>> ^A10anis:

>> ^hpqp:
Where were the hot dudes making out? I am disappoint.

Just about every woman I have known has either had, or fantasized about, a lesbian relationship. They would, very happily, watch lesbian porn with you. However, how many straight guys similarly fantasize or could, comfortably, watch two guys making out? So, putting two girls making out on this video seems to be more acceptable. This is just an interesting observation. I am NOT, NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN, homophobic. Sadly, these days, one has to make that crystal clear or the hate starts..


I can honestly say, without a word of a lie, watching two guys "do it" does absolutely nothing to me, sexually or repulsively. I don't get turned on, I don't get nauseous. Then again, I view MMA and boxing the same way. It's all the same to me, to be quite honest.

Your video, The Gentlemen's Rant: Homophobia, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 63 Badge!

>> ^hpqp:

Where were the hot dudes making out? I am disappoint.

Just about every woman I have known has either had, or fantasized about, a lesbian relationship. They would, very happily, watch lesbian porn with you. However, how many straight guys similarly fantasize or could, comfortably, watch two guys making out? So, putting two girls making out on this video seems to be more acceptable. This is just an interesting observation. I am NOT, NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN, homophobic. Sadly, these days, one has to make that crystal clear or the hate starts..

>> ^bobknight33:

You had to throw the girls in. How can I fight against that?
Fortunately most gay men and woman are just slobs like the rest of us.


With all the talk about how different gay people are supposed to be. Living with two of them is just plain disappointing. They eat and sleep, pay bills and talk. They don't do anything amazing or interesting they're just people like everyone else.

I Fucking Hate Gay people because they aren't Cool Aliens!

Thanks for the quality!
In reply to this comment by TheGenk:
One word: *quality

disco is like house music (being it's predecessor and all): you either get it or you don't.




http://youtu.be/a6Q9YqVKGh4



>> ^therealblankman:

Well all that, plus Disco sucks.
>> ^kir_mokum:
this has nothing to do with the backlash disco received. racism, homophobia, and punk were the main reasons disco "died".

Well all that, plus Disco sucks.

>> ^kir_mokum:

this has nothing to do with the backlash disco received. racism, homophobia, and punk were the main reasons disco "died".

this has nothing to do with the backlash disco received. racism, homophobia, and punk were the main reasons disco "died".

I think Cenk's missed the boat on this one. He's blinded by the almighty "Racist" trump card.

As horrible as racism and homophobia and sexism are, IMO, corruption is worse. Why? Because if the corruption reduces the value of your vote, and your freedoms of speech and assembly are legislated away, then it doesn't matter what you think about bigotry because if Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Time Warner want to make it worse, they will do so with their campaign contributions.

I'd vote for an openly racist president who acknowledges his biases and shows he understands the difference between his biases and his duty to the country, if he is going to deal a serious blow to corruption.

I can already hear people saying this is a ridiculous statement, that it's impossible. So to you, consider your own biases: if you're on VS, you probably vote liberal and are anti-religion. If you were in power, and openly acknowledged these biases, would you use your power to make laws unequal for conservatives and the religious? Would you ignore problems they had?

To bring it back to Ron Paul, to my limited knowledge, he has never shown that racism or homophobia are politically motivating factors for him.

So yeah, Cenk's missing the forest for the trees.

@dystopianfuturetoday's list seems somewhat biased to me. I also appreciate him taking the time to provide links to his objections, kudos for that.

This is how I would honestly try to answer each of them, I think most can be dismissed, but some should be looked into.

Abortion

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on abortion, his political opinion is that it's not a Federal issue, it's a state's rights' issue because it's too controversial. So whether people like abortion or not, they have the choice of taking it up with their local governments.

Evolution

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on evolution. If I were a Christian, I'd have trouble dealing with the theory of evolution too, because I'd believe in a book written by God that says the universe was created in 6 days. I don't see how would that negatively influence him as a president or his policies.

Does not believe in separation of church and state

Sounds like total BS to me. That is just a very biased interpretation of the linked article. Libertarians understand separation of church and state because having them together is even more dangerous than fascism (corporations and state together). It threatens many liberties they hold dear, including free speech, religious freedom, sexual freedom and not using laws to impose morality.

Believes Education is not a right and wants to privatize all schools

Correct, unconstitutional, against libertarian ideals. Even though he'd like to privatize them all, he would have to stop at the Federal level and let states choose whether to run their own schools or privatize.

Wants to repeal the federal law banning guns in school zones

Correct, probably because it would encroach on guns rights, besides, it's in accordance with the point above: Federal government has no business educating children anyway, and should not impose gun restrictions on state-run schools, that's up to the states themselves.

Denies Global Warming, "There is no convincing scientific evidence..."

He does believe that global warming claims are a FUD tactic for environmental regulations at the Federal level.

Wants to get rid of FEMA and says we shouldn’t help people in disasters

Correct about FEMA being dispensable, but "we" means the Federal government. States can help. Private charities can help. Churches can help. Concerned individuals can help. Insurance companies can help.

Wants to build a fence at the US/Mexico Border

Wierd, I mean, it's in accordance with defending our borders, but seems like a costly idea.

Repeatedly has tried to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy

I don't know what to say about that, sorry.

Pull out of the UN because "they have a secret plan to destroy the US"

He presented more than one reason to pull out of the UN. I personally agree that the UN is not in alignment with american values. I wish the UN all the best in whatever they want to achieve, but I don't think they should do it with the US' money and military, specially since we're broke and fighting too many wars as it is.

Disband NATO

Link is not working. NATO is a remnant of the Cold War era, it costs us money to outsource our military protection to other countries, disbanding NATO makes sense to me.

End birthright citizenship

Sounds like a reasonable position to me. He's in favor of immigrants entering the country, but birthright citizenship is a legal shortcut that is often abused and imposes an unnecessary burden on American citizens and the welfare system.

Deny federal funding to any organisation "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style"

If he had his way, a lot of federal funding to all non-essential organizations would be denied, period. When it comes to the issue of homossexuality, regardless of his personal opinions, he seems to be arguing against using taxpayer money to promote or impose lifestyles taxpayers themselves might not approve of.

Hired former head of Anti Gay Group to be Iowa State Director of the campaign

I don't know, that's a tough one. That might reflect poorly on Ron Paul if this person was hired for being an anti-gay activist. Maybe he's just a good campaign director? I don't think Ron Paul is against homossexuals politically, and he's allowed the same level of homophobia as any other straight christian guy, as long as he doesn't project it into active anti-gay policies.

Wants to abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard

Correct, even though he mostly talks about commodity-based currencies. He doesn't want to impose the gold standard, but allow competing currencies, in which case, I'm sure many people will prefer to use gold as money since it has been historically preferred for millenia.

He was the sole vote against divesting US Gov investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan

I don't understand that sentence and the link is broken, could you elaborate on it, please?

Was also the ONLY vote against a ban on Lead in childrens' toys

Correct, as the linked article points out, he "frequently votes against measures expanding the federal government's reach". It doesn't mean Ron Paul is in favor of lead in children's toys, only that there are other more effective ways to ensure that children's toys don't have lead in them. Leave the Federal government out of this.

Thinks Sexual Harassment shouldn't be illegal

Correct, not at the federal level, that is a states' issue. Whatever else he said on the subject is irrelevant.

Is against the popular vote

Correct, it's a libertarian thing. Libertarians like to protect minorities, namely the smallest and most numerous minority, which is the individual. That's why they always talk about individual rights. Democracy sometimes ignores and tramples over individuals in favor of the majority, so libertarians don't always regard democracy as this unquestionable improvement for civilization.

Wants the estate tax repealed

Correct, it's a useless tax in terms of revenue, most people waste as much money avoiding it than paying it, so it's destroying resources, and its not morally justified. Why would someone have to pay taxes when they die? Why pay taxes to inherit what someone rightfully gives you when they die?

Believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States

Don't know what to say about that. If it was built with US taxpayer money, maybe it should? Idk.

Has associated with the founder of Stormfront, a White Power/Nazi Website

This is bullshit. A picture of them together just implies they conspired to stand in front of a camera.

Keeps their donations
And does nothing to prevent their association with his campaign.

Also, bullshit. Taking their money means he accepts their support, it does not mean that Ron Paul supports them. Like Ron Paul explained many times, it would be impractical to do a background check on all the hundreds of thousands of people who support him and send him money.

Has gone on record that he had no knowledge of the content of the racist newsletters that bore his name AND signature,
But has not only quoted them, but personally defended the newsletters in the past,
And later admitted he WAS aware of the contents and that only "some of [it was] offensive."
...
Ron Paul's Newsletters. Scanned. See the originals for yourself. They're worse than they've been quoted for.

He didn't write it and they already found the guy responsible for the offensive content. Move on.

His issues with race go as far as to vote against the Rosa Parks medal (sole vote, again), saying it is a "waste of taxpayer dollars" and that it was unconsitiutional...
Despite the fact that the bill itself is very clear about a separate fund. All profit from this fund is returned to the Treasury.
However, he had no issues with using taxpayer funds to mint coins for the Boy Scouts
AND introduce legislation that would spend $240 Million making medals for EVERY veteran of the Cold War

Ouch, I don't know what to say, at first it seems inconsistent. Maybe he doesn't have a perfect voting record after all. I'll look into that. I don't buy that he's against Rosa Parks or that there is any race issues involved.

Introduced legislation, twice, that would allow schools to re-segregate.

Endorsing the removal of federal regulations and the freedom that comes with that is not an endorsement of what people or states do with these freedoms.

His SuperPAC is headed by Thomas Woods who is the founder of the League of the South, of which the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labeled a "racist hate group."

Bullshit, an exageration of guilt by association. Thomas Woods is not the founder, he was present at the founding. He contributed in a limited capacity and is no longer involved with that group. He also publicly admits to being a textbook neoconservative before changing his mind and becoming a Ron Paul supporter. I only expect Ron Paul to be consistent, not everyone who works for him or endorse him, people can change their minds and their ways.

Also in association with the League of the South via Thomas Woods is the Mises Institute, of which Lew Rockwell is an Administrator...

Bullshit, exagerated guilt by an even more distant level of association. The Mises Institute is about austrian economics, most likely they're associated only in regards to their opinions on economics.

Would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Very easy to misinterpret. He's partly against the Civil Rights Act regarding the regulations on private individuals and businesses that are open to the public because they reduce individual liberties. Makes sense for a libertarian to say such things.

Earmarks

I see it as Ron Paul making the most to get money back to the states and local communities using a flawed system.

And during his entire tenure, he has managed only one, out of 620, of his bills to get signed into law.

Can be considered a testament to his innefectiveness, or as a testament to his backbone, and how screwed up Congress and Washington is.

Ron Paul is not a constitutionalist. He is not a civil libertarian. He's a secessionist, a fundamentalist and a confederate.

And the guy who wrote that article is an Anti-Ron Paul nut.

Want more? Go here.

Maybe Slanderpedia.com would be more appropriate, btw I checked and the domain name is available!

Hey, @FlowersInHisHair, none of this mature, rational discussion! This is the internet, you're supposed to give knee jerk reactions.

I've never understood the effeminate voice - it seems unnatural and forced, which in turn makes it distracting to listen to. It's like wigger street slang, whatever the person is saying, 50% of my brain is just thinking "why are you putting on that stupid voice?". This is probably unfair. It's certainly not a comment on sexuality, at the risk of making a "some of my best friends" defence, look at my previous discussions with one of the Sift's more, um, Santorumesque posters. I think the effeminate voice, being (to my ears) unnatural makes it seem like the person is trying to be something they're not - which is a major symptom of homophobia. That's a pretty screwed up idea now that I think about it. It's also predicated on the presumption that it is unnatural or forced.

>> ^conan:

>> ^Deano:
>> ^conan:
hate the "gaydar" joke. stuff like this is what gives homophobes credit.

I'm honestly not sure how the joke was homophobic. Obviously Fry didn't seem to think so. What's your take on it?

I just don't think it's a good idea to make jokes about minorities whose members already find themselves constantly bullied in a "normal" (i.e. no David Chapelle or similar "rude" humor enviroment) show such as QI. The more bullies see this humor on regular TV, the more they think it's OK to make such jokes in their own daily life.
Ah well, maybe i'm oversensitive but i think homophobia definitely is a serious and pressing issue.


Didn't he just say something about them inventing "gaydar instead of radar"? Seemed fine to me and I wasn't aware that was a homophobic term. I've used it myself quite often along with friends and I can honestly say no one has ever sought to correct that.
I assumed it was in common usage by the gay community as well but that's only my assumption.

>> ^Deano:

>> ^conan:
hate the "gaydar" joke. stuff like this is what gives homophobes credit.

I'm honestly not sure how the joke was homophobic. Obviously Fry didn't seem to think so. What's your take on it?


I just don't think it's a good idea to make jokes about minorities whose members already find themselves constantly bullied in a "normal" (i.e. no David Chapelle or similar "rude" humor enviroment) show such as QI. The more bullies see this humor on regular TV, the more they think it's OK to make such jokes in their own daily life.

Ah well, maybe i'm oversensitive but i think homophobia definitely is a serious and pressing issue.

Did you read beyond the headline? "Asian Americans endure far more bullying at US schools than members of other ethnic group". "Gay" isn't an ethnic group.

This study wasn't done before the trendy gay anti-bullying campaign. As for "ethnic group" rubbish, only the left cares about such distinctions, for the purpose of divide and conquer, vote-buying and tribalism. And "Gay" is now officially a victimized group, political movement AND voting block.

The problem is that it is the LGBTs are the group most affected by this clause, "statement[s] of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction". No religion gets away with overt racism so abuse against Asian Americans doesn't have this escape clause. I very much doubt you can get away with claiming white supremacy as a religious belief or a moral conviction and you should not be able to get away with homophobia as a moral conviction either.

"Homophobia" is one of this delightful thoughtcrime control words terms made up by those suffering from homophilia. There's a world of difference between scum who violently attack others for being gay and stern but non-violent Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong for religious reasons. "Homophobia" is a word meant to lump both together. When I call anyone on the left a 'communist' I am closer to the truth than a liberal calling everyone on the right a 'homophobe'.

I don't think any other minority is as affected but if there is, then they shouldn't have abuse against them legitimised like this.

Leftists are the only ones making these ridiculous generalizations about the purpose of the religious clause. Would you see Christians go to jail for simply stating, "Homosexuality is wrong"? That's what they're doing up in Canada (or damned close to it).


>> ^Quboid:

Did you read beyond the headline? "Asian Americans endure far more bullying at US schools than members of other ethnic group". "Gay" isn't an ethnic group.
The problem is that it is the LGBTs are the group most affected by this clause, "statement[s] of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction". No religion gets away with overt racism so abuse against Asian Americans doesn't have this escape clause. I very much doubt you can get away with claiming white supremacy as a religious belief or a moral conviction and you should not be able to get away with homophobia as a moral conviction either.
I don't think any other minority is as affected but if there is, then they shouldn't have abuse against them legitimised like this.

Did you read beyond the headline? "Asian Americans endure far more bullying at US schools than members of other ethnic group". "Gay" isn't an ethnic group.

The problem is that it is the LGBTs are the group most affected by this clause, "statement[s] of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction". No religion gets away with overt racism so abuse against Asian Americans doesn't have this escape clause. I very much doubt you can get away with claiming white supremacy as a religious belief or a moral conviction and you should not be able to get away with homophobia as a moral conviction either.

I don't think any other minority is as affected but if there is, then they shouldn't have abuse against them legitimised like this.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Good catch, @Quboid. If Asian kids are the "most" bullied than that means more so than any other group.
Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.
How about not bullying anyone?
You make the point for me. If this is an anti-bullying measure, then it has no bearing on whether or not the victim is gay, Asian, etc. Presumably it increases punishment of the bullies.
One third of the population are fuckups and will be no matter what you do. It's called The Bell Curve. The incapability of dealing with children bullying is a small scale example of the grand failure that is liberalism, and the dearth of common fucking sense and lack of personal empowerment that liberalism promotes amplify these evils.
The Bowing Kenyawaiian tries to placate dictators and the hopelessly swamped and time-wasting state government and government school bureaucracy tries to make a network of laws and rules that only end up strangling freedoms in the name of safety.
Do gay kids deserve equal protection? Yup. Do they deserve special protection that infringes on others' freedom? Nope.
At this stage of the game, if a gay kid is self-aware he should already be learning how to to fight, because just as 9-1-1 is government-sponsored dial-a-prayer for those who don't own guns, no teacher or camera is always going to be there to protect every bullied child.




>> ^Quboid:
>> ^quantumushroom:
But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.

Where does that article state that "Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids", or anything even remotely like that?
Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.
How about not bullying anyone?