|
|
 | | From: | Redbaiter | | Subject: | Re: Typical Gay bigotry. | | Date: | Sat, 1 Jan 2005 11:52:22 +1300 |
|
|
 | Dr.Dog says
>
> The Dog-bitten Redbaiter wrote:
> > Dr.Dog says
> > >
> > > Redbaiter wrote:
> > > > Bobs says
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > good .. now let me fuk your children
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, considering pedophilia is rampant among fags, I cannot
> say
> > > this
> > > > > comment surprises me one bit. Sadly for you I do not have any
> > > children.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > "The rate of homoual versus heteroual child ual abuse
> > > > is staggering," Reisman wrote. She said "Abel's data of 150.2
> > > > boys abused per male homoual offender finds no equal (yet) in
> > > > heteroual violations of 19.8 girls."
> > >
> > > Which is a citation of a citation of a citation:
> > > http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431
> > >
> > Gee Doc, you're a bit trying aren't you? First post on the issue
> > makes you sound like a font of ignorance, and now you're proving
> > yourself capable of all kinds of search capabilities. What's the
> > idea behind the deception? (leaving aside for now the lack of
> > refutation)
>
> Consider the source. I happen to be well aware of the "literature"
> proving homophobic claims, and it's for the most part riddled with
> methodological errors, unproved assertions and tendentious writing.
> Finding something on WorldNet Daily seems to be your claim to
> scholarship. Give your head a shake, and try not to rattle.
>
Doc, anyone who uses the word "homophobic" has no claim to any
scientific credibility or "scholarship, as you out it in the
requisite patronising and arrogant manner of all homoual
advocates. This is a made up word, a mere propaganda term, and
there is in reality no such pathological condition.
Even if there was such a word, to use it to box in everybody who
does not agree with the homoual political agenda is a
perversion of the English language of the kind that the
Hitlerian disciple Joeseph Goebbels is so well remembered for.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"Leftists- The enemies of classic liberalism"
|
|
| | From: | Redbaiter | | Subject: | Re: Typical Gay bigotry. | | Date: | Sat, 1 Jan 2005 13:35:31 +1300 |
|
|
| brazen says
> >
> > Even if there was such a word, to use it to box in everybody who
> > does not agree with the homoual political agenda
>
> Red, anyone who uses the phrase "homoual political agenda" has no claim
> to credibility either. I know you like conspiracy theories, but here there
> isnt one, so its just meaningless propaganda term.
Gaye, the homoual political agenda is a reality, and there's
absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be. The same as the
churches have a political agenda, the shooters have a political
agenda the farmers have a political agenda, the Maoris have a
political and just about every damn man and his dog these days
has a political agenda.
>
> And BTW Reisman is a well known fruit loop. You shouldnt believe everything
> you Google and look twice before endorsing it by reposting it.
>
Who said I endorsed it? I posted it merely to call the bluff of
that insufferable poseur Doc Dog and because as you know I
always enjoy sticking sacred cows.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"Leftists- The enemies of classic liberalism"
|
|
| | From: | HiM | | Subject: | Re: Typical Gay bigotry. | | Date: | Sat, 1 Jan 2005 17:08:48 +1300 |
|
|
|
"brazen" <@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message
news:41d607f8@clear.net.nz...
>
> "Redbaiter" wrote in message
> news:33m9ibF43ovggU1@individual.net...
>> brazen says
>>
>>> >
>>> > Even if there was such a word, to use it to box in everybody who
>>> > does not agree with the homoual political agenda
>>>
>>> Red, anyone who uses the phrase "homoual political agenda" has no
>>> claim
>>> to credibility either. I know you like conspiracy theories, but here
>>> there
>>> isnt one, so its just meaningless propaganda term.
>>
>> Gaye, the homoual political agenda is a reality, and there's
>> absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be. The same as the
>> churches have a political agenda, the shooters have a political
>> agenda the farmers have a political agenda, the Maoris have a
>> political and just about every damn man and his dog these days
>> has a political agenda.
>
> Well I'd disagree there, (funny that, eh?) on probably most of the counts
> above. Having a political agenda smacks of getting organised to change the
> status quo, rather than reacting to changes imposed on them. Churches -
> since when did they agree on anything? The only thing they want to
> universally change is their dwindling numbers of followers. Shooters, well
> they may well feel the need to get organised once they feel threatened by
> the pollies but its reactive not active. Farmers - same thing. Maori -
> some maori may want to change the world but on the whole its reactive and
> if you talk to your neighbours they sure aint all Titiwhai's. Same with
> us - some may want to change things, but quite frankly whats left??? And
> even in the recent past there has hardly been consensus.
>
> So I dont think there is a political agenda. I think its just a phrase to
> invoke scaremongering.
>
>>>
>>> And BTW Reisman is a well known fruit loop. You shouldnt believe
>>> everything
>>> you Google and look twice before endorsing it by reposting it.
>>>
>> Who said I endorsed it? I posted it merely to call the bluff of
>> that insufferable poseur Doc Dog and because as you know I
>> always enjoy sticking sacred cows.
>>
> yeah but, you know, devils advocate can come back and bite you, but I am
> guilty of that myself sometimes as its easy fun. But theres idiots out
> there that latch onto that kind of rubbish. And HiM's wind up - there's
> some things you joke about and there's some things that are just too awful
> to joke about. Awful nasty crap on both sides.
>
> Gay
>
o for fuk sake you pure as snow hag
you have no bloody idea
preach on
|
|
| | From: | Redbaiter | | Subject: | Re: Typical Gay bigotry. | | Date: | Sat, 1 Jan 2005 15:45:44 +1300 |
|
|
| brazen says
>
> So I dont think there is a political agenda. I think its just a phrase to
> invoke scaremongering.
Well hell, I just cannot see that there's anything scary about
"political agendas". Like I said, every man and his dog has one.
That's democracy. Where's the fear factor?
>
> >
> yeah but, you know, devils advocate can come back and bite you, but I am
> guilty of that myself sometimes as its easy fun. But theres idiots out there
> that latch onto that kind of rubbish. And HiM's wind up - there's some
> things you joke about and there's some things that are just too awful to
> joke about. Awful nasty crap on both sides.
>
I think most people here understand that Him's main problem is
himself, not homouality. He's just a worthless lowlife
arsehole, and anybody heteroual, homoual or whatever the
damn hell ual can qualify in that category.
One thing about the homoual agenda tho, and your reference to
neighbours. If a homoual couple lived on one side and a
heteroual family on the other, we'd all three of us try to
get along the best we could and help each other rather than
hinder. However, if the homoual neighbour started pushing for
legislation to enforce a viewpoint that wasn't shared by the
other two, then are the homouals going to improve their
position or are they doing something that could lead to a
permanent and unrecoverable rift in neighbourly relations?
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"Leftists- The enemies of classic liberalism"
|
|
| | From: | HiM | | Subject: | Re: Typical Gay bigotry. | | Date: | Sat, 1 Jan 2005 17:10:12 +1300 |
|
|
|
"Redbaiter" wrote in message
news:MPG.1c40d5cb26eff4e9896a5@news.orcon.net.nz...
> brazen says
>
>>
>> So I dont think there is a political agenda. I think its just a phrase to
>> invoke scaremongering.
>
> Well hell, I just cannot see that there's anything scary about
> "political agendas". Like I said, every man and his dog has one.
> That's democracy. Where's the fear factor?
>>
>> >
>> yeah but, you know, devils advocate can come back and bite you, but I am
>> guilty of that myself sometimes as its easy fun. But theres idiots out
>> there
>> that latch onto that kind of rubbish. And HiM's wind up - there's some
>> things you joke about and there's some things that are just too awful to
>> joke about. Awful nasty crap on both sides.
>>
> I think most people here understand that Him's main problem is
> himself, not homouality. He's just a worthless lowlife
> arsehole, and anybody heteroual, homoual or whatever the
> damn hell ual can qualify in that category.
more truth red ... yup ... if you command it must be truth
why not stop your lies and deception or is it all you have in life
gutless .....
>
> One thing about the homoual agenda tho, and your reference to
> neighbours. If a homoual couple lived on one side and a
> heteroual family on the other, we'd all three of us try to
> get along the best we could and help each other rather than
> hinder. However, if the homoual neighbour started pushing for
> legislation to enforce a viewpoint that wasn't shared by the
> other two, then are the homouals going to improve their
> position or are they doing something that could lead to a
> permanent and unrecoverable rift in neighbourly relations?
>
> --
> Redbaiter
> In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
>
> "Leftists- The enemies of classic liberalism"
|
|
|
