Mahmoud Ahmadinejad murders gay people! by CrevanReaver

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:01 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:46 AM

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.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:51 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

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.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:16 AM

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:19 AM

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?

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:26 AM

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.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:57 AM

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.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:03 AM

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:20 AM

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.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:47 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

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.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:58 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

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. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:26 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

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.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:31 AM

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?

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:52 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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.

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:59 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"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."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:16 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Good idea. How does one attain a middle class?

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

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

Friday, September 28, 2007 4:09 AM

JUDITH

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

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

Friday, September 28, 2007 7:10 AM

FREDGIBLET

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?

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

Friday, September 28, 2007 7:26 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

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"

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

Saturday, September 29, 2007 2:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA

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 dissidents, straight and gay.

(SOURCE: Title: Debating Iran Author Scott Long. Impressum Gay City News, 5 (2006) 30 July 27-Aug. 2 )

A follow-up from Human Rights Watch:

The preponderance of evidence suggested that the youth were tried on allegations of rape,
with the suggestion that they were tried for consensual homosexual conduct seemingly based almost entirely on mistranslations and on cursory news reporting magnified by the Western press.

Incidentally, as an interesting sidenote: as I understand it, the crime of sodomy in Iran can only be proven by the admission of the perpetrator himself, or the testimony of four other men. Figure that one out!
===========================
CLIP ENDS
===========================

THIS is what you get for trusting those assholes at MEMRI
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.
html
To do your translation for you.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:03 PM

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

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

Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:13 PM

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

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

Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:21 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.

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

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

Saturday, September 29, 2007 6:48 PM

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

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

Saturday, September 29, 2007 6:56 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:15 PM

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

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

Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:20 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:44 PM

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

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

Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:48 PM

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

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

Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:59 PM

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

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

Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:03 PM

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.

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

Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:06 PM