and try to get your majority. Maybe you will. Maybe you won't. Who cares?
My posting "Fun With Multipile Choice" seems to have pissed you off. - Good. :lol:
It was there to pointout that the average person, (a farmer, a waiteress, an average Joe walking down the street, an average Jane buying a car) don't need the government to get a kick in at absurd laws, at a flawed legal system, a left wing, elitist news media.
The average pesron can get a real kick in at those institutions and individuals without asking a politician's permission. (or your's for that matter).
As far as me spitting in a lefty columnist's food? .... Well, as fun as it is to imagine that i don't think I'll ever get the chance as I'm not a waiter or waitress and I have no plans of ever becoming one. BTW? The scenario was that a waitress accidently sneezes on a left wing columnist's meal then, serves it anyway because she doesn't like that person. --- Get your refernces right m'kay?
Now, that doesn't mean that I can't repeat the idea on other blogs and perhaps someone who IS a waiter might think it's a funny thing to do.
I guess if you are an arrogant newspaper columnist who considers his opinion to be far superior to anyone elses then you may consider that some readers may not be amused.
as far as not helping the RCMp officer out of the ditch? So? I'm not under any obligation to help him and maybe certain individuals in law enforcement (especially in rural areas) should keep in mind that they rely on the local population to cooperate fully and enthusiastically with the police if the police are to be successful in doing their job.
If you are an individual who considers his turban to be more important than a uniform that many rural people feel is an iconic Canadian symbol then you probably should not be too surprised when a local decides to drive by when he sees your patrol car in the ditch.
You should also learn to be discreet when enforcing laws that are extremely unpopular with the local population. Iknow the gun registration is a big hit with Starbucks sipping weasels like you but in western rural areas it's not too popular. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Forward wrote: |
My posting "Fun With Multipile Choice" seems to have pissed you off. - Good. :lol:
|
Not pissed off...maybe embarrassed. You seem to equate conservatism with the right to be an ass. I feel like a catholic who has to read about a priest who molested a child. |
|
|
|
|
kwlafayette
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Meanwhile, this week we see President Obama personally engaging Palin over nuclear policy; a clear sign of her continued slide in obscurity and irrelevance. If she keeps this up, she will so obscure and irrelevant in a few years, that everyone the world over will know her name. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fiscalconservative wrote: | | Forward wrote: |
My posting "Fun With Multipile Choice" seems to have pissed you off. - Good. :lol:
|
Not pissed off...maybe embarrassed. You seem to equate conservatism with the right to be an ass. I feel like a catholic who has to read about a priest who molested a child. |
I notice it only took you five weeks to come up with that devastating response.
My, what a razor sharp intellect you have. :D ROTFLMAO |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Forward wrote: | | fiscalconservative wrote: | | Forward wrote: |
My posting "Fun With Multipile Choice" seems to have pissed you off. - Good. :lol:
|
Not pissed off...maybe embarrassed. You seem to equate conservatism with the right to be an ass. I feel like a catholic who has to read about a priest who molested a child. |
I notice it only took you five weeks to come up with that devastating response.
My, what a razor sharp intellect you have. :D ROTFLMAO |
Doubt I have been on in five weeks, or maybe I was just not in the mood to argue with idiots when I was. Anyway, this has gotten very old - I doubt anybody logs on here to watch us trade insults, so I will stop. Enjoy yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 4 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 |
|
