- Guilty Spork
- Feb 26, 2011
-
Thunder rolled. It rolled a six.
|
It really puzzles me how people can claim to have nothing against gay people and want them to have equality while in the same breath insinuating that they are all a bunch of disease-ridden child rapists. It's the homophobic version of "I totally not racist, but [insert incredibly racist comment]."
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 18:37
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2024 14:20
|
|
- LeJackal
- Apr 5, 2011
-
|
I remember one guy was going on about how gays "reproduce by rape," and it's like, this guy needs to learn the difference between gay people and werewolves.
I know some hairy gay dudes prone to howling when the moon is in the sky...
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 20:47
|
|
- MaxxBot
- Oct 6, 2003
-
you could have clapped
you should have clapped!!
|
Now that we understand gays in the Boy Scouts, how about gays in the NFL?
http://milehighsports.com/2013/02/28/knudson-its-about-whats-best-for-the-team/
quote:
For the record, Manti Te’o says empathically that he’s not gay. With no evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to believe otherwise.
But the Te’o episode with a pretend internet girlfriend who turned out to be a guy brought up that possibility and, more importantly, re-opened the debate about openly homosexual players and their acceptance in the NFL.
A decade ago, there was the matter of Esera Tuaolo, former NFL defensive lineman who made a splash when he came out as openly gay after his retirement and wrote a book on the subject. He also went on to a career as a professional singer. Tuaolo voiced complaints about having to stay in the closet while he was in the NFL. His grievances were noted by the ever politically correct NFL, but largely fell on deaf ears otherwise, probably because he was viewed by most people as having had a successful career in professional sports and music, and now as an author. He didn’t seem to need much sympathy.
The issue had been largely dormant in terms of the NFL until the Te’o episode. At the Super Bowl, San Francisco 49ers defensive back Chris Culliver stuck his cleat in his mouth while being interviewed on the subject, making it clear that he would be uncomfortable with gay teammate. His views – although very poorly stated – are probably shared by a large majority of his NFL brethren. And the debate was sparked.
It’s very important when wading into this debate that we differentiate between actual discrimination and hurt feelings. Tuaolo was not discriminated against in any way. I’ve yet to hear anyone associated with pro sports, and that includes the comments from Culliver, that are advocating any sort of discrimination of anyone based on their sexual orientation.
Maybe I missed something, but I’ve yet to hear about any athlete being denied any opportunity based on his or her sexual orientation. Discrimination is wrong, and most of us believe gay people should have every right afforded every straight person.
No one has said that gays should not be allowed to play in the NFL. What has been said is that having a gay teammate would make some players uncomfortable. That’s about their feelings. Feelings aren’t right or wrong; they’re just feelings. It’s telling someone their feelings are wrong that’s the real wrong.
So what’s being debated here is not actual discrimination, but rather hurt feelings. Just because Tuaolo felt uncomfortable about his homosexuality inside a machismo-filled, heterosexual-dominated locker room does not mean he was denied any opportunities. In fact, he endured emotionally and has profited handsomely by taking full advantage of his talents and opportunities.
It’s also important to consider that the heterosexual players involved have feelings, too, and they’re no more or less valid than the feelings of those in the gay community. It’s amazing how many people feel free to criticize and tell athletes how they are supposed to feel, as if that’s anyone else’s right.
Along those lines, the PC police in the media have been quick to blast the NFL as the “last bastion of Neanderthal thinking left in the world” (I guess they’ve never been to the deep south, but that’s another story.) Those who have never lived in a locker room, with its badly needed and justifiable “foxhole mentality,” have been quick to criticize athletes for not being tolerant of the idea of having a gay teammate.
“Every other work place environment has long ago accepted the idea of having openly gay co-workers. What’s wrong with pro athletes?” The answer is nothing. There’s nothing wrong with pro athletes that isn’t wrong with the attractive woman in the office who is uncomfortable with being gawked at.
Critics of pro athletes are conveniently forgetting about some pretty substantial differences in workplace environments. Trying to compare the local “more tolerant” accounting office with a pro sports locker room is absurd. Those who work 9-5 with a gay co-worker aren’t essentially living together. They aren’t spending 24/7 living under a microscope, with every move they make being scrutinized. They aren’t traveling across North America and going into intense competition in hostile environments and then being expected to perform flawlessly as a unit. And they aren’t showering together afterwards. Important distinctions.
In a normal work environment, people are individuals with jobs. In pro sports, it’s all about as George Karl puts it, “teamness.” Individualism and personal agendas might be okay in a normal workplace, but it’s not okay in team sports. Teamness is what fans demand from the teams they pay to watch. Any individual with an agenda that’s even slightly different from that of the team hurts that cause.
Just as absurd as comparing workplace environments is the ridiculous claim by some in the gay community that there wouldn’t be any sort of physical attraction for a gay athlete toward any of his straight teammates – which would cause those very uncomfortable situations. He’s gay; he’s not dead. He can’t just flip a switch and turn off his feelings when he walks into the locker room.
Of course he’s going to have feelings of attraction toward a teammate or two. It’s human nature. These are some of the most physically fit and desirable human beings on the planet. The gay athlete isn’t going to notice that? And obviously, the straight teammates are going to feel the same sort of vibe that the attractive girl on the co-ed softball team gets from a few of the men on her team. Attractive people know when they’re being “checked out” and it leads to those very awkward moments. It’s human nature for people to be attracted to other people and it’s not going to stop happening because the workplace environment is a locker room rather than a typical office setting.
We should salute Esera Tuaolo and other gay athletes who are able to keep their sexual orientation private during their playing days. It’s got to be very difficult to do, and yet it’s what’s best for the team.
That’s what this all should come down to. What’s best for the team.
Internal strife and locker room drama is bad for ANY team. Personal agendas are not welcome. Nothing that infringes on the cohesiveness of the locker room can be tolerated. If a player who is not an irreplaceable superstar becomes any sort of distraction, he’s going to get released. We’ve seen countless examples of that.
That’s why it remains the best option for any homosexual athlete in a team sport to keep his orientation private. He’s doing what’s best for himself by doing what’s best for the team.
There will be plenty of time for pronouncements and getting that nice book deal after the playing days are over. We’ve seen examples of that, too.
You see, wanting gays in the NFL is just downright heterophobic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 21:31
|
|
- thefncrow
- Mar 14, 2001
-
|
Also, he references Chris Culliver being "uncomforable" with gay people, which is not actually what he said:
quote: Shock jock Artie Lange revealed he had interviewed Culliver at media day Tuesday and aired a segment on his show that night, where the player insisted that any gay players would not be welcome on the team.
"I don't do the gay guys man," said Culliver, whose Niners play the Baltimore Ravens on Sunday. "I don't do that. No, we don't got no gay people on the team, they gotta get up out of here if they do.
"Can't be with that sweet stuff. Nah…can't be…in the locker room man. Nah."
When quizzed by Lange whether any homosexual athletes would need to keep their sexuality a secret in football, Culliver responded: "Yeah, come out 10 years later after that."
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 22:06
|
|
- MaxxBot
- Oct 6, 2003
-
you could have clapped
you should have clapped!!
|
This is probably my favorite part right here.
quote:
I’ve yet to hear anyone associated with pro sports, and that includes the comments from Culliver, that are advocating any sort of discrimination of anyone based on their sexual orientation.
Yeah, who in their right mind would call for something like that? 
Tim Hardaway posted:
Well, you know I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States.
There's probably hundreds of other examples, Reggie White is another who was extremely homophobic just off the top of my head. Really though, the entire thing is just so flawed and so poorly thought out. I have no idea why people like this think it's a good idea to write at length about their opinions on extremely controversial topics without doing one iota of research into the topic or, gasp, talking to a gay athlete.
MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Mar 1, 2013
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 22:17
|
|
- Kro-Bar
- Jul 24, 2004
-
USPOL May
|
I think my local opinion columnist has reached peak libertarianism. The bolding is mine.
quote:Monopoly of police sign of government failure
Most businesses that are not efficient or do not perform their duties adequately go out of business, thus creating a void for another superior business to fill.
That new business will end up more successful due to competition, and when competition exists in the market the consumer always wins.
When monopolies exist, this prosperity creating competition is no longer a factor. It is widely accepted monopolies are a negative occurrence. In order to be logically consistent, we must acknowledge the fact the state, our government, has a monopoly on law enforcement as well as law in general and that this is also a negative thing.
Because our current police force is not controlled by the market but rather the government that created it, it enforces only laws and regulations the government deems necessary as opposed to what would most benefit the general public.
It is often argued or pointed out the police we have are here to protect our rights. In reality, the very premise under which our law enforcement officers operate under directly infringe on our rights to property and freedom.
The police willingly and happily enforce the preposterous drug war for our “safety” while they are merely arresting people for possessing an inanimate object. They regularly tax people by pulling people over for minor traffic violations that put nobody at risk.
Police brutality is a very real threat to everyone. It is not uncommon to hear of unarmed and otherwise harmless people being beaten or shot at by those who claim to be protecting us.
A study was done in Harris County, Texas discovering between 1999 and 2005 that officers in the county alone shot 65 unarmed people, 17 of which died. Most people would consider this murder, but I guess it isn’t when it is government approved. This is only one county in Texas, I can’t even imagine the national numbers.
The solution seems fairly simple. If the free market were allowed into law enforcement, I highly doubt people would willingly pay for a police force that regularly brutalized and killed their own customers or customers of a competing business. It isn’t economical and it goes against a great majority of people’s moral nature.
If people decided they wanted to pay a monthly premium for a certain law enforcement business or an insurance company that performed similar duties, I find it hard to believe people would be happy with paying additional fees to enforce laws against homosexual marriage, teenagers smoking pot and other victimless crimes that do no harm to the individual paying the premium.
A privatized law enforcement agency would also limit frivolous spending. Our current system does not need to exert any sort of control regarding expenditures because it isn’t based on a profit system. It merely taxes citizens for whatever it desires.
If we are to evaluate the efficiency of law enforcement on its ability to both follow its own laws and enforce them in a systematic and organized manner, the government’s law enforcement doesn’t score particularly high.
The fact we are a great deal more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist frightens me and exemplifies my belief that our greatest enemy is the government. Governments in general have been responsible for more mass killing than any private entity could ever possibly conceive of committing. Once the public begins realizing this I firmly believe we will all be much better off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 22:21
|
|
- Harold Fjord
- Jan 3, 2004
-
|
The police enforce laws against gay marriage?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 22:25
|
|
- Hardcore Phonography
- Apr 28, 2004
-
I have my eye on a suite in Baker Street.
|
Jan Angel is on the Transportation Committee and just wanted you to know she's totally incompetent and really just works for ALEC.
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2013/mar/01/my-turn-fix-it-before-we-fund-it/#axzz2MK5SxW2Y
quote:As a member of the House Transportation Committee, I know firsthand the challenges our state transportation system faces, the shrinking dollars from the gas tax as cars become more fuel efficient, and the growing inflation that takes more of a bite each year from construction dollars for transportation.
There’s no escaping the fact that it takes money to keep our roads, highways, bridges and ferries operating and maintained. And it takes money to expand our state’s transportation system to relieve congestion and ensure the efficient movement of goods and people. That’s why a proposal was recently introduced in the House to raise the state’s gas tax by 10-cents a gallon, along with several other bills that could substantially increase motor vehicle taxes and fees.
I have never insulated myself within the marble walls that make up the state Capitol. Every chance I get, I return home to the 26th District to talk with people and make sure I get a dose of reality outside of Olympia. The reality is that people are still struggling. We have a very fragile economy and high unemployment.
We also have a large population of active military and civilians who work for the military. There’s much uncertainty about their economic future as Congress quibbles while sequestration sets in. That’s at the federal level, not the state level where I serve. I share your concerns and frustration that Congress and the president would allow our military servicemen and women to hang in the balance of an inability to reach a budget agreement. That’s a discussion for your congressman. But any cuts from sequestration would certainly affect our local citizens’ ability to keep afloat in this challenging economy. Now is not the time to be adding to their burden.
Every time I drive by or stop at a gas station, prices are up another 10 to 15 cents per gallon. People are only buying what they can afford. How can we ask them for more? Washington motorists already pay the second highest state gas tax in the nation at 37.5 cents a gallon. Another dime a gallon would push our state to the highest gas tax in the United States.
I have tried to keep an open mind, because the state barely has the revenue to keep up with maintenance and operations of our existing highways and bridges. However, I also believe there’s lots of room for reforms within the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).
For example, did you know that it costs two-and-a-half times more to build a road, highway or bridge in Washington than in other states, such as Idaho and Oregon? Why is that?
Why is it that taxpayers are getting stuck with the extra expenses of fixing leaky pontoons for the new 520 floating bridge across Lake Washington?
Why does it cost twice as much to build a ferry in Washington than in other states with ferries, such as Massachusetts?
How could WSDOT miscalculate where to build a ramp on Highway 16 — and then tear it down and start all over?
We have a broken system and there’s plenty of room for reform before going into taxpayers’ pockets. We need to fix it before we fund it!
Before I support new revenue for transportation, I want to know it will be put to good use to ensure our state’s economic growth.
For example, the unfinished link of Highway 167 between Puyallup and the Port of Tacoma could expand freight mobility, reduce congestion and create many new jobs. For years, we’ve been promised funding to complete the Highway 167 link. Yet, it is always put at the bottom of the barrel. This latest gas tax plan includes funding a portion of Highway 167. Really, the writers of this proposal are just throwing us a bone in a feeble attempt to garner our support. I have joined with our Pierce County legislative delegation, both Republicans and Democrats, to say we must have Highway 167 totally funded before we consider supporting any state gas tax increases or new fees.
This plan should not just ask for your hard-earned money, it should demand reforms, and deliver major economic transportation projects that create private-sector jobs. Otherwise, an increase in the state gas tax would be more harmful than helpful to our citizens. And I won’t support adding new burdens to the already difficult challenges being faced by our people in the 26th District.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 00:01
|
|
- Crameltonian
- Mar 27, 2010
-
|
'NFL players tend to be shitheads and gays couldn't possibly be out because that would infringe on their right to be shitheads'.
Wow, what a convincing argument. The only logical conclusion from it that more effort needs to be put into tackling homophobia in sport.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 02:45
|
|
- VideoTapir
- Oct 18, 2005
-
He'll tire eventually.
|
http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...page=2#comments
This opens with some poo poo that didn't happen, but quickly descends into racism, both overt and dog whistle.
quote:I was standing in line for a ride at 6 flags with my 6 year old Grand Daughter where 2 black 17 year old males, standing in front of us, were talking and every other word out of their mouths was mother F@ck this and mother F@ck that.
When I told them to watch their language because there were a lot of young children around - one of them told me to shove it up my white rear end. I punched him once and knocked him out.
Do you think it was fair that I got arrested?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 17:56
|
|
- MisterBadIdea
- Oct 9, 2012
-
Anything?
|
This is probably my favorite part right here.
Yeah, who in their right mind would call for something like that?
There's probably hundreds of other examples, Reggie White is another who was extremely homophobic just off the top of my head. Really though, the entire thing is just so flawed and so poorly thought out. I have no idea why people like this think it's a good idea to write at length about their opinions on extremely controversial topics without doing one iota of research into the topic or, gasp, talking to a gay athlete.
The author makes clear that he means discrimination in the tangible sense, i.e. being denied job promotions in the like. Teammates being lovely to you in his opinion only count as "hurt feelings." There's a conversation to be had about a toxic work environment and whether that's as bad as being denied career opportunities, but I consider this a lesser rhetorical crime, considering the five or so paragraphs after it.
quote:Critics of pro athletes are conveniently forgetting about some pretty substantial differences in workplace environments. Trying to compare the local “more tolerant” accounting office with a pro sports locker room is absurd. Those who work 9-5 with a gay co-worker aren’t essentially living together. They aren’t spending 24/7 living under a microscope, with every move they make being scrutinized. They aren’t traveling across North America and going into intense competition in hostile environments and then being expected to perform flawlessly as a unit. And they aren’t showering together afterwards. Important distinctions.
I can't think of distinctions less important. Apparently being around a gay person is too stressful for a football player and just on its own would destroy a team. Considering that the military seems to have survived since the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, it seems like the burden of proof is on the op-writer. And that's not even before we get to the part where he advises gay athletes stay in the closet. I'm sure he would have advised Jackie Robinson to do the same with his color.
If I were a football player, I would be mighty insulted reading this, I think.
/edit Also, duh you haven't heard of gay players being denied career opportunities, you moron, it's not yet safe for gay people to out themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 18:11
|
|
- The Dark One
- Aug 19, 2005
-
I'm your friend and I'm not going to just stand by and let you do this!
|
I can't think of distinctions less important. Apparently being around a gay person is too stressful for a football player and just on its own would destroy a team.
I think it might be important, but for the opposite reason they bring up. Imagine how oppressive an environment like that would be if if overtly anti-gay comments and behaviours are the norm in all the situations he describes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 20:55
|
|
- VideoTapir
- Oct 18, 2005
-
He'll tire eventually.
|
All this talk of anti-gay sentiment in sports reminded me of something:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKE02ezfuwo
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 10:02
|
|
- Prosopagnosiac
- May 19, 2007
-
One of us! One of us! Aqua Buddha! Aqua Buddha! One of us!
|
http://m.clarionledger.com/columnists/article?a=2013130304022&f=1628
The guy talks about his "friend junior" who has the makings of a gun nut/mad scientist. Choice quote:
"I actually believe that I have rights that are God-given and that do not flow from the state," he said. "I do not think that the state should be able to regulate in any way what type of gun or other weapon that I choose to own, up to and including an ICBM, if I were so inclined and able."
Quote from the CL. Just, just...you really think that God wants you to have the ability to kill millions of people in self-defense? What book of the bible is that? First chapter of fuckyougotmine. Verse 23 "and lo The Lord did give warheads to all his disciples and said unto them. This is my warhead distribute it to thine enemies and breathe in the vapor of their bodies. For the kingdom of god will only truly be complete when their blood is dissolved into the air, and all their lands are irradiated and barren. The Kingdom of god can only be built on the suffering and deaths of millions."
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 15:48
|
|
- Mo_Steel
- Mar 7, 2008
-
Let's Clock Into The Sunset Together
-
Fun Shoe
|
This week, Katherine Kersten continues to be a horrible person incapable of doing anything but preaching about how gay marriage will be the undoing of all society and is bad for children because  . Emphasis mine:
quote:The marriage amendment may have fallen short at the polls in November, but a majority of Minnesotans continue to support marriage as the union of one man and one woman, according to recent polls by KSTP/SurveyUSA and the Star Tribune. In the Star Tribune poll, only 38 percent said they favored legalization of same-sex marriage.
Clearly, the amendment vote wasn’t a green light for same-sex marriage, and legislators would be wrong to see it that way. Most likely, voters were spooked by a lavishly funded campaign in which supporters of same-sex marriage warned that placing the current definition of marriage in our state Constitution would “end the conversation” about marriage. 
Now, just months later, these advocates are mounting an aggressive campaign to do just that. They are pressuring the Legislature to pass SF925, a bill described as “the marriage between two persons authorization.”
More conversation? Who needs it? same-sex marriage supporters seem to say. The issue, they insist, is a no-brainer — a simple matter of “equality,” and the logical next step in the struggle against “discrimination.” The point is so obvious that anyone who questions their project must be a “bigot,” and so drummed out of hearing in polite society.
But a look at SF925 reveals that something much more insidious than advocates let on is underway. This bill would strip the words “mother” and “father” of meaning under Minnesota law. Henceforth, the bill states, these words — among the most beloved and culturally freighted in the English language — “must be construed in a neutral manner to refer to a person of either gender.”
Of course, “mother” and “father” aren’t “gender-neutral” words. That’s a fiction. All Minnesotans have a mother and a father — female and male, respectively. Our state’s legislators may view themselves as powerful, but they can’t repeal this fact of human biology. Yet same-sex marriage advocates must pretend this is possible, if they are to convince the rest of us that a “union” of two people of the same sex is identical to that of a man and woman whose sexual complementarity is the only thing that produces the next generation.
This stripping of meaning from “mother” and “father” is just one signal of the tectonic shift our society will undergo if we try to redefine marriage in a way that portrays the anatomical, social and psychological differences between men and women as irrelevant to human life — just as shoe size and eye color are. We urgently need a conversation at the State Capitol that grapples seriously with the unknown implications of such a step — as they unfold next year and 50 years from now.
Legislators should begin by considering why marriage has been a male/female institution throughout recorded history. Is it really because people in the past weren’t as smart as we are, or were “bigots?” Of course not. It’s because marriage has a vital public purpose: It binds fathers to mothers and the children their sexual union creates. This bond is crucial to children’s well-being — and to society’s future.
To succeed in redefining marriage, same-sex marriage supporters must deny this public purpose of marriage. Instead, they tell us, the only criterion for marriage should be that people love each other. It’s just emotional intensity that distinguishes marriage from all other human relationships.
This claim has far-reaching implications:
First, if marriage is merely about emotional intensity, marital norms based on male-female complementarity — like sexual exclusivity and permanence — no longer make sense, or at best become optional. People can have a number of emotionally close relationships at the same time, and when the intensity fades, so does the reason to stay together.
Second, if emotional attachment is all that’s required, the logic for limiting marriage to two people — or even to people in sexual relationships — disappears. It becomes difficult to distinguish marriage from friendship, which the government does not regulate. That’s why some prominent commentators are already calling for government to “get out of the marriage business” altogether.
Third, making marriage “gender-neutral” would radically alter parenthood. Children need both a mother and a father, who bring different and complementary qualities to child-rearing. Two lesbians or two gay men (or two lesbians and a sperm donor), no matter how loving, cannot replicate this.
Most important: Redefining marriage as a unisex institution would decisively delink marriage from procreation and child-rearing in the public’s mind. Our marriage culture is already seriously frayed, and our children are paying a devastating price. Same-sex marriage would accelerate this trend, by telegraphing that government is now wholly indifferent to whether a child’s mother is married to his father.
The hour is late and the stakes are high. Let the conversation begin.
Maybe someone should inform her she needs to fight to make divorce illegal. You know, to protect the kids and society.
At least some of the comments aren't of the horrific sort:
quote:"Most important: Redefining marriage as a unisex institution would decisively delink marriage from procreation and child-rearing in the public’s mind" Among the many laughable assertions put forth by Ms Kersten concerning the evolving nature of the concept of marriage, this one is the biggest whopper. Perhaps a feudal lord, worried about producing a heir, ranks child bearing as the "most important" factor in a decision to marry or not, but I'd say the vast majority of the rest of us here in Minnesota marry because we have fallen in love with another and wish to spend the rest of our life with this person. If the feeling is mutual, the marriage has a chance to succeed; if not, no amount of children is going to make the marriage any more palatable for those so joined, for a loveless marriage is a "marriage" in name only. Further, as has been noted countless times during the marriage amendment debate, what about marriages to those who do not plan to have children? This marriage arrangement has been around for as long as any other, yet one notes the dramatic lack of negative consequences concerning the concept of marriage emanating from it's existence. Yes Ms Kersten, it would appear that marriage as YOU know it is at stake, and the "problem" lies with your narrow, rigid, cold and calculating ideal of what a marriage actually is
Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Mar 10, 2013
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 17:03
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Katherine Kersten posted:
Most important: Redefining marriage as a unisex institution would decisively delink marriage from procreation and child-rearing in the public’s mind. Our marriage culture is already seriously frayed, and our children are paying a devastating price. Same-sex marriage would accelerate this trend, by telegraphing that government is now wholly indifferent to whether a child’s mother is married to his father.
So, I guess she's also in favor of preventing the elderly, the physically disabled, and the intentionally (i.e. vasectomy or tubal ligation) or unintentionally (e.g. hysterectomy, testicular cancer, etc.) infertile from marrying, right? Because bigots are logically consistent and totally not hypocrites, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 00:45
|
|
- Nathilus
- Apr 4, 2002
-
I alone can see through the media bias.
I'm also stupid on a scale that can only be measured in Reddits.
|
So, I guess she's also in favor of preventing the elderly, the physically disabled, and the intentionally (i.e. vasectomy or tubal ligation) or unintentionally (e.g. hysterectomy, testicular cancer, etc.) infertile from marrying, right? Because bigots are logically consistent and totally not hypocrites, right?
Besides that, the whole 'institution' that is being so vigorously defended is a fiction and a modern one at that. Love only became a convincing factor very recently, for example. And even then it was Godless for a white dude to marry a Negro.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 01:14
|
|
- VideoTapir
- Oct 18, 2005
-
He'll tire eventually.
|
It's gender confusion that has frayed the institution of marriage, not economic chaos.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 02:25
|
|
- Crameltonian
- Mar 27, 2010
-
|
In a just/sane world 'Communists help despised minority gain civil rights' would be something that reflected well on the Communists, not something used to smear said civil rights movement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 12:40
|
|
- VideoTapir
- Oct 18, 2005
-
He'll tire eventually.
|
quote:All it takes is the desire to do it. It is a lie that it cannot be done quickly, easily, effectively and economically.
I patrolled the East German and Czechoslovakia borders during the cold war. There were only 3 barbed wire fences along most of the borders. Of course there were plowed strips and mine feilds between those fences but the occurances of unauthorized border crossings were extremely rare. Mexicans are not nearly as oppressed as the ones that were being enslaved by communist dictators. Instead of the lure of food stamps, free healthcare, school and other liberal bribes to come into the USA, those people behind the iron curtain had no freedom. They had more incentive to flee than Mexicans but there was a mechanism in place to deter it. We could do the same here. There is not the courage in congress to do it.
Those commies sure knew how to secure a border.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 05:18
|
|
- Pope Guilty
- Nov 6, 2006
-
The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.
|
We can totally secure the border! All we need to do is turn one of the longest land borders in the world into a minefield!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 05:22
|
|
- sub supau
- Aug 28, 2007
-
|
We can totally secure the border! All we need to do is turn one of the longest land borders in the world into a minefield!
Topo posted:
I propose two walls, separated by 20-30m with a self healing mine field between them. The first one topped with electrified razor wire and the other topped with electrified razor wire and studded with modified Phalanx guns set to fire on anything larger than say a squirrel. Beyond the second wall the ground will be equipped with pressure sensors in the rare event someone makes it beyond the second wall. Now tell me why would such a system require extensive human interaction?
Topo posted:
I started by basing it on the Israeli West Bank wall which will run for 650 km and is estimated to cost $1.56 billion, which works out to 2.5 million per km. The US-Mexico border is 3141km long, so a single Israeli style wall would cost ~$8bn; but I propose two so figure on $16bn for the walls alone. Add in $4bn for a sensor network and manned stations behind the second wall and we're up to $20bn.
Next up the expensive part, mines. I figure on using a single mine per two square meters, with a grid pattern this should be effective; that gives us 500 per square km. Now, assuming were using a self healing mine let's set the cost at $25 per unit for a total cost of $112.5bn, so far we're up to $132.5bn.
Now the phalanx guns, the average cost is about $6m per unit and the effective range is about 1.6km; which means it would cost $11bn to completely cover the border.
So to summarise, complete border control for ~$150bn, seems like a good deal to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 08:15
|
|
- Pope Guilty
- Nov 6, 2006
-
The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.
|
Bonus points if you add in gigantic piles of flaming tires!
I get the impression that if he were impaling Mexicans instead of Turks most Americans would vote for Vlad Tepes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 11:33
|
|
- Dr. Tough
- Oct 22, 2007
-
|
quote:
An Honest Question
I would like Gabby Gifford to answer the following question:
When you decided to have a political meeting for your constituents in a Safeway parking lot, why did you not request a police presence or hire a security guard??? Also, do you feel any guilt knowing that all or most of those people would still be alive but for a carelessness on your part?
Rose M. Sampieri
Scottsdale
This is probably one of the cruelest things I've ever read. It was also only printed this week, so I don't know if this person is just late to the party, or if the whole assault weapons thing has caused them to become truly unhinged.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 21:08
|
|
- King Dopplepopolos
- Aug 3, 2007
-
Give us a raise, loser!
|
Cruel is the right word. That is the cruelest piece of bullshit armchair quarterbacking and victim-blaming that I've read recently. I'm actually shocked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 23:55
|
|
- Bubbacub
- Apr 17, 2001
-
|
Holy poo poo, that's horrifying.
I think this person has been unhinged for a long time.
quote:
Open letter to Obama
Mr. Obama, not in the history of the United States has a president openly condoned and advocated fornication for our young people at the paying taxpayers' expense.
Truly you are neither a Christian nor a Moslem. Your beliefs are simply amoral and/or based on "which group can garner the most votes for me."
You continue to divide us: Rich vs. Poor ... Black vs. White ... Democrat vs. Republican ... Young vs. Old (units over 70) ... Union vs. Non-union ... Big Government vs. Limited Government.
A president is like a shepherd who cares about his flock and tries to keep them together. I view your philosophy as "divide, conquer and blame." How long do you think this will last??????????
Rose M. Sampieri
Scottsdale
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 19:32
|
|
- VideoTapir
- Oct 18, 2005
-
He'll tire eventually.
|
This is probably one of the cruelest things I've ever read. It was also only printed this week, so I don't know if this person is just late to the party, or if the whole assault weapons thing has caused them to become truly unhinged.
It's the author of Galatianman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 02:11
|
|
- Pope Guilty
- Nov 6, 2006
-
The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.
|
But Marxists are decidedly not about class unity.
For the working class, sure. The capitalist class already has plenty of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 02:13
|
|
- I AM GRANDO
- Aug 20, 2006
-
|
It's the author of Galatianman.
He seemed like kind of a decent and a mellow guy back when Vile Rat got killed, just out of touch and lost in his own weird ideas.
I guess I was wrong about that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 02:29
|
|
- Karasu Tengu
- Feb 16, 2011
-
Humble Tengu Newspaper Reporter
|
He seemed like kind of a decent and a mellow guy back when Vile Rat got killed, just out of touch and lost in his own weird ideas.
I guess I was wrong about that.
He's making a joke, that terrible letter wasn't actually written by the Galatianman author.
Also, I didn't think that anyone was hurt in the Giffords shooting except Gifford herself? I also like that second letter, since Obama is forcing those drat young people to gently caress with our tax dollars, then it goes somewhere completely different after the first sentence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 15:09
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2024 14:20
|
|
- Senju Kannon
- Apr 9, 2011
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
He's making a joke, that terrible letter wasn't actually written by the Galatianman author.
Also, I didn't think that anyone was hurt in the Giffords shooting except Gifford herself? I also like that second letter, since Obama is forcing those drat young people to gently caress with our tax dollars, then it goes somewhere completely different after the first sentence.
A little girl and a judge died, and several other people were injured. Someone else may have died, I don't remember, but plenty of people got hurt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 15:24
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 18:37
I'll wait for your registration change then."
