|
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 » Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives -- The Fake Left
| Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives -- The Fake Left [message #28326] |
Fr, 06 Mai 2005 15:23 |
|
[excerpted from the huge alt.battlestar-galactica
"33" BSG Ep -- Did Baltar murder 1300 people ? thread]
===============================================
"Anathema" <tiredofsppam [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:425f5a1f$0$3205$c3e8da3 [at] news.astraweb.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
>> "Anathema" <tiredofsppam [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>He seems to be saying that promoting any kind of homosexuality promotes
>>>>>all homosexual activity. By that logic, showing lesbians on-screen
>>>>>will persuade weak-minded boys/men to desire sex with other men.
>>>>Why so afraid to own these views yourself ? Say "I". Go on, try it.
>>>They're not my views. So "I" would be inappropriate.
>> How do your views differ from mine ?
> I have viewed the entire "Battlestar Galactica" mini-series and first
> season and don't see any homosexual references in the episodes.
That cracked me up. You have an excellent sense of humor.
> Specifically, the scenes you have mentioned repeatedly don't show any
> homosexual content in which I am able to observe (Boomer and her naked
> twins; Apollo and Zarek). I have known a few homosexual individuals in
> the past, and because of my acquaintance with them, I believe I'm pretty
> good at spotting homosexual content when I see it. I just don't see it
> here.
As I have said, the Hollywood Homosexuals behind the series have to be
subtle. They do not want to gross out the majority of the audience to the
point that no one is watching. Then who could they proselytize to ?
> I don't believe there is a wealthy coterie of Republican Homosexuals who
> control the content of the entertainment. If there were a conspiracy of
> such homosexuals, I really don't believe they'd be republicans.
No, they are Republicans and should be Republicans. The Sodomy issue, along
with similar ACLU issues like the Legalization of Drugs, is one of those
selfish issues that generally come under the title "civil liberties". These
are 'leave me alone', 'let me do what I want to do', selfish issues that are
not just conservative, but libertarian in nature. "keep the government out
of my life".
Heck, if not for the federal government, Unions would not exist. If not for
the federal government, Blacks and Women would not have Civil Rights. If
not for the federal government, there would be no 60's Great Society
programs for The Poor, or what is left of those programs since Clinton (a
big homosexual rights Gays In The Military supporter) rolled them back.
The federal government passed the Defense Of Marriage Act which was
anti-homosexual marriage rights.
The response of homosexuals ? Try to negate the federal government laws in
the Courts by playing up this crap that the Federal Courts can negate the
laws created by the will of the people (Judicial Review, they call it).
The same US Supreme Court that ruled in Plessy vs Ferguson in 1896 in the
"Separate But Equal" decison that Blacks were second class citizens and that
segregation was ok.
It was only in the 1950's, when the US Supreme Court was dominated by
non-Judges (only one of the 9 judges then had a judicial background -- the
Chief Justice was Governor of California immediately before joining the US
Supreme Court in 1953), that Brown vs Board of Education (1954) reversed
the corrupt Plessy decision.
And I should mention that the 14th Amendment passed right after the US Civil
War which ended Slavery, banned any kind of segregation, so the 1896
decision was unconstitutional, on its face.
The truth is that Homosexuals have nothing in common with the Left, which
comprises The Poor, Blacks, Unions and Women). They should and do want
opposite solutions in government policy. The Homosexual Agenda is
intensely unpopular with the people of the US: it has not passed a law in
any statewide election yet. They lost 11 straight states in the 2004
elections and they just lost last week in Kansas. Thus, it is in the
interests of homosexuals to prop up the US and State Courts as being
superior in power to the Congress. and state Legislatures. However, that is
opposite to the Constitutions of the US and the States and is definitely
opposite to the will of the people. Homosexuals are in the position where
they have to oppose the will of the people. And that means paying off
Corrupt Judges to make progress. And Hollywood Homosexuals definitely have
the money to pay off crooked judges.
The Little Guy on The Left is totally opposed to this and certainly could
not afford that route.
> I believe you are possiblely a high functioning, schizophrenic. I
Again, personal insults from the self-claimed magnanimous sycophants
that represent Hollywood Homosexuals on these forums.
Ouch I'm so hurt.
> think you're intelligent and at times quite perceptive. You've made a
> number of observations about things which impressed me. But you're
> misinterpreting some of the things you see. You're seeing homosexual
> references where they don't exist. You're imagining a controlling clique
> of homosexual masters which is not something that makes much sense. Your
> beliefs about homosexuals recruiting and converting people to sodomy by
> using very subtle clues is paranoid. Your views of what
Again, personal insults from the self-claimed magnanimous sycophants
that represent Hollywood Homosexuals on these forums.
Ouch I'm so hurt.
> "damages" a woman and how the sanctity of marriage works is out of touch
> with the way things are in today's society. You can't distinguish the
> difference in tone between a romance such as "Titanic" and a hard-boiled,
> film noir(ish) tale like "Battlestar Galactica." You make unfounded
> assumptions and make unreasonable leaps of logic. The SNL skit seems to
> be an example of this. I haven't seen those skits, but I looked at the
> link you posted. There is nothing in the picture there which suggests a
> similarity to "Battlestar Galactica," and yet you insist the skits parody
> it. It's a bit odd to rely on those cocaine-sodden writers and comedians
> as true seeking investigative journalists.
Again you rely on a sick parade of personal insults, this time directed
at the whole staff of Saturday Night Live. Where will your insults end ?
I do not rely on them. They spotted the same thing I saw. And I saw
it and addressed it on the Internet before they started running those skits.
> At times you reason quite well and it's interesting exchanging ideas with
> you. But your reasoning is impaired when discussing homosexuals and
> certain social interactions. For example, you stated you believe
> heterosexual men enjoy looking at nude females, but are not turned on by
> lesbian sex scenes. That is incorrect in most men. And you are way too
> confident that your opinions in these areas are correct. You're a little
> too sure that you have supporters who agree with you reading these posts.
> This kind of super-confidence is a sign of irrational thinking.
Others on these forums have posted messages which evidence that
others even on this Homosexual dominated forum agree with my point
of view in the titles of the Newsgroup Topics they have posted.
> I've also known a few crazy people in my past, and I realize that your
Again, personal insults from the self-claimed magnanimous sycophants
that represent Hollywood Homosexuals on these forums.
Ouch I'm so hurt.
> beliefs are impervious to any logic or persuasion attempted by other
> people. So I am not attempting to convince you otherwise. You asked what
> my views are and so I've stated them.
I have not seen anything but a parade of wild accusations and insults.
You got anything else ?
>>>So you believe that only the audience can't distinguish them as separate
>>>individuals?
>> Again, at least to their subconscious, there is the same woman involved
>> in concurrent heterosexual affairs.
>> And I am sure some people watching the show believe them in fact to be
>> the exact same character.
> Here is an unreasonable assumption. Every message I've read in this
> newsgroup about the Boomer Cylons have shown a clear understanding that
> they are separate individuals. Most have followed the impromptu
> convention of labeling the Boomers so they are easily distinguished, e.g.,
> Boomer-C and Boomer-G. The typical audience member is probably more
> intelligent and perceptive that you credit.
People who come to Internet forums generally are more interested
in the show and thus are watching the show more closely than the
average viewer at home. They are more likely to recognize the
difference since they have been following the script more closely.
However, some people watching this series may not even have
seen all the episodes, and some may have seen them out of order.
>>>>No, there was a homosexual couple portrayed in the movie American
>>>>Beauty, and they were the only respectful, legal and monogamous
>>>>relationship in the movie. (Obviously, this movie was fiction).
>>>
>>>I guess I don't remember them. I remember the repressed gay next-door
>>>neighbor (the soldier type guy) who was worried about his son. I don't
>>>recall that he had sex with anyone. I think I recall that he was a
>>>widower. Were there other gay characters in the movie?
>>>A
>> I saw it once years back but lots was written about the movie so it
>> should be able to be Google-ed. For example:
>>
>>
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2000/04-10-2000/vo16no08_a merican_depravit
y.htm
> Congratulations. For once, you've provided a link to something which
> actually supports what you're saying. It does refer to a monogamous,
I have been doing that throughout these discussions.
> homosexual couple in the movie. Clearly, I'd forgotten them. One thing
> troubles me though. This "New American" magazine/web site. It's clearly
> a conservative republican publication. Wouldn't that make them
> homosexuals?
I Google-ed to find numerous sources for that same information. That one
came up first.
> In any event, I think they offer something you should adopt. That
> "Hollywood Homosexual masters" thing is long and awkward. The "New
> American" called them the "Velvet Mafia." Much snappier appellation.
> What do you think?
> A
Both serve a purpose, but mine is more direct as to the source of the
problem.
Maybe Liberace wore Velvet way back, but I doubt the Village People down
at the local YMCA are strutting regal with velvet adornments.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives -- The Fake Left [message #28343 ] |
Fr, 06 Mai 2005 18:25 |
|
ENOUGH OF YOUR BULL SHIT SPAM
YOU ARE THE FAGGOT HERE
PLONK!
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FdKee.6323$D91.3045 [at] fed1read01...
> [excerpted from the huge alt.battlestar-galactica
> "33" BSG Ep -- Did Baltar murder 1300 people ? thread]
> ===============================================
>
> "Anathema" <tiredofsppam [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:425f5a1f$0$3205$c3e8da3 [at] news.astraweb.com...
>> John Shocked wrote:
>>> "Anathema" <tiredofsppam [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>He seems to be saying that promoting any kind of homosexuality
>>>>>>promotes
>>>>>>all homosexual activity. By that logic, showing lesbians on-screen
>>>>>>will persuade weak-minded boys/men to desire sex with other men.
>>>>>Why so afraid to own these views yourself ? Say "I". Go on, try it.
>>>>They're not my views. So "I" would be inappropriate.
>>> How do your views differ from mine ?
>> I have viewed the entire "Battlestar Galactica" mini-series and first
>> season and don't see any homosexual references in the episodes.
>
> That cracked me up. You have an excellent sense of humor.
>
>> Specifically, the scenes you have mentioned repeatedly don't show any
>> homosexual content in which I am able to observe (Boomer and her naked
>> twins; Apollo and Zarek). I have known a few homosexual individuals in
>> the past, and because of my acquaintance with them, I believe I'm pretty
>> good at spotting homosexual content when I see it. I just don't see it
>> here.
>
> As I have said, the Hollywood Homosexuals behind the series have to be
> subtle. They do not want to gross out the majority of the audience to the
> point that no one is watching. Then who could they proselytize to ?
>
>> I don't believe there is a wealthy coterie of Republican Homosexuals who
>> control the content of the entertainment. If there were a conspiracy of
>> such homosexuals, I really don't believe they'd be republicans.
>
> No, they are Republicans and should be Republicans. The Sodomy issue,
> along
> with similar ACLU issues like the Legalization of Drugs, is one of those
> selfish issues that generally come under the title "civil liberties".
> These
> are 'leave me alone', 'let me do what I want to do', selfish issues that
> are
> not just conservative, but libertarian in nature. "keep the government
> out
> of my life".
> Heck, if not for the federal government, Unions would not exist. If not
> for
> the federal government, Blacks and Women would not have Civil Rights. If
> not for the federal government, there would be no 60's Great Society
> programs for The Poor, or what is left of those programs since Clinton (a
> big homosexual rights Gays In The Military supporter) rolled them back.
> The federal government passed the Defense Of Marriage Act which was
> anti-homosexual marriage rights.
>
> The response of homosexuals ? Try to negate the federal government laws
> in
> the Courts by playing up this crap that the Federal Courts can negate the
> laws created by the will of the people (Judicial Review, they call it).
> The same US Supreme Court that ruled in Plessy vs Ferguson in 1896 in the
> "Separate But Equal" decison that Blacks were second class citizens and
> that
> segregation was ok.
> It was only in the 1950's, when the US Supreme Court was dominated by
> non-Judges (only one of the 9 judges then had a judicial background -- the
> Chief Justice was Governor of California immediately before joining the US
> Supreme Court in 1953), that Brown vs Board of Education (1954) reversed
> the corrupt Plessy decision.
> And I should mention that the 14th Amendment passed right after the US
> Civil
> War which ended Slavery, banned any kind of segregation, so the 1896
> decision was unconstitutional, on its face.
>
> The truth is that Homosexuals have nothing in common with the Left, which
> comprises The Poor, Blacks, Unions and Women). They should and do want
> opposite solutions in government policy. The Homosexual Agenda is
> intensely unpopular with the people of the US: it has not passed a law in
> any statewide election yet. They lost 11 straight states in the 2004
> elections and they just lost last week in Kansas. Thus, it is in the
> interests of homosexuals to prop up the US and State Courts as being
> superior in power to the Congress. and state Legislatures. However, that
> is
> opposite to the Constitutions of the US and the States and is definitely
> opposite to the will of the people. Homosexuals are in the position where
> they have to oppose the will of the people. And that means paying off
> Corrupt Judges to make progress. And Hollywood Homosexuals definitely
> have
> the money to pay off crooked judges.
> The Little Guy on The Left is totally opposed to this and certainly
> could
> not afford that route.
>
>> I believe you are possiblely a high functioning, schizophrenic. I
>
> Again, personal insults from the self-claimed magnanimous sycophants
> that represent Hollywood Homosexuals on these forums.
> Ouch I'm so hurt.
>
>> think you're intelligent and at times quite perceptive. You've made a
>> number of observations about things which impressed me. But you're
>> misinterpreting some of the things you see. You're seeing homosexual
>> references where they don't exist. You're imagining a controlling clique
>> of homosexual masters which is not something that makes much sense.
>> Your
>> beliefs about homosexuals recruiting and converting people to sodomy by
>> using very subtle clues is paranoid. Your views of what
>
> Again, personal insults from the self-claimed magnanimous sycophants
> that represent Hollywood Homosexuals on these forums.
> Ouch I'm so hurt.
>
>> "damages" a woman and how the sanctity of marriage works is out of touch
>> with the way things are in today's society. You can't distinguish the
>> difference in tone between a romance such as "Titanic" and a hard-boiled,
>> film noir(ish) tale like "Battlestar Galactica." You make unfounded
>> assumptions and make unreasonable leaps of logic. The SNL skit seems to
>> be an example of this. I haven't seen those skits, but I looked at the
>> link you posted. There is nothing in the picture there which suggests a
>> similarity to "Battlestar Galactica," and yet you insist the skits parody
>
>> it. It's a bit odd to rely on those cocaine-sodden writers and
>> comedians
>> as true seeking investigative journalists.
>
> Again you rely on a sick parade of personal insults, this time directed
> at the whole staff of Saturday Night Live. Where will your insults end ?
> I do not rely on them. They spotted the same thing I saw. And I saw
> it and addressed it on the Internet before they started running those
> skits.
>
>> At times you reason quite well and it's interesting exchanging ideas with
>> you. But your reasoning is impaired when discussing homosexuals and
>> certain social interactions. For example, you stated you believe
>> heterosexual men enjoy looking at nude females, but are not turned on by
>> lesbian sex scenes. That is incorrect in most men. And you are way too
>> confident that your opinions in these areas are correct. You're a
>> little
>> too sure that you have supporters who agree with you reading these posts.
>> This kind of super-confidence is a sign of irrational thinking.
>
> Others on these forums have posted messages which evidence that
> others even on this Homosexual dominated forum agree with my point
> of view in the titles of the Newsgroup Topics they have posted.
>
>> I've also known a few crazy people in my past, and I realize that your
>
> Again, personal insults from the self-claimed magnanimous sycophants
> that represent Hollywood Homosexuals on these forums.
> Ouch I'm so hurt.
>
>> beliefs are impervious to any logic or persuasion attempted by other
>> people. So I am not attempting to convince you otherwise. You asked
>> what
>> my views are and so I've stated them.
>
> I have not seen anything but a parade of wild accusations and insults.
> You got anything else ?
>
>>>>So you believe that only the audience can't distinguish them as separate
>>>>individuals?
>>> Again, at least to their subconscious, there is the same woman involved
>>> in concurrent heterosexual affairs.
>>> And I am sure some people watching the show believe them in fact to be
>>> the exact same character.
>> Here is an unreasonable assumption. Every message I've read in this
>> newsgroup about the Boomer Cylons have shown a clear understanding that
>> they are separate individuals. Most have followed the impromptu
>> convention of labeling the Boomers so they are easily distinguished,
>> e.g.,
>> Boomer-C and Boomer-G. The typical audience member is probably more
>> intelligent and perceptive that you credit.
>
> People who come to Internet forums generally are more interested
> in the show and thus are watching the show more closely than the
> average viewer at home. They are more likely to recognize the
> difference since they have been following the script more closely.
> However, some people watching this series may not even have
> seen all the episodes, and some may have seen them out of order.
>
>
>>>>>No, there was a homosexual couple portrayed in the movie American
>>>>>Beauty, and they were the only respectful, legal and monogamous
>>>>>relationship in the movie. (Obviously, this movie was fiction).
>>>>
>>>>I guess I don't remember them. I remember the repressed gay next-door
>>>>neighbor (the soldier type guy) who was worried about his son. I don't
>>>>recall that he had sex with anyone. I think I recall that he was a
>>>>widower. Were there other gay characters in the movie?
>>>>A
>
>>> I saw it once years back but lots was written about the movie so it
>>> should be able to be Google-ed. For example:
>>>
>>>
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2000/04-10-2000/vo16no08_a merican_depravit
> y.htm
>
>> Congratulations. For once, you've provided a link to something which
>> actually supports what you're saying. It does refer to a monogamous,
>
> I have been doing that throughout these discussions.
>
>> homosexual couple in the movie. Clearly, I'd forgotten them. One
>> thing
>> troubles me though. This "New American" magazine/web site. It's clearly
>> a conservative republican publication. Wouldn't that make them
>> homosexuals?
>
> I Google-ed to find numerous sources for that same information. That one
> came up first.
>
>> In any event, I think they offer something you should adopt. That
>> "Hollywood Homosexual masters" thing is long and awkward. The "New
>> American" called them the "Velvet Mafia." Much snappier appellation.
>> What do you think?
>> A
>
> Both serve a purpose, but mine is more direct as to the source of the
> problem.
> Maybe Liberace wore Velvet way back, but I doubt the Village People down
> at the local YMCA are strutting regal with velvet adornments.
>
> Politics
>
>
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 10:53:37 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,03659 Sekunden |
