They Married an Axe-Murderer
It's just one anti-war protester but it's clear the left world-wide is becoming more and more unhinged.
posted by Spencerblog at
5:29 PM
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Previous Posts
- Moving On To McCarthyism
- Six Years Ago Today
- A Slimey New Low
- How Charitable of Her
- Don't Say It Ain't So, Joe
- Hsu-less Dems Say It Ain't So
- How About a Tax on Ignorant Arrogance*
- Petraeus Tesitifies
- Don't Eat the Yellow Taxi
- Does Emily Want a Pillow for Her Head?
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
43 Comments:
Hartmann wanted to punish the Netherlands for its support of the war in Iraq.
"He hates soldiers, and says that the army kills people, so it would be legitimate if he were also to kill someone . . . from the American military - or from its NATO allies,"
Nah, the Left isn’t full of traitorous whackos. Nonsense!
Hey, maybe if we can keep the war going a few more years all their heads will explode?!
I can’t wait to see David defend this fellow Lib.
Randal-
You want to kill Bryan DePalma.
CRAZY isn't liberal or conservative. You should get Hartmann's number. Maybe you two can share a nice padded cell somewhere.
Funny how all the anti-war nuts are your fellow Lefties, Dave.
Come on, aren’t ya gonna tell us this is just this guy’s version of “dissent”? How he is “patriotic”? Lol…
I think I figured out what's wrong with David. This is no B.S. and I want you to give me some feedback and tell me if I didn't nail this. It's called Oppositional Defiant Disorder or ODD. The symptoms are:
Symptoms include a pattern of negative, hostile, and defiant behavior lasting at least six months. During this time four or more specific behaviors must be present. These behaviors include the child who:
* often loses his/her temper
* often argues with adults
* often actively defies or refuses to comply with adults' requests or rules
* often deliberately annoys people
* often blames others for his/her mistakes or misbehavior
* is often touchy or easily annoyed by others
* is often angry and resentful
* is often spiteful or vindictive
* misbehaves
* swears or uses obscene language
* has a low opinion of him/herself
LOL! Ed! You just described every sniveling Liberal! Like angry children they are!
Ed-
Clearly you are unable to distinguish sarcasm from anger. It's a lot of fun pretending to argue with the intellectual light-weights, because they don't actually argue they just reveal the layers of their ignorance.
So:
1) haven't lost my temper (my patience, yes)
2) not arguing with adults
3) no adults making any rules
4) ok, guilty here. it's fun annoying you.
5) haven't blamed anybody else for my actions.
6) not annoyed. but annoying you.
7) neither angry or resentful
8) not spiteful or vindictive (you can't punish people for being ignorant)
9) misbehaves? well, Gil has deleted a post or two, but that's a subjective line.
10) swears or using obscene language? (randal was talking about homos and "packing fudge") though I did use a$$hole once.
11) no one who has ever met me thought I had a low opinion of myself.
So, I score it as 1 hit on #4. half a hit each on #9 and #10. But, I get a credit of 1 hit in my favor on #11.
So, 1 + 1/2 + 1/2 + (-1) = 1
I DID FIGURE OUT what is wrong with Randal. He is actually a computer program named Rand-A-L. (Randomly Attacks Liberals). He is programmed to print "liberal are.." followed by a random selection of works like "traitor, whacko, commie, pinko, angry, crazy".
I think he started out as a Mad-Lib and then became a board game with a spinner and cards. When the players became mentally deranged from the game's ideology, it was converted to a computer program as an A.I. experiment for A.L.I (artificially low intelligence). Finally, it was released on the web and found Spencer's blog.
Oh brother…
“packing fudge”
Never have I typed those words, “liar”. But seeing what pathetic lengths you’ve gone to here to defend yourself and ‘set the record straight’ (-Lol) it should come as no surprise to anyone that a Lib like you would, well, lie.
Besides, you sound like a child. “Randal did it first!”
You're a mess.
Rand-A-L-
Sorry. I got you confused with another homophobe posting anonymously on the same thread you did with same the ridiculous arguments. Looked like you just forgot to type your name.
(though I'm not completely convinced that you and anonymous aren't actually the same poster).
Still, you seem like a badly written computer program stuck in a loop.
I though Ed was talking about Bush. Seriously though, this Hartman guy is a nut, is it any wonder being that AMSTERDAM is chock full of druggies?
David:
What exactly is a homophobe, and do you really believe that homosexuality is as normal, and godly as heterosexuality?
Anonymous-
The homophobes (or maybe just "bigots" would be more accurate) seem to think that it's okay to discriminate against people based upon their sexual orientation. There is also a bit a fear there, because if it's "normal" it could happen to them or their children (or they could catch it, like a disease). It's hard to understand completely the thought process of the ignorant or irrational.
I don't think any particular orientation is "godly" (or more/less "godly" than another). If you actually believe "God" has a preference, then you might want to apply at the local KKK recruiting office, because they think they know who "God" prefers and they are happy to tell you. (While you are there, ask them if God is "white" or "straight" or "Christian".)
As for "normal".. unusual or uncommon does not automatically imply "ab-normal". For some people, it's "normal" for them to prefer their own sex to the opposite sex. That shouldn't prevent them from being military translators.
David:
You don't get it and probably never will. It has been said that only the religious right will not cower to the homosexual agenda which promotes victimology and the doctrines of tolerance, diversity, and inclusion.
Although I self identify with the conservative religious right (the majority of the people that do get it), people like me are not bigots and do not advocate the discrimination against homosexuals. To the contrary, people like me feel sorry for them and are willing to help them leave their "destructive" lifestyle. I am not sure where I read the quote, but for people like, disagreements are now redefined as hate. Stop the name calling!
It's hard to understand completely the thought process of the ignorant or irrational.
And yet you do such a good job of demonstrating it.
Once again, merely denying a demanding group special rights does not equal “discriminating against” them.
Also, the petty “homophobe” inference is a childish Lib ploy and nothing more.
And once again we can count on our resident Liberal to interject race into a conversation where it has no place. Why do you guys always try to compare being gay to being black anyway? That’s the height (or low) of grasping. Yep, pathetic and offensive.
Anonymous-
1) I think it's funny (in a sad way) how you juxtapose "agenda" negatively with "doctrines of tolerance, diversity, and inclusion" by using "victimology". Tolerance, diversity, and inclusion are what's supposed to make us a great country. Take that away and the Constitution is just another piece of paper with ink on it.
2) The conservative religious right is not the majority (though they do have a disproportionate influence) and doesn't get it.
3) You feel sorry for homosexuals? And apparently, you are one of those people that think you can help cure them (I'm guessing with religion and Christ).
Do you write letters to Dick Cheney praying that he will seek "help" for his daughter?
4) So you not only believe that being gay is a "lifestyle" (translation: choice), but that it is so bad that it is "destructive". Yet, you feel that "bigot" is an unfair characterization of your position. Do you have stronger word I could use?
This is exactly the kind of backward, ignorant thinking that needs to be exposed to the light of day. There is no "cure". It's not a disease.
However, there is a "cure" for ignorance, it's called education.
BTW, it's not really name calling if I am describing attitudes I consider bigotry and you anonymously come out in support of those attitudes.
Rand-A-L
Equal rights are not special rights.
They already enjoy equal rights.
As for the rest of your silly pro-Gay Agenda dance, well, we’ve already covered that.
Why do you Libs always drag Cheney’s daughter into… Aw forget it. I know why. You guys are despicable as you grasp…
David:
Being homosexual is a choice and a lifestyle. The Bible speaks about homosexuality in very clear and unambiguous terms. You are not "born" gay. If you were born "gay", you would not reproduce as homosexuals cannot procreate their "own". That said, even Darwin would agree that the homosexual gene would have to die off, leaving only heterosexuals.
Whether you believe in God and accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour or not, there is nothing even closely complementary or natural about 2 people of the same sex engaging in sex acts.
I bet David enjoys gay porn.
This post has been removed by the author.
Anonymous-
Thanks for repeating your discredited ideas so clearly as well as your fundamental misunderstanding of biology and evolution.
There are tons of gay people that got married, had kids, hid who they were and finally came out of the closet. Being gay didn't render them infertile.
BTW, without getting too graphic (and exciting Randal), if a man talks his wife into using an 'alternate entrance', how is that more "natural" than when his partner is a male? (that particular part of anatomy is the same for men and women).
We can pretend I was talking about the mouth, if that helps. :-)
Anonymous, are you one of those Bible-thumpers that thinks sex is only for procreation and missionary position? If so, I think you need to find your time-machine back to the 50's.
In the 50's you still wouldn't be a progressive thinker, but you'd have more un-enlightened people keeping you company.
Gay activism = “enlightenment”. Check.
Lol… Libs…
David:
I have said this before - you just don't get it, adn you never will. You don't have to be a biologist or a bible thmper (as you say), to know that homosexual sex is not natural sex. As you well know, that other orifice does not self lubricate either.
Also, Dave, will you be going to Outfest this year in the "Gayborhood". They are publicly promoting, among other activities, their famous penis shaped bagel eating contest. Now that is real family fun!
Anonymous-
You can type that I don't get it until your fingers fall off. Doesn't make it so and everybody else (except Rand-A-L) as figured out that you aren't even able to rent a clue, let alone buy one.
Does guy on girl (for that special orifice) self-lubricate? And, the mouth IS self-lubricating, so don't forget to explain that one.
I don't really see the point in re-shaping bagels, when their usual shape already matches a "receptacle" and hot dog eating contests already exist. BTW, how many bagels did you eat last year?
Anonymous, I have to say, you seem to know a lot more about these "gay lifestyle" activities than I do (other than the civil rights part).
(other than the civil rights part)
And you know nothing about that beyond the special rights you want to bestow upon them.
Why don't you take your filthy talk to your own board where no one will read it but you, Dave?
David:
This is great. You know nothing about biology, or the Constitution. As for the Constitution, it is people like you that have turned it into a malleable piece of clay that your type will mold to fit your agenda. I can make a VERY clear argument about how this has actually already happened, all because of the liberal "anything goes" approach to life. You can say "so what" all you want, but without limits (morals) we are nothing but a land mass of individuals, not a nation with real values.
As for my knowledge of the gay community, it comes from the ACLU and others like you that keep me busy protecting Truth. The other knowledge about the bagels comes from looking at the website for Outfest. They publicly advertise great family fun! It is depraved.
One other thing, there are people like those you champion who also think it is "normal" to engage in pedophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornogrphy, drug dealing, killing (including abortion), stealing, etc....
Think about it Dave, you hear Truth (and there is no denying that Truth works in every instance) and you stick your fingers in your ears and start repeating "I can't hear you". Do yourself a favor, come back!
Them Libs are a mess. How anyone takes them at all seriously is beyond me.
Anonymous-
Your moral certitude and total ignorance about the "Truth" reminds me how anonymous posting is the 21st century version of wearing a white hood.
So, if it wasn't for us darn liberals, those blacks would still be at the back of the bus and have their own separate water fountains and bathrooms? (the "Bible" argument there was that God separated the races for a reason and that it was unnatural to mix them together) Or do you think being black is a lifestyle choice?
Inter-faith marriage. Inter-racial marriage. We liberals are really ruining it, aren't we.
Heck, we even changed that malleable piece of clay (the Constitution) so blacks and women could vote. Shame on us.
Instead of relying upon your perception of the ACLU (which exists to defend civil liberties), how about actually meeting people that are gay? (chances are good that you already have and don't even know it)
And I've never even suggested that pedophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, drug dealing, or stealing, etc.. are okay.
And, yes, the racial thing and the gay thing are morally equivalent. Being white or black or gay or straight, it's how you are born.
Such an elevating discussion. But I have a question.
Couldn't a pedophile say "That's just the way I was born"?
David:
Behavior, aka choice, is not an immutable charachteristic, like race. What about Sheryl Swoopes, she goes from straight to homosexual. Can she do that with race? Also, how many times has the ACLU come to the aid of a Christian?
Like I said before, Darwin advocated survival of the fittest, which is not compatible with homosexuality. Will you be entering the bagel eating contest?
Gil:
It used to be just the Army commercials that said "Be all that you can be". Now that is the liberal mantra. So long as they live in their world where there is no moral baseline, they can do whatever they want as everything is ok. That is why libs like Ted Kennedy protect groups like NAMBLA.
Hasn’t the ACLU defended perverts’ “right” to have sex with children? Now there’s an honorable group.
Libs try to pretend as if their manufactured “gays are born that way” argument trumps all and ends the debate. It doesn’t, anymore than Algore claiming the global warming debate to be “over” just because he says so.
And what about kids who dabble in –oops, I mean “experiment”- with homoism in college because they have been programmed to believe that it’s ‘just another perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice’? What, were they only born partially gay?
What about Anne Heche (sp?)? She used to be gay but now she’s not. This is odd, if she were born that way.
And, sorry Dave, your grasping attempts to always compare race to sexuality has failed. And it is offensive.
So much for “honest debate” from the Left.
Gil-
I'm sure you've spent a long time thinking about a pedophile defense. :-) However, children are not developed enough to make adult decisions and enter into a consensual relationships. (drinking age, voting age, driving age, holding elected office, etc.) So, pedophilia would be a predatory relationship by the adult and society bans it to protect the children.
Anonymous-
I'll assume you are straight and when you were in school you got all excited looking at the girls in playboy (or maybe semi-nude religious statues). However, the gay guys got the same excitement from looking at other guys.
Did you "choose" which sex aroused you? Of course not. However, you have "chosen" to ignore all the scientific evidence as well as the explanations by the vast majority of gay people about how they feel.
BTW, do you actually believe in Darwinian evolution and that Man evolved from lower lifeforms? or are you just misusing it on purpose?
First of all, there isn't necessarily a "gay" gene as straight parents have produced gay children and vice-versa. Any who's to say that being gay isn't a survival mechanism. Two men would have a better chance of defending themselves from attack than a man and a woman. And most men would fight like hell to see two women together (check out the "plot" of almost any porn video).
Anytime time you want to take off that electronic white-hood that I call "anonymous", go for it.
Gays and their Liberal sympathizers lobbied long and hard to have their buddies in the Psychological Community change the Gay designation from “mental illness” to a new interpretation of “normal”. And then, magically, one day they told us that gays were born that way! “Golly, that explains everything!”
I can’t wait for them to come out and say how it is we heteros who have the mental problems and not the gays at all! Lol…
So, once again we see that -just as with everything else Libs get their filthy hands on- Science has been hijacked and corrupted by Lib abuses in order to advance their political and social agendas, to being utterly worthless.
And you dishonest agenda driver Libs ever cite this “science” as some sort of “proof” happily ever after. Lol… Why, that’s like some radical Lib columnist ever citing New York Times editorials as “proof” to bolster their ridiculous claims!
David:
I do not believe in evolution, as I believe that God created us, but I do believe in a form of survival of the fittest in the sense that if you are gay and don't procreate, how do you perpetuate your gayness? Unless of course, it is a learned behavior (which it is).
Anonymous-
I'm not shocked that your ignorance extends to a disbelief in evolution.
A few months ago, a study revealed that hormone levels in the mother during pregnancy affect the orientation of the children. Each successive male child has a %1 greater likelihood of being gay. Apparently, the woman's body tries to compensate for previous maleness and tries to tilt the balance toward femaleness.
By the time the child is born, the body chemistry has be set. So, born gay. Not learned behavior. (Did Dick Cheney "teach" his daughter to be gay?)
Since "gayness" can occur spontaneously, it can continue to exist. Also, since gays are forced to hide their identity from a hostile society, they may have advanced intellectual or other survival skills. Maybe, they can deal better with both sexes in key situations.
Point is, they are here and it's not a choice.
Since "gayness" can occur spontaneously, it can continue to exist.
Are you kidding? You just proved my point. when you stand for nothing, you believe in anything. If being homosexual were random as you now state, there is nothing genetic about it. It is a choice, you are not born with it.
Keep going Dave, you are making this up as you go. Also, where is your cite to this idiotic study you reference?
If you can't tell me then that is further proof that you and your type are more interested in hyperbole than Truth.
Since "gayness" can occur spontaneously, it can continue to exist. Also, since gays are forced to hide their identity from a hostile society, they may have advanced intellectual or other survival skills.
LMAO! So gayness can occur spontaneously too, they're not just born that way! Boy, you're covering all your lying bases here, huh?
And they're smarter than everyone else too! Hahahaha...
Are you gay, Dave? And if not, why would you go to such pathetic grasping lengths to defend them?
Read my above post. That's the truth about all this gay "science". Sorry.
Rand-A-L and Anonymous-
By spontaneously, I meant from two straight parents, and not in the hereditary way Anonymous was discussing. There are hormonal influences that occur during child development in the womb. The resulting child is born with a gay or straight (or even bisexual) disposition.
Of course, it's impossible to summarize or explain anything science related to someone that can't even accept that evolution occurs.
Try to keep up by taking some remedial high school classes.
It's not a choice.
David:
How about that study? Where can I find it?
Anonymous:
Here is one quick summary of the report from Science News
And from a WebMD article:
Men may be more likely to be homosexual if they share their birth mother with older brothers, even if they didn't grow up with those brothers.
"These results strongly suggest a prenatal origin to the fraternal birth-order effect," writes Canada's Anthony Bogaert, PhD, in the early online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
There is even a study looking into other physical traits common to homosexuals, but unrelated to sexuality. In this case, relative lengths of fingers and male/female traits.
Animal models have indicated that androgenic steroids acting before birth might influence the sexual orientation of adult humans.
and
Our results suggest that events before birth (or even before conception in the case of older brothers) influence human sexual orientation. The masculinized right-hand 2D:4D ratio in homosexual women may reflect fetal androgen levels that are slightly higher than in heterosexual women. Homosexual men without older brothers have 2D:4D ratios indistinguishable from heterosexual eldest sons, indicating that factors other than fetal androgen (such as genetic influences8, 9) also contribute to sexual orientation. Finger measures indicate that men with more elder brothers, including those men who develop a homosexual orientation, might be exposed to greater than normal levels of prenatal androgen.
The key to all of these studies are pre-natal effects.
Ok. Now show us the ideological leanings of these scientists, since Libs’ propensity to manipulate science to suit their wants is so well known.
And, again, why do you work so hard to defend gays unless you are one?
Chemistry, physics and biology don't have an 'ideology'. These fields all interact.
As for supporting gays, I believe in civil rights and am against discrimination. In the 1960's, did you have to be black to be against "whites only" signs at lunch counters or part of the underground railroad in the 1860's?
Defending rights is just part of being a decent human being. I wouldn't expect you to understand.
Oh, now you're back to those special rights you want for your gay friends...
Post a Comment
<< Home