Someone who believes homosexuality is wrong is ignorant in the formal sense of the word: lacking in knowledge and experience. Hate is very often paired with ignorance (often times fueled by it), but I believe it is possible to be ignorant without being hateful.

>>> You believe it's 'possible to be ignorant without being hateful' but the pro-gay 'agendists' as well as politically-correct foot soldiers don't see it that way. It's easier to use intimidation and shackling free speech than send "new" ideas through the meat grinder of public debate.

>>> If there was a homosexual gene that could be detected very early, the odds are parents more numerous than you would approve of would abort the child. I'M not saying homosexuality is a genetic defect, but it is a less desirable trait, like being born a little person or missing limbs is less desirable.

The way you write about gay people and other minorities gives the impression that you have some hate issues.

>>> I hate hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. Labeling Others Who Disagree simply as "haters" is the easy way out. It's easy to demand "equality" when you think that burden doesn't befall you, but the reality is that actions in this world have consequences. Do you know the facts and figures (mental health stats, disease rates) regarding homosexuality? Some of these problems are exacerbated by society/by intolerance, but the disease rates and promiscuity among gay males is tragic without blaming society. The left is doing no one any favors by hiding the ugly side of life, any more than the local paper does when they hide the race of at-large criminals to avoid being perceived as racist.

I also get the feeling that you are not very introspective, and are probably unaware of these issues. You likely were raised by extremely conservative people in an extremely conservative part of the country, and your prejudice issues have been internalized to a point that is beyond repair. This makes me sympathetic for you, actually. You know how you always complain about liberals blaming bad individual behavior on societal factors? You benefit greatly from this phenomena.

>>> Brushing aside these gentle ad hominem aspersions (all incorrect BTW) once you become (more) conservative, you can't go back. Like the atheisifters who at one time sincerely believed in God but now don't---it's the exact same feeling. It's knowing that in life there are no 'solutions', only tradeoffs, and that global wealth, while steadily growing, is still finite and has alternate uses which make choosing how to utilize it important.

>>> If you claim you are against "intolerance", then you can't be halfway in. You can't righteously condemn Whitey or Straightey for exercising a right to free speech, then remain silent when Minority does the exact same thing, giving a free pass due to "past injustices".


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Someone who believes homosexuality is wrong is ignorant in the formal sense of the word: lacking in knowledge and experience. Hate is very often paired with ignorance (often times fueled by it), but I believe it is possible to be ignorant without being hateful.
The way you write about gay people and other minorities gives the impression that you have some hate issues. I also get the feeling that you are not very introspective, and are probably unaware of these issues. You likely were raised by extremely conservative people in an extremely conservative part of the country, and your prejudice issues have been internalized to a point that is beyond repair. This makes me sympathetic for you, actually. You know how you always complain about liberals blaming bad individual behavior on societal factors? You benefit greatly from this phenomena.
Either way - hate or ignorance - it's not something you should be proud of, and definitely not something you should admit to in an internet forum with a penchant for social justice.
An honest question deserves an honest answer. >> ^quantumushroom:
So it's not possible to believe homosexuality is wrong without being a "hater?"
Bullshit.

I was referring to your ignorance of the Welsh. As for 'campaign stops/taxpayer funded vacations', do you mean like this: http://videosift.com/video/White-House-Caught-Doctoring-Mission-Accomplished-Video>> ^quantumushroom:

Ignorance doesn't frighten me. Ignorance means "lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact." If I want to learn about something, I learn it.
Deliberate intellectual dishonesty, the coin of the realm for leftists, is another matter.
After you, kym!
>> ^kymbos:
Stop Press: Ignorant American Doesn't Know About Non-American Things!
Continue, QM.

Ignorance doesn't frighten me. Ignorance means "lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact." If I want to learn about something, I learn it.

Deliberate intellectual dishonesty, the coin of the realm for leftists, is another matter.

After you, kym!

>> ^kymbos:

Stop Press: Ignorant American Doesn't Know About Non-American Things!
Continue, QM.

@NetRunner

I'm genuinely surprised you would think the left has "lost" over the decades, especially after petty tyrant FDR rewrote the US Constitution, distorting the commerce clause to mean government can do anything it wants.

Then again, Jefferson said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground," and that's EXACTLY what's happened. If Democrats create all of this big government (e.g. like Nixon creating the EPA) and Repubs do nothing to dismantle it and in fact vote to fund it, then effectively both sides are Democrats.

Don't you see? You've WON!

We are a few beats away from becoming a socialist outhouse like Europe. It's nice to declare that everything is "free" by birthright (and great for the politicians that promise it) EXCEPT when there are no more productive souls to pay for the phantasy. GREECE is the word.

>> ^NetRunner:

>>.

To me the worst part about a lot of right-wing assumptions about the left is that they assume we're their mirror image, and project their hostility, dishonesty, ruthlessness, and groupthink onto us.
The truth is, as a group we're too nice, too honest, too forgiving, and too independent, which is why the right ends up eating our lunch so often.
Oh yeah, and they deny that they've ever eaten our lunch. They insist on pretending to be some sort of oppressed underdog, even though they've been effectively running the show for as long as I've been alive.

Granted, I think the radicals in the GOP are definitely bigger douches than radicals in the left, but there's more of a mirror than you're suggesting. The left isn't susceptible to group think?! You're kidding me, right?

Where I do agree with you is the moderate branches on the right have gotten squeezed out of their own party more so than the left. But the radicals on both sides? They're both pretty bad.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Yogi:
You continue to attribute the Left Wing to anything you disagree with and that's simply not the case.

To me the worst part about a lot of right-wing assumptions about the left is that they assume we're their mirror image, and project their hostility, dishonesty, ruthlessness, and groupthink onto us.
The truth is, as a group we're too nice, too honest, too forgiving, and too independent, which is why the right ends up eating our lunch so often.
Oh yeah, and they deny that they've ever eaten our lunch. They insist on pretending to be some sort of oppressed underdog, even though they've been effectively running the show for as long as I've been alive.

Thanks!

Would you believe I felt guilty about saying such mean things after I wrote it?

In reply to this comment by zombieater:
One of the best comments I've read in a long while. Absolutely.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^Yogi:

You continue to attribute the Left Wing to anything you disagree with and that's simply not the case.


To me the worst part about a lot of right-wing assumptions about the left is that they assume we're their mirror image, and project their hostility, dishonesty, ruthlessness, and groupthink onto us.

The truth is, as a group we're too nice, too honest, too forgiving, and too independent, which is why the right ends up eating our lunch so often.

Oh yeah, and they deny that they've ever eaten our lunch. They insist on pretending to be some sort of oppressed underdog, even though they've been effectively running the show for as long as I've been alive.

One of the best comments I've read in a long while. Absolutely.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^Yogi:

You continue to attribute the Left Wing to anything you disagree with and that's simply not the case.


To me the worst part about a lot of right-wing assumptions about the left is that they assume we're their mirror image, and project their hostility, dishonesty, ruthlessness, and groupthink onto us.

The truth is, as a group we're too nice, too honest, too forgiving, and too independent, which is why the right ends up eating our lunch so often.

Oh yeah, and they deny that they've ever eaten our lunch. They insist on pretending to be some sort of oppressed underdog, even though they've been effectively running the show for as long as I've been alive.

The truth is, as a group we're too nice, too honest, too forgiving, and too independent, which is why the right ends up eating our lunch so often.

NICE
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/
http://michellemalkin.com/category/unhinged/assassination-chic/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2653895/posts
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8760/pub_detail.asp
http://conservapedia.com/Liberal_hate_speech
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41108
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hate.html

Liberal/leftist philosophy is prodominantly driven by hatred, not kindness.

HONEST
http://www.ivorydome.us/category/unhinged-liberals/showcases-of-liberal-dishonesty/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1905914/posts
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/4701/long-post-complete-list-obama-statement-expiration-dates
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/mainstream-media-dishonesty-101-liberal-media-lies/

How do you know a leftist is lying? His lips are moving.

FORGIVING
http://conservapedia.com/Double_standard
http://www.gargaro.com/bias.html
THIS VIDEO

If leftists were 'forgiving' then this video would never have been posted, right?

INDEPENDANT
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2006/04/a-majority-of-american-arent-intellectually-curious/
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/rudin.html
http://www.carolinajournal.com/issues/display_story.html?id=679
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/content/quotes-liberal-bias-education-campus-classroom-college?library_node=67198
http://webpages.charter.net/tomeboy/leftout.html
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/

Most leftists are (politically and intelectually speaking) a bunch of lemming-sheep. When they encounter ideas that oppose thier own, they do not try to mentally adjust to them. They seek to repress them and criminalize free speech that differs from theirs.

Now - this cuts both ways. The right wing is no haven of fairness either. However, to claim the political left is just so gosh-darn nice/tolerant/forgiving is absolute bunk. The political left contains some of the most intolerant, least forgiving, cruellest, bunch of brain-dead robots on the planet. To claim otherwise is to ignore facts and reality.

But on topic - yeah Perry blew it big time and diamonds to dollars he is toast. He just doesn't do well in public speaking. Last night's winner? Newt Gingrich. He kicked @$$.

>> ^Yogi:

You continue to attribute the Left Wing to anything you disagree with and that's simply not the case.


To me the worst part about a lot of right-wing assumptions about the left is that they assume we're their mirror image, and project their hostility, dishonesty, ruthlessness, and groupthink onto us.

The truth is, as a group we're too nice, too honest, too forgiving, and too independent, which is why the right ends up eating our lunch so often.

Oh yeah, and they deny that they've ever eaten our lunch. They insist on pretending to be some sort of oppressed underdog, even though they've been effectively running the show for as long as I've been alive.

@Yogi and you're someone who's so caught up in their own self-righteous superiority they don't even listen to what people they're talking to are actually saying.

I bump heads with people here because I find it to be a great way to expand my horizons, and get my views challenged. I really appreciate it when people can show me a flaw in my thinking.

You're not doing that. You're taking an anti-equivalency argument from me, and pretending it's an assertion that Democrats can do no wrong. You're not understanding me if that's what you think I'm saying.

You're taking my statement that there are substantive differences between the parties, which is largely based on economic policy differences, and insisting I answer your every criticism about Democratic foreign policy. You seem to think the burden of proof is on me, and not you.

And I'm obviously making you angry by refusing to just accept your assertion that Clinton = W. Bush because he didn't fight to undo the economic sanctions put in place during H.W Bush's presidency, and that W. Bush's decision to engage us in direct warfare in Iraq is also equivalent to Clinton's economic sanctions. Hell, you're even calling me names over it, rather than just making a case for why I shouldn't be skeptical about such claims of moral equivalency.

I don't really have any personal beef with you. I have a beef with people going around and trying to equate Democrats and Republicans, because it's trivially, obviously not true. It's a really, really self-destructive little meme, too. If someone were to convince me that was actually true, and that we have absolutely zero say in things, I'd be willing to get behind some rather radical solutions to the problem, including armed revolution!

I admit, I was the first one between us to be disrespectful, but that's just because I've spent the last week having this exact same argument with several other people here, and I'm sorta fed up with it. I apologize for that, but seriously, you've gotta admit that you can't prove the two parties are indistinguishable, at least not without engaging in a lot of intellectual dishonesty!

>> ^xxovercastxx:
"This" is this video. I'll give you one example of dishonesty/ignorance (I'm not sure if they're stupid or lying in this case). As they're showing the map of radar gaps they claim that the locations of the gaps are widely unknown, even to air traffic controllers. If that's true, how is some random dude from Youtube able to show us a map of them? Either the map is made up or he's full of shit about it being a big secret.


Here's the quote:
How should Mohammed Atta and his associates have known the most intimate details of military and civilian radar coverage in the U.S. - details, widely unknown even to air traffic controllers in charge on 9/11? And how should they have known by minute, when their individual plane had reached such a 'radar gap'? Finally: Why didn't the 9/11 Commission even mention this issue?

The video lists the map source in the bottom right hand corner. The map is based on images from a 2002 study at MIT Lincoln Laboratory. The study notes there is "no common integrated air picture" between the FAA and DoD and recommended actions to take to form a "seamless and common air picture".

pdf: http://i-cns.org/media/icns/2002/11/Session_E2-4_Bussolari.pdf
scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18663172/T8-B16-Misc-Work-Papers-Fdr-5202-Briefing-Slides-Surveillance-Implications-of-911-MIT-Lincoln-Lab

If you honestly have questions like this, then you should ask them instead of forming opinions from true ignorance.

Got anything else?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^marbles:
Don't be scared to share your thoughts. Do you disagree with the documentary or are you instinctively hostile to 9/11 truth efforts?

Scared? No, I just didn't think it was worth my time. I found this to be predictably dishonest and ignorant.

What is "this"? Predictably dishonest and ignorant, how so? It only documented facts and asked questions.


"This" is this video. I'll give you one example of dishonesty/ignorance (I'm not sure if they're stupid or lying in this case). As they're showing the map of radar gaps they claim that the locations of the gaps are widely unknown, even to air traffic controllers. If that's true, how is some random dude from Youtube able to show us a map of them? Either the map is made up or he's full of shit about it being a big secret.

Actually, for being my biggest fan, you're pretty civil today so thanks.

You're as much a 'bigot' as I am, just in other ways, so the term is meaningless.

I have no problem with The Gay, believe it or not. I DO have a problem when The Gay or any other movement teams up with political correctness and intellectual dishonesty, then it's chaos.



>> ^vaire2ube:

4% you mean the richest white people? i think the number is lower.
oh you're just being a bigot again, shame. Yes, it is hate to say homosexuality is "wrong", because that little opinion actually goes a long way and has a louder voice than it should, causing harm. You hate the minority having too much clout right? do you even ever think about what you say

what is it that gay people are making anyone do again? making you stupid? the rich people want your money, the religious people want your soul, so what exactly are these homosexuals after that you fear????

>> ^quantumushroom:

Death penalty:
"The 775 killers who were executed between 1998 and 2008 had murdered at least 1591 people. That is an average of 2 victims per executed killer."
Liberals never quite get around to thinking about the victims of the convicted murderers on death row; not ONE of the latter has ever been proven innocent--posthumously or otherwise--since the 1950s.
"If we are to abolish the death penalty, I should like to see the first step taken by my friends the murderers."
-- Alphonse Karr (1808-1890)


Irrelevant (and also wrong, but anyway). Leaving aside the questionable morality of state-sponsored revenge killing, it fails both as a tool for law enforcement and as a fiscally conservative policy. It costs way more to execute someone than to incarcerate them for life.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Ron Paul Health Care: it was a loaded, piss-poor question and liberals know it. Why? Because there are two scenarios for the question. Is our theoretical 30-year-old living in "our" world where there is de facto socialist health care in the USA? I asked someone with a degree in Hospital Admin what would be his fate. Her answer: "If he has no insurance, his care is free."
OR is the scenario taking place in a libertarian free market health care world, which has NEVER been allowed to exist?
I gots no problems with liberal foolishness; it exists in abundance. What I despise is intellectual dishonesty and these crafted propagandist soundbites from the original source, not even the smarmy Liberalviewer, were just that.


It's a reasonable question. No, that world (thankfully) doesn't exist, but it's a world RP wants to create. We're entitled to know how his pie-in-the-sky bullshit would pan out in the real world.

And to hear a conservative complain about intellectual dishonesty and crafted soundbites is really the pot calling the kettle black.

Death penalty:

"The 775 killers who were executed between 1998 and 2008 had murdered at least 1591 people. That is an average of 2 victims per executed killer."

Liberals never quite get around to thinking about the victims of the convicted murderers on death row; not ONE of the latter has ever been proven innocent--posthumously or otherwise--since the 1950s.

"If we are to abolish the death penalty, I should like to see the first step taken by my friends the murderers."
-- Alphonse Karr (1808-1890)


Ron Paul Health Care: it was a loaded, piss-poor question and liberals know it. Why? Because there are two scenarios for the question. Is our theoretical 30-year-old living in "our" world where there is de facto socialist health care in the USA? I asked someone with a degree in Hospital Admin what would be his fate. Her answer: "If he has no insurance, his care is free."

OR is the scenario taking place in a libertarian free market health care world, which has NEVER been allowed to exist?

I gots no problems with liberal foolishness; it exists in abundance. What I despise is intellectual dishonesty and these crafted propagandist soundbites from the original source, not even the smarmy Liberalviewer, were just that.