Question for LGBT community

[remicks]

Originally Posted by Salsoul1975

Countries outside the United States may not see sex as a factor in voting for presidents and prime ministers, but that is because unlike non-U.S. nations, our country still has a solid Christian-based mentality ..... have a hard time seeing a woman in the role of President.

Hip Hip Hooray for the rational , full-of-love for all , "Christian-based mentality" !:p:p:p:p:p

[paul]

Originally Posted by Salsoul1975

You make the ultimate generalization of myself. I am neither Republican nor Democratic. Constituencies...if this country truly believes that all races are "equal", then there would be no need for organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus and NAACP in 2006. As long as we still have these agitator groups playing the "blame Whitey" game they are digging themselves further down the hole. Latin organizations are not going to win the hearts of the majority because views on immigration and Spanish as the official language are not entirely in their favor.

I am homosexual and to me, GLAAD is the NAACP of gay organizations. Their sole purpose of existence is to raise a stink whenever a non-homosexual does or says something that goes against their agenda. They get their panties in an iron bunch. So much for "tolerance" that they, along with other gay organizations, have been force-feeding on the public.

That goes for feminazis too. NOW should just hang it up already. They have never been relevant, and as long as they keep whining about our country being lorded over by a "heterosexual White patriarchy", no one is gonna either care or listen.

Mix, Sal, it seems this topic has superseded the thread topic on outing. Very well, I'll play along. 8)
So Sal, orgs like the NAACP should have just minded their business. Basically what your saying is look it, if a bunch of white males wanna run around in white sheets and have a Saturday night lynching party, what's wrong with that. Blacks were lots happier with that along with no voting rights, poor edumacation, etc. Jehesus, why are Blacks and now in parallel gays, trying to force good straight jesus loving hetero white males to umm, respect 'em as equals. If god wanted them to have the same constitutional rights he woulda made 'em straight white males or at the very least, in the closet white males.
GLAAD, and those other gay orgs are messing with a good thing here aren't they. When your in the closet your indulging in taboo sex. We all know how hot that kinda sex is. ;-)
As for NOW, those bitches (and you know that's what you guys mean when you say feminazis) have the nerve to upset the natural order. Things were much better when we had witch trials wasn't it. If those bitches err witches floated to the top when ya tossed her in a lake, by god kill her. If she sunk, oh well, oopsi!
I must a missed the one about Latin orgs wanting to make Spanish the official language in the US. Link me baby! 8)

[paul]

Originally Posted by Salsoul1975

Because that's how the majority of the votes have gone. It's what the voters want (read: average ordinary citizens), not what academia, the entertainment industry, large corporations and the block voting establishment want.




They've come close in the past. Geraldine Ferraro (female) and Jesse Jackson (black) ran for vice-president and president, respectively, in 1984.



Barack Obama is a mulatto, but in America, someone who is half or even a quarter black is officially designated "black". So much for the joys of "diversity" and the talk we hear about how wonderful it is to be made up of different racial characteristics. As for Obama "making the leap" into the Presidential race, the media is doing the leap for him. The same way they did with Hillary Clinton last year (and to a lesser extent, Condi Rice). The media tells us that Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that he has the charisma and allure of a "rock star". Hmmmm...and I bet that if by chance he lost the race to become President, the people who voted for the other man would be accused of "racism" for not voting for Obama. I guarantee it, and then you'll hear about the need for more "mandatory sensitivity training" and "diversity" in all nooks-and-crannies.



What examples?



Zzzzzz...another reference to the Western world's fantasy bedroom partners. If America can't get enough of comparing everything that is wrong with the world to National Socialists, then it makes your analogy null and void.

First, on the racial identification thing, it was white american males who came up with the convoluted definitions. Same way the natives here were defined as savages! I'm sure your pals in those pissy white sheets wouldn't care if Obama were half white. They'd drag his ass on the back of a pick up truck.
With that said, I don't beleive this country will elect an African-American in my lifetime. Yes, I do beleive that some of those that wouldn't vote for him would be because he's gotta hint of brown. Let's not play naive!
I'm still relatively young so there is a slim chance I may see a woman elected.
As for Ferraro and Jackson, both Dems, I wouldn't say close. The Ferraro ticket with Mondale lost big time. Jackson was a also ran in the primaries. The supposed darling for the repubs in 2000, Elizabeth Dole didn't get anywhere in the primaries. Rethugs voting for a woman, a woman ha. She wasn't really supposed to believe that shit. That was for the press. Kinda like Allan Keyes when he got punked by the rethugs in 1996. Did he really believe rethugs would vote for him. He's a neeeegro :-o
Marky is absolutely right with the Nazi analogy. I've also been making this analogy for some time now. As Marky well knows, the most recent example is the Military Commisions Act signed by the Bush twerp. By the way, in all seriousness, I am considering if I should restrict my speech. This act like the Enabling Act given to Hitler allows Bush to intern indefinitely anybody he feels is a "threat." Yes Americans, this means us as well!

When the Nazis came for the communists, I said nothing; I was, of course, no communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats, I said nothing; I was, of course, no Social Democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I said nothing; I was, of course, no trade unionist.
When they came for me, there was no one left who could protest.
Martin Niemoller

[paul]

Originally Posted by Salsoul1975

If you read one of my earlier posts on this thread, I said I was neither Republican nor Democratic. Looks like your leftist engineer boots will have to stomp on someone else's.

You are at the very least a conservative. Do you prefer to keep you politics in the closet or you just enjoy being disingenuous?

[paul]

Originally Posted by Salsoul1975

Countries outside the United States may not see sex as a factor in voting for presidents and prime ministers, but that is because unlike non-U.S. nations, our country still has a solid Christian-based mentality. Although these days too many are afraid to publicly say it for fear of offending the politically correct Gestapo, Americans have a hard time seeing a woman in the role of President.

Yep, I know. Dobson and those of you like minded 'mericans know jehesus don't want them bitches err feminazis, neeeegros, and the rest of those minorities running this country. That's not christian. Leave that to pagan states like England, South Africa, India, etc. When the rapture happens those nations will be among the first to go up in flames!
Somebody pass me a Harvey Wallbanger 8-)

[markydefad]

I have to admit I don't actually know what Salsoul's upset about--it appears to come from the "outing" gay politician issue. That's his call--I see a whole lotta hypocrisy arising outta the closeted gay Republican issue. But when he quotes drug-addled gasbag Rush with the "feminazi" speak, I'm lost......

My Nazi reference stems from Fuhrer Bush's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus:


Senate Passes Detainee Bill Sought by Bush



"It strips detainees of a habeas corpus right to challenge their detentions in ... Mr. Bush attacked Democrats for voting against the legislation even before ...

The Bush administration claims the power to detain "enemy combatants" indefinitely without trial, a suspension of the Habeas Corpus guarantee on which our justice system is founded.

under the powers claimed by the administration, "any American could be locked up indefinitely, without a lawyer, on the president�s say-so." (New York Times 9/28/06)

That's scary.

[paul]

Exactly Marky. I guess some have forgotten bush has already done this to a few guys. Jose Padilla comes to mind here.
To be fair, I'm more disgusted with some of our fucking Dems who know better and signed on to this.
We'll see if the Supreme Court allows this clear violation of the constitution!

[Salsoul1975]

Paul, reading your comments justify what I have always believed: that leftists cannot tolerate points of view which differ from theirs. They also cannot debate a topic with someone of a different mindset. I have no desire of running this thread six feet in the ground; I have already said what I wanted to say. It's all about tolerance, right???;-)

[paul]

Actually Sal, firing off a few shots is hardly a debate. In fact I responded to several things you've mentioned. I haven't seen an in depth explanation for any of the points you've stated. In fact, I don't believe you even responded to the original question in this thread.
It's not that leftists can't tolerate different points of view. We just question and challenge unsubstantiated assertions. Bumper sticker rhetoric might be sufficient for conservatives, liberals and leftist demand more.