Mahmoud Ahmadinejad murders gay people!

POSTED BY: CrevanReaver
UPDATED: Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:14
VIEWED: 7501
PAGE 1 of 1

CREVANREAVER

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:27 AM

Although he claims there are no gay people in Iran.

Clear evidence proves otherwise. Maybe it was a translation error and he meant "There will be no gays in Iran" because Ahmadinejad's government is doing its best to exterminate the gay population of Iran.

These are two Iranian gay teenagers who were kept in a cage, publicly humiliated, gruesomely hung, and left to dangle in front of the macabre crowd. That way they could serve as a warning to anyone who would dare be homosexual in Iran's Islamic utopia:

http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11274175.html

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 12:00 PM

That's one way to stop the spread of AIDS. Have you seen Iranian women though?...yikes!, "too much hair"!....Kinda makes goin' homo almost a necessary option there. A'int no Gay Days at Disneyworld-Teheran. I also wonder how long Mr. DTMB would have lasted at Teheran University interrupting one of Achminassholeajhad's speeches. I wish all "open-minded" liberals the joyful opportunity to visit there...soon.

HERO

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CrevanReaver:
Although he claims there are no gay people in Iran.

Somebody is lying. Unless he means there are no gays in Iran because he's killed them all. In which case...he's right.

I suspect he looks foreward to the day when there are no Jews in Isreal...

Funny though how they applaud everything he says...the lies, the threats, the stupid assed assertions...they only boo his hardline stance on gays. I suspect, given a choice, that the majority of faculty at Columbia would gladly take this fellow over President Bush. After all the way liberals see it, if you can't trust civil liberties, the lives of countless Jews, gays, and women, and a nuclear bomb to an Iranian dictator...who can you trust?

H

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:07 PM

And this is the guy so many wanted to hear ? This is the 'world leader' that so many on the Left would rather have instead of George Bush ???

I'm beyond stunned. Look at this photo. THIS is who the Islamo fascist are! This is what they DO! This guy and his kind are 100x's worse and are donig EXACTLY what the Left accuses Bush and his types of doing. Only this isn't some piratenews bullshit, this is real life! WTF are folks thinking about when THIS is what he does to his own people, and they applaud him in the halls of Columbia University ??? Are folks out of their FUCKING MINDS??

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

JUDITH

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 2:06 PM

So, I suppose this is the reason to invade Iran. Save the Iranian gays from their leader. There is another alternative though, we could have the Iranian gays apply for status as political refugees.
BTW, I'm not joking or being sarcastic.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 2:47 PM

Hello,

I'm not sure I agree with much of the sentiment here.

First of all, it looks like the primary reason the Iranian president was invited to speak at the University was so that he could be insulted.

The University president actually said he felt the weight of the western world on his shoulders, and that it was his duty to express the revulsion of the world. He spent his entire introduction insulting his invited guest speaker.

And I guess... I guess I'm the only one who thinks that's wrong.

I really don't care who it is, but when you invite someone to speak you have a duty to be civil and respectful. No one wants Hitler to knock on their door for tea and cakes, but if you invite the man over, then it becomes your duty to treat him with respect. It makes no difference who he is, because it is not about the man you've invited. It's about you. You do yourself a disservice to display such disregard to a guest.

The Iranian president's visit to the University was an exceptional learning opportunity. His ignorant or homophobic remarks on gay people were vastly illuminating. His softening stance on jews may signal political pressures at home. A platform designed to learn about him, rather than to persecute him, could have gleaned innumerable insights into the man. It could have provided fodder for countless psychology and political essays.

But quite frankly we learned more about Americans than we did about Iranians during his visit. And to me, that's sad.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 2:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Judith:
So, I suppose this is the reason to invade Iran. Save the Iranian gays from their leader. There is another alternative though, we could have the Iranian gays apply for status as political refugees.
BTW, I'm not joking or being sarcastic.

Who said anything bout invading Iran?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 3:04 PM

Quote:
Anthony T wrote: But quite frankly we learned more about Americans than we did about Iranians during his visit. And to me, that's sad.

We learned more about American University Presidents, namely, from Columbia, than we did about Iranians. But we didn't learn more about AMERICANS. Not by a long shot.

I sorta cringe when I hear the position that no matter who you invite to speak, you can't criticize that person. While I think that's fine, as a general rule, I have to wonder if the same attitude would hold true should say, Bush accept an invitation to speak before the NAACP. The reason he's declined, of course, is the vile and hateful things which top members of that organization have gone on record and said about the President. It's no wonder he's declined an invite. I doubt very strongly that many there would be able to hold their tongues, from the things they've called him. Now, this isn't a direct, one to one comparison of the various parties, to be interchanged on the whim of one's political view, but an attempt to show the overall issue of inviting one to speak before you with who you may have strong disagreements.

But back to the main point. Ahmadinejad says there are no gays, there is no 'homosexuals' lifestyel in Iran. Then we see 2 teenage boys, being hung to death, for the crime of being gay.

What are we, as a evolved species, suppose to say about that ? Some will ignore it , dismiss it out of hand, and try to bring up some other irrelevent point. Some will scold Columbia's President, for being a bad host, as if that crime is so much worse than putting to death these 2 teenage boys. By the way some folk are responding, Bollinger is being made the villain here, while the blood is all over the hands of Ahmadinejad.

Strange days we live in. Very strange indeed.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 3:26 PM

I think you miss the point, Auraptor.

First of all, if someone invited President Bush to speak, and they behaved this way, I'd have the same complaints. It's one thing to ask hard-hitting questions that reveal a guest's inequities. It's quite another to outright insult him, especially during an introduction!

Where you really miss the point is in this paragraph here:

"What are we, as a evolved species, suppose to say about that ? Some will ignore it , dismiss it out of hand, and try to bring up some other irrelevent point. Some will scold Columbia's President, for being a bad host, as if that crime is so much worse than putting to death these 2 teenage boys. By the way some folk are responding, Bollinger is being made the villain here, while the blood is all over the hands of Ahmadinejad."

Perhaps what you fail to remember, is that the moment the Iranian President said there were no homosexuals in Iran, he was greeted with laughter. Perhaps what you fail to realize, is that no one said to themselves, "There's no gays in Iran? Wow. I wonder what's different about Iran? Is it something in the water?" Everyone understood that he was quite incorrect.

Probably the best thing the Iranian President said during the entire interview was that there were no homosexuals in Iran. It put valuable context onto all of his other statements.

There is no doubt that the Iranian President's hands are covered in blood. That was known and understood at the time of invitation. I don't expect much from the President of Iran. I expect a great deal from our intellectual leaders. Leaders who create an example for the world, and demonstrate our values to the international community.

And the message was this: "Think twice before you accept a dinner invitation at that house."

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 3:29 PM

There are eye-witness survivors who say that this guy was one of the kidnappers during the 440+day Teheran Embassy seige in 1979. Why can't the UN arrest him today?

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 3:35 PM

Well, I honestly don't know anything about that. I suppose he'd probably have a dozen people stand up and say that he was playing golf at the time of the incident.

But, really, it's a bad idea to arrest heads of state who have been invited or accepted to the attendance of a diplomatic conference. It makes future diplomatic conferences difficult to conduct.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 4:10 PM

I've stated that the best thing to come from this appearance was that the world saw what a buffoon Ahmadinejad was in his denial that homosexuals were in Iran.

And I'm not missing the point that Bollinger was a bad host. It seems to me that the thumbed his nose at most of America who didn't want the Iranian President to speak at C.U., then thumbed his nose at everyone else when he attacked his 'guest'. I think he put himself in a poor position, and then only made matters worse. And perhaps I'm just more outraged at the Iranian leader, with the human rights violations, the assisting of terrorism in the world, and sending IED's to Iraq which ends up killing our soldiers than some U President for his bad manners.

But I agree. It is poor taste to invite someone and then attack them if they show up. Let the audience have their way w/ this guy, and have at it.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

JUDITH

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 4:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Judith:
So, I suppose this is the reason to invade Iran. Save the Iranian gays from their leader. There is another alternative though, we could have the Iranian gays apply for status as political refugees.
BTW, I'm not joking or being sarcastic.

Who said anything bout invading Iran?

No one said anything about invading Iran but me...it's my cynicism with regards to the present administration. OK so that's sarcastic...

Does anyone here want to help those identified as gay in Iran? Does anyone here want to do anything other than bitch about it? I have merely offered a solution of my own to the problem of mistreating those individuals while casting a cynical eye to the present administration. As for how the president of Iran was treated at Columbia - disgraceful seems too inadequate.

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 5:30 PM

Is he smarter than he seems, or a lot dumber?

He handled President Bollinger's bombshells with great patience and calm. That's usually the sign of a very calculating man....ie. nothing was going to upset him...not Bollinger, not being able to go see Ground Zero, not all the protesters outside, nothing. A lesser polished maniac, like Hugo Chavez for example, would probably have charged up to Bollinger and either spit in his face or decked him. I think the experience demonstrates how cold-blooded and determined this guy is. You can believe his daily rabid threats against Israel and the West.

FLETCH2

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 5:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Is he smarter than he seems, or a lot dumber?

He handled President Bollinger's bombshells with great patience and calm. That's usually the sign of a very calculating man....ie. nothing was going to upset him...not Bollinger, not being able to go see Ground Zero, not all the protesters outside, nothing. A lesser polished maniac, like Hugo Chavez for example, would probably have charged up to Bollinger and either spit in his face or decked him. I think the experience demonstrates how cold-blooded and determined this guy is. You can believe his daily rabid threats against Israel and the West.

Actually it's worse than you think.

He's always come across to me as a reasonable man with an unreasonable worldview. By that I mean he isn't a raging nutjob like Chavez and others. Under normal circumstances politics aside you'd probably think he was a nice, thoughtfull and reasonable guy, he probably loves children and puppies.

The problem is that the world view he has and believes is reasonable, logical and natural is entirely opposite to ours. He doesnt see his worldview as being superior like guys like Chavez and Bin Laden do. That's why he doesnt campaign like they do to promote his vision. Instead he just sees his view as being correct and ours wrong. That's why he can take these insults with good humour, in his mind you are not challenging his belief you are just throwing a tantrum and being a nice guy he forgives you for it.

It's like when a child gets a foolish idea that you as an adult know is wrong. Some folks may get angry but nice people just try to correct the error and show good humour.

In his mind we're just wrong, and he's humouring us.

HERO

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 6:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
First of all, it looks like the primary reason the Iranian president was invited to speak at the University was so that he could be insulted.

Actually the primary reason he was invited was so he could be insulting. The left took this as an opportunity to embrace a leader who would come here and insult American policy, American culture, and most important to the liberals, to insult the American President. That he could then insult the American gays and the American left was surprising, after all they are the ones standing up for him. He should appreciate them, as should we all, the left would argue, for giving him a forum, a mild rebuke, and showing that the American left are the pillars of civilzation, diplomacy, and achievement.

Its the sort of thinking that went out of fashion when it directly resulted in World War 2. Early 20th Century liberal idealism, that wants to talk to Hitler...not confront and kill them. Hitler needed to be confronted in 1933, before he built the Nazi war machine, did the groundwork to ready the greatest mass executions in world history, or started the most widespread and destructive conflict we've seen yet.

Make no mistake, modern Iran is as hard on liberals, free thinkers, artists, writers, and professors as it is on gays and Jews. In that respect they have a lot in common with Hitler.

Quote:

And I guess... I guess I'm the only one who thinks that's wrong.

I really don't care who it is, but when you invite someone to speak you have a duty to be civil and respectful.

I agree. This man should NEVER have been invited. Columbia University is a place that is not safe for American speakers, like the Minutemen, and where American soldiers are not welcome, yet they welcome a brutal dictator.

Free speech does not mean providing a forum for a man like this. He's free as anyone to get on a soapbox and shout for all to hear, but we as a people are under no obligation to give him a hall, a microphone, and an audience.

H

JUDITH

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 7:06 PM

Hero, is there a liberal under your bed? Not everything is a 'left wing' conspiracy designed to bring down the ' (self?)righteous.' If we can't rationally discuss and exchange information in a civil way, diplomacy has no chance of effectiveness. This man may not to be trusted, but if we can't talk to him in a calm manner, we'll never figure things out.

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 7:42 PM

Hero....you're right on about Liberals and peaceniks....the end result of their "beliefs" is death....death of millions...always! It was the Liberal Peace Movement during the '30s that kept America from declaring war on Germany when England declared war on Germany. America sat on the sidelines....America watched England get pounded and pounded, night after night, buzz-bomb after buzz-bomb, thousands dead...while we did nothing...We did nothing as our friends in France, Holland and dozens of countries lost their countries to Hitler's invading hordes. We sat by and watched Japan commit countless atrocities against China and Manchuria....ONLY when WE were attacked did we get in the fight. If I were a British citizen I don't think I'd like America as a friend very much. Roosevelt's refusal to declare war back in early 1940 ultimately led to millions of deaths...deaths that could have been prevented if we had united with England right away to defeat Hitler.

If Iran DOES attack Israel or Saudi Arabia with nukes the LIbs here will not have the stomach for a fight....millions more will die because Ahmadinjad was allowed to expand his influence....hell I bet the "first" nuke or dirty bomb attack won't be carried out by Iran "officially"...they'll just hand it off to Al Qaida. That is a concept Liberals will not or cannot comprehend. Liberals forced America to hastily withdraw from Viet Nam...what was the result?...A fucking bloodbath of our friends and forces of democracy....millions tortured and killed because we didnt finish the job...and of course Liberals NEVER see their responsibility for all of it. These are the same Liberals who CRY for murderers like Tookie, but call our troops Nazis.....they oppose the death penalty by lethal injection on grounds of cruel & unusual, but they promulgate abortions...all types of abortions, including those that rip the fetus out piece by piece. They are a sad, pathetic demented lot of suicidal idiots, ever-determined to allow our country and way of life to be destroyed in the name of what they deem appropriate.

FLETCH2

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 7:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
First of all, it looks like the primary reason the Iranian president was invited to speak at the University was so that he could be insulted.

Actually the primary reason he was invited was so he could be insulting. The left took this as an opportunity to embrace a leader who would come here and insult American policy, American culture, and most important to the liberals, to insult the American President. That he could then insult the American gays and the American left was surprising, after all they are the ones standing up for him. He should appreciate them, as should we all, the left would argue, for giving him a forum, a mild rebuke, and showing that the American left are the pillars of civilzation, diplomacy, and achievement.

I think that's a partial analysis. I think there was a degree of grandstanding here, I think the message Columbia was ORIGINALLY going to send was that civilised people talk to the enemy and try to change their minds through discourse rather than violence. I don't think that anyone there thought he was a friend of the liberal worldview, in fact his worldview (Israel aside) has more in common with some right wing Christians than it does with anyone else in the US, after all he does live in the theocracy.

My guess is that sometime in the last week, when the media, pro-Israeli students and Alums started asking WTF were Columbia thinking, a decision was made to firmly show that Columbia wasn't endorsing him. That was what the pre-speech speech was all about.

Quote:

Its the sort of thinking that went out of fashion when it directly resulted in World War 2. Early 20th Century liberal idealism, that wants to talk to Hitler...not confront and kill them.

Your history is different from mine then. I don't know that anyone on the "liberal" side in Europe actually trusted Hitler for a moment. There was a move by industrialists in Europe to support Fascism because it was seen as a valid alternative to Communism. That was a time in Europe when the ruling and property owning classes really feared that Russia Communism would spread through their own socialist and communist movements. The idea that Fascist states would be a buffer between capitalist Europe and communist Russia was not really a liberal notion.

Quote:

Hitler needed to be confronted in 1933, before he built the Nazi war machine, did the groundwork to ready the greatest mass executions in world history, or started the most widespread and destructive conflict we've seen yet.

Nobody wanted to confront Hitler in 1933, European losses in WW1 meant most European leaders could not get a mandate for pre-emptive action and America was in an isolationist phase dealing with the depression. It wasn't that lberals prefered to talk it was that nobody prefered to fight.

Quote:

Make no mistake, modern Iran is as hard on liberals, free thinkers, artists, writers, and professors as it is on gays and Jews. In that respect they have a lot in common with Hitler.

Theocracy in action.

RIGHTEOUS9

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 9:47 PM

Nonsense Hero,

Nothing is better for instigating thought than abrasive ideas. They create a friction that forces you to look seriously at an issue. I'm not generally inspired to post when I read something here that I agree with, but when I read something from you or Auraptor it makes me tackle the issue in my head. It makes me look at something that otherwise I might have continued to accept without delving. I generally don't come away agreeing with you, but I come away with a better understanding of my own position.

I say he should be given a forum to speak, and to be questioned as he was. I don't completely agree with antonyt that he should have been treated with respect in terms of the types of questions thrown his way. I believe that when you have somebody like that in that kind of venue, its your duty to ask him the hard questions.

And it sounds like he was.

so for all your accusations about what the left was looking for, where is your proof? Don't give me some bullshit line suggesting that they asked a question about homosexuality and expected him to go..."I'M GAY!"

that's not to say these distasteful platforms should be given the kind of play that our main-stream media gives them. Anne Coulter's hate peddling has been mainstreamed to the point where people might actually start thinking she's not so far out from the middle...that's the power of shifting our perception of what is the norm by overplaying radicalism...

This reinforces my feeling that the Iranian President should be grilled when he speaks. When you talk to somebody you feel is radical and out of touch with reality you can't publically accept their bull. Give them a chance to defend their bull, sure, but giving them a pass on it in the world of media is very near to condoning and reinforcing it.

...........

Sadly, the Bush administration doesn't like it when we talk to anybody. It's almost as if they feel their own position so tennuous that any digging would undermine them rather than to strengthen their own cause. That's probably true. They are kings of rhetoric. They like it when we don't examine the issues...when we allow our gut reactions to allign our sentiment with their agendas.

I'm not buying either of their bullshit...but I like to know what it is. they are both leaders with different goals and different pressures, and what they say should never be considered without taking into account those contexts.

Right now the Bush administrations goal seems to be to ratchet up a reason to invade Iran.

The Iranian President's goal is to make himself into a martyr for the middle east, and other sympathetic countries getting tired of Americas foreign policy.

It looks like they're both going to get what they want. The rest of us...

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Judith:
No one said anything about invading Iran but me...it's my cynicism with regards to the present administration. OK so that's sarcastic...

Does anyone here want to help those identified as gay in Iran? Does anyone here want to do anything other than bitch about it? I have merely offered a solution of my own to the problem of mistreating those individuals while casting a cynical eye to the present administration. As for how the president of Iran was treated at Columbia - disgraceful seems too inadequate.

For starters, no one is talking about going to war w/ Iran, other than the French, of all folks. Seems others, besides Bush and Cheney, are less than thrilled at Iran's desire to 'go nuclear'. Go figure

But per THIS issue, what does anything here have to do w/ our current administration? Is your memory so short or your mind so obscured by politics that you foget the previous 11 + years which lead up to us using force in Iraq?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 .....
There's zero comparison, what so ever, so why even bring it up??

Must I explain everything all over again, step by step, about the sad irony of the American Left, praising Ahmadinejad's speaking before an American University? How the Iranian President will, with all honesty and a straight face ( pun sorta intended ) tell his audience and the world that there are NO gays in Iran, while the horrific truth stares us all in the face ?

Why do I even bother ??

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:51 PM

Well at least we now know that the US isn't the only country with an ignorant, intolerant and crazy-in-the-head elected prez-dent.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well at least we now know that the US isn't the only country with an ignorant, intolerant and crazy-in-the-head elected prez-dent.

Riiiight. Because a nuclear Iran is what every level headed, clear thinking and PEACE LOVING world leader wants.

PeaceInOurTimeRaptor

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 11:03 PM

"Riiiight. Because a nuclear Iran is what every level headed, clear thinking and PEACE LOVING world leader wants." Especially Bush who really wants to try out those bunker busting tactical nukes !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 11:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Riiiight. Because a nuclear Iran is what every level headed, clear thinking and PEACE LOVING world leader wants." Especially Bush who really wants to try out those bunker busting tactical nukes !

Better to use those than to wait unitl Iran uses their toys.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 1:36 AM

I presume this is lost on you:

"We have seen the depth of our enemies' hatred in videos, where they laugh about the loss of innocent life. And the depth of their hatred is equaled by the madness of the destruction they design. We must be their equals, and more."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I presume this is lost on you:

"We have seen the depth of our enemies' hatred in videos, where they laugh about the loss of innocent life. And the depth of their hatred is equaled by the madness of the destruction they design. We must be their equals, and more."

Fight fire with fire.

It takes a wolf to catch a wolf.

Seems more like it's lost on you, sir.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 6:05 AM

So I take it it was beyond you ... ... did the US have to be exactly like the Nazis to fight them ? Or like the Japanese to fight them ? Think about it.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 9:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So I take it it was beyond you ... ... did the US have to be exactly like the Nazis to fight them ? Or like the Japanese to fight them ? Think about it.

Me not agreeing with you or you not able to make your case isn't the same as something being beyond me. I reject the inane notion that to fight an enemy one must become that which you're trying to defeat. It's an absurd notion.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

JUDITH

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 12:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Judith:
No one said anything about invading Iran but me...it's my cynicism with regards to the present administration. OK so that's sarcastic...

Does anyone here want to help those identified as gay in Iran? Does anyone here want to do anything other than bitch about it? I have merely offered a solution of my own to the problem of mistreating those individuals while casting a cynical eye to the present administration. As for how the president of Iran was treated at Columbia - disgraceful seems too inadequate.

For starters, no one is talking about going to war w/ Iran, other than the French, of all folks. Seems others, besides Bush and Cheney, are less than thrilled at Iran's desire to 'go nuclear'. Go figure

But per THIS issue, what does anything here have to do w/ our current administration? Is your memory so short or your mind so obscured by politics that you foget the previous 11 + years which lead up to us using force in Iraq?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 .....
There's zero comparison, what so ever, so why even bring it up??

Must I explain everything all over again, step by step, about the sad irony of the American Left, praising Ahmadinejad's speaking before an American University? How the Iranian President will, with all honesty and a straight face ( pun sorta intended ) tell his audience and the world that there are NO gays in Iran, while the horrific truth stares us all in the face ?

Why do I even bother ??

It helps to listen a person to see what they are really like. I don't trust this person any more than you but not trying to get into their head just makes one ignorant of the opponent. Not everything in the world is about left/right prejudices. Your tirade re: the previous lead up to the Iraq issue is not applicable here. This is about what to do about the poor gay souls in Iran. So just pull your right wing boxers out of your pompous crack and get with the program. Truthfully , I don't know why you bothered with your nonsequiter Iraq lead-up either. This is about Iran.

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 1:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Judith:
This is about what to do about the poor gay souls in Iran.

Did it ever occur to you that many, if not most Americans are not all too concerned about the fate of gay people...either in Iran or in America? Probably not.....years of media indoctrination to the masses about gay this and gay that have not influenced all of us yet, and frankly I will always find their lifestyle a disgusting abomination to everything good and decent...everyone I know is sick to death of gays and their gay issues. I think they're all mentally ill anyhow...they say being gay isn't a choice for them and they are complelled to be gay....well if it's not a choice then it's an un-wanted medical condition that needs to be cured to free them from this overriding gay behavioral control from their defective brains. Iran hangs gays, Cuba quarrantines gays, Hugo Chavez is gay and rapes young boys all day long in his purple jumpsuit....all the Liberal Heros of the world hurt gays in some way, yet the gays, part of the Liberal Suicide Pact for America, embrace these dictators as great men.

JUDITH

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Judith:
This is about what to do about the poor gay souls in Iran.

Did it ever occur to you that many, if not most Americans are not all too concerned about the fate of gay people...either in Iran or in America? Probably not.....years of media indoctrination to the masses about gay this and gay that have not influenced all of us yet, and frankly I will always find their lifestyle a disgusting abomination to everything good and decent...everyone I know is sick to death of gays and their gay issues. I think they're all mentally ill anyhow...they say being gay isn't a choice for them and they are complelled to be gay....well if it's not a choice then it's an un-wanted medical condition that needs to be cured to free them from this overriding gay behavioral control from their defective brains. Iran hangs gays, Cuba quarrantines gays, Hugo Chavez is gay and rapes young boys all day long in his purple jumpsuit....all the Liberal Heros of the world hurt gays in some way, yet the gays, part of the Liberal Suicide Pact for America, embrace these dictators as great men.

It's not so much a 'gay people' issue as it is a 'people' issue. The sooner folks get over 'gay' as a derogatory label and cut to the human level, the better for all of us. Is it your opinion that all 'gays' should be rounded up and executed? Should they be quarantined until a 'cure' can be found? Those who are attracted to members of their own sex are just people. Some are good and some are bad. It has been my experience that homophobia is usually associated with an insecurity with ones own sexuality. I'm sure that no one on this board is homophobic or insecure with their own sexuality, however. Which raises the question of why there are such strident diatribes against homosexuals. Then again, I imagine you don't like lesbian porn and never fantasize about being with two women at the same time.

......You're my hero!

RIGHTEOUS9

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:03 PM

"a disgusting abomination to everything good and decent."

Do you have a basis for this, or is this just a gut reaction? Don't puss out here by saying "it's just my opinion." What informs that opinion?

Do you really do so little heavy lifting with your brain that you can have such a hard-line opinion on a subject that is between consenting adults? What, according to your "undefective" brain, is the evil at work here? What is so debilitating about the condition of homosexuality that it would warrant "fixing." Who gives a shit what they do?

What is it doing, in your opinion to the rest of us? Is it making baby Jesus cry? Does an angel lose its wings every time a dude takes it up the butt? Are you terrified of accidentally becoming aroused at the sight of two men kissing?

I don't get it, really.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:38 PM

Exactly, Righteous, I file that one under "Why the hell should I care ?"

Only OTHER person whos sexual preferences I give a damn about is the one I am currently bangin, and ain't that just how it should be ?

-F

MALBADINLATIN

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 8:00 PM

You can always tell a top down propaganda effort is in progress because the dribble starts coming out of the mouths of republicans in the exact same form it started, no differences whatsoever, uncorrupted by original thought.

Here is the translation of the feelings the Republican war machine is trying to get accross. "We need to invade Iran right now liberals, they're killing gays, support our war efforts liberals!"

In reality....The Republican war machine doesn't give one iota of shit about gays in Iran. Eat shit and die pro war sheeple.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 8:03 PM

Quote:
Judith wrote:
It helps to listen a person to see what they are really like. I don't trust this person any more than you but not trying to get into their head just makes one ignorant of the opponent. Not everything in the world is about left/right prejudices. Your tirade re: the previous lead up to the Iraq issue is not applicable here. This is about what to do about the poor gay souls in Iran. So just pull your right wing boxers out of your pompous crack and get with the program. Truthfully , I don't know why you bothered with your nonsequiter Iraq lead-up either. This is about Iran.

Sweet pea, it was YOUR comment about the cynicism toward the current administration and the desire to invade, not mine. The tone of your post was that Bust et al simply want to invade, for the sake fighting ANOTHER war. It's from those 2 points which I took your comments to mean something about Iraq. If I misunderstood, then I am wrong. But we do agree on 1 thing, that this is more than just about poor gay souls in Iran. It's about a figure head of Iran, telling an adoring Left wing audience filled auditorium at an American university that " there are no gays in Iran " in response to a question over human rights issues in his country. Ahmadinejad says this, with all seriousness and candor, while gays are being executed in public.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 8:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
You can always tell a top down propaganda effort is in progress because the dribble starts coming out of the mouths of republicans in the exact same form it started, no differences whatsoever, uncorrupted by original thought.

Here is the translation of the feelings the Republican war machine is trying to get accross. "We need to invade Iran right now liberals, they're killing gays, support our war efforts liberals!"

In reality....The Republican war machine doesn't give one iota of shit about gays in Iran. Eat shit and die pro war sheeple.

So, we're to concluded that you favor the killing of gays in this manner, even if they're just teenagers ?

Give war a chance.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

JUDITH

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Sweet pea, it was YOUR comment about the cynicism toward the current administration and the desire to invade, not mine. The tone of your post was that Bust et al simply want to invade, for the sake fighting ANOTHER war. It's from those 2 points which I took your comments to mean something about Iraq. If I misunderstood, then I am wrong. But we do agree on 1 thing, that this is more than just about poor gay souls in Iran. It's about a figure head of Iran, telling an adoring Left wing audience filled auditorium at an American university that " there are no gays in Iran " in response to a question over human rights issues in his country. Ahmadinejad says this, with all seriousness and candor, while gays are being executed in public.

Heaven forfend I would accuse our revered leader of being the single most responsible person for the egregious erosion of personal rights in this country or any pre-emptive agression against another sovereign country.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

JUDITH

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Sweet pea, it was YOUR comment about the cynicism toward the current administration and the desire to invade, not mine. The tone of your post was that Bust et al simply want to invade, for the sake fighting ANOTHER war. It's from those 2 points which I took your comments to mean something about Iraq. If I misunderstood, then I am wrong. But we do agree on 1 thing, that this is more than just about poor gay souls in Iran. It's about a figure head of Iran, telling an adoring Left wing audience filled auditorium at an American university that " there are no gays in Iran " in response to a question over human rights issues in his country. Ahmadinejad says this, with all seriousness and candor, while gays are being executed in public.

Heaven forfend I would accuse our revered leader of being the single most responsible person for the egregious erosion of personal rights in this country or any pre-emptive agression against another sovereign country.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

MALBADINLATIN

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: So, we're to concluded that you favor the killing of gays in this manner, even if they're just teenagers ?
Give war a chance.

Mere Rhetoric is an Isreali blog and thats where the photos came from. The Isrealis are doing a lot of encouraging of the US to hate Iran. If you can't find someone who can translate what that sign above the hanging victims says in Farsi....based on those two facts, it's not even proven to me that they are gay. I won't take the word of the biased. Now if they are gay, that sucks, but it cannot be used as one of the reasons we attack Iran. If we invade it'll be over nukes, and we won't find any, but we'll need to stay for security reasons, why do you care about gay rights anyway? You say it's a choice, so doing it in Iran when they knew it was a crime, they're getting what they deserve right, and I'm sure that lot's of Republicans in this country secretly wish they could do here.

RIGHTEOUS9

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:18 AM

Hey frem,

glad you agree.

Frankly, in this day and age, in this country that purports to laud our freedom to do what we wish as long as that freedom ends at our neighbors nose, it should be astonishing to me that there's disagreement on this at all. Sadly, I'm too jaded to be unsurprised.

Jongstraw, How does a person who believes that the gay life-style is actually evil reconcile that moral judgement with such a liberal foundation of our coutry's principles? I'm not saying gays were accpeted openly at the time of the writing of our bill of rights, but neither was women's suffrage, or racial equality.

When forced to choose between sombody elses freedom of choice, and your morality that tells you homosexuality is evil, how do you weigh in? Can you support both platforms simultaneously? Does one trump the other?

.................................

As to Auraptor and Jong's amusing, and I hope, partly toungue-in-cheek rhetoric about liberals not caring about gays, because we don't want to go in and depose the Iranian President, I'll just ask them how well gays are doing in Iraq today, thanks to our intervention?

I haven't really heard much about the hurdles we've made for the rights of alternative life-styles over there. I'm sure that while the warring factions are killing each other just for being each other, that they have become far more tolerant of homosexuality than they were in the past. I'm sure if we were to publically ask Al Maliki about the plight of the homosexual in Iraq, he would tell us he has many friends who are gay, and that they say the bathrooms have never been more hospitable.

You know, it oculd just be that liberals don't want to invade a nation with a crazy fundamentalist leader(WITH a crazy fundamentalist leader) because we're certain that no matter how bad things are there now, we will manage to make them worse, especially under the watch of our current President.

...................

2/3's in to this I got really tired. If some of it doesn't make any sense, that's my excuse

AURAPTOR

Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:58 AM

Quote:
Judith wrote:
Heaven forfend I would accuse our revered leader of being the single most responsible person for the egregious erosion of personal rights in this country or any pre-emptive agression against another sovereign country.

"I think I speak for everyone here when I say, 'Huh?'" - Buffy

First of all, none of our personal rights or freedoms have been eroded. Second, what the hell does that have to do w/ Ahmadeinejad's claim that there are no gays in Iran while simualtaneously gays are being publically executed?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

JUDITH

Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Judith wrote:
Heaven forfend I would accuse our revered leader of being the single most responsible person for the egregious erosion of personal rights in this country or any pre-emptive agression against another sovereign country.

"I think I speak for everyone here when I say, 'Huh?'" - Buffy

First of all, none of our personal rights or freedoms have been eroded. Second, what the hell does that have to do w/ Ahmadeinejad's claim that there are no gays in Iran while simualtaneously gays are being publically executed?[i

Warrentless eavesdropping on citizens, allowing citizens to be detained without charge indefinitely, without bail or legal representation. Warrantless private information gathering on citizens.

But yes, you're right this has no place in this thread.

Ahmadinejad is a liar. He executes citizens based on the accusation of being gay. So what is to be done? The US and UN are putting political and economic pressure on the country. What else can be done? I merely ask for suggestions. I've proposed allowing Iranian citizens to apply for political assylum. Any other suggestions?

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:18 PM

Quote:
First of all, none of our personal rights or freedoms have been eroded

Nah, you just get tasered for asking questions and arrested for peacefully protesting. It's only freedom of speech that's eroded Rap. But I'm sure you won't miss it.

And wow- the right wing is suddenly worried about the rights of gays. What a fucking joke.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Frankly, in this day and age, in this country that purports to laud our freedom to do what we wish as long as that freedom ends at our neighbors nose, it should be astonishing to me that there's disagreement on this at all. Sadly, I'm too jaded to be unsurprised.

Jongstraw, How does a person who believes that the gay life-style is actually evil reconcile that moral judgement with such a liberal foundation of our coutry's principles? I'm not saying gays were accpeted openly at the time of the writing of our bill of rights, but neither was women's suffrage, or racial equality.

When forced to choose between sombody elses freedom of choice, and your morality that tells you homosexuality is evil, how do you weigh in? Can you support both platforms simultaneously? Does one trump the other?

Your first response to me was condescending and insulting to me...therefore you got no response back. Now you've toned it down a bit, and I will simply tell you I do not care if you and others here need me to explain what I wrote on this subject, or any other. I know what I know, and I have a lifetime of witnessed living history, and personal experiences. Rather than attack my words, why don't YOU at least try to see another side....ya know...that "tolerance" thing you liberal folks always espouse, but really have none of? Here's a little clue for you.....I couldn't care less if men and women want to screw eachother, or goats & sheep for that matter; as long as I dont have to see it, know about it, or have it rammed down my political throat as mainstream dogma.

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:29 PM

Jongsstraw- you sometimes are reasonable but when you refuse to explain yourself it's impossible to "try" to understand you because we're not telepathic.

Yeah, I have a lifetime of experiences too (I'm really old so I prolly have more than you do) but I don't presume you should try to understand them in absence of an explanation on my part. So instead of asking for folks to practice telepathy, why don't you try practicing communication?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:48 PM

SIg....I don't think you believe what you just wrote for one minute. According to the liberal majority of 'coats on this board I'm never reasonable. I can write a 200+ word post, filled with historical facts and conclusions, only to have some obtuse, argumentative twit here cherry-pick a sentence or two and attack based on that....quite dis-honest and immature. To tell you the truth, these boards have become very boring & predictable, and I am thinking of not returning...for example...this thread, other threads...Conservative and moderate folks will engage in thousands of words, interesting stuff...then as predictable as the rising sun, you, Rue and gang will swoop in and say something like above....(paraphrasing here ) Bush is as bad as Amadinejad....or Malbad's " eat shit and die pro-war sheeple"...WOW...how smart, how insightful, how fucking insulting to everyone else who was actually making this topic interesting. You and your allies here have chased off just about every Conservative with your endless argumentative and confrontational attacks, highlighted by your delusionally self-imposed attitudes of intellectual and moral superiority over tradional-minded citizens.

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:50 PM

Judith- I have an answer to what we should do about oppressive nations, but it'll never fly because it gets in the way of maximum profit.

It's very simple: place a 5% import tariff on any nation that doesn't have elections certified by the UN, 5% on any nation that doesn't have free unions, 5% on any nation that doesn't grant equal right to all citizens regardless of (fill in all the usual) etc., 5% on nations without a free press and free internet etc. In that way, national leaders will be rewarded for doing the right thing.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:03 PM

Quote:
You and your allies here have chased off just about every Conservative with your endless argumentative and confrontational attacks

Whatever.

Yanno, I ask questions. LOTS of questions. An annoying amount of questions to be sure, but I want to make sure I truly understand what's being said. But nobody "on the right" (by self-description) has EVER asked me what I think.

I read a lot of straw men: liberals say this. leftists think that. Signy wants such and such... but I find it curious that nobody has actually bothered to ask me. And I don't think you really DO know what I think. Sometimes I don't know what I think. Perhaps there are flaws in my logic or my assumptions that would be uncovered if people stopped assuming and attacking and just asked and then listened and then asked some more. 'Cause if I can't stand to be questioned, I don't belong here.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

HERO

Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Your history is different from mine then. I don't know that anyone on the "liberal" side in Europe actually trusted Hitler for a moment.

Hmmm...lets see what the Right Honorable Prime Minister had to say:

"The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace... The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity." Neville Chamberlain,Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Vol. 339 (October 3, 1938)

Quote:

Nobody wanted to confront Hitler in 1933,

Actually there was one person. Winston Churchill. And he was right, from the very begining:

"The rise of Germany . . . to anything like military equality with France, Poland or the small states, means a renewal of a general European war."- 1933.

"I will begin by saying what everybody would like to ignore or forget but which must nevertheless be stated, namely that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat, and France has suffered even more than we have....the German dictator, instead of snatching the victuals from the table, has been content to have them served to him course by course." —House of Commons, 5 October 1938, talking about the Munich Conferance.

"This is not a question of fighting for Danzig or fighting for Poland. We are fighting to save the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defense of all that is most sacred to man. This is no war of domination or imperial aggrandizement or material gain; no war to shut any country out of its sunlight and means of progress. It is a war, viewed in its inherent quality, to establish, on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual, and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man. Perhaps it might seem a paradox that a war undertaken in the name of liberty and right should require, as a necessary part of its processes, the surrender for the time being of so many of the dearly valued liberties and rights..." 1939, The War Speech

Fella could turn a phrase.

H

JUDITH

Thursday, September 27, 2007 2:14 PM

Not meaning to take anything from either men I must say that Neville Chamberlain was naive and Churchill had the benefit of hind sight. Both responded to a dictator who left his own borders in the need to expand his empire. You're right though, when it came to eloquence, Churchill was difficult to top.

Had Hitler stayed within the borders of Germany, I don't think anyone would have bothered with him - until he started to annex his neighbors.

Signym- thanks for the suggestions! Can we keep this going?

FLETCH2

Thursday, September 27, 2007 2:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Your history is different from mine then. I don't know that anyone on the "liberal" side in Europe actually trusted Hitler for a moment.

Hmmm...lets see what the Right Honorable Prime Minister had to say:

"The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace... The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity." Neville Chamberlain,Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Vol. 339 (October 3, 1938)

You mean this Neville Chamberlain?

Quote:

Arthur Neville Chamberlain, known as Neville Chamberlain (18 March 1869 – 9 November 1940), was a British Conservative politician and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1937 to 1940.

Great liberal conspiracy that. Nobody wanted war, not the people, not the ruling classes. American casualties in WW1 while horrific were a drop in the water compared to European Allied losses, for us the war was twice as long and infinately more deadly.

Quote:

Quote:

Nobody wanted to confront Hitler in 1933,

Actually there was one person. Winston Churchill. And he was right, from the very begining:

But at the time people did think him a nut. Here's the thing about history, it's writen from the point of view of the winner and with 20/20 hindsight. Had Chamberlain's plan worked, had Hitler blinked, old Neville would probably be remembered today as a great statesman instead of an appeaser and Winston would have seen out his days in political exile doing watercolours and writing essays. The irony is that the way this played out wasn't decided by either of them but by the actions of Hitler.

But back to the main thrust. The mainstream Conservatives in England did not want war, which was ok because with the exception of folks like Nye Bevan the left didn't want it either. In the US the Republican party campaigned against taking the US into war in 1940

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Judith:
Had Hitler stayed within the borders of Germany, I don't think anyone would have bothered with him - until he started to annex his neighbors.

Well, as long as he stayed within the borders of countries the other powers didn’t care about. Germany annexed two neighbors before anyone got up in arms about it.

I think it’s fair to say that Europeans were traumatized following World War I. It was such a stupid war to begin with and ended with little to show for it except the death of millions. Before WWI Europeans were dancing in the streets at the prospect of war – so it’s probably safe to say that the population in Europe at the time was on the direct polar opposite they would be after the war. I don’t think that this is unusual – throughout history the populous has often been easily inspired to the call of arms, because in the absence of communication, the tragedy of the aftermath was never transmitted fully to the next generation. The Napoleonic wars might not have been as destructive as World War I, but the devastation was far greater than was remembered in 1914.

By 1933, the population of Europe had learned, again, how devastating war can be, but this time they wouldn’t be allowed to forget it. The problem was the while the masses had figured out that wars are not all glory and flags, the Napoleons were still around and ready to take advantage of this new European mindset. People like Churchill had a difficult job convincing a nation newly convinced of the hell of war, that war also had the virtue of being the only real tool against militant totalitarian states. The irony is that had the other powers put their foot down early World War II would likely not have happened, simply because Hitler was relying on a Europe that was so traumatized they were unwilling to act in their own preservation.

You would think that after WWII, Europe would have learned both lessons – the hell of war, and the necessity of it, and while many have, I think there is still many that remain traumatized. This has led European foreign policy to be defined heavily by supranationalism, which is basically an excuse not to act in favor of rhetoric.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:01 PM

Quote:
This has led European foreign policy to be defined heavily by supranationalism, which is basically an excuse not to act in favor of rhetoric

What do you mean: "Acting in favor of rhetoric"?? On the face of it, that doesn't sound like a good idea.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
This has led European foreign policy to be defined heavily by supranationalism, which is basically an excuse not to act in favor of rhetoric
What do you mean: "Acting in favor of rhetoric"?? On the face of it, that doesn't sound like a good idea.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

You know your misquoting folks is part of the reason people stop talking to you.

Finn: I think you mis-interpret the current Eurpoean position. Europe has been at war on and off for close to 2000 years. The last 100 of which were especially bloody. I think Europe has finally started to do the math, work out the costs and benefits of conflicts according to a fairly complex formula. That is why Iraq was not on the European radar but Iran is, that's why there are European troops in Afghanistan. I don't know that the average modern European is less inclined to go to war, I just think you have to make a better case that it's in his best interest.

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:18 PM

Quote:
This has led European foreign policy to be defined heavily by supranationalism, which is basically an excuse not to act in favor of rhetoric- Finn

What do you mean: "Acting in favor of rhetoric"?? On the face of it, that doesn't sound like a good idea.-Signy

You know your misquoting folks is part of the reason people stop talking to you.-Fletch2

Fletch2- I'm not misquoting, I really don't understand what Finn meant. That's why I asked. But if you know what Finn meant please enlighten me.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RIGHTEOUS9

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:51 PM

look Jong,

yeah, in that first post, I felt like being a little rude. You probably don't see that your own words were arrogant, superior, insulting and publically judgemental to a whole lifestyle...

you condemned them for their sexuality. You said something to the effect of them being an affront to everything good and decent. Now you demand respect.
......................

Did I cherry pick? Was that sentence taken out of context? If so, then I'll give you a pass. Hell, you've got a pass anyway. I posted a pretty confrontational response, I agree, but my attitude in general when dealing with people who have some stored up bigotry is not to try to alienate them, but to try to rationally bring them over, so for not doing that, I apologize.

.......................

You don't want homosexuality rammed down your throat, (that does sound unappealing), but you don't mind if you turn on the T.V and see a male and female couple kissing, or animals mating on animal planet..etc. I think you're making too big a deal out of it. You've built it up as so disgusting, so revolting, that it probably literally effects you when you see it.

It took me a long time to get over that kind of stigma, myself. I never had anything against gays, but because I hadn't known any I was still creeped out a little by being around them, I was actually disturbed by kissing scenes on TV between two men. When I found out a friend of mine was gay...and I should have known...(the dude had steel magnolias in his movie collection and he was a big fan of Diana Ross), I got the heebeejeebies...it was a world I wasn't comfortable with, and I thought he might be trying to hit on mee.

There's a lot of stigma in the world, and I was a product of that too. 10 years later I can watch through all the graphic gay sex scenes in Six Feet Under and not bat an eye. It doesn't arouse me, but it doesn't bother me either.

I'm just saying, maybe you don't want to get jaded to it, maybe you like affirming your own sexuality by tasting bile when you see two men holding hands, but if you ever were to become jaded to it, guess what...it wouldn't make you gay...it wouldn't make your kids gay. It just wouldn't bother you any more.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:16 PM

Slight difference friend.....I write about "groups"...you & your pals here attack individual Browncoats.

RIGHTEOUS9

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:19 PM

so the difference is, you're here to present your case and defend yourself, and to attack back if you feel it's appropriate?

On the other hand you expect your comments to go unmolested, more general hatred seeping into common everyday conversation as if its the norm, because you're attacking groups after all, not individuals?

What the hell makes that better?

FLETCH2

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
This has led European foreign policy to be defined heavily by supranationalism, which is basically an excuse not to act in favor of rhetoric- Finn

What do you mean: "Acting in favor of rhetoric"?? On the face of it, that doesn't sound like a good idea.-Signy

You know your misquoting folks is part of the reason people stop talking to you.-Fletch2
Fletch2- I'm not misquoting, I really don't understand what Finn meant. That's why I asked. But if you know what Finn meant please enlighten me.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Well I don't speak for Finn, or even agree with his analysis but what he said was pretty clear.

Quote:

This has led European foreign policy to be defined heavily by supranationalism, which is basically an excuse not to act in favor of rhetoric.

Finn's contention is that Europe favours action via multinational entities such as the UN as an excuse for inaction. Ie, they can CLAIM to be against something, do all the posturing and sabre rattling they need to do to look tough, safe in the knowledge that bodies like the UN will never agree to authorise anything.

The crucial thing is to look at the complete sentence, it is not "Acting in favor of rhetoric." It is the failier to act, and instead to favour rhetoric.

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:29 PM

Quote:
Fletch2- I'm not misquoting, I really don't understand what Finn meant. That's why I asked. But if you know what Finn meant please enlighten me.

So, will either Finn or Fletch explain the statement about acting on rhetoric?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
so the difference is, you're here to present your case and defend yourself, and to attack back if you feel it's appropriate?

On the other hand you expect your comments to go unmolested, more general hatred seeping into common everyday conversation as if its the norm, because you're attacking groups after all, not individuals?

What the hell makes that better?

My comments never go unmolested, as you say. It's only rarely will I respond back. I write what I write and that is all I'm willing to say. Truth is, if Yahoo hadn't taken away their message boards that's where I'd be writing my pearls of wisdom.

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:21 PM

And my questions never get answered.

Sigh.

Story of my life.

I was hoping Finn would illuminate his comment because it puzzles me greatly, but if anyone else wants to take a crack at it, feel free.

---------------------------------
Sign me Clueless.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:03 PM

Sigy, bubala, ... ask me a question. I'll answer.

FLETCH2

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And my questions never get answered.

Sigh.

Story of my life.

I was hoping Finn would illuminate his comment because it puzzles me greatly, but if anyone else wants to take a crack at it, feel free.

---------------------------------
Sign me Clueless.

All you had to do was look up three posts. Apparently you are blind as well as stupid.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Finn: I think you mis-interpret the current Eurpoean position. Europe has been at war on and off for close to 2000 years. The last 100 of which were especially bloody. I think Europe has finally started to do the math, work out the costs and benefits of conflicts according to a fairly complex formula. That is why Iraq was not on the European radar but Iran is, that's why there are European troops in Afghanistan. I don't know that the average modern European is less inclined to go to war, I just think you have to make a better case that it's in his best interest.

I think Afghanistan was on the radar because 9/ll really shocked a lot of people, but still if I remember correctly, the French were trying to avoid of Afghanistan even then. And I don’t know how much Iran is on the radar. As long as no credible threat of force is levied against Iran I don’t think Europeans will have much of a problem imposing sanctions. I think you’re right that Europeans are not likely to support wars that they don’t perceive as being in their interests. And that’s always been the case, it was just easier in the past to make a convincing argument, then it is today, particularly since in most of history people weren’t really given a choice in the matter. I don’t think Americans are any different in that regard. But Europeans seem more willing to support supranational agencies like the United Nations and World Court. Even the European Union is supranational. None of these agencies have any real means of enforcing the policies they are design to implement. It’s just all on paper. There seems to be a philosophy among many Europeans to unit under purely bureaucratic means. One British author referred to this as “Olympianism.” Maybe I am misinterpreting. I don’t completely understand European politics at that level, but if anything I think I may be oversimplifying more than misinterpreting.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

AURAPTOR

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
First of all, none of our personal rights or freedoms have been eroded
Nah, you just get tasered for asking questions and arrested for peacefully protesting. It's only freedom of speech that's eroded Rap. But I'm sure you won't miss it.

And wow- the right wing is suddenly worried about the rights of gays. What a fucking joke.

No, you get arrested for not following instructions to leave. Taser boy could have carried a sign outside and yelled all he wanted, but there's no RIGHT for him to disrupt an organized meeting, even if it is featuring John F-ing Kerry.

And wow, this goes well beyond bickering over what "rights" homosexuals have. Conservatives don't deny homosexuals have the right to live. That's no joking matter.

right back at ya.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:20 PM

Quote:
All you had to do was look up three posts. Apparently you are blind as well as stupid

Where? I looked up three posts from Finn's post and from THIS post and I don't see anything that applies. So, I'm blind. Give me a key word to "edit- find on this page".

BTW- I REALLY don't think I deserve your snark. I asked a question, I can't find the answer. What's your problem?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:22 PM

Oh, okay I see it. But Fletch2, have you ever considered anger management classes?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:26 PM

Let me repost Fletch2's statement that basically describes what I meant:

Quote:
Finn's contention is that Europe favours action via multinational entities such as the UN as an excuse for inaction. Ie, they can CLAIM to be against something, do all the posturing and sabre rattling they need to do to look tough, safe in the knowledge that bodies like the UN will never agree to authorise anything.

The crucial thing is to look at the complete sentence, it is not "Acting in favor of rhetoric." It is the failier to act, and instead to favour rhetoric.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:27 PM

Okay, it was a true misdunderstanding on my part, I just couldn't make the original sentence make sense. Now it does, thanks.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, okay I see it. But Fletch2, have you ever considered anger management classes?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Ever considered reading classes?

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:57 PM

Fletch2- I've really bitten my tongue (okay, my fingers) not to respond to your provocation. We've had many productive conversations in the past, so what is WITH you today?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, September 28, 2007 3:52 AM

Judith- It would be interesting to try and figure out what the minimum number of conditions are required to foster individual rights.

A "free vote" isn't sufficient altho I think that's part of it. What do you think?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, September 28, 2007 3:59 AM

"what the minimum number of conditions are required to foster individual rights"
A robust middle class ? Typically it goes along with individual rights. If they aren't available the middle class tends to be educated enough to demand them and push for reform.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Friday, September 28, 2007 6:16 AM

Good idea. How does one attain a middle class?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

JUDITH

Friday, September 28, 2007 2:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Judith- It would be interesting to try and figure out what the minimum number of conditions are required to foster individual rights.

A "free vote" isn't sufficient altho I think that's part of it. What do you think?

Just a quick observation, deary. I'm at work.

I believe that until the populous becomes fed up with their government enough to form their own clandestine governing body and then begin an armed revolt against their government, they don't have a chance. you can't 'give' anyone a political system; they have to want it and approve it and be willing to take it for themselves.

Sorry but I really have to go!
Judith

FREDGIBLET

Friday, September 28, 2007 5:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
My comments never go unmolested, as you say.

Just a thought, perhaps it's the astonishingly confrontational, insulting and (occasionally) vile manner in which you make your comments? Perhaps making your comments in a calm, rational fashion might be more productive?

GEEZER

Friday, September 28, 2007 5:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Good idea. How does one attain a middle class?

Well the book answer would probably be the expansion of the free market, the investment of capital in businesses which can provide a good wage, and employees' rights to collective bargining. That's pretty much how middle classes developed in the past.

Somehow I don't think that scenario is gonna fly here.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, September 30, 2007 12:51 AM

And yet another right-wing faerytale collapses.

This bit courtesy of Erlanda.
================================
CLIP FOLLOWS
================================
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Another anti-Iranian propaganda story unravels

Is the "Gay Executions in Iran" story being ginned up for political purposes?
by Cyrus Safdari
Iran affairs

There's been a lot of talk about Ahmadinejad's statement about how Iran supposedly "doesn't have gays like you do" - which of course totally distracts from the substance of his speech in which he proclaimed that Iran was not going to attack anyone and that he didn't deny the holocaust as claimed but only questioned why the Palestinians had to suffer for it.

And the talk about gays in Iran inevitably returns to the old chestnut about how "two youths were executied in Iran for being gay."

But regarding the allegation of the "gay executions" in Iran, I recommend some reading:

The Washington Blade's report:

Research conducted by the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International has found, so far, that the teenagers were convicted of and executed for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old male, a crime that occurred when the two teens may have been minors.

According to Human Rights Watch, local Iranian news reports tell a detailed story of the alleged crime, including interviews with the victim’s father and a description of how the 13-year-old’s bike was stolen before he was abducted and sexually assaulted at knifepoint.

It appears that reports claiming the boys were executed for being gay originated with the National Council of Resistance of Iran,, an opposition group that is classified as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.

“It was not a gay case,” said Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, taking issue with the Human Rights Campaign’s statement that was quick to condemn the execution as anti-gay.

Richard Kim's investigation into the origin and distribution of the allegation about gays being executed in Iran, as published in the Nation magazine entitled Witness to an Execution:

But was the story accurate? And what steps did organizations take either to confirm its veracity or to gauge what effects their campaign might have in Iran? It appears that the answer to the second question is very little. . .As for the accuracy of the story itself, the Outrage! press release that incited this storm claims that neither the original ISNA story nor the first NCRI report on the incident mentions sexual assault. But it appears that Outrage! was working from a faulty translation.

Also, Rostam Pourzal's recent article "Let's Not Trivialize Discrimination in Iran" published by Monthly Review.

And finally, as reported by the Gay City News:

For eight months, Human Rights Watch (HRW) has researched a report on abuses based on sexual orientation and gender identity in Iran, interviewing dozens in Iran and the diaspora, trying to separate fact from rhetoric and rumor.
As a prominent Iranian dissident said last week, 'We need cases!' documentation, not speculation.
When pictures of two young men hanged in the Iranian city of Mashhad circulated in July 2005, revulsion rode with them around the world.
Doug Ireland began a campaign in Gay City News to prove that the Mashhad case was one of consensual homosexual sex, and that the Ahmadinejad regime was carrying out a 'massive pogrom,' an 'intensifying crackdown.'
His reporting was deeply irresponsible. His claims about Mashhad relied entirely on second-hand sources.
Ireland never confirmed those reports. No one has.
His main source hasn’t shared information directly, even with the Persian Gay and Lesbian Organization. Ireland proclaimed the rape charges 'refuted.'
If we want to challenge Iran’s government, we need facts. There is enough proof of torture and repression that we can do without claims of 'pogroms.' If we want to act, we need a goal. That means listening to Iranian diss

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, September 30, 2007 3:03 AM

How do I know that these kids were executed for being gay? It could have been because they fucked Mahmoud's daughter, or camel, or maybe they're his cooks and they didn't put enough curry powder in his last meal....

This post is like a twisted "The More You Know" PSA putting the gay in the rainbow the star makes.

"The Rainbow ain't gay, and we're takin it back" - Lucky the Leprechaun

Maybe instead of tazing loudmouth assholes like our nazi police force does here, they go straight for the double-dog dare and hang the bastards.

Lemmie ask you this? Do you believe that the last Osama Bin Laden tape was real?

If you share my point of view on that video and you flat out don't believe it, or if you at least doubt the legitimacy and authenticity of the video, I don't see how you can have blind faith that these kids were executed for poopy dick syndrome.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Sunday, September 30, 2007 3:13 AM

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Poopy dick syndrome? Seriously?

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that a country that stones people to death might hang gay men?

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Sunday, September 30, 2007 3:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Judith:
This is about what to do about the poor gay souls in Iran.

Did it ever occur to you that many, if not most Americans are not all too concerned about the fate of gay people...either in Iran or in America? Probably not.....years of media indoctrination to the masses about gay this and gay that have not influenced all of us yet, and frankly I will always find their lifestyle a disgusting abomination to everything good and decent...everyone I know is sick to death of gays and their gay issues. I think they're all mentally ill anyhow...they say being gay isn't a choice for them and they are complelled to be gay....well if it's not a choice then it's an un-wanted medical condition that needs to be cured to free them from this overriding gay behavioral control from their defective brains. Iran hangs gays, Cuba quarrantines gays, Hugo Chavez is gay and rapes young boys all day long in his purple jumpsuit....all the Liberal Heros of the world hurt gays in some way, yet the gays, part of the Liberal Suicide Pact for America, embrace these dictators as great men.

Isn't it a shame that bigotry can't be cured with a little pill or some shock treatment?

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, September 30, 2007 4:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Kiss her? Actually, I don't even speak to her with with it...

But she cussed like a sailor when I grew up anyhow, so I don't think she'd catch anything that she didn't already have.

Quote:
Seriously? Poopy dick syndrome?

UH-OH!!!! FMF rushes back to defend her big gay son from big bad Jack again. He'd probably laugh at poopy dick syndrome if he heard it, if he had a sense of humor at all. Maybe the little twink wouldn't be chompin' on the wood like a beaver today if he didn't have mommy's skirt to hide behind everytime somebody made fun of him for wearing lipstick, listening to the Cure, and bringing his Hello Kitty purse to school.

Quote:
Is it beyond the realm of possibility that a country that stones people to death might hang gay men?

I don't believe that I ever said that it was. I only stated how hypocritical it is for somebody to see those pics and say "These kids were killed because they were gay" and yet, when a video of Bin Laden (which I also happen to believe to be fake) is used to get the neo-con idiots behind a war with Iran. They all jump on the "It's more of Bush's evil propoganda" bandwagon. I just think it's funny how most of the folk on this board who are the people who would post and believe 100% in pics and articles stating that two men, like those portrayed above, were killed for guzzling cum, are the very same people who would have doubts as to the legitimacy of the latest Osama Bin Laden video. (See: Democrats/Hypocrites)

Boy, I can't wait until Hillary or Obama are in office and they can use my cigarette tax to pay for medicine for AIDS riddled homo kids with it! Yippie! And then they can take the rest of my money and just fill up pinatas with it and hand them out to the Mexicans when we give all 200 million of them amnesty and they have the worlds largest Fiesta on the backs of hard working Americans.

I'm really not a bad guy FMF... It's not as if I would burn crosses on your kids front lawn or drag him behind a car for being gay. If you know anything about me from my posts, it's that I believe people should just mind their business and leave each other the fuck alone (THAT ESPECIALLY GOES FOR GOVERNMENT). And let me state that I really could care less who's gay as long as I don't have to hear about it EVERY FREAKIN day.

The fags can screw each other silly on the steps of City Hall for all I care. I'm just saying all of this now because I know how much it gets under your skin FMF... and we wouldn't have this great relationship that we do if you didn't get all in my face every time the discussion of gay people comes up.

I love you FMF.

It breaks my heart that these types of conversations seem to be the only time we ever talk anymore.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Sunday, September 30, 2007 4:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Kiss her? Actually, I don't even speak to her with with it...

But she cussed like a sailor when I grew up anyhow, so I don't think she'd catch anything that she didn't already have.

Quote:
Seriously? Poopy dick syndrome?

UH-OH!!!! FMF rushes back to defend her big gay son from big bad Jack again. He'd probably laugh at poopy dick syndrome if he heard it, if he had a sense of humor at all. Maybe the little twink wouldn't be chompin' on the wood like a beaver today if he didn't have mommy's skirt to hide behind everytime somebody made fun of him for wearing lipstick, listening to the Cure, and bringing his Hello Kitty purse to school.

Quote:
Is it beyond the realm of possibility that a country that stones people to death might hang gay men?

I don't believe that I ever said that it was. I only stated how hypocritical it is for somebody to see those pics and say "These kids were killed because they were gay" and yet, when a video of Bin Laden (which I also happen to believe to be fake) is used to get the neo-con idiots behind a war with Iran. They all jump on the "It's more of Bush's evil propoganda" bandwagon. I just think it's funny how most of the folk on this board who are the people who would post and believe 100% in pics and articles stating that two men, like those portrayed above, were killed for guzzling cum, are the very same people who would have doubts as to the legitimacy of the latest Osama Bin Laden video. (See: Democrats/Hypocrites)

Boy, I can't wait until Hillary or Obama are in office and they can use my cigarette tax to pay for medicine for AIDS riddled homo kids with it! Yippie! And then they can take the rest of my money and just fill up pinatas with it and hand them out to the Mexicans when we give all 200 million of them amnesty and they have the worlds largest Fiesta on the backs of hard working Americans.

I'm really not a bad guy FMF... It's not as if I would burn crosses on your kids front lawn or drag him behind a car for being gay. If you know anything about me from my posts, it's that I believe people should just mind their business and leave each other the fuck alone (THAT ESPECIALLY GOES FOR GOVERNMENT). And let me state that I really could care less who's gay as long as I don't have to hear about it EVERY FREAKIN day.

The fags can screw each other silly on the steps of City Hall for all I care. I'm just saying all of this now because I know how much it gets under your skin FMF... and we wouldn't have this great relationship that we do if you didn't get all in my face every time the discussion of gay people comes up.

I love you FMF. It breaks my heart that these types of conversations seem to be the only time we ever talk anymore.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack]

eta: sorry, I would add more, but I am laughing so hard I think I just pee'd myself!

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, September 30, 2007 5:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:

eta: sorry, I would add more, but I am laughing so hard I think I just pee'd myself!

Heh... see? I'm not always an insensitive bastard. Glad to see you found your sense of humor too FMF....

Now go put on fresh panties.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Sunday, September 30, 2007 5:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:

eta: sorry, I would add more, but I am laughing so hard I think I just pee'd myself!

Heh... see? I'm not always an insensitive bastard. Glad to see you found your sense of humor too FMF....

Now go put on fresh panties.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack]

Panties? I don't own any.....snicker snicker. And HEY! I HAVE a sense of humor, maybe YOU were just amusing for once.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, September 30, 2007 5:44 AM

I couldn't imagine that panty raids probably aren't too fun at your house then.

Yeah... love to freeball myself, but that's the problem.... when you laugh so hard you pee, everybody else knows it too.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Sunday, September 30, 2007 5:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I couldn't imagine that panty raids probably aren't too fun at your house then.

As Scooby would say RHUH?

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, September 30, 2007 5:59 AM

Sorry bout the poor English there.... when I get panties on the brain, my mind starts thinking about other intimates and what lies beneath them, and that's about the time my IQ drops about 40 points. Then, to the casual observer, I get this glazed look in my eyes and start to look strikeingly similar to an extra in a George Romero flick...

Drool... panties....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

JONGSSTRAW

Sunday, September 30, 2007 7:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Isn't it a shame that bigotry can't be cured with a little pill or some shock treatment?

I don't know, and can't say if pills & shock treatment would work on that love; they obviously haven't had any effect at all in curing stupidity and obesity.

SIGNYM

Sunday, September 30, 2007 8:06 AM

Quote:
So, we're to concluded that you favor the killing of gays in this manner, even if they're just teenagers?

You have to be REALLY careful about news translated from Iran. Most of the translations are done by MEMRI. And MEMRI was founded by Yigal Carmon and Meyrav Wurmser who are hard-line pro-Israel military, who both believe that Iraq, Iran, and Syrai should be obliterated. And Wurmser is a Jewish neocon who (along with the other Jewish neocons Feith, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Wolfowitz) brought us the Iraq War. I'm not going to bother to link, it's too easy to look up.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:14 AM

"Sorry bout the poor English there.... when I get panties on the brain, my mind starts thinking about other intimates and what lies beneath them, and that's about the time my IQ drops about 40 points. Then, to the casual observer, I get this glazed look in my eyes and start to look strikeingly similar to an extra in a George Romero flick..."

Or George Bush trying to speak publically.

Oh, wait...

DUDE, you're like, a shoe-in for our next presidential candidate!

We'll just hook you up with one of those transmitter gadgets like he used to try and cheat that debate with, and hook it up to a loop of porn soundtracks, and we're all good!

-F