Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't Say *** BillFollow

#102 Apr 25 2011 at 2:03 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,739 posts
varusword75 wrote:
I could run or swim circles around you.
Keep telling yourself your once a week ten mile compares to my five days a week four mile and twice weekends 10 miles, sweety. And that's just running.
varusword75 wrote:
Remind me again what being in shape has to do with your property?
Well, anyone with an IQ and rational thought processes would have seen the phrase "in better shape in every possible way" to include financial shape as well, but I do realize that you, being from the south, require people to spell things out for you. I understand that. I have a lot of soldiers in my command that are from the south, and I have to use small, short sentences for them to understand, too.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#103 Apr 25 2011 at 2:07 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
I don't get why people are so terrified of ***. It boggles my mind.


They aren't. People are terrified of having their children exposed to a lifestyle choice that is harmful.

Bull sh*t. I've yet to see a McDonald's close down.


Did you miss the French Fry discussion? McDonalds is now targeting adults.
Do you understand business? You don't stop when you max out in 1 market segment, you expand into others.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#104 Apr 25 2011 at 2:45 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
I don't get why people are so terrified of ***. It boggles my mind.


They aren't. People are terrified of having their children exposed to a lifestyle choice that is harmful.


I think your lifestyle choice is way more harmful. Hatred is a choice, homosexuality isn't.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#105 Apr 25 2011 at 3:01 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
I don't get why people are so terrified of ***. It boggles my mind.


They aren't. People are terrified of having their children exposed to a lifestyle choice that is harmful.

Bull sh*t. I've yet to see a McDonald's close down.


Did you miss the French Fry discussion? McDonalds is now targeting adults.
Do you understand business? You don't stop when you max out in 1 market segment, you expand into others.


I didn't deny any expansion. My point is the target audience has changed. The connection between kids and McDonalds today is not the same as it use to be when the target audience was for children.
#106varusword75, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 3:07 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Atard,
#107 Apr 25 2011 at 3:09 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Atard,

Quote:
I think your lifestyle choice is way more harmful. Hatred is a choice


And you and your liberal buddies hate, and persecute, anything or anyone that contradicts your ideology.



Quote:
homosexuality isn't.


We decide who we're going to have *** with. I get that you've been brainwashed into believing they're "born that way" but it's a lie.


So heterosexuality is a choice as well? It's fun to say things.

Edit: Also, I'm way too busy goose-stepping to have time for persecuting.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 5:14pm by Ailitardif
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#108 Apr 25 2011 at 3:09 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
But you don't decide who you fall in love with.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#109 Apr 25 2011 at 3:15 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I didn't deny any expansion. My point is the target audience has changed. The connection between kids and McDonalds today is not the same as it use to be when the target audience was for children.
Children have never been the target demographic. They just used kids to get the parents in the door. Now they market directly to those parents as they're all from the generations of them marketing them as kids. The point still remains that families eat at McDonald's with a saddening frequency and are choosing a harmful lifestyle for their children, in complete contrast to what varus stated.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#110 Apr 25 2011 at 3:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
FFS, read your own ******* signature Douchebag. Stop talking to him and maybe the imbecile will leave.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#111 Apr 25 2011 at 3:17 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
At the risk of even attempting to read this thread, I'll observe that the TN law (and laws like it) are in response to equally over-reaching laws in the other direction, like the one that passed the California State Senate last Friday. That law mandates that schools teach positive examples of contributions by homosexuals and bans any negative references to them. They're both crappy laws. I'm just pointing out that this is going on in both directions on this issue. So if the anti-*** ones are being led by ignorant blissful Christian fundamentalists who don't understand logic or reason, then what is the excuse of those passing laws like the one in California?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#112varusword75, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 3:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Aethia,
#113 Apr 25 2011 at 3:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
gbaji wrote:
then what is the excuse of those passing laws like the one in California?
Goose stepping liberals? Pinko commies? Radical liberals?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#114 Apr 25 2011 at 3:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'll observe that the TN law (and laws like it) are in response to...

You're just guessing to shift the blame. There may be "opposite" laws, I'm not wasting my time looking, but people have been getting hysterical about this shit for a lot longer than anyone's been pushing positive perceptions of homosexuals in the schools.

If you think they're both poor laws, just say so without some lame attempt to make it someone else's fault beyond the idiots making these laws.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#115 Apr 25 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
Can't score points doing that though.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#116 Apr 25 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,454 posts
Quote:
Some choices are bad and some choices are good. Our govn tells us some choices are good and some are bad (incest/polygamy). Starting to get the picture?

hey V hows it going! So, quick question. do you believe that the gov is always right?
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.


#117 Apr 25 2011 at 3:33 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Aethia,

Quote:
But you don't decide who you fall in love with.


Yes you do. Take some personal responsibility.




Atard,

Quote:
So heterosexuality is a choice as well?


Did you think this up all by your lonesome? Some choices are bad and some choices are good. Our govn tells us some choices are good and some are bad (incest/polygamy). Starting to get the picture?


****, your arguments are really starting to open my eyes...goose-stepping is really tiring.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#118 Apr 25 2011 at 4:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
#119 Apr 25 2011 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
So if the anti-*** ones are being led by ignorant blissful Christian fundamentalists who don't understand logic or reason, then what is the excuse of those passing laws like the one in California?
I'll agree to an extent. There aren't too many negative contributions of many peoples (sans whites) taught in any schooling that I can think of, though. Besides, we have Women's History Month, Black History Month, and Spanish History Month and so on and so forth, so I don't really see a problem with *** History Month being taught either. I don't agree with a section of days being selected at random to bolster good feelings towards a certain group of people, but there have been examples of it. Seems a bit meh. I think they should all be studied in sequence of when they happened, not "Oh, its February, let's study MLK now!"

The bill you mention sounds like history related, is the thing. The TN bill is all encompassing. I simply can't agree to any regulation that says a kid can have information about themselves withheld, but the "regular" studies can proceed. Whether they like it or not, there are homosexual kids, and they deserve to get information and counseling that any heterosexual children can get.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 6:43pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#120 Apr 25 2011 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
All things being equal, I see devoting a portion of a class to exploring positive contributions from a group to be less detrimental than declaring a subject to be strictly verboten.

I may not agree that the former is necessary but it concerns me less than the latter.

That aside, even if we agree for the sake of argument that "Studies in Liberace" is a terrible, terrible thing, it doesn't make legislation forbidding the discussion of homosexuality any less asinine. One doesn't "counter" the other, it just compounds the stupidity and if the second guy is doing stupid directly because the first guy did stupid, that just makes the second guy twice as retarded for both efforts and motive.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 6:06pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#121 Apr 25 2011 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll observe that the TN law (and laws like it) are in response to...

You're just guessing to shift the blame. There may be "opposite" laws, I'm not wasting my time looking, but people have been getting hysterical about this shit for a lot longer than anyone's been pushing positive perceptions of homosexuals in the schools.


And yet, while I'm sure we could find the occasional rare outlier, the bulk of attempts to pass laws to block teaching about homosexuality in public schools sure seems to have occurred *after* attempts (and in some cases, successes) at passing laws requiring homosexuality to be included in public school curriculum. I mean, I suppose we could speculate that our nation has just recently become massively more anti-*** than it used to be *or* we might assume that these things are a reaction to a *** rights movement which has gone beyond simple protection of rights between consenting adults and on to using public services as the equivalent of a pro-*** PR campaign.

Quote:
If you think they're both poor laws, just say so without some lame attempt to make it someone else's fault beyond the idiots making these laws.


They are both poor laws. The initial point about one likely being in response to another was a side point at best. Call it a speculation. It in no way changes or affects the second point I made though: That both are equally poor laws, yet we give a big pass to the absurdity of the motivations of those passing the pro-*** ones, while heaping the worst assumptions about ignorance, stupidity, and bigotry on those passing the opposite.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#122 Apr 25 2011 at 5:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The initial point about one likely being in response to another was a side point at best.

Good thing you had to make sure to throw it in there though, huh?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#123 Apr 25 2011 at 5:27 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll observe that the TN law (and laws like it) are in response to...

You're just guessing to shift the blame. There may be "opposite" laws, I'm not wasting my time looking, but people have been getting hysterical about this shit for a lot longer than anyone's been pushing positive perceptions of homosexuals in the schools.


And yet, while I'm sure we could find the occasional rare outlier, the bulk of attempts to pass laws to block teaching about homosexuality in public schools sure seems to have occurred *after* attempts (and in some cases, successes) at passing laws requiring homosexuality to be included in public school curriculum. I mean, I suppose we could speculate that our nation has just recently become massively more anti-*** than it used to be *or* we might assume that these things are a reaction to a *** rights movement which has gone beyond simple protection of rights between consenting adults and on to using public services as the equivalent of a pro-*** PR campaign.

Quote:
If you think they're both poor laws, just say so without some lame attempt to make it someone else's fault beyond the idiots making these laws.


They are both poor laws. The initial point about one likely being in response to another was a side point at best. Call it a speculation. It in no way changes or affects the second point I made though: That both are equally poor laws, yet we give a big pass to the absurdity of the motivations of those passing the pro-*** ones, while heaping the worst assumptions about ignorance, stupidity, and bigotry on those passing the opposite.


They may both be stupid, but one of them is about spreading fear of a sexual preference and the other is about acceptance of a sexual preference.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#124Almalieque, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 5:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nope, that's your ignorance and denial. I keep telling you, there's a time and a place. If a teacher wants to talk about *** to my 16 year old son in high school, fine. I don't want the same teacher talking about *** to my 11 year old son in school.
#125 Apr 25 2011 at 5:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
The bill you mention sounds like history related, is the thing. The TN bill is all encompassing.


The negative parts of both bills are though. You skipped over the part where I said it barred negative reflection of homosexuals (or homosexuality in general). There's some speculation about how the wording can or should be interpreted, but as worded, it would restrict teachers from mentioning anything a homosexual ever did in a negative way. So any mention of say Jeffrey Dahmer would be prohibited because since he chopped up the young men he lured to his home, that would make *** people look bad. Basically, no negative act can be presented to students if the person involved is ***. Which would put them into a special protected category which no other group of people enjoy. It's pretty darn absurd.

Obviously, it's unclear if the prohibition would extend that far, but given the wording, most teachers are going to err on the side of not getting sued. It could theoretically mean that it would be illegal to mention any criticism of political decisions made by *** politicians (historical or current), since that would reflect badly on a *** person. It's badly written, and very broad, yet this is a clear example of the "other side" behaving just as irrationally.


Quote:
I simply can't agree to any regulation that says a kid can have information about themselves withheld, but the "regular" studies can proceed. Whether they like it or not, there are homosexual kids, and they deserve to get information and counseling that any heterosexual children can get.


I think some would counter that public schools are not the best place for this either though. And the inevitable question of where the boundary line between eliminating condemnation and creating advocacy is IMO a legitimate one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#126 Apr 25 2011 at 5:39 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Almalieque wrote:
square block goes inside the square hole.


I think something might be wrong with it :P
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
Reply To Thread
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.">

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 76 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (76)