|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #139152 ] |
Fr, 30 September 2005 10:18 |
|
>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:Ak3%e.67234$o11.11786 [at] fe01.news.easynews.com...
>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>>>>>[snip]
>> Most of the fatcats are, but all people working in Hollywood have to demonstrate support for the
>> homosexual agenda in one way or another.
>How the fuck would you know, have you ever even been to Hollywood? They probably won't let you out of the nuthouse long enough for
>you to visit anywhere.
I have no interest in Hollywood other than watching it on TV.
>> More personal attacks.
>Snipped your continually reposted paranoid ramblings, get a new spiel you dumbass. There is no sodomy portrayed in BSG. The
>sodomy is completely in your head. Do you also give head or do you just continually think about sodomy?
============================================================
As I have mentioned, Hollywood Homosexuals took control of Hollywood somewhere around 1992.
Let us look at the biggest male Hollywood stars who have arisen since that takeover. (the
list of major Hollywood female stars who had been in homosexual scenes on screen during
this period is simply too long to list here).
Six Degrees of Separation is the name of a Battlestar Galactica episode but it was also the
name of a movie in which Will Smith plays a homosexual hustler. This was the movie that
Will Smith had to do for the Hollywood Homosexuals who control Hollywood before they would
then allow him to obtain the big roles which followed. After this homosexual movie Six
Degrees of Separation (1993), Smith's next Hollywood movies were the following (f. IMDB):
Enemy of the State (1998) .... Robert Clayton Dean
Men in Black (1997) .... James Edwards/Agent J (Jay)
.... aka MIB (USA: promotional abbreviation)
Independence Day (1996) .... Captain Steven 'Steve' Hiller
.... aka ID4 (USA: promotional abbreviation)
Bad Boys (1995) .... Det. Mike Lowrey
Huge money straight movies. In fact, the reports from the set of Six Degrees of Separation
are the Will Smith refused to do a scene in which he was to kiss another man and the scene
was faked. That indicates Smith was not committed to the Sodomy subject matter of this
movie and was coerced into doing the movie. Leonard DiCaprio did the homosexual movie Total
Eclipse (1995), in which there were explicit naked bed scenes. (One of the last things I
saw on homosexual dominated HBO, around 2000-2001 before canceling the service).
The following are the acting jobs he received next:
The Man in the Iron Mask (1998) .... King Louis XIV/Philippe
Titanic (1997) .... Jack Dawson
Marvin's Room (1996) .... Hank
Romeo + Juliet (1996) .... Romeo
At the time of the 1992 takeover of Hollywood by Hollywood Homosexuals, Tom Hanks was an
actor with mediocre success who made his name playing a transvestite in the Bosom Buddies
TV series (1980-1982). Obviously, for the Hollywood Homosexuals this guy was way, way, way
ahead of his time and he had to be made a star. This is what happened to his career once
Hollywood Homosexuals took control:
Apollo 13 (1995) .... Jim Lovell
.... aka Apollo 13: The IMAX Experience (USA: IMAX version)
Forrest Gump (1994) .... Forrest Gump
Vault of Horror I (1994) (TV)
Philadelphia (1993) .... Andrew Beckett
Sleepless in Seattle (1993) .... Sam Baldwin
A League of Their Own (1992) .... Jimmy Dugan
Russell Crowe was an Australian regional actor (born in New Zealand) making Australian
movies until he made the 1994 Australian movie The Sum Of Us, in which he portrayed a
homosexual. It was then that he received the call from Hollywood to appear in his first
Hollywood movie with Sharon Stone "The Quick and the Dead" Here is Crowe's Sodomy rise
to stardom:
Gladiator (2000) .... Maximus
The Insider (1999) .... Dr. Jeffrey Wigand
Mystery, Alaska (1999) .... Sheriff John Biebe
Breaking Up (1997) .... Steve
Heaven's Burning (1997) .... Colin
L.A. Confidential (1997) .... Officer Wendell 'Bud' White
Rough Magic (1995) .... Alex Ross
.... aka Miss Shumway jette un sort (France)
Virtuosity (1995) .... SID 6.7
No Way Back (1995) .... FBI Agent Zack Grant
The Quick and the Dead (1995) .... Cort
The Sum of Us (1994) .... Jeff Mitchell
Ashton Kutcher is rumored to be a homosexual although his public relations people link him
to 'an older woman'. (Special thank you to Ashton Kutcher for appearing in the Gays In
Space II episode on Saturday Night Live 03/19/2005)
Keanu Reeve has long been rumored to be a homosexual. His name Neo in the huge money movie
series Matrix was "Neo", an abbreviation for Neo-Conservative, the group of people we have
talked about who Love Sodomy, and Hate Arabs/Moslems but otherwise despise the Left groups
of The Poor, Blacks, Unions and Women, just like any other regular (paleo-) Conservative.
Mostly huge money movies. Again, the homosexual background was his Rite Of Passage.
This follows the pattern of Jonathan King and other music managers who had their Sodomy rite of
passage for young boys who wanted to become music stars. This Sodomy Rite Of Passage was
portrayed in the Roger Daltrey (of The Who rock and roll music band) movie Like It Is (1998)
and it has also been talked about by Pete Townshend of The Who in interviews.
Fortunately, Jonathan King went to prison for buggering young boys. When are some of these
Hollywood Homosexuals going to be caught and go to prison themselves ? No wonder so many
entertainers support Sodomy, when in many cases they were forced to taste some of it before
they were allowed their big break.
There has to be some element of criminal rape, extortion and racketeering associated with
this Sodomy promotion activity going on in Hollywood.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #139154 ] |
Fr, 30 September 2005 10:43 |
|
"Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message news:gpO_e.11728$tl2.1548 [at] pd7tw3no...
> "manitou" <manitou910 [at] rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:28OdnWkib6Vtg6beRVn-qw [at] rogers.com...
>> John Shocked wrote:
> Sorry, troll feeders must join the troll
> Qa ' PLONK
> Kweeg
This guy supports Sodomy on TV in BSG. It is that simple.
That is the only reason he is here on this public forum at all.
Everyone who wants to see Sodomy on TV in BSG should work with him to support that cause.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141302 ] |
Fr, 30 September 2005 14:57 |
|
"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:jennconducts-472EE7.07231828092005 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <MVu_e.288051$E95.272853 [at] fed1read01>,
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jennconducts-608CD5.15444727092005 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>> > In article <smh_e.287782$E95.58920 [at] fed1read01>,
>> > "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> "Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:jennconducts-4AFD52.15462126092005 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>> >> > In article <7zYZe.282094$E95.66971 [at] fed1read01>,
>> >> > "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> The purpose of marriage is child procreation and child nurturing.
>> >> > According to whom?
>> >> The whole course of history, worldwide.
>> > Were that true, those who chose to not have children would be forbidden from engaging in it.
>> Everyone assumes that those who marry, man and woman, will at some point gravitate toward having kids.
> Not "everyone" obviously, including those couple who chose not to have kids.
Those people had that choice forced upon them. They wanted children but for some reason were unsuccessful.
>> Why do you think there are persistent questions raised by the entertainment media echoing
>> public concerns about Hollywood Marriages like Pitt-Aniston etc which fail to produce any children ?
> You're basing your argument on the gossip pages? lol
Often times those gossip rags do more determined Investigative Reporting than what is claimed to be the 'straight Press'.
>> >> >> This intent of marriage predates all forms of religion. If that is not
>> >> >> a couple's intent, then they should not besmirch the idea of marriage with their behavior.
>> >> > My uncle and aunt are besmirching marriage? Who knew.
>> >> It is rare that a man and woman marry without any intention of children
>> >> being in their home.
>> > 1. It's not that rare. As of 1995, over 6% of married women of child
>> > bearing age were childless by choice, and the number is increasing.
>> > 2. Your statement is beside the point. You are stating that my uncle
>> > and aunt are "besmirching marriage." I strongly disagree.
>> Where is the URL for this study that you claim ?
>> You are claiming a study states that 6% of married women have chosen to
>> remain childless
>> for their whole marriage, as long as it goes ?
> I'll be happy to post the URL right after you post the one that sttes that
> "everyone assumes that those who marry, man and woman, will at some point gravitate toward having kids."
Actually it is pretty well known that one ground for divorce or annulment of a marriage
is that the marriage was never consummated. Sexual relations between the man and woman
parties to the marriage indicated clearly that they were intent on the procreation and
nurturing of children, which was a requirement before the society or church would
consecrate the marriage.
There is no way two homosexuals can perform a procreative act together.
It should be noted that they had no condoms or contraceptive pills in antiquity.
Marriage consummation sex normally meant imminent pregnancy.
====================================================
http://www.byu.edu/ipt/projects/middleages/LifeTimes/Marriag eCustoms.html
Marriages (in England, at least) were often performed at the church door, after which the couple
would proceed inside to hear Mass. But the sacrament was not completed until the marriage was
consummated (non-consummation was always grounds for a dissolution).
====================================================
The following is an excerpt of the description of Ancient Roman marriage ceremony described in the Oxford Classical Dictionary
which section is based on the accounts written by Plutarch, who wrote somewhere around 80 A.D.
====================================================
"...There followed the wedding feast, usually at the expense of the bridegroom. The most important
part of the ceremony then took place: the bride was escorted in procession to the bridegroom's house (deductio),
closely accompanied by three young boys, whither the bridegroom had already gone to welcome her.
The bridegroom carried her over the threshold to avert an ill-omened stumble; in the house she touched fire and water,
was taken to the bedchamber where she was undressed by univirae (women who had known only one husband),
and the bridegroom was admitted. Meanwhile an epithalamium might be sung."
====================================================
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141303 ] |
Fr, 30 September 2005 15:29 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> "Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:jennconducts-472E=
E7.07231828092005 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <MVu_e.288051$E95.272853 [at] fed1read01>,
> > "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:jennconducts-608CD5.15444727092005 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> >> > In article <smh_e.287782$E95.58920 [at] fed1read01>,
> >> > "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:jennconducts-4AFD52.15462126092005 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.co=
m=2E..
> >> >> > In article <7zYZe.282094$E95.66971 [at] fed1read01>,
> >> >> > "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> The purpose of marriage is child procreation and child nurturing.
> >> >> > According to whom?
> >> >> The whole course of history, worldwide.
> >> > Were that true, those who chose to not have children would be forbid=
den from engaging in it.
> >> Everyone assumes that those who marry, man and woman, will at some poi=
nt gravitate toward having kids.
> > Not "everyone" obviously, including those couple who chose not to have =
kids.
>
> Those people had that choice forced upon them. They wanted children but =
for some reason were unsuccessful.
>
> >> Why do you think there are persistent questions raised by the entertai=
nment media echoing
> >> public concerns about Hollywood Marriages like Pitt-Aniston etc which =
fail to produce any children ?
> > You're basing your argument on the gossip pages? lol
>
> Often times those gossip rags do more determined Investigative Reporting =
than what is claimed to be the 'straight Press'.
>
> >> >> >> This intent of marriage predates all forms of religion. If that=
is not
> >> >> >> a couple's intent, then they should not besmirch the idea of mar=
riage with their behavior.
> >> >> > My uncle and aunt are besmirching marriage? Who knew.
> >> >> It is rare that a man and woman marry without any intention of chil=
dren
> >> >> being in their home.
> >> > 1. It's not that rare. As of 1995, over 6% of married women of chi=
ld
> >> > bearing age were childless by choice, and the number is increasing.
> >> > 2. Your statement is beside the point. You are stating that my unc=
le
> >> > and aunt are "besmirching marriage." I strongly disagree.
> >> Where is the URL for this study that you claim ?
> >> You are claiming a study states that 6% of married women have chosen to
> >> remain childless
> >> for their whole marriage, as long as it goes ?
> > I'll be happy to post the URL right after you post the one that sttes t=
hat
> > "everyone assumes that those who marry, man and woman, will at some poi=
nt gravitate toward having kids."
>
> Actually it is pretty well known that one ground for divorce or annulment=
of a marriage
> is that the marriage was never consummated. Sexual relations between the =
man and woman
> parties to the marriage indicated clearly that they were intent on the pr=
ocreation and
> nurturing of children, which was a requirement before the society or chur=
ch would
> consecrate the marriage.
> There is no way two homosexuals can perform a procreative act together.
> It should be noted that they had no condoms or contraceptive pills in ant=
iquity.
> Marriage consummation sex normally meant imminent pregnancy.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
> http://www.byu.edu/ipt/projects/middleages/LifeTimes/Marriag eCustoms.html
>
> Marriages (in England, at least) were often performed at the church door,=
after which the couple
> would proceed inside to hear Mass. But the sacrament was not completed un=
til the marriage was
> consummated (non-consummation was always grounds for a dissolution).
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
>
>
> The following is an excerpt of the description of Ancient Roman marriage =
ceremony described in the Oxford Classical Dictionary
> which section is based on the accounts written by Plutarch, who wrote som=
ewhere around 80 A.D.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
> "...There followed the wedding feast, usually at the expense of the bride=
groom. The most important
> part of the ceremony then took place: the bride was escorted in processio=
n to the bridegroom's house (deductio),
> closely accompanied by three young boys, whither the bridegroom had alrea=
dy gone to welcome her.
> The bridegroom carried her over the threshold to avert an ill-omened stum=
ble; in the house she touched fire and water,
> was taken to the bedchamber where she was undressed by univirae (women wh=
o had known only one husband),
> and the bridegroom was admitted. Meanwhile an epithalamium might be sung."
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
If you'd like to discuss the history of marriage and its relations to
both christianity and homosexuality, feel free .... for example:
*******************
Liberated Christians
PO Box 32835, Phoenix Az 85064-2835
Promoting Intimacy and Other-Centered Sexuality
COPYRIGHTED 1998 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - MAY BE REPRINTED OR QUOTED FROM
ONLY IF CREDIT IS GIVEN LIBERATED CHRISTIANS, MAILING ADDRESS IS SHOWN
AND WE ARE SENT A COPY OF PUBLICATION.
Irish Times, August 11, 1998
Dublin, Ireland
When Marriage Between Gays Was a Rite
As the churches struggle with the issue of homosexuality, a long
tradition of gay marriage indicates that the Christian attitude towards
same sex unions may not always have been as "straight" as is now
suggested, writes Jim Duffy.
Opinion: Rite and Reason
by Jim Duffy
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's
monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between
them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a
standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the
icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband
and wife" are in fact two men.
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified
by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer
comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St.
Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not
unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly
close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we
should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in
life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of
their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and
lover" of St. Bacchus.
In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they
were a homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was openly
accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to
some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has
Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their
"marriage".
The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet
after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives
Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of
Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set
in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as
a ritual.
Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage
ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate
from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land)
were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex
Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men"
(11th and 12th century).
These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a
community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the
altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the
participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding
banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of
the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his
companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in
the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales
(Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.
Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union
ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th
century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St.
Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy
servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not
cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy
Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they
shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union",
uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands
laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands.
Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each
other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would
give them both communion.
Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as
those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in
Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the
first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653)
includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.
While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it
was only from about the 14th century that antihomosexual feelings swept
western Europe. Yet same sex unions continued to take place.
At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in
1578 a many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent
cooperation of the local clergy, "taking communion together, using the
same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together",
according to a contemporary report.
Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th
century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been
made by some recent writers in this newspaper.
Boswell's academic study however is so well researched and sourced as
to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and
heterosexual Christians about their attitudes towards homosexuality.
For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a
cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern
church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards
homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.
It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches
and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in
the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as
valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another
person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in
the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.
Jim Duffy is a writer and historian.
Copyright =A9 1998, Liberated Christians, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141307 ] |
Fr, 30 September 2005 18:20 |
|
"The Watch Dog" <tirhuan [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1127697951.287622.39940 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> BYTE ME! wrote:
>> However, it is obvious from the IMDB listing that he has
>> > no children after 25 years with this one women.
>> > Most wealthy and committed heterosexuals would have sought fruits from a relationship
>> > with another woman by now.
>> How do you know it was a choice? You just pull shit out of the air to
>> suit your paranoid imaginings.
> You miss his point. Any "wealthy and committed heterosexual" should
> ABANDON HIS WIFE if she proves unable to have children, and seek out
> "fruits" with another woman. Although in this case the man MAY have
> illegitimate children we don't know about, so that would be all right.
> By the way, if a couple can't have children, it's always the woman's
> fault, unless the husband isn't REALLY a "committed heterosexual."
It seems to be a real indicator of the perversions of our times that any number of people
could possibly consider the institution of marriage to have as its prime purpose
simply the provision of a stable sexual partner.
============================================================
Actually it is pretty well known that one ground for divorce or annulment of a marriage
is that the marriage was never consummated. Sexual relations between the man and woman
parties to the marriage indicated clearly that they were intent on the procreation and
nurturing of children, which was a requirement before the society or church would
consecrate the marriage.
There is no way two homosexuals can perform a procreative act together.
It should be noted that they had no condoms or contraceptive pills in antiquity.
Marriage consummation sex normally meant imminent pregnancy.
====================================================
http://www.byu.edu/ipt/projects/middleages/LifeTimes/Marriag eCustoms.html
Marriages (in England, at least) were often performed at the church door, after which the couple
would proceed inside to hear Mass. But the sacrament was not completed until the marriage was
consummated (non-consummation was always grounds for a dissolution).
====================================================
The following is an excerpt of the description of Ancient Roman marriage ceremony described in the Oxford Classical Dictionary
which section is based on the accounts written by Plutarch, who wrote somewhere around 80 A.D.
====================================================
"...There followed the wedding feast, usually at the expense of the bridegroom. The most important
part of the ceremony then took place: the bride was escorted in procession to the bridegroom's house (deductio),
closely accompanied by three young boys, whither the bridegroom had already gone to welcome her.
The bridegroom carried her over the threshold to avert an ill-omened stumble; in the house she touched fire and water,
was taken to the bedchamber where she was undressed by univirae (women who had known only one husband),
and the bridegroom was admitted. Meanwhile an epithalamium might be sung."
====================================================
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141308 ] |
Fr, 30 September 2005 18:22 |
|
"Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message news:IyB_e.276607$Hk.62085 [at] pd7tw1no...
> "Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jennconducts-608CD5.15444727092005 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> Sorry, troll feeders must join the troll
> Qa ' PLONK
> Kweeg
================================================
As anyone can see from the conflict which has been going on here on this
alt.battlestar-galactica Usenet Newsgroup, Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-
Conservatives are desperate on this public forums to spread their propaganda
and to censor anyone who would disagree with them.
Their goals are mainly to spread support for: 1) Homosexuality on your TV in
the Movies to you and your kids, and 2) Hate for Arabs/Moslems and support
the war effort to con Americans to abuse its military might to massacre
100,000's of defenseless Arabs/Moslems.
Many of these people working on these Newsgroups are obviously paid Hollywood
Homosexual Neo-Conservative public relations workers.
Thus, if you go to a "moderated" forum, you may well find that no conflict, as
is ongoing here, exists. But why ? It is because those Hollywood Homosexuals
"moderated" Blogs and Web 'Fan' Sites are able to Ban people that disagree with
them from the site and Delete any messages posted by such people. Of course
such behavior is Censorship. So what does this mean ?
It means that whatever you read on such public forums is Not the truth and is
controlled by Hollywood Homosexual interests in a self-serving manner so that
criticism of the goals they really care about is eliminated. Thus you are not
reading the truth on any such public forums.
The only public forum that more or less grants full Free Speech is the Usenet
Newsgroups. While you may have to tolerate insipid behavior by some people
engaging in name-calling, swearwords, epithets etc, (usually by these very same
Hollywood Homosexual paid hacks) you always know that anyone who is determined
to post the Truth on a Usenet Newsgroup can do so, with no fear that they will
be Banned from the forum and their messages Deleted. Me, I like to go where I
can find the Truth; I do not care what else is going on there.
========================================
========================================
As I have stated, the BSG public relations hacks working on this Newsgroup are
desperate to put out the fire, any way that can be accomplished. 1) Insults,
threats and other attempts to intimidate me did not work. 2) False Complaints
to my ISP did not work. 3) Now, the only other choice they have is to exploit
the weakness and loneliness of the few true viewers of the BSG series who are
left here leveraging their fake friendship with those left as a bargaining chip
to dissuade them from responding to my messages.
Generally in situations like this the people who are left on these Newsgroups
after all of these personal attack campaigns have succumbed to the attacks and
have been co-opted by the BSG public relations hacks, sheep to herded whichever
way the BSG Hollywood Homosexual hacks lead.
These BSG HH hacks threaten Newsgroup members, claiming they will not converse
with anyone who criticizes BSG, or anyone else who converses with anyone who
criticizes the BSG series. The joke is: why would anyone want to converse with
anyone whose sole job on this Newsgroup is to support BSG and sell BSG related
products, like DVDs ?
And those wealthy fatcat BSG Hollywood Homosexuals make their living off
chumps/stooges. You think these fatcats are going to specially stop off their
private jet, chauffeur to your house, shake your hand and thank you for
defending their right to pervert you and your kid ? You are just another piece
of trash to be manipulated and run over as far as they are concerned.
When I express my free speech on the Scifi web site, they Ban me from their
forum. Get the message what they think about your right to free speech ?
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141309 ] |
Fr, 30 September 2005 18:59 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> "manitou" <manitou910 [at] rogers.com> wrote in message news:28OdnWkib6Vtg6beRVn-qw [at] rogers.com...
>
>>John Shocked wrote:
>>
>>>What that scene made clear is that Apollo was not interested in heterosexual sex.
>>>At that very moment, it is clear that the BSG Hollywood Homosexuals wanted to present
>>>Apollo and remaining true to Zerak.
>>
>>Huh?
>>When Lee/Apollo realizes Starbuck has slept with Baltar, he is conspicuously jealous.
>>C.
>
>
> As I have presented here, it is the goal of BSG Hollywood Homosexuals to present homosexuality
> as superior or at least equal to heterosexuality, as a sexual lifestyle choice, on moral grounds.
> In the exchange you mention, nowhere does Apollo claim that he loves or wants to be with Starbuck.
> This carefully constructed dialogue is in fact presenting his lifestyle choice of Sodomy, with Zerak,
> as more pure and monogamous than the fleeting sexual relationships of Starbuck that he recounts.
>
> What you do not understand is that when you watched the following scene, because your mind was
> not strong enough to recognize consciously that Apollo is playing a closet homosexual in this BSG series,
> you thought consciously that this was Apollo acting as a jealous suitor to Starbuck,
> but your Subconscious recognized and was impacted directly by the true intent of this scene
> which is to present Apollo's homosexuality as superior on moral grounds to Starbuck's heterosexuality.
> Keep in mind also that Starbuck's fraternization is against military code, which makes this Apollo's business,
> as her superior officer.
>
> I know this is complicated and it takes a strong logical mind to recognize what is happening here,
> but think of it this way: Your kids' minds and lives are at stake.
> You have to figure this out.
>
>
Typical straight hogwosh.
To demonstrate how pathetic your logic is, just look at all the gay guys
who have grown up in a society that is mostly heterosexual. From the
time they are born they receive 'subliminal' messages constantly about
the normal way to act between men and women. Has that changed them into
straight guys? NO!
What you watch on tv will not change or affect your sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation comes from within.
Use your "strong logical mind" and stop this stupid propaganda.
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141318 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 02:23 |
|
"michael james" <cadlib_ [at] videotron.ca> wrote in message news:Z9e%e.3472$is5.108839 [at] wagner.videotron.net...
> John Shocked wrote:
>> "manitou" <manitou910 [at] rogers.com> wrote in message news:28OdnWkib6Vtg6beRVn-qw [at] rogers.com...
>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>What that scene made clear is that Apollo was not interested in heterosexual sex.
>>>>At that very moment, it is clear that the BSG Hollywood Homosexuals wanted to present
>>>>Apollo and remaining true to Zerak.
>>>Huh?
>>>When Lee/Apollo realizes Starbuck has slept with Baltar, he is conspicuously jealous.
>>>C.
>> As I have presented here, it is the goal of BSG Hollywood Homosexuals to present homosexuality
>> as superior or at least equal to heterosexuality, as a sexual lifestyle choice, on moral grounds.
>> In the exchange you mention, nowhere does Apollo claim that he loves or wants to be with Starbuck.
>> This carefully constructed dialogue is in fact presenting his lifestyle choice of Sodomy, with Zerak,
>> as more pure and monogamous than the fleeting sexual relationships of Starbuck that he recounts.
>>
>> What you do not understand is that when you watched the following scene, because your mind was
>> not strong enough to recognize consciously that Apollo is playing a closet homosexual in this BSG series,
>> you thought consciously that this was Apollo acting as a jealous suitor to Starbuck,
>> but your Subconscious recognized and was impacted directly by the true intent of this scene
>> which is to present Apollo's homosexuality as superior on moral grounds to Starbuck's heterosexuality.
>> Keep in mind also that Starbuck's fraternization is against military code, which makes this Apollo's business,
>> as her superior officer.
>>
>> I know this is complicated and it takes a strong logical mind to recognize what is happening here,
>> but think of it this way: Your kids' minds and lives are at stake.
>> You have to figure this out.
> Typical straight hogwosh.
> To demonstrate how pathetic your logic is, just look at all the gay guys who have grown up in a society that is mostly
> heterosexual. From the time they are born they receive 'subliminal' messages constantly about the normal way to act between men
> and women. Has that changed them into straight guys? NO!
> What you watch on tv will not change or affect your sexual orientation.
> Sexual orientation comes from within.
> Use your "strong logical mind" and stop this stupid propaganda.
The most important Sodomy corrupting influence on a child comes from adults around him.
Defending himself against those paederast adults around him is critical to a child resisting this
disgusting life.
The purpose of Sodomy on TV in BSG is to break down the normal resistance that you and your kids
would have to homosexual advances from predators which are running around the country trying
to pervert your kid to Sodomy, by selling you and your kid on the idea that 'Sodomy's OK'.
===========================================================
Britain has a similar problem to Hollywood and there is an intermingling of the two,
Elton John and Jonathan King, for instance.
============================================================ ===
Sodomy and Paedophilia/Pedophilia in the entertainment business is not new; just the audacity and
aggression of its perpetrators against you and your kids has increased dramatically in recent years. In
fact, Sodomy has often been a Rite Of Passage before a deserving (or undeserving) musician could receive
an opportunity to record a song and have it heard on the radio and sold in the music store.
Jonathan King was a huge pop music star and producer in England in the late 60's and early 70's who went
on to have his own TV show and then finally, 20 years after the criminal acts he committed, the truth and
evidence caught up with him.
But have the intentions of King and other Hollywood Homosexuals toward your kids changed ?
We report, you decide.
=================================================
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,603064,00.htm l
Jonathan King jailed for child sex abuse
· Star used celebrity to exploit boys · King sentenced to seven years · Pop mogul to appeal
Staff and agencies Wednesday November 21, 2001
Jonathan King
Pop mogul Jonathan King was today sentenced to seven years in prison after being convicted of molesting
schoolboys. Judge David Paget told a pale and shaken King that he had used his position in the pop world
to seduce young boys.
Judge Paget said: "This was a serious breach of trust. You used your fame and success to attract
adolescent and impressionable boys. "You then abused the trust they and their parents placed in you."
=================================================
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141323 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 05:25 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:Ak3%e.67234$o=
11.11786 [at] fe01.news.easynews.com...
>>John Shocked wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>Most of the fatcats are, but all people working in Hollywood have to d=
emonstrate support for the
>>>homosexual agenda in one way or another.
>>
>>How the fuck would you know, have you ever even been to Hollywood? The=
y probably won't let you out of the nuthouse long enough for=20
>>you to visit anywhere.
>=20
>=20
> I have no interest in Hollywood other than watching it on TV.
While you jack off no doubt.
--=20
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none=20
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant=20
to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called=20
Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too =
inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only =
atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of=20
despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far=20
as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or=20
hereafter. =96Thomas Paine
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141324 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 05:30 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message news:IyB_e.276607$Hk.62=
085 [at] pd7tw1no...
>=20
>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:jennconducts-608CD5.15444727092005 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...=
>>Sorry, troll feeders must join the troll
>>Qa ' PLONK
>>Kweeg
>=20
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D
> As anyone can see=20
Nobody sees any of that except you, so it is your delusional mind at=20
work, nothing else.
>=20
> As I have stated, the BSG public relations hacks working on this Newsgr=
oup
If were any, it would be you trying to drum up viewers with promises of=20
sodomy on the show where in reality none exists.
> Generally in situations like this the people who are left on these News=
groups
> after all of these personal attack campaigns have succumbed to the atta=
cks and
> have been co-opted by the BSG public relations hacks, sheep to herded w=
hichever
> way the BSG Hollywood Homosexual hacks lead.
>=20
Get a clue, the vast majority of the public does not even know of the=20
existence of usenet.
>=20
>=20
--=20
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none=20
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant=20
to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called=20
Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too =
inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only =
atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of=20
despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far=20
as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or=20
hereafter. =96Thomas Paine
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141327 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 07:16 |
|
>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:Dkn%e.81784$o11.47048 [at] fe01.news.easynews.com...
>John Shocked wrote:
>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:Ak3%e.67234$o11.11786 [at] fe01.news.easynews.com...
>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>Most of the fatcats are, but all people working in Hollywood have to demonstrate support for the
>>>>homosexual agenda in one way or another.
>>>How the fuck would you know, have you ever even been to Hollywood? They probably won't let you out of the nuthouse long enough
>>>for you to visit anywhere.
>> I have no interest in Hollywood other than watching it on TV.
>While you jack off no doubt.
More nonsense.
============================================================
>> That content is disgusting and should be Banned by the US Congress,
> Oh, sure, they'll start telling the producers not to add content which has
> never been part of the series. Riiiiiiight. That's crazed in so many
> different ways, I can't begin to list them all.
Everyone on this Newsgroup, knows that there is Sodomy symbolism in Battlestar Galactica.
>> right after the US Congress passes a statute to prohibit the US Supreme Court
>> from making any further decisions claiming to 'interpret' the First Amendment.
> Interpreting the amendments is the SCOTUS' _job_, you clown, because the
> first ten were written in the 18th century, when a lot of things were very different.
The US Constitution states explicitly that the US Congress makes all US federal laws.
The US Supreme Court is described as an agent of Congress to Carry Out Congress's laws.
The US Supreme Court is not even hinted to possess any greater powers than that.
The only reason the US Supreme Court has aggregated these extra powers, is because
overwhelmingly, most legislators are attorneys and like super-powered judges and
the News Media receive payoffs in the form of illegal expansions of their First Amendment rights
to sell Sodomy to you and your kids and to mislead the public about the Middle East,
making Israel appear innocent, when in fact Israel started the terrorism with Mass Murders
of Palestinians in 1948 in Palestinian townships like Yassin, in which 100's of Palestinian
men, women and children were machine gunned to death.
This occurred just months after the 1947 United Nation Partition of Palestine declaration
in which Israel given their land and the surrounding Arab/Moslem nations were willing to
live in peace with the Israelis.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141328 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 07:43 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:Dkn%e.81784$o=
11.47048 [at] fe01.news.easynews.com...
>>John Shocked wrote:
>>
>>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:Ak3%e.67234=
$o11.11786 [at] fe01.news.easynews.com...
>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>Most of the fatcats are, but all people working in Hollywood have to=
demonstrate support for the
>>>>>homosexual agenda in one way or another.
>>>>
>>>>How the fuck would you know, have you ever even been to Hollywood? T=
hey probably won't let you out of the nuthouse long enough=20
>>>>for you to visit anywhere.
>>>
>>>I have no interest in Hollywood other than watching it on TV.
>>
>>While you jack off no doubt.
>=20
>=20
> More nonsense.
>=20
Yes more nonsense from you.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>=20
>=20
> Everyone on this Newsgroup, knows that there is Sodomy symbolism in Bat=
tlestar Galactica.
>=20
Everyone on this newsgroup and every other newsgroup you spam knows that =
there is no sodomy in battlestar galactica. You are the ONLY PERSON to=20
say that there is.
> The US Constitution states explicitly that the US Congress makes all US=
federal laws.
> The US Supreme Court is described as an agent of Congress to Carry Out =
Congress's laws.
> The US Supreme Court is not even hinted to possess any greater powers t=
han that.
The US Constitution gives most power to the states and people. The=20
federal government in general only has the right to make laws that=20
effect interstate commerce and few other areas that were specifically=20
granted to the federal government.
>=20
> The only reason the US Supreme Court has aggregated these extra powers,=
is because
> overwhelmingly, most legislators are attorneys and like super-powered j=
udges and
> the News Media receive payoffs in the form of illegal expansions of the=
ir First Amendment rights
> to sell Sodomy to you and your kids and to mislead the public about the=
Middle East,
> making Israel appear innocent, when in fact Israel started the terroris=
m with Mass Murders
> of Palestinians in 1948 in Palestinian townships like Yassin, in which =
100's of Palestinian
> men, women and children were machine gunned to death.
No one is selling sodomy. The courts do have the authority to rein in=20
the out of control congress.
You are delusional as usual.
>=20
--=20
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none=20
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant=20
to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called=20
Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too =
inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only =
atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of=20
despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far=20
as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or=20
hereafter. =96Thomas Paine
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141329 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 09:03 |
|
>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:Ipn%e.81852$o11.60142 [at] fe01.news.easynews.com...
>John Shocked wrote:
>> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message news:IyB_e.276607$Hk.62085 [at] pd7tw1no...
>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:jennconducts-608CD5.15444727092005 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>>>Sorry, troll feeders must join the troll
>>>Qa ' PLONK
>>>Kweeg
>> ================================================
>> As anyone can see
>Nobody sees any of that except you, so it is your delusional mind at work, nothing else.
Every reasonable person here knows what I have described is true.
However, most of those reasonable people who are here have been sent here and
many paid to be here by BSG Hollywood Homosexuals.
>> As I have stated, the BSG public relations hacks working on this Newsgroup
>If were any, it would be you trying to drum up viewers with promises of sodomy on the show where in reality none exists.
Sodomy on BSG would drive viewers away. That is why the BSG Hollywood Homosexuals
have to be careful and use subliminal symbolisms to gradually present Sodomy to you and your kids.
>> Generally in situations like this the people who are left on these Newsgroups
>> after all of these personal attack campaigns have succumbed to the attacks and
>> have been co-opted by the BSG public relations hacks, sheep to be herded whichever
>> way the BSG Hollywood Homosexual hacks lead.
>Get a clue, the vast majority of the public does not even know of the existence of usenet.
Most people who are not on the Internet are simply ignored by current day society.
You have to express your views on the Internet if you want to exist nowadays.
If you allow Hollywood Homosexuals public relations hacks to speak for you here,
then you let them know they can manipulate you like just another piece of trash.
They like that.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141334 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 15:48 |
|
"Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050928084757.7612I-100000 [at] mail...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, John Shocked wrote:
>> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050927064458.22040F-100000 [at] mail...
>> > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, John Shocked wrote:
>> >> "Diane L" <diane [at] lindquist.plus.com> wrote in message news:4338376f$0$16335$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>> >> > John Shocked wrote:
>> >> >> "manitou" <manitou910 [at] rogers.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:U9GdnWJB_IoMWKveRVn-ig [at] rogers.com...
>> >> >>> John Shocked wrote:
>> >> >>>> "manitou" <manitou910 [at] rogers.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>>> news:ecGdnR3LheOpaKjeRVn-qA [at] rogers.com...
>> >> >>>>> Stephen Fairchild wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> John Shocked wrote:
>> >> >>>>> [snip]
>> >> >>>>>> John, John. He had her up that way around just to annoy *you*. :)
>> >> >>>>> Plus..., if you check out the new DVD bonus features, Jamie Bamber
>> >> >>>>> quotes an email from a fan who explicitly requests a gay
>> >> >>>>> relationship on the show.
>> >> >>>> Sounds like Bamber is referring to the homosexual lobby which has
>> >> >>>> been aggressively campaigning for homosexual characters to be cast specifically in science
>> >> >>>> fiction TV series for the past 20 years. They finally gained
>> >> >>>> control of the Star Trek series at the end of 1991 when Gene
>> >> >>>> Roddenberry died and Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman took over and
>> >> >>>> started that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine genderbending trill "Old Man Dax" inside woman [actress] Terry Farrell Jadzia's
>> >> >>>> body
>> >> >>>> Sodomy crap.
>> >> >>> How do you know Berman is gay?
>> >> >>> According to www.IMDb.com he's been married to the same woman since
>> >> >>> 1980. C.
>> >> >> I did not say Berman was a homosexual. As I have stated several
>> >> >> times here, most but not all Hollywood Homosexuals are homosexual. However, it is obvious from the
>> >> >> IMDB listing that he has no children after 25 years with this one women. Most wealthy and committed
>> >> >> heterosexuals would have sought fruits from a relationship with another woman by now.
>> >> > Because, of course, in your world no one marries for love. People marry only to have children who can then give them
>> >> > grandchildren. Anyone who is unmarried or married without children is obviously a homosexual
>> >> > (although this does not necessarily involved having sex with or even being attracted to members of their own sex).
>> >> The purpose of marriage is child procreation and child nurturing.
>> > Are childless couples married? What if a married couple is
>> > incapable of having children and don't want to adopt--are they married?
>> They certainly had the intent to have children so they were simply unlucky.
> Don't dodge the question--are they married? Should they be allowed to be married?
Adoption has nothing to do with the intent of marriage. Couples should focus on having their
own children and it is hard to imagine how couples could fail to have kids nowadays with
today's science and medicine.
>> >> This intent of marriage predates all forms of religion.
>> >> If that is not a couple's intent, then they should not besmirch the idea of marriage
>> >> with their behavior. Why should society consecrate two people, or a person and an animal, who are
>> >> merely intent on having sex, homosex, or bestialsex ?
>> > I take it that the concept of "love" is beyond you? How sad.
>> > BTW, sex between a person and an animal is animal abuse (since the
>> > animal cannot give consent). Why do anti-gay types always seem to throw
>> > bestiality into the mix--does it secretly turn you on the way sodomy does?
>> Why not.
> Because it's dishonest--I've never heard of a supporter of gay
> rights also supporting bestiality. If you have, post their names and any
> references to such statements or stop lying about it (John Shocked, stop lying? Yeah, right!).
> Unnatural is unnatural. The main difference between the two is that there has yet to be
Sodomy is just as unnatural and deviant as bestiality.
Natural's not in it.
>> a major TV campaign proselytizing that "Bestial sex with animals is OK."
> So stop connecting bestiality with homosexuality or be revealed as the liar that you are (oops, too late).
Sodomy is just as unnatural and deviant as bestiality.
Natural's not in it.
There simply has not been a pro-bestiality campaign in the media and movies yet.
They have not finished with the Sodomy campaign yet, but that campaign is just around the corner and BSG,
which features humans having bestialsex with non-humans may be the first cannon fire in that battle.
>> What does childless claims of "love" have to do with the state and society ?
> Stable couples are good for society--why does it matter why they are couples?
Rubbish. Stable couples are good for children. It is that union, of a man and a woman who seek
to add children to the state/society's population, which is worthy of the state/society's consecration.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141335 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 15:49 |
|
"Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message news:8xB_e.6888$tl2.3111 [at] pd7tw3no...
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050928084757.7612I-100000 [at] mail...
> Sorry, troll feeders must join the troll
> Qa ' PLONK
> Kweeg
================================================
As anyone can see from the conflict which has been going on here on this
alt.battlestar-galactica Usenet Newsgroup, Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-
Conservatives are desperate on this public forums to spread their propaganda
and to censor anyone who would disagree with them.
Their goals are mainly to spread support for: 1) Homosexuality on your TV in
the Movies to you and your kids, and 2) Hate for Arabs/Moslems and support
the war effort to con Americans to abuse its military might to massacre
100,000's of defenseless Arabs/Moslems.
Many of these people working on these Newsgroups are obviously paid Hollywood
Homosexual Neo-Conservative public relations workers.
Thus, if you go to a "moderated" forum, you may well find that no conflict, as
is ongoing here, exists. But why ? It is because those Hollywood Homosexuals
"moderated" Blogs and Web 'Fan' Sites are able to Ban people that disagree with
them from the site and Delete any messages posted by such people. Of course
such behavior is Censorship. So what does this mean ?
It means that whatever you read on such public forums is Not the truth and is
controlled by Hollywood Homosexual interests in a self-serving manner so that
criticism of the goals they really care about is eliminated. Thus you are not
reading the truth on any such public forums.
The only public forum that more or less grants full Free Speech is the Usenet
Newsgroups. While you may have to tolerate insipid behavior by some people
engaging in name-calling, swearwords, epithets etc, (usually by these very same
Hollywood Homosexual paid hacks) you always know that anyone who is determined
to post the Truth on a Usenet Newsgroup can do so, with no fear that they will
be Banned from the forum and their messages Deleted. Me, I like to go where I
can find the Truth; I do not care what else is going on there.
========================================
========================================
As I have stated, the BSG public relations hacks working on this Newsgroup are
desperate to put out the fire, any way that can be accomplished. 1) Insults,
threats and other attempts to intimidate me did not work. 2) False Complaints
to my ISP did not work. 3) Now, the only other choice they have is to exploit
the weakness and loneliness of the few true viewers of the BSG series who are
left here leveraging their fake friendship with those left as a bargaining chip
to dissuade them from responding to my messages.
Generally in situations like this the people who are left on these Newsgroups
after all of these personal attack campaigns have succumbed to the attacks and
have been co-opted by the BSG public relations hacks, sheep to herded whichever
way the BSG Hollywood Homosexual hacks lead.
These BSG HH hacks threaten Newsgroup members, claiming they will not converse
with anyone who criticizes BSG, or anyone else who converses with anyone who
criticizes the BSG series. The joke is: why would anyone want to converse with
anyone whose sole job on this Newsgroup is to support BSG and sell BSG related
products, like DVDs ?
And those wealthy fatcat BSG Hollywood Homosexuals make their living off
chumps/stooges. You think these fatcats are going to specially stop off their
private jet, chauffeur to your house, shake your hand and thank you for
defending their right to pervert you and your kid ? You are just another piece
of trash to be manipulated and run over as far as they are concerned.
When I express my free speech on the Scifi web site, they Ban me from their
forum. Get the message what they think about your right to free speech ?
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141336 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 15:53 |
|
"Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050929081103.15907F-100000 [at] mail...
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Kweeg wrote:
>> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050928084757.7612I-100000 [at] mail...
>> Sorry, troll feeders must join the troll
> Oh, no, please--anything but that...please, have mercy...how can you be so cruel...oh, the humanity...
Deviant horrific inhumanity really, when you consider this guy supports the
bringing of the male procreative organ into contact with the faeces excrement of another man
to elicit some sort of diabolical pleasure.
Can you imagine a group of people engaging in such behavior and then proudly defending it
here on a public forum. What is this world coming to ?
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141337 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 16:12 |
|
<rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> wrote in message news:1128157292.204505.146630 [at] g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
>> "The Watch Dog" <tirhuan [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1127698203.516623.62800 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > John Shocked wrote:
>> >> They finally gained control of the Star Trek series at the end of 1991 when Gene Roddenberry died
>> >> and Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman took over and started that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
>> >> genderbending trill "Old Man Dax" inside woman Terry Farrell Jadzia's body Sodomy crap
>> > Your timeline of events is way off. The very first Trill story, in ST:
>> > TNG, featured a Trill who started off in a male body, had a
>> > relationship with the ship's female doctor, then came back in a female body.
>> Your claim is worthless and not credible until you post the name of the episode and the date of airing.
>> http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/sttng.html
> How curious, episode "The Host" is described there without using the word "Trill".
> "Dr. Crusher falls in love with an alien ambassador who is much more
> than he seems. His body is merely a host which lives in a symbiotic
> relationship with a parasite-like creature - the actual being that is Odan."
> Trek and the Internet being what they are,
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Odan+Crusher bears out that Odan
> is a member of the species named after a commercial brand of birdseed mix.
My recollection is that there was no genderbending in that episode involving Dr. Crusher.
There was never any implication that she was involved with another woman.
What is more, the air date of this episode was 5/13/1991,
which would put Gene Roddenberry just a few months before his 10/24/1991 Death.
He likely was not able to monitor what Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman was
doing at that time.
> And of course
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Trill+Crush er
> gets an immediate answer.
> Indeed one is surprised that
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Trill
> finds something else first.
> (It's "Domain name renewal and affordable web hosting packages from
> Network Solutions. www.trill.com/". Trek gets #2, #3, and #6, and the birdseed is #7.)
No idea what the birdseed point is here.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141338 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 16:29 |
|
"manitou" <manitou910 [at] rogers.com> wrote in message news:H5edndJUrsKX_areRVn-vQ [at] rogers.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
>> 2) Again in the Colonial Day episode the Battlestar producers show us the side
>> of Apollo they showed us in episode 3 Bastille Day: Apollo being pulled down to
>> the ground face down, sunny side up in an Oz-like grappling with another man.
>> It should be clear now to everyone watching this series that there is a pattern
>> in showing these Oz-like scenes where it appears that Apollo is about to be
>> raped by another man. The producers of this series are desperate to show at the
>> very least the symbolism of Sodomy in the series. It is very important to them.
>> In addition, in the grappling with this other man is a freeze frame in which
>> Apollo and this same man are arm in arm, as if walking down the street or from
>> the altar, man and man.
> Well...
> I watched this earlier this evening and found this scene pretty routine. OTOH, I didn't watch it in shot-by-shot freeze frame.
> If anything, I'd expect gay viewers (closeted and non-closeted, repressed and non-repressed) were more interested in Apollo's
> topless scene in the locker room with Starbuck, his mannish female comrade.
> [It _is_ a surprise when she appears later in the episode in a cocktail dress.]
> C.
I did not say that I watched it in freeze frame and I have not done so. What I describe is what is on the
screen in normal flow of the episode, some of which a weak mind might overlook.
The general theme of the storyline is that Starbuck would be interested in Apollo, if he liked women
and showed interest in her, but he has shown no such interest throughout the series so far.
Why ? Because he is heavily involved in a closeted homosexual relationship with Tom Zerak.
He is not interested in Starbuck, Dualla or any other woman around him who has shown interest.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141342 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 18:33 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> wrote in message news:1128157292.204505.146630 [at] g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > John Shocked wrote:
> >> "The Watch Dog" <tirhuan [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1127698203.516623.62800 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >> > John Shocked wrote:
> >> >> They finally gained control of the Star Trek series at the end of 1991 when Gene Roddenberry died
> >> >> and Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman took over and started that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
> >> >> genderbending trill "Old Man Dax" inside woman Terry Farrell Jadzia's body Sodomy crap
> >> > Your timeline of events is way off. The very first Trill story, in ST:
> >> > TNG, featured a Trill who started off in a male body, had a
> >> > relationship with the ship's female doctor, then came back in a female body.
> >> Your claim is worthless and not credible until you post the name of the episode and the date of airing.
> >> http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/sttng.html
> > How curious, episode "The Host" is described there without using the word "Trill".
> > "Dr. Crusher falls in love with an alien ambassador who is much more
> > than he seems. His body is merely a host which lives in a symbiotic
> > relationship with a parasite-like creature - the actual being that is Odan."
> > Trek and the Internet being what they are,
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Odan+Crusher bears out that Odan
> > is a member of the species named after a commercial brand of birdseed mix.
>
> My recollection is that there was no genderbending in that episode involving Dr. Crusher.
> There was never any implication that she was involved with another woman.
What Watchdog said is accurate, although not a complete synopsis of the
episode. Odan turned up at the end as a woman and Crusher couldn't
feel the same about him/her, so the elements of symbiosis and
transsexualism were there in TNG. What there wasn't was girl-girl
action.
> > And of course
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Trill+Crush er
> > gets an immediate answer.
> > Indeed one is surprised that
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Trill
> > finds something else first.
> > (It's "Domain name renewal and affordable web hosting packages from
> > Network Solutions. www.trill.com/". Trek gets #2, #3, and #6, and the birdseed is #7.)
>
> No idea what the birdseed point is here.
Should there be one? Look it up.
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141344 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 20:10 |
|
<rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> wrote in message news:1128184414.454932.308060 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
>> <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> wrote in message news:1128157292.204505.146630 [at] g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > John Shocked wrote:
>> >> "The Watch Dog" <tirhuan [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1127698203.516623.62800 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > John Shocked wrote:
>> >> >> They finally gained control of the Star Trek series at the end of 1991 when Gene Roddenberry died
>> >> >> and Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman took over and started that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
>> >> >> genderbending trill "Old Man Dax" inside woman Terry Farrell Jadzia's body Sodomy crap
>> >> > Your timeline of events is way off. The very first Trill story, in ST:
>> >> > TNG, featured a Trill who started off in a male body, had a
>> >> > relationship with the ship's female doctor, then came back in a female body.
>> >> Your claim is worthless and not credible until you post the name of the episode and the date of airing.
>> >> http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/sttng.html
>> > How curious, episode "The Host" is described there without using the word "Trill".
>> > "Dr. Crusher falls in love with an alien ambassador who is much more
>> > than he seems. His body is merely a host which lives in a symbiotic
>> > relationship with a parasite-like creature - the actual being that is Odan."
>> > Trek and the Internet being what they are,
>> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Odan+Crusher bears out that Odan
>> > is a member of the species named after a commercial brand of birdseed mix.
>> My recollection is that there was no genderbending in that episode involving Dr. Crusher.
>> There was never any implication that she was involved with another woman.
> What Watchdog said is accurate, although not a complete synopsis of the
> episode. Odan turned up at the end as a woman and Crusher couldn't
> feel the same about him/her, so the elements of symbiosis and
> transsexualism were there in TNG. What there wasn't was girl-girl action.
My recollection is that there was no genderbending in that episode involving Dr. Crusher.
There was never any implication that she was involved with another woman.
What is more, the air date of this episode was 5/13/1991,
which would put Gene Roddenberry just a few months before his 10/24/1991 Death.
He likely was not able to monitor what Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman was
doing at that time.
=======================================================
There is no question Sodomy symbolism is pervasive in BSG. But they want it subtle, just like
this guy Gerrold was trying to sneak into the Star Trek script. Gene Roddenberry caught the
Sodomy reference at the last minute and fired him.
Here is an account of how one homosexual activist scriptwriter working in Hollywood fought
to pressure Gene Roddenberry into putting Sodomy into Star Trek.
Mostly in his own words, so much of it may not be true.
============================================================ =========
http://www.omnivore.org/jon/orwell/2001/Gay%20Trek/Gay%20Tre k.htm
A few months later, in late 1986, Gerrold began work on "Blood and Fire," his first -- and, as things turned
out, only -- "Next Generation" script. In the story, Captain Jean-Luc Picard and his Enterprise D answer a call
from a distressed medical research vessel. When the mission team beams over, it finds that the ship's crew is
infected with "Regulan blood worms," an apparently incurable pathogen so deadly that Starfleet Command has
ordered its officers to destroy any ship they contaminate.
Aside from its obvious reference to AIDS, the script also contained a casual nod to homosexuality. "How long
have you been together?" Commander Will Riker asks a pair of male officers who accompany him to the blood-worm-
stricken ship.
"Since the academy," one replies.
"This was during one of the worst parts of the AIDS crisis," Gerrold says. "Before protease inhibitors, before
AZT. AIDS was not a treatable condition; it was a fatal disease. And the fear of it was widespread, so much so
that blood donorship had reached critically low levels.
"On a more personal note, Michael Minor [art director for 'Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan'] and Merritt Butrick
[who played Kirk's son in the 'Star Trek' movies] were also infected."
In Gerrold's script, curing the disease required a complete blood transfusion. To treat the infected, the
worried Enterprise D crew was asked to donate blood. "I felt this plot point would raise the consciousness of 20
million 'Star Trek' fans overnight," says Gerrold. "In fact, I was hoping that we could put a card at the end of
the episode encouraging people to donate blood."
Gerrold never got a chance to lobby for that card. After a series of arguments with Roddenberry's underlings,
Gerrold quit the show, and the episode was permanently shelved. Gerrold says, half-joking, that the script got
caught up in "orifice politics."
The breakup was bitter. Roddenberry, who had sent Gerrold a telegram congratulating him on "Blood and Fire"
("Everybody loves your script"), now began badmouthing his work at "Star Trek" conventions.
"A large part of the problem was that Gene's health was failing," Gerrold says. "He didn't have the physical
strength he needed -- and he was experiencing mental lapses as well."
============================================================ ===========
Note how this last statement this homosexual activist scriptwriter makes about Gene Roddenberry after his death falls
into the category of "speaking ill of the dead" and is considered immoral. However, this is a clear cut calling card
of those supporting the homosexual agenda. I know of no other group of people which engages in that
commonly agreed upon to be immoral behavior anywhere near as often as Hollywood Homosexuals.
=======================================================
>> > And of course
>> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Trill+Crush er
>> > gets an immediate answer.
>> > Indeed one is surprised that
>> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Trill
>> > finds something else first.
>> > (It's "Domain name renewal and affordable web hosting packages from
>> > Network Solutions. www.trill.com/". Trek gets #2, #3, and #6, and the birdseed is #7.)
>> No idea what the birdseed point is here.
> Should there be one? Look it up.
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141345 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 20:19 |
|
I think John Shocked must be one of those Kansas City faggots meantioned in
"Blazing Saddles".
<rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> wrote in message
news:1128184414.454932.308060 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
>> <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:1128157292.204505.146630 [at] g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > John Shocked wrote:
>> >> "The Watch Dog" <tirhuan [at] aol.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1127698203.516623.62800 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > John Shocked wrote:
>> >> >> They finally gained control of the Star Trek series at the end of
>> >> >> 1991 when Gene Roddenberry died
>> >> >> and Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman took over and started that
>> >> >> Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
>> >> >> genderbending trill "Old Man Dax" inside woman Terry Farrell
>> >> >> Jadzia's body Sodomy crap
>> >> > Your timeline of events is way off. The very first Trill story, in
>> >> > ST:
>> >> > TNG, featured a Trill who started off in a male body, had a
>> >> > relationship with the ship's female doctor, then came back in a
>> >> > female body.
>> >> Your claim is worthless and not credible until you post the name of
>> >> the episode and the date of airing.
>> >> http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/sttng.html
>> > How curious, episode "The Host" is described there without using the
>> > word "Trill".
>> > "Dr. Crusher falls in love with an alien ambassador who is much more
>> > than he seems. His body is merely a host which lives in a symbiotic
>> > relationship with a parasite-like creature - the actual being that is
>> > Odan."
>> > Trek and the Internet being what they are,
>> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Odan+Crusher bears out that Odan
>> > is a member of the species named after a commercial brand of birdseed
>> > mix.
>>
>> My recollection is that there was no genderbending in that episode
>> involving Dr. Crusher.
>> There was never any implication that she was involved with another woman.
>
> What Watchdog said is accurate, although not a complete synopsis of the
> episode. Odan turned up at the end as a woman and Crusher couldn't
> feel the same about him/her, so the elements of symbiosis and
> transsexualism were there in TNG. What there wasn't was girl-girl
> action.
>
>> > And of course
>> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Trill+Crush er
>> > gets an immediate answer.
>> > Indeed one is surprised that
>> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Trill
>> > finds something else first.
>> > (It's "Domain name renewal and affordable web hosting packages from
>> > Network Solutions. www.trill.com/". Trek gets #2, #3, and #6, and the
>> > birdseed is #7.)
>>
>> No idea what the birdseed point is here.
>
> Should there be one? Look it up.
>
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141346 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 20:19 |
|
<pluto [at] quentincrisp.com> wrote in message news:1127775998.580224.159960 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> John Shocked says:
>> Apollo being pulled down to the ground face down, sunny side up . . .
>> grappling with another man. It should be clear now to everyone
>> watching this series that there is a pattern . . . . The producers of
>> this series are desperate to show at the very least the symbolism
>> of Sodomy in the series. It is very important to them.
> Uh, lemme get this straight. *Wrestling* is symbolic of *Sodomy" to you?
> Get thee to a psychiatrist, quick.
When was the last time you saw the hero of a show pulled to the ground face down like that ?
This is clearly Oz prison rape symbolism. and BSG Hollywood Homosexuals hope it along with
other scenes shown and planned will help turn the tide and sell Sodomy or at least the
homosexual agenda to you and your kids.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141350 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 23:01 |
|
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050928084757.7612I-100000 [at] mail...
> > On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> >> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050927064458.22040F-100000 [at] mail...
> >> > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> >> >> "Diane L" <diane [at] lindquist.plus.com> wrote in message news:4338376f$0$16335$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
> >> >> > John Shocked wrote:
> >> >> >> "manitou" <manitou910 [at] rogers.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:U9GdnWJB_IoMWKveRVn-ig [at] rogers.com...
> >> >> >>> John Shocked wrote:
> >> >> >>>> "manitou" <manitou910 [at] rogers.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >>>> news:ecGdnR3LheOpaKjeRVn-qA [at] rogers.com...
> >> >> >>>>> Stephen Fairchild wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>> John Shocked wrote:
> >> >> >>>>> [snip]
> >> >> >>>>>> John, John. He had her up that way around just to annoy *you*. :)
> >> >> >>>>> Plus..., if you check out the new DVD bonus features, Jamie Bamber
> >> >> >>>>> quotes an email from a fan who explicitly requests a gay
> >> >> >>>>> relationship on the show.
> >> >> >>>> Sounds like Bamber is referring to the homosexual lobby which has
> >> >> >>>> been aggressively campaigning for homosexual characters to be cast specifically in science
> >> >> >>>> fiction TV series for the past 20 years. They finally gained
> >> >> >>>> control of the Star Trek series at the end of 1991 when Gene
> >> >> >>>> Roddenberry died and Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman took over and
> >> >> >>>> started that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine genderbending trill "Old Man Dax" inside woman [actress] Terry Farrell Jadzia's
> >> >> >>>> body
> >> >> >>>> Sodomy crap.
> >> >> >>> How do you know Berman is gay?
> >> >> >>> According to www.IMDb.com he's been married to the same woman since
> >> >> >>> 1980. C.
> >> >> >> I did not say Berman was a homosexual. As I have stated several
> >> >> >> times here, most but not all Hollywood Homosexuals are homosexual. However, it is obvious from the
> >> >> >> IMDB listing that he has no children after 25 years with this one women. Most wealthy and committed
> >> >> >> heterosexuals would have sought fruits from a relationship with another woman by now.
> >> >> > Because, of course, in your world no one marries for love. People marry only to have children who can then give them
> >> >> > grandchildren. Anyone who is unmarried or married without children is obviously a homosexual
> >> >> > (although this does not necessarily involved having sex with or even being attracted to members of their own sex).
> >> >> The purpose of marriage is child procreation and child nurturing.
> >> > Are childless couples married? What if a married couple is
> >> > incapable of having children and don't want to adopt--are they married?
> >> They certainly had the intent to have children so they were simply unlucky.
> > Don't dodge the question--are they married? Should they be allowed to be married?
>
> Adoption has nothing to do with the intent of marriage. Couples should focus on having their
> own children and it is hard to imagine how couples could fail to have kids nowadays with
> today's science and medicine.
You said "The purpose of marriage is child procreation and child
nurturing"; I asked "Are childless couple married"?. Why is that question
so difficult for you to answer?
> >> >> This intent of marriage predates all forms of religion.
> >> >> If that is not a couple's intent, then they should not besmirch the idea of marriage
> >> >> with their behavior. Why should society consecrate two people, or a person and an animal, who are
> >> >> merely intent on having sex, homosex, or bestialsex ?
> >> > I take it that the concept of "love" is beyond you? How sad.
> >> > BTW, sex between a person and an animal is animal abuse (since the
> >> > animal cannot give consent). Why do anti-gay types always seem to throw
> >> > bestiality into the mix--does it secretly turn you on the way sodomy does?
> >> Why not.
> > Because it's dishonest--I've never heard of a supporter of gay
> > rights also supporting bestiality. If you have, post their names and any
> > references to such statements or stop lying about it (John Shocked, stop lying? Yeah, right!).
> > Unnatural is unnatural. The main difference between the two is that there has yet to be
>
> Sodomy is just as unnatural and deviant as bestiality.
That's your opinion.
> Natural's not in it.
I know you refuse to accept it, but there are cases from many
different species of homosexual relationships. Unusual? Yes? Unnatural?
Apparently not.
> >> a major TV campaign proselytizing that "Bestial sex with animals is OK."
> > So stop connecting bestiality with homosexuality or be revealed as the liar that you are (oops, too late).
>
> Sodomy is just as unnatural and deviant as bestiality.
> Natural's not in it.
> There simply has not been a pro-bestiality campaign in the media and movies yet.
> They have not finished with the Sodomy campaign yet, but that campaign is just around the corner and BSG,
> which features humans having bestialsex with non-humans may be the first cannon fire in that battle.
>
> >> What does childless claims of "love" have to do with the state and society ?
> > Stable couples are good for society--why does it matter why they are couples?
>
> Rubbish. Stable couples are good for children.
Stable couples are good for society, not just for children.
> It is that union, of a man and a woman who seek
> to add children to the state/society's population, which is worthy of the
> state/society's consecration.
You seem to be stuck on the childbearing part of couplehood. Once
again, do you think that married couples that do not have children (for
whatever reason) should be allowed to call themselves married?
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141351 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 23:03 |
|
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> "Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message news:8xB_e.6888$tl2.3111 [at] pd7tw3no...
> > "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050928084757.7612I-100000 [at] mail...
> > Sorry, troll feeders must join the troll
> > Qa ' PLONK
> > Kweeg
>
> ================================================
> As anyone can see from the conflict which has been going on here on this
> alt.battlestar-galactica Usenet Newsgroup, Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-
> Conservatives are desperate on this public forums to spread their propaganda
> and to censor anyone who would disagree with them.
Pointing out that you have no evidence for your claims, laughing at
those claims and pointing out that you want to censor TV doesn't make any of
us any of those things, John.
big snip--same shit, different day
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141352 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 00:25 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> When was the last time you saw the hero of a show pulled to the ground face down like that ?
> This is clearly Oz prison rape symbolism. and BSG Hollywood Homosexuals hope it along with
> other scenes shown and planned will help turn the tide and sell Sodomy or at least the
> homosexual agenda to you and your kids.
If anyone has asked this yet, I missed it.
How do you feel about heterosexual sodomy, analingus, fellatio and
cunnilingus inside the context of a marriage?
I'm trying to figure out if you're a bigot, repressed, or a repressed bigot.
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141354 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 04:36 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:Ipn%e.81852$o=
11.60142 [at] fe01.news.easynews.com...
>>John Shocked wrote:
>>
>>>"Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message news:IyB_e.276607$Hk.6=
2085 [at] pd7tw1no...
>>>
>>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:jennconducts-608CD5.15444727092005 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com.=
=2E.
>>>>Sorry, troll feeders must join the troll
>>>>Qa ' PLONK
>>>>Kweeg
>>>
>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>As anyone can see
>>
>>Nobody sees any of that except you, so it is your delusional mind at wo=
rk, nothing else.
>=20
>=20
> Every reasonable person here knows what I have described is true.
> However, most of those reasonable people who are here have been sent he=
re and
> many paid to be here by BSG Hollywood Homosexuals.
So are you trying to say that everyone here is unreasonable? Nobody=20
that I have seen posting here has supported your position. Why is that?
>=20
>>>As I have stated, the BSG public relations hacks working on this Newsg=
roup
>>
>>If were any, it would be you trying to drum up viewers with promises of=
sodomy on the show where in reality none exists.
>=20
>=20
> Sodomy on BSG would drive viewers away. That is why the BSG Hollywood =
Homosexuals
> have to be careful and use subliminal symbolisms to gradually present S=
odomy to you and your kids.
There are no subiminal sodomy symbolisms in BSG. None at all. Just a=20
figment of your imagination.
>=20
>>>Generally in situations like this the people who are left on these New=
sgroups
>>>after all of these personal attack campaigns have succumbed to the att=
acks and
>>>have been co-opted by the BSG public relations hacks, sheep to be herd=
ed whichever
>>>way the BSG Hollywood Homosexual hacks lead.
>>
>>Get a clue, the vast majority of the public does not even know of the e=
xistence of usenet.
>=20
>=20
> Most people who are not on the Internet are simply ignored by current d=
ay society.
> You have to express your views on the Internet if you want to exist now=
adays.
> If you allow Hollywood Homosexuals public relations hacks to speak for =
you here,
> then you let them know they can manipulate you like just another piece =
of trash.
> They like that.
>=20
Again, the average person does not even know of the existance of Usenet. =
They will never read it or reply to it, because it doesn't exist for=20
the vast majority of the public. You are wasting your time.
>=20
--=20
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none=20
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant=20
to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called=20
Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too =
inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only =
atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of=20
despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far=20
as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or=20
hereafter. =96Thomas Paine
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141356 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 06:26 |
|
>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:CIH%e.103806$o11.42567 [at] fe01.news.easynews.com...
>John Shocked wrote:
>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:Ipn%e.81852$o11.60142 [at] fe01.news.easynews.com...
>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>"Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message news:IyB_e.276607$Hk.62085 [at] pd7tw1no...
>>>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:jennconducts-608CD5.15444727092005 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>Sorry, troll feeders must join the troll
>>>>>Qa ' PLONK
>>>>>Kweeg
>>>>================================================
>>>>As anyone can see
>>>Nobody sees any of that except you, so it is your delusional mind at work, nothing else.
>> Every reasonable person here knows what I have described is true.
>> However, most of those reasonable people who are here have been sent here and
>> many paid to be here by BSG Hollywood Homosexuals.
>So are you trying to say that everyone here is unreasonable? Nobody that I have seen posting here has supported your position.
>Why is that?
Again the reasonable smart well educated people who are here are working for a living, supporting
Sodomy on TV in BSG, working for their Hollywood Homosexual public relations firm.
Do you think that if these people here were widespread out in the US that the homosexual agenda would
have lost in 11 out of 11 states in the 2004 elections and lost even in California in 2000 by overwhelming margins ?
Their appearance here is a mirage manufactured by central casting at the PR firm.
>>>>As I have stated, the BSG public relations hacks working on this Newsgroup
>>>If were any, it would be you trying to drum up viewers with promises of sodomy on the show where in reality none exists.
>> Sodomy on BSG would drive viewers away. That is why the BSG Hollywood Homosexuals
>> have to be careful and use subliminal symbolisms to gradually present Sodomy to you and your kids.
>There are no subiminal sodomy symbolisms in BSG. None at all. Just a figment of your imagination.
Rubbish. Saturday Night Live saw it. TV Guide saw it. It was obvious to all reasonable and perceptive viewers.
The rest who did not recognize it were impacted subconsciously by a pro-Sodomy message, which is
the intent of the BSG series.
>>>>Generally in situations like this the people who are left on these Newsgroups
>>>>after all of these personal attack campaigns have succumbed to the attacks and
>>>>have been co-opted by the BSG public relations hacks, sheep to be herded whichever
>>>>way the BSG Hollywood Homosexual hacks lead.
>>>Get a clue, the vast majority of the public does not even know of the existence of usenet.
>> Most people who are not on the Internet are simply ignored by current day society.
>> You have to express your views on the Internet if you want to exist nowadays.
>> If you allow Hollywood Homosexuals public relations hacks to speak for you here,
>> then you let them know they can manipulate you like just another piece of trash.
>> They like that.
>Again, the average person does not even know of the existence of Usenet. They will never read it or reply to it, because it doesn't
>exist for the vast majority of the public. You are wasting your time.
Amazing how so many people seem to think my statements here arfe important enough to Censor.
Wonder why, then.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141359 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 07:40 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:CIH%e.103806$=
o11.42567 [at] fe01.news.easynews.com...
>>John Shocked wrote:
>>
>>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:Ipn%e.81852=
$o11.60142 [at] fe01.news.easynews.com...
>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message news:IyB_e.276607$Hk=
=2E62085 [at] pd7tw1no...
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:jennconducts-608CD5.15444727092005 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.co=
m...
>>>>>>Sorry, troll feeders must join the troll
>>>>>>Qa ' PLONK
>>>>>>Kweeg
>>>>>
>>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>>>>>As anyone can see
>>>>
>>>>Nobody sees any of that except you, so it is your delusional mind at =
work, nothing else.
>>>
>>>Every reasonable person here knows what I have described is true.
>>>However, most of those reasonable people who are here have been sent h=
ere and
>>>many paid to be here by BSG Hollywood Homosexuals.
>>
>>So are you trying to say that everyone here is unreasonable? Nobody th=
at I have seen posting here has supported your position.=20
>>Why is that?
>=20
More of your bullshit spin snipped. That's all you have fantasy and=20
bullshit. Where are all the people that you say agree with you hiding?=20
They certainly aren't posting in this thread to support you.
>=20
>=20
> Rubbish. Saturday Night Live saw it. =20
Rubbish on your part. Saturday Night live is parody plain and simple.=20
Your delusion aside, they do not support your position.
>=20
> Amazing how so many people seem to think my statements here arfe import=
ant enough to Censor.
> Wonder why, then.
Who are those people? Just more figments of your imagination. First=20
censorship can only be accomplished by a government body. People who=20
are tired of you crossposting this crap that are telling you to shut the =
fuck up are just tired of your crap. That doesn't equal censorship.
Take your meds, get help!
--=20
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none=20
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant=20
to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called=20
Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too =
inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only =
atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of=20
despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far=20
as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or=20
hereafter. =96Thomas Paine
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141360 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 07:41 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HjJ%e.322136$E95.212843 [at] fed1read01...
> >"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >news:CIH%e.103806$o11.42567 [at] fe01.news.easynews.com...
> Amazing how so many people seem to think my statements here arfe important
> enough to Censor.
> Wonder why, then.
>
> Politics
Because they arent important they are idiotic, and you are an intolerant,
narcisistic, biggotted, petty minded little fuckwit.
Frankly, based on the fact that the most persistant homophobes, you cowardly
little turd, are almost without exception in fact closet gays in extreme
denial, you are obviously gay but unable to admit it to yourself.
Go play in traffic, the rest of us could do with the laugh
fozzi
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141363 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 08:57 |
|
"Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:0qK%e.4822$U51.2173 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message news:HjJ%e.322136$E95.212843 [at] fed1read01...
>> >"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:CIH%e.103806$o11.42567 [at] fe01.news.easynews.com...
>> Amazing how so many people seem to think my statements here arfe important enough to Censor.
>> Wonder why, then.
>> Politics
> Because they arent important they are idiotic, and you are an intolerant, narcisistic, biggotted, petty minded little fuckwit.
Tolerance goes as far as allowing people to engage in their own private behavior, privately.
Using this rhetoric when Hollywood Homosexuals are clearly forcing Sodomy on you and your kids
in the form of a broadcast fake science fiction TV freak show does not deserve tolerance but opposition.
> Frankly, based on the fact that the most persistant homophobes, you cowardly little turd, are almost without exception in fact
> closet gays in extreme denial, you are obviously gay but unable to admit it to yourself.
> Go play in traffic, the rest of us could do with the laugh
> fozzi
Sounds like yet another threat from those nice Hollywood Homosexual public relations people.
No wonder everyone wants to bend over backwards and award them special rights in society.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141367 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 10:05 |
|
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to The Easily Shocked Cherry:
> "Kweeg" wrote...
>
> This guy supports Sodomy on TV in BSG. It is that simple.
> That is the only reason he is here on this public forum at all.
> Everyone who wants to see Sodomy on TV in BSG should work with him to
> support that cause.
I support "Sodomy" (in the erroneous sexual definition so often misused by
bigots -- not the other defs, of course) on TV, in BSG and anywhere else --
I don't, however, expect to see it on BSG or most other American-produced
shows, aside from such as The L Word and other HBO productions, as well as
various indie movies and so on. You, Easily, may kindly return in your time
machine to the era of the Hays Office (when the homophobia ran rampant) and
fuck yourself.
--
____________________________________________________________ _______________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant Cock-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141368 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 10:15 |
|
>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:rpK%e.41516$so3.9910 [at] fe06.news.easynews.com...
>John Shocked wrote:
>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:CIH%e.103806$o11.42567 [at] fe01.news.easynews.com...
>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:Ipn%e.81852$o11.60142 [at] fe01.news.easynews.com...
>>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>>"Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message news:IyB_e.276607$Hk.62085 [at] pd7tw1no...
>>>>>>>"Jenn" <jennconducts [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:jennconducts-608CD5.15444727092005 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>Sorry, troll feeders must join the troll
>>>>>>>Qa ' PLONK
>>>>>>>Kweeg
>>>>>>================================================
>>>>>>As anyone can see
>>>>>Nobody sees any of that except you, so it is your delusional mind at work, nothing else.
>>>>Every reasonable person here knows what I have described is true.
>>>>However, most of those reasonable people who are here have been sent here and
>>>>many paid to be here by BSG Hollywood Homosexuals.
>>>So are you trying to say that everyone here is unreasonable? Nobody that I have seen posting here has supported your position.
>>>Why is that?
>More of your bullshit spin snipped. That's all you have fantasy and bullshit. Where are all the people that you say agree with
>you hiding? They certainly aren't posting in this thread to support you.
Everyoine here agrees with me. They are simply fearful of the Hollywood Homosexual public relations machine
threats being made against me and do not want that visited upon them. They are afraid.
Of course, I do not consider there is anyone here who is important enough here to limit my free expression.
>> Rubbish. Saturday Night Live saw it.
>Rubbish on your part. Saturday Night live is parody plain and simple. Your delusion aside, they do not support your position.
They clearly recognized the same thing and parodied it. Generally, parody's purpose in society is to take
something the public does not understand, usually because of some sort of deception by those involved,
and present the truth and blow it up so people can see the truth and then knife in and fight back against
those attempting to exploit them.
>> Amazing how so many people seem to think my statements here are important enough to Censor.
>> Wonder why, then.
>Who are those people? Just more figments of your imagination. First censorship can only be accomplished by a government body.
Wrong. Government Censorship can only be accomplished by a government body.
However, there are numerous private enterprises who can claim falsely that free speech is important to them
and then go right ahead and ban people from their public forums under their control with whom they disagree
and delete their messages.
>People who are tired of you crossposting this crap that are telling you to shut the fuck up are just tired of your crap. That
>doesn't equal censorship.
>Take your meds, get help!
Another hidden pharmaceutical advertisement generic product placement here:
============================================================ ========
> You apparently were not watching the same movie I was. The professor in
> "A Beautiful Mind" was NOT being helped by the drugs which were also
> causing side effects such as not being able to make love to his wife.
> He stopped taking the drugs and almost slid back into the delusions but
> decided he was capable of fighting them on his own.
Accounts of the movie I have read indicate that the Crowe professor character was described within the movie
as being cured by some newer medications in some of the dialogue. That dialogue was a false advertisement of
mind altering drugs. Advertisements hidden in movies for mind altering drugs like cigarettes is nothing new.
Congress needs to institute hearings on products being advertised in movies and then ban all of
these hidden advertisements.
============================================================ ========
http://www.namiscc.org/newsletters/February02/JohnNashDrugFr eeRecovery.htm
In the movie, Nash -- just before he receives a Nobel Prize -- speaks of taking "newer medications."
The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill has praised the film's director, Ron Howard, for showing the
"vital role of medication" in Nash's recovery. But as Sylvia Nasar notes in her biography of Nash, on which
the movie is loosely based, this brilliant mathematician stopped taking antipsychotic drugs in 1970 and slowly
recovered over two decades. Nasar concluded that Nash's refusal to take drugs "may have been fortunate"
because their deleterious effects "would have made his gentle re-entry into the world of mathematics a near impossibility."
============================================================ ========
=================================================
=================================================
Again, the symbolism in the BSG Sodomy scenes in Bastille Day and Colonial Day has only predated by the Oz HBO
prison Sodomy rape scenes. This Sodomy symbolism was the clear intent of the BSG Hollywood Homosexuals, who are
determined to sell Sodomy to you and your kids.
=================================================
The customer sees it as is the case with all subliminal visual stimuli, but does not notice the product
specifically as being specifically presented as an advertisement. It is just present in the picture. The full
quote from the document transcribed:
================================================
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=rnw85d00&f mt=gif&ref=results&title=ACTIVITY%20REPORT.&bate s=503579378/9381
"August 26, 1981
CONFIDENTIAL
-------------------
To: Laurence M.Wassong [vice-president William Esty Company
in New York, publicity man of R.J. Reynolds, concerning promotion activities
From: Warren Cowan [of Rogers and Cowan public relations firm]
Re: Activity Report
"We have been waiting for production to resume full-speed ahead in Hollywood for more than a year, and, now,
with the writers, actors and directors all working and not threaten- ing to strike, we are pleased to report
that Hollywood is back in the movie business.
With that in mind, we are making a concentrated effort to be very selective about the kinds of productions in
which we place the products. Our goal is "pleasant situations,"and we have evaluated many scripts which do not
meet our criteria for products. There are some films we have approached which we believe could be very
beneficial to our "subliminal" product campaign.
I. MOTION PICTURES
--------------------------
A) Sharkey's Machine -- Burt Reynolds stars in this Orion Pictures contemporary action drama. As you can see
by the attached stills from the film (attachments 1-3), we arranged for Burt Reynolds to enjoy Camels
throughout the film. Sharkey's Machine will be distributed by Warner Brothers on December 18."
[...numerous other movies' product placements...] "
[later in same Activity Report...]
"We are also continuing our contacts with top photographers and providing them with product, so that when the
proper situation arises, our product can be included in photo sessions.
There are many other areas that we are exploring, as well. Due to the necessity of confidentiality of this
project, we are doing this very quietly, on a one-on-one basis. "
=================================================
Here is some more information on the types of psychologists who work at advertising companies like William Esty
Agency, and their interest in controlling the future behavior of your kids.
http://fates.cns.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/watson .htm
====================================================
[John B. Watson (1878 - 1958)]
After leaving Johns Hopkins University, Watson went into the advertising business . He wanted to use his
scientific theories of behaviorism and the emotions of fear, rage, and love to improve the effects of
advertising on the "animal" or what we know as consumers. Watson began his training at J Walter Thompson Agency
with Stanley B. Resor. He became an ambassador and in 1924 he stepped up to become vice president of the
company. While he was there he also wrote and sold books about the control over human emotions. Later he moved
onto work for William Esty Agency until he retired in 1945. In 1920 he published his most famous conditioning
experiment; the "Little Albert" study in which he produced, in a small child, conditioned fear of a white rat
by repeatedly presenting it paired with the loud "clanging" of a metal bar. This conditioned fear was then
shown to generalize to other white furry objects, including a Santa mask and Watson's own white hair (Watson &
Rayner, 1920). In another well-known article (Watson, 1920), he argued that thinking -- a mental activity that
seems to involve no overt behavior -- is nothing more than subvocal speaking. He later retracted this extreme
view, however (Watson & McDougall, 1929). Although Watson's academic star burned brightly, it was destined to
be short-lived. Like his predecessor, Baldwin, he was forced to resign his chair at Hopkins because of a sex
scandal involving his assistant, Rayner. He continued to publish books on psychology--Behaviorism (1924) and
The Psychological Care of Infant and Child (1928)--but by the 1930s his main career interest had shifted to the
advertising business, and he ended his scholarly pursuits.
=====================================================
Cigarette companies have by far the biggest advertising budgets and thus can afford to hire the best
psychologists to sell Cigarettes to you and your kids.
===============================================
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/20785-6.asp
Although cigarette commercials have been banned from television for 30 years, the tobacco industry remains the
country's largest advertiser. According to the American Lung Association, the tobacco industry spent an
estimated $5.7 billion on advertising in 1997, up 10.8% or $552 million from 1996. In 1982, when cigarette
sales peaked, the industry spent an estimated $1.8 billion for advertising. Cigarette sales dropped from 632.5
billion in 1982 to 478.6 billion in 1997. Tobacco company ads are everywhere
===============================================
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141369 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 10:45 |
|
"Velvet Elvis" <NOgamboltSPAM [at] NOsofthomeSPAM.NOnetSPAM> wrote in message news:71E%e.7710$q1.817 [at] newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> John Shocked wrote:
>> When was the last time you saw the hero of a show pulled to the ground face down like that ?
>> This is clearly Oz prison rape symbolism. and BSG Hollywood Homosexuals hope it along with
>> other scenes shown and planned will help turn the tide and sell Sodomy or at least the
>> homosexual agenda to you and your kids.
> If anyone has asked this yet, I missed it.
> How do you feel about heterosexual sodomy, analingus, fellatio and cunnilingus inside the context of a marriage?
> I'm trying to figure out if you're a bigot, repressed, or a repressed bigot.
More personal attacks.
These are all disgusting behaviors which also should not be shown on TV in BSG or Dr. Who.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141374 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 12:48 |
|
"Captain Kundalini" <captkundalini [at] austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:KqA%e.5354$2%4.3350 [at] tornado.texas.rr.com...
> I think John Shocked must be one of those Kansas City faggots meantioned in "Blazing Saddles".
This sounds like some humor common amongst homosexuals which most non-homosexuals would not understand.
Politics
============================================================ ======
> <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> wrote in message news:1128184414.454932.308060 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> John Shocked wrote:
>>> <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> wrote in message news:1128157292.204505.146630 [at] g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> > John Shocked wrote:
>>> >> "The Watch Dog" <tirhuan [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1127698203.516623.62800 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>> >> > John Shocked wrote:
>>> >> >> They finally gained control of the Star Trek series at the end of 1991 when Gene Roddenberry died
>>> >> >> and Hollywood Homosexual Rick Berman took over and started that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
>>> >> >> genderbending trill "Old Man Dax" inside woman Terry Farrell Jadzia's body Sodomy crap
>>> >> > Your timeline of events is way off. The very first Trill story, in ST:
>>> >> > TNG, featured a Trill who started off in a male body, had a
>>> >> > relationship with the ship's female doctor, then came back in a female body.
>>> >> Your claim is worthless and not credible until you post the name of the episode and the date of airing.
>>> >> http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/sttng.html
>>> > How curious, episode "The Host" is described there without using the word "Trill".
>>> > "Dr. Crusher falls in love with an alien ambassador who is much more
>>> > than he seems. His body is merely a host which lives in a symbiotic
>>> > relationship with a parasite-like creature - the actual being that is Odan."
>>> > Trek and the Internet being what they are,
>>> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Odan+Crusher bears out that Odan
>>> > is a member of the species named after a commercial brand of birdseed mix.
>>>
>>> My recollection is that there was no genderbending in that episode involving Dr. Crusher.
>>> There was never any implication that she was involved with another woman.
>> What Watchdog said is accurate, although not a complete synopsis of the
>> episode. Odan turned up at the end as a woman and Crusher couldn't
>> feel the same about him/her, so the elements of symbiosis and
>> transsexualism were there in TNG. What there wasn't was girl-girl action.
>>> > And of course
>>> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Trill+Crush er
>>> > gets an immediate answer.
>>> > Indeed one is surprised that
>>> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Trill
>>> > finds something else first.
>>> > (It's "Domain name renewal and affordable web hosting packages from
>>> > Network Solutions. www.trill.com/". Trek gets #2, #3, and #6, and the birdseed is #7.)
>>> No idea what the birdseed point is here.
>> Should there be one? Look it up.
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141377 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 13:18 |
|
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to The Easily Shocked Cherry:
> "ToolPackinMama" wrote...
>> John Shocked wrote:
>>> More personal attacks.
>> If you don't have the stomach for it, then get off your soap-box, pussy.
>
> You can win this thing.
She can win it while standing on her head, using only _Finnegan's Wake_ as
her reference material.
> On the facts, without the personal attacks.
You have no facts. You have no knowledge. You have no intelligence. We make
personal attacks on you for fun.
> I am vulnerable.
You have no idea...
> I can be defeated.
I can defeat you in my /sleep/!
> You are close.
She's dancing rings around you in bullet time.
--
____________________________________________________________ _______________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant Cock-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141380 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 15:32 |
|
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050929081103.15907F-100000 [at] mail...
> > On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Kweeg wrote:
> >> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> >> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050928084757.7612I-100000 [at] mail...
> >> Sorry, troll feeders must join the troll
> > Oh, no, please--anything but that...please, have mercy...how can you be so cruel...oh, the humanity...
>
> Deviant horrific inhumanity really, when you consider this guy supports the
> bringing of the male procreative organ into contact with the faeces excrement of another man
> to elicit some sort of diabolical pleasure.
What's the difference between "heavenly" and "diabolical" pleasure?
Does "love" have anything to do with it?
> Can you imagine a group of people engaging in such behavior and then proudly defending it
> here on a public forum.
Yes.
> What is this world coming to ?
It's getting better every day.
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141381 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 15:38 |
|
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> "manitou" <manitou910 [at] rogers.com> wrote in message news:H5edndJUrsKX_areRVn-vQ [at] rogers.com...
> > John Shocked wrote:
> >> 2) Again in the Colonial Day episode the Battlestar producers show us the side
> >> of Apollo they showed us in episode 3 Bastille Day: Apollo being pulled down to
> >> the ground face down, sunny side up in an Oz-like grappling with another man.
> >> It should be clear now to everyone watching this series that there is a pattern
> >> in showing these Oz-like scenes where it appears that Apollo is about to be
> >> raped by another man. The producers of this series are desperate to show at the
> >> very least the symbolism of Sodomy in the series. It is very important to them.
> >> In addition, in the grappling with this other man is a freeze frame in which
> >> Apollo and this same man are arm in arm, as if walking down the street or from
> >> the altar, man and man.
> > Well...
> > I watched this earlier this evening and found this scene pretty routine. OTOH, I didn't watch it in shot-by-shot freeze frame.
> > If anything, I'd expect gay viewers (closeted and non-closeted, repressed and non-repressed) were more interested in Apollo's
> > topless scene in the locker room with Starbuck, his mannish female comrade.
> > [It _is_ a surprise when she appears later in the episode in a cocktail dress.]
> > C.
>
> I did not say that I watched it in freeze frame and I have not done so. What I describe is what is on the
> screen in normal flow of the episode, some of which a weak mind might overlook.
> The general theme of the storyline is that Starbuck would be interested in Apollo, if he liked women
> and showed interest in her, but he has shown no such interest throughout the series so far.
> Why ?
For starters, he respects the chain of command and believes that it
would be a bad idea to have a relationship with one of his subordinates.
That said, he's clearly been jealous of Starbuck's relationships
with other men.
He has not shown *any* sexual interest in men (despite your sodomy
delusions), but he has in women.
> Because he is heavily involved in a closeted homosexual relationship with
> Tom Zerak.
Which you have absolutely *no* evidence for (fevered imaginings
notwithstanding).
> He is not interested in Starbuck, Dualla or any other woman around him who has shown interest.
I disagree.
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141382 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 16:34 |
|
"The Watch Dog" <tirhuan [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1127951045.558671.285260 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
>> "The Watch Dog" <tirhuan [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1127769504.389906.122870 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > John Shocked wrote:
>> >> The intent of BSG Hollywood Homosexuals is to sell Sodomy to you and your kids,
>> >> not present creative science fiction ideas and visuals.
>> > John - your reluctance to even CONSIDER THE OBVIOUS EVIDENCE that BSG
>> > is pushing bigamy, not sodomy, makes me wonder if you are in the employ
>> > of the Hollywood (ex-) Mormons who are pushing this agenda. You are
>> > certainly doing a great job of giving the "silent treatment" to my
>> > thesis, despite all the scenes that support it.
>> > If you are not shilling for the pro-Bigamy crowd (and I hope you are
>> > not), please go back to my post and read over the evidence for bigamy
>> > imagery in BSG. I feel sure you will find it compelling.
>> ============================================================ ======
>> "The Watch Dog" <tirhuan [at] aol.com> wrote in message news:1127692313.845199.172630 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > John Shocked wrote:
>> >> "The Watch Dog" <tirhuan [at] aol.com> wrote in message > > > But consider the possibility
>> >> > that they're using sex between two women to represent bigamy.
>> >> How does two women on HBO represent bigamy ?
>> > That one's pretty obvious, isn't it? Any normal man who sees two women
>> > together in a sexual situation naturally imagines (even against his own
>> > moral code, because men react to visual stimulation) himself as part of
>> > it. One man, two women - bigamy.
>> >
>> > Frankly, considering your close look at the sexual symbolism in BSG, I
>> > am very surprised that you haven't seen the constant advertisements for
>> > bigamy that are included in it - far more, and far more explicit, than
>> > any gay male sex imagery. Some examples:
>> > - Boomer is in love with both Helo and the Chief, and has had sex with
>> > both. Bigamy with the sexes reversed.
>> > - Baltar has one beloved woman always in his mind, but is constantly
>> > chasing after (and sometimes having sex with) other women as well. He
>> > yearns to be a man with more than one female sex partner, and he
>> > succeeds. He'd be a bigamist if it were legal in the Fleet.
>> There is no question that these couplings are used in the series to cheapen the idea of heterosexual sex
>> and the relationships from which such sex originates.
> By implying BIGAMY!
Let us hear more of this evidence of bigamy.
>> > - Baltar again. Did you see the way he was trying to charm and warm up
>> > the Pegasus' Cylon prisoner? She's the same model as his beloved, so it
>> > makes sense to him that both of them would love him. A perfect bigamy:
>> > a man with two beautiful twins.
>> I would not characterize the relationship presented by the BSG Hollywood Homosexuals
>> that Baltar has with the non-human "6" as "love". It is strictly lust on his side and manipulation on her side.
> It's still one male and two females, e.g., symbolic bigamy.
Nah, Baltar has been with or pursued at least 4 women I can think of. That would make it quattrigamy.
But he has not been married to any of these women, so none of this holds water.
>> > - The infamous scene in which Boomer encounters her group of naked
>> > "sisters." Any normal man would respond to the nudity by imagining
>> > himself there with them (and most BSG watchers are men, so the
>> > conclusion's unavoidable). The show is tempting men into wanting a
>> > harem of wives (which is an Arabic concept!), an extreme form of bigotry.
>> This is nonsense and BSG Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives would never allow Arab/Moslem
>> concepts into a Hollywood created show, unless it was framed to encourage you to Mass Murder Arabs/Moslems
>> or at least look the other way while your country engaged in such a policy.
> This actually proves my point. They are actually willing to use Arab
> concepts such as a harem if it is in support of their chief aim,
> spreading the concept of bigamy. Their love of bigamy is more powerful
> even than their hatred of Arabs. Thank you.
I see no evidence of a harem anywhere in BSG. And from what I gather, while Arab men
within their culture morally take more than one wife, these relationships cannot be considered
fleeting relationships, as BSG is portraying the heterosexual relationships in the series.
And Arab culture does not allow relationships between Arabs and non-humans, so sex with
Cylons would be out.
>> > - Dualla, the girlfriend of the President's assistant Billy, getting
>> > "very friendly" with Apollo while they're working out together. That
>> > scene was a thinly-disguised sex scene, almost pornographic, which ends
>> > only when her "current husband" comes to the door. She greets him
>> > warmly; she doesn't want to give him up for Apollo, but she wants
>> > Apollo too! Need I say more?
>> What that scene made clear is that Apollo was not interested in heterosexual sex.
> You didn't see the look in his eyes while they were "training"? You
> didn't see the POSITIONS they were in?!!? If you would just please look
> away from Zarek for one second, you would see the clear
> Apollo-Duella-Billy triangle here, which can be resovled with(reverse)
> bigamy. Do you think it's an ACCIDENT that "Duella" comes from the root
> meaning "two" - e.g., two spouses? (And even Apollo, in Greek
> mythology, is one of a pair of twins.)
>> The scene in which they display Starbuck discovering a whole factory or "Farm" of women
>> captured and being connected to machines for the purposes of childbirth showed the true
>> Hollywood Homosexual colors of the BSG chieftains. Homosexuals have a basic resentment
>> for the whole idea of childbirth, marriage and the whole degree of respect with which these
>> concepts are held in moral society.
> For this to be true, the Farm scene would have to represent the Farm as
> a good, positive, desirable thing. Instead they show it (and Starbuck
> treats it) as an abomination. Therefore your intepretation is
> completely wrong. Or do you think they made the Farm look desirable?
> That would be weird, but it would say a lot about you. Did you find the
> Farm desirable?
Wrong. It is the BSG Hollywood Homosexuals intent to characterize marriage and child procreation
as a hardship and evil in society, not a positive. By so doing, BSG Hollywood Homosexuals hope
present Sodomy as a viable alternative to the captive childbirth machines they portrayed women
as being in that episode.
>> > Your mistake is in focusing on the Hollywood Homosexual lobby. The REAL
>> > secret masters of Hollywood don't want anyone to know who they are, and
>> > they're powerful enough that they can pull it off. There is a small but
>> > immensely rich and powerful group of ex-Mormons (ex, because the
>> > Mormons no longer allow bigamy, but many splinter Mormon groups are in
>> > favor of it) who influence the content of every TV show and movie you
>> > see. Witness this: despite the fact that there are millions of Mormons
>> > in this country, almost NO movies are made about Mormons, and there are
>> > almost NO Mormon characters on TV. This is for two reasons: (1) the
>> > Hollywood Mormons don't want anyone to see presentations of "normal,
>> > modern Mormons," who are against bigamy, and (b) the Hollywood Mormons
>> > don't want to draw unwanted attention to themselves. Movies and TV
>> > shows about Mormons would lead to questions and articles like "Who's
>> > Mormon in Hollywood?", and the Hollywood Mormons might be recognized
>> > for what they are: a fanatical group with an agenda of overthrowing the
>> > American family by introducing bigamy to the country.
>> The problem with this argument is that there are no known Mormons in Hollywood.
> First of all, they're ex-Mormons, as I keep pointing out. Second of
> all, it would completely ruin their plans if they were as well-known as
> the Jews or homosexuals in Hollywood. They're powerful enough to stay
> invisible. They certainly have YOU fooled - or they're paying you off.
My views cannot be bought.
Who are some of these Mormons you allege are sharing power with jews in Hollywood ?
>> Let us all hear the evidence you have of the Mormon penetration into the
>> power corridors and boardrooms of Hollywood.
> I would think the bigamy imagery in BSG (and TNG, DS9,and Farscape)
> would be enough to convince anyone. But I think eivdence #1 is YOU.
> There you are, pretending to "study" BSG so closely, but you don't even
> notice (or tell us about....) all the bigamy symbolism in the show,
> which is obvious and rampant. Either you're in favor of bigamy
> yourself, or they have PAID YOU OFF to distract everyone from the
> truth. Good work.
My views cannot be bought.
There is no Mormon influence in BSG of which I am aware.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141383 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 16:43 |
|
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005, John Shocked wrote:
> <pluto [at] quentincrisp.com> wrote in message news:1127775998.580224.159960 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > John Shocked says:
> >> Apollo being pulled down to the ground face down, sunny side up . . .
> >> grappling with another man. It should be clear now to everyone
> >> watching this series that there is a pattern . . . . The producers of
> >> this series are desperate to show at the very least the symbolism
> >> of Sodomy in the series. It is very important to them.
> > Uh, lemme get this straight. *Wrestling* is symbolic of *Sodomy" to you?
> > Get thee to a psychiatrist, quick.
>
> When was the last time you saw the hero of a show pulled to the ground face down like that ?
I've seen it happen to James T. Kirk, Marshall Matt Dillon, Jim
Rockford and Thomas Magnum (to name but a few). It's such a familiar image
that the only lead male character of a drama that I'm sure it's *never*
happened to is Inspector Columbo.
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: BSG Sodomy deviant scene again [message #141384 ] |
So, 02 Oktober 2005 16:45 |
|
>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:7mp%e.73657$387.65015 [at] fe02.news.easynews.com...
>John Shocked wrote:
>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:Dkn%e.81784$o11.47048 [at] fe01.news.easynews.com...
>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>"BYTE ME!" <donotreply [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message news:Ak3%e.67234$o11.11786 [at] fe01.news.easynews.com...
>>>>>John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>>Most of the fatcats are, but all people working in Hollywood have to demonstrate support for the
>>>>>>homosexual agenda in one way or another.
>>>>>How the fuck would you know, have you ever even been to Hollywood? They probably won't let you out of the nuthouse long enough
>>>>>for you to visit anywhere.
>>>>I have no interest in Hollywood other than watching it on TV.
>>>While you jack off no doubt.
>> More nonsense.
>Yes more nonsense from you.
Actually I stopped watching lots of what is created by Hollywood, as I have mentioned.
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine ended my viewing of the Star Trek series, around 1993-4.
>> ============================================================
>> Everyone on this Newsgroup, knows that there is Sodomy symbolism in Battlestar Galactica.
>Everyone on this newsgroup and every other newsgroup you spam knows that there is no sodomy in battlestar galactica. You are the
>ONLY PERSON to say that there is.
>> The US Constitution states explicitly that the US Congress makes all US federal laws.
>> The US Supreme Court is described as an agent of Congress to Carry Out Congress's laws.
>> The US Supreme Court is not even hinted to possess any greater powers than that.
>The US Constitution gives most power to the states and people. The federal government in general only has the right to make laws
>that effect interstate commerce and few other areas that were specifically granted to the federal government.
>> The only reason the US Supreme Court has aggregated these extra powers, is because
>> overwhelmingly, most legislators are attorneys and like super-powered judges and
>> the News Media receive payoffs in the form of illegal expansions of their First Amendment rights
>> to sell Sodomy to you and your kids and to mislead the public about the Middle East,
>> making Israel appear innocent, when in fact Israel started the terrorism with Mass Murders
>> of Palestinians in 1948 in Palestinian townships like Yassin, in which 100's of Palestinian
>> men, women and children were machine gunned to death.
>No one is selling sodomy. The courts do have the authority to rein in the out of control congress.
>You are delusional as usual.
============================================================ ====
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2 [at] THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message news:AXbte.7927
> Which does not place the Judiciary as subordinate to Congress.
They clearly do.
===========================================
These are the first paragraphs of the Congress and Supreme Court sections,
respectively. No question that Congress is put in charge.
Supreme is given solely "judicial" powers, which means carrying out
the laws of the US with trials,verdicts and orders of the Court.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
===============================================
Article I. - The Legislative Branch Note
Section 1 - The Legislature
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives
===============================================
Article III. - The Judicial Branch Note
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,
and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and
establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their
Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services
a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
===============================================
Following is how the US Constitution described Supreme Court judges become
judges. Note that the US Supreme Court members have no control over their
own membership. That selection power is given to the President and Congress.
Congress can Impeach judges, not the other way round.
And Congress controls the Budget for the Supreme Court.
Note also how Judges are treated in this language on the same level as
numerous other servants of the Congress.
===================================================
[The President]
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make
Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall
nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the
supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments
are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:
but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers,
as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in
the Heads of Departments.
===================================================
In sum, the US Supreme Court is never in the US Constitution even hinted at having
a check and balance role, or being a coequal or third branch of the government.
It is created as more of an Agency of the government, like the CIA or FBI, but
the Founders went to the trouble mainly to ensure that the Carrying Out of laws
was apolitical, with a separate institution whose members were unelected and who,
once seated, sat for life and thus would not need to corrupt their findings in cases
because of fear of being fired by Congress.
In addition, they ensured that those who took a job as a Judge would
not have their pay reduced conditionally while holding the job.
This intent of the Founders has been corrupted by the overwhelming majority of
legislators who are attorneys and attorney-legislators like their own industry holding
increased power; and the Media which has looked the other way on this corruption
while they receive illegal expansions of the First Amendment, such as allowing
Scifi Channel to sell Sodomy to you and your kids.
============================================================ =
Politics
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 19 16:30:25 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,08814 Sekunden |
