|
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 » The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004
| The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #33107] |
Do, 12 Mai 2005 08:04 |
|
One of the reasons the Hollywood Homosexuals behind
Battlestar Galactica are pushing Sodomy symbolisms
in BSG is because they would desperately like to
reverse some of the following results which they
encountered in all 11 states in the US on November 3
2004 (US election day) which had Ballot Questions
(plebiscital votes by voters in a state controlling
their own state's laws) on the Homosexual Marriage
agenda. So if you are watching your favorite science
fiction show and then you notice something in the
script which does not make sense, it may be that it
was time for Word From BSG's Sponsor, the
Hollywood Homosexuals who are using the script as
their advertisement vehicle.
Homosexuals have had control of Hollywood since
around 1992, when Clinton (and Jerry Brown) ran for
President the first time. Even though they have been
pushing their agenda hard for all these years, they
are yet to win a single statewide vote. Clinton took
homosexual money in 1992 and as soon as he was
inaugurated started to implement policies that he
was bought and paid to implement -- Gays In The
Military, in 1993. This was an intense unpopular
policy initiative, shocked the public, and resulted
in the Democrats losing both Houses of Congress in
1994, and started a series of investigations into
Clinton's personal life, resulting finally in his
Impeachment in 1998. John Kerry (Democrat 2004
Presidential Candidate) again took homosexual money
in the 2004 election year. Democrats do not have
many sources of money, representing the poorer
segments of society. Since Kerry was from the state
of Massachusetts, a state which earlier in 2004
legalized Homosexual Marriage through a corrupt
bribed out Judges judicial decision (not a vote by
its legislature) the onus was on John Kerry to
separate himself from this suicidal issue in a very
very public manner.
However, because Kerry took Hollywood Homosexual
money in the 2004 year and before, he simply was not
able to do that. Thus in a year when Kerry was
running for President against George W. Bush, who
had a terrible record, who had had the Economy
collapse early in his first year (2001) and it
stayed that way till mid 2004, who also failed to
prevent the 9-11 Attacks on the World Trade Center
in 2001, who lied to drag the US into a war against
Iraq, when his allegations that Iraq had Weapons Of
Mass Destruction were false and various other
failures, Kerry still could not win because of the
Homosexual agenda balla and chain around his neck.
Kerry should have won this race 55%-45% if he was
not carrying this Homosexual agenda ball and chain.
And the following votes are an in indication of how
strongly people felt against this homosexual agenda
Kerry was pushing.
Several of these 11 states were Swing States -- they
were close in the previous election and would decide
the election in 2004. Many people went to vote
against the Homosexual Agenda, and voted against
Kerry as an afterthought.
Now Hollywood Homosexuals are wealthy fatcats and,
despite popular misconceptions, are overwhelming
Republican. They do not want Democrats like John
Kerry to win and then raise their taxes. Thus, there
may well be a scam going on here, to buy the
Democrat candidate each year and ask him to support
something the US public despises -- this time it was
Homosexual Marriage. If this buying every 4 years
of the Democrat candidate by Hollywood Homosexual
fatcats continues, it could be an extremely long
time before the Democrats ever come close to taking
back any of the branches of government again.
Here are the results from the 11 States who had the
Homosexual agenda on a ballot question 5 months ago:
=================================
Arkansas Ballot wording: Marriage consists
only of the union of one man and one woman. Legal
status for unmarried persons which is identical or
substantially similar to marital status shall not be
valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the
legislature may recognize a common law marriage from
another state between a man and a woman. The
legislature has the power to determine the capacity
of persons to marry, subject to this amendment, and
the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and
immunities of marriage.Result: Passed 75% to 25%
Georgia The measure amends the state constitution to
include the following statement: (a) This state
shall recognize as marriage only the union of man
and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex
are prohibited in this state. (b) No union between
persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this
state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This
state shall not give effect to any public act,
record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or
jurisdiction respecting a relationship between
persons of the same sex that is treated as a
marriage under the laws of such other state or
jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no
jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate
maintenance with respect to any such relationship or
otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties'
respective rights arising as a result of or in
connection with such relationship.Result: Passed 77%
to 23%.
Kentucky Only a marriage between one man and one
woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in
Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially
similar to that of marriage for unmarried
individuals shall not be valid or recognized.Result:
Passed: 75% to 25%.
Michigan The measure amends the state constitution
to include the following statement: To secure and
preserve the benefits of marriage for our society
and for future generations of children, the union of
one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only
agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union
for any purpose.Result: Passed: 59% to 41%.
Mississippi The measure amends the state
constitution to read: Marriage may take place and
may be valid under the laws of this state only
between a man and a woman. A marriage in another
state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the
same gender, regardless of when the marriage took
place, may not be recognized in this state and is
void and unenforceable under the laws of this
state.Result: Passed: 86% to 14%.
Montana The measure amends the state constitution to
read: Only a marriage between one man and one woman
shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this
state.Result: Passed: 66% to 34%.
North Dakota The measure amends the state
constitution to include the following statement:
Marriage consists only of the legal union between a
man and a woman. No other domestic union, however
denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or
given the same or substantially equivalent
effect.Result: Passed 73% to 24%.
Ohio The measure amends the state constitution to
include the following statement: Only a union
between one man and one woman may be a marriage
valid in or recognized by this state and its
political subdivisions. This state and its political
subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal
status for relationships of unmarried individuals
that intends to approximate the design, qualities,
significance or effect of marriage.Result: Passed
62% to 38%.
Oklahoma The measure amends the state constitution
to read: A Marriage in this state shall consist only
of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this
Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be
construed to require that marital status or the
legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried
couples or groups. B. A marriage between persons of
the same gender performed in another state shall not
be recognized as valid and binding in this state as
of the date of the marriage. C. Any person knowingly
issuing a marriage license in violation of this
section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.Result:
Passed 76% to 24%.
Oregon The measure would amend the state
constitution to read: It is the policy of Oregon,
and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage
between one man and one woman shall be valid or
legally recognized as a marriage.Result: Passed 57%
to 43%.
Utah The measure amends the state constitution to
read, 1. Marriage consists only of the legal union
between a man and a woman. 2. No other domestic
status or union, however denominated, between
persons is valid or recognized or may be authorized,
sanctioned, or given the same or substantially
equivalent legal effect as a marriage. Results:
Passed 66% to 34%.
==================================
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #33798 ] |
Do, 12 Mai 2005 17:48 |
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005 23:04:00 -0700, "John Shocked"
<jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>One of the reasons the Hollywood Homosexuals behind
>Battlestar Galactica are pushing Sodomy symbolisms
>in BSG is because they would desperately like to
>reverse some of the following results which they
>encountered in all 11 states in the US on November 3
>2004 (US election day) which had Ballot Questions
>(plebiscital votes by voters in a state controlling
>their own state's laws) on the Homosexual Marriage
>agenda. So if you are watching your favorite science
>fiction show and then you notice something in the
>script which does not make sense, it may be that it
>was time for Word From BSG's Sponsor, the
>Hollywood Homosexuals who are using the script as
>their advertisement vehicle.
>
>Homosexuals have had control of Hollywood since
>around 1992, when Clinton (and Jerry Brown) ran for
>President the first time. Even though they have been
>pushing their agenda hard for all these years, they
>are yet to win a single statewide vote. Clinton took
>homosexual money in 1992 and as soon as he was
>inaugurated started to implement policies that he
>was bought and paid to implement -- Gays In The
>Military, in 1993. This was an intense unpopular
>policy initiative, shocked the public, and resulted
>in the Democrats losing both Houses of Congress in
>1994, and started a series of investigations into
>Clinton's personal life, resulting finally in his
>Impeachment in 1998. John Kerry (Democrat 2004
>Presidential Candidate) again took homosexual money
>in the 2004 election year. Democrats do not have
>many sources of money, representing the poorer
>segments of society
See this is where you'd be wrong. The Democrats do
have sources of money, they spent as much or more
than the Bush people in the last election. Problem
for them was that the average person KNEW where that
money came from (Hollywood leftist homos, Move-0n, corporations
hedging bets by paying off both sides, unions, etc) and they
realized they did not want to support a party that was
beholding to these kinds of malcontents. So, the
Democrats lost.
Same thing will happen in 2008, unless the Democrats
dissociate themselves (at least publically) from the fringe
wackos and adopt a strategy of soft conservatism as Clinton
did in the 1990s.
-Rich
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #33799 ] |
Do, 12 Mai 2005 18:39 |
|
"RichA" <none [at] none.com> wrote in message
news:3gu681lrhfdjli32e4hnejalps6fvdagg2 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 23:04:00 -0700, "John Shocked"
> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >One of the reasons the Hollywood Homosexuals behind
> >Battlestar Galactica are pushing Sodomy symbolisms
> >in BSG is because they would desperately like to
> >reverse some of the following results which they
> >encountered in all 11 states in the US on November 3
> >2004 (US election day) which had Ballot Questions
> >(plebiscital votes by voters in a state controlling
> >their own state's laws) on the Homosexual Marriage
> >agenda. So if you are watching your favorite science
> >fiction show and then you notice something in the
> >script which does not make sense, it may be that it
> >was time for Word From BSG's Sponsor, the
> >Hollywood Homosexuals who are using the script as
> >their advertisement vehicle.
> >
> >Homosexuals have had control of Hollywood since
> >around 1992, when Clinton (and Jerry Brown) ran for
> >President the first time. Even though they have been
> >pushing their agenda hard for all these years, they
> >are yet to win a single statewide vote. Clinton took
> >homosexual money in 1992 and as soon as he was
> >inaugurated started to implement policies that he
> >was bought and paid to implement -- Gays In The
> >Military, in 1993. This was an intense unpopular
> >policy initiative, shocked the public, and resulted
> >in the Democrats losing both Houses of Congress in
> >1994, and started a series of investigations into
> >Clinton's personal life, resulting finally in his
> >Impeachment in 1998. John Kerry (Democrat 2004
> >Presidential Candidate) again took homosexual money
> >in the 2004 election year. Democrats do not have
> >many sources of money, representing the poorer
> >segments of society
>
> See this is where you'd be wrong. The Democrats do
> have sources of money, they spent as much or more
> than the Bush people in the last election. Problem
> for them was that the average person KNEW where that
> money came from (Hollywood leftist homos, Move-0n, corporations
> hedging bets by paying off both sides, unions, etc) and they
> realized they did not want to support a party that was
> beholding to these kinds of malcontents. So, the
> Democrats lost.
Certainly the Democrats were hurt by this association with Sodomy.
The fact is, Sodomy has nothing to do with the Left.
It is being pushed by wealthy fatcats who demand that Democrats
speak up for it in the campaign.
Bush was a seriously injured candidate this time around 2004.
If they could not beat him in 2004, they can never win the Presidency
with their current issues. Now, Democrats are politicians.
And no politician willingly supports any issue which is so unpopular
as to lose 11 out of 11 ballot questions plebiscites in 11 states.
That is a clear indication that the Democrats are being armtwisted
into supporting this stupid issue.
And many of those 11 were extremely lopsidesd votes.
About 3 months before the 2004 elections, Brian Ross did a piece
on ABC News I think it was where it studied Steve Bing's
(a big time Hollywood Homosexual who had a real girlfriend
Elizabeth Hurley whom he knocked up)
enormous contributions to the Kerry Edwards campaign.
Steve Bing in this piece was associated with the mafia and
a hit man. At the end he asked the question: what does he want ?
My guess is support for the homosexual agenda.
> Same thing will happen in 2008, unless the Democrats
> dissociate themselves (at least publically) from the fringe
> wackos and adopt a strategy of soft conservatism as Clinton
> did in the 1990s.
> -Rich
Right, this whole Homosexual agenda must be jettisoned by
the Democrats. It is doing serious damage to the whole idea
of representative democracy to have one of the parties trapped by
campaign contributions into supporting this suicidal homosexual crap.
In the case of Clinton, he was also bought and paid for by the
Hollywood Homosexual elite in Hollywood, but in his case he lied
to the public during the campaign to the point that no one knew
that he intended to push this crazy Gays In The Military policy
immediately that he entered office in 1993. But Clinton was just as
bought and paid for on this issue as Kerry.
And it resulted in the Democrats losing both Houses of Congress
in the 1994 midterm elections.
Too bad Clinton was not on the ballot in 1994. That would have
been the last of him had he been.
Instead other Democrats in Congress and Governors, including
Governor Richards in Texas lost. And that Texas Governor's
race was won by Republic George W Bush and was his stepping
stone to the current mass murder of Arabs/Moslems for no reason
in the Middle East by US Superpower weapons.
This whole country is being played for chumps by
Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives, who Love Sodomy
and Hate and want tomass murder Arabs/Moslems all over the world.
This needs to stop immediately.
Democrats must jettison this Homosexual agenda crap.
It has nothing to do with the Left.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #33840 ] |
Fr, 13 Mai 2005 09:55 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34460 ] |
Fr, 13 Mai 2005 14:01 |
|
<wbt [at] privacy.net> wrote in message
news:7bn881dslnlrqmhl1j3e2ovs79qlcdq9os [at] 4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:39:08 -0700, "John Shocked"
> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"RichA" <none [at] none.com> wrote in message
> >news:3gu681lrhfdjli32e4hnejalps6fvdagg2 [at] 4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 11 May 2005 23:04:00 -0700, "John Shocked"
> >> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >One of the reasons the Hollywood Homosexuals behind
> >> >Battlestar Galactica are pushing Sodomy symbolisms
> >> >in BSG is because they would desperately like to
> >> >reverse some of the following results which they
> >> >encountered in all 11 states in the US on November 3
> >> >2004 (US election day) which had Ballot Questions
> >> >(plebiscital votes by voters in a state controlling
> >> >their own state's laws) on the Homosexual Marriage
> >> >agenda. So if you are watching your favorite science
> >> >fiction show and then you notice something in the
> >> >script which does not make sense, it may be that it
> >> >was time for Word From BSG's Sponsor, the
> >> >Hollywood Homosexuals who are using the script as
> >> >their advertisement vehicle.
> >> >
> >> >Homosexuals have had control of Hollywood since
> >> >around 1992, when Clinton (and Jerry Brown) ran for
> >> >President the first time. Even though they have been
> >> >pushing their agenda hard for all these years, they
> >> >are yet to win a single statewide vote. Clinton took
> >> >homosexual money in 1992 and as soon as he was
> >> >inaugurated started to implement policies that he
> >> >was bought and paid to implement -- Gays In The
> >> >Military, in 1993. This was an intense unpopular
> >> >policy initiative, shocked the public, and resulted
> >> >in the Democrats losing both Houses of Congress in
> >> >1994, and started a series of investigations into
> >> >Clinton's personal life, resulting finally in his
> >> >Impeachment in 1998. John Kerry (Democrat 2004
> >> >Presidential Candidate) again took homosexual money
> >> >in the 2004 election year. Democrats do not have
> >> >many sources of money, representing the poorer
> >> >segments of society
> >>
> >> See this is where you'd be wrong. The Democrats do
> >> have sources of money, they spent as much or more
> >> than the Bush people in the last election. Problem
> >> for them was that the average person KNEW where that
> >> money came from (Hollywood leftist homos, Move-0n, corporations
> >> hedging bets by paying off both sides, unions, etc) and they
> >> realized they did not want to support a party that was
> >> beholding to these kinds of malcontents. So, the
> >> Democrats lost.
> >
> >Certainly the Democrats were hurt by this association with Sodomy.
> >The fact is, Sodomy has nothing to do with the Left.
> >It is being pushed by wealthy fatcats who demand that Democrats
> >speak up for it in the campaign.
> >Bush was a seriously injured candidate this time around 2004.
> >If they could not beat him in 2004, they can never win the Presidency
> >with their current issues. Now, Democrats are politicians.
> >And no politician willingly supports any issue which is so unpopular
> >as to lose 11 out of 11 ballot questions plebiscites in 11 states.
> >That is a clear indication that the Democrats are being armtwisted
> >into supporting this stupid issue.
> >And many of those 11 were extremely lopsidesd votes.
> >About 3 months before the 2004 elections, Brian Ross did a piece
> >on ABC News I think it was where it studied Steve Bing's
> >(a big time Hollywood Homosexual who had a real girlfriend
> > Elizabeth Hurley whom he knocked up)
> >enormous contributions to the Kerry Edwards campaign.
> >Steve Bing in this piece was associated with the mafia and
> >a hit man. At the end he asked the question: what does he want ?
> >My guess is support for the homosexual agenda.
> >
> >> Same thing will happen in 2008, unless the Democrats
> >> dissociate themselves (at least publically) from the fringe
> >> wackos and adopt a strategy of soft conservatism as Clinton
> >> did in the 1990s.
> >> -Rich
> >
> >Right, this whole Homosexual agenda must be jettisoned by
> >the Democrats. It is doing serious damage to the whole idea
> >of representative democracy to have one of the parties trapped by
> >campaign contributions into supporting this suicidal homosexual crap.
> >In the case of Clinton, he was also bought and paid for by the
> >Hollywood Homosexual elite in Hollywood, but in his case he lied
> >to the public during the campaign to the point that no one knew
> >that he intended to push this crazy Gays In The Military policy
> >immediately that he entered office in 1993. But Clinton was just as
> >bought and paid for on this issue as Kerry.
> >
> >And it resulted in the Democrats losing both Houses of Congress
> >in the 1994 midterm elections.
> >Too bad Clinton was not on the ballot in 1994. That would have
> >been the last of him had he been.
> >Instead other Democrats in Congress and Governors, including
> >Governor Richards in Texas lost. And that Texas Governor's
> >race was won by Republic George W Bush and was his stepping
> >stone to the current mass murder of Arabs/Moslems for no reason
> >in the Middle East by US Superpower weapons.
> >
> >This whole country is being played for chumps by
> >Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives, who Love Sodomy
> >and Hate and want to mass murder Arabs/Moslems all over the world.
> >This needs to stop immediately.
> >Democrats must jettison this Homosexual agenda crap.
> >It has nothing to do with the Left.
> >
> >Politics
>
> I don't know, John. I think the run of the mill homo who is a dyed in
> the wool, yellow dog democrat is going to have a SERIOUS problem with
> your thesis. It's damn interesting though -- Hell, what might work,
> might work. It's worth a try.
It is a huge con job that the average homosexual is on the Left.
The Left is comprised primarily of The Poor, Blacks, Unions and Women.
Generally, Homosexuals and Drug Legalization crowd line up with the ACLU
on most issues in a Conservative/Libertarian posture. They are way over
on the other side of the spectrum.
Georgw W. Bush had wrecked the economy, failed to prevent 9-11,
failed to enlist for Vietnam and lied to con the US and the UK into this
counter-productive war against Iraq.
He was ripe for the taking in 2004 and the Democrats could not score.
The 11 State Ballot Questions results on Sodomy proved why.
Democrats should not be supporting this crap and should jettison these
issues.
If they do not, it will be suicide all over again in 2006 and 2008.
Politics
>
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34588 ] |
Sa, 14 Mai 2005 16:28 |
|
He won because its just a case of "Better the devil you know" people didn't
want to try a person they didn't know. Its not whom they liked the best, its
whom they hated the least. Happened in Australia (John Howard, happened in
England (Tony Blair) happened in W.A (Geoff Gallop) and it happened there.
(George Bush)
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TF0he.31576$fI.19955 [at] fed1read05...
> <wbt [at] privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:7bn881dslnlrqmhl1j3e2ovs79qlcdq9os [at] 4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:39:08 -0700, "John Shocked"
> > <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >"RichA" <none [at] none.com> wrote in message
> > >news:3gu681lrhfdjli32e4hnejalps6fvdagg2 [at] 4ax.com...
> > >> On Wed, 11 May 2005 23:04:00 -0700, "John Shocked"
> > >> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >One of the reasons the Hollywood Homosexuals behind
> > >> >Battlestar Galactica are pushing Sodomy symbolisms
> > >> >in BSG is because they would desperately like to
> > >> >reverse some of the following results which they
> > >> >encountered in all 11 states in the US on November 3
> > >> >2004 (US election day) which had Ballot Questions
> > >> >(plebiscital votes by voters in a state controlling
> > >> >their own state's laws) on the Homosexual Marriage
> > >> >agenda. So if you are watching your favorite science
> > >> >fiction show and then you notice something in the
> > >> >script which does not make sense, it may be that it
> > >> >was time for Word From BSG's Sponsor, the
> > >> >Hollywood Homosexuals who are using the script as
> > >> >their advertisement vehicle.
> > >> >
> > >> >Homosexuals have had control of Hollywood since
> > >> >around 1992, when Clinton (and Jerry Brown) ran for
> > >> >President the first time. Even though they have been
> > >> >pushing their agenda hard for all these years, they
> > >> >are yet to win a single statewide vote. Clinton took
> > >> >homosexual money in 1992 and as soon as he was
> > >> >inaugurated started to implement policies that he
> > >> >was bought and paid to implement -- Gays In The
> > >> >Military, in 1993. This was an intense unpopular
> > >> >policy initiative, shocked the public, and resulted
> > >> >in the Democrats losing both Houses of Congress in
> > >> >1994, and started a series of investigations into
> > >> >Clinton's personal life, resulting finally in his
> > >> >Impeachment in 1998. John Kerry (Democrat 2004
> > >> >Presidential Candidate) again took homosexual money
> > >> >in the 2004 election year. Democrats do not have
> > >> >many sources of money, representing the poorer
> > >> >segments of society
> > >>
> > >> See this is where you'd be wrong. The Democrats do
> > >> have sources of money, they spent as much or more
> > >> than the Bush people in the last election. Problem
> > >> for them was that the average person KNEW where that
> > >> money came from (Hollywood leftist homos, Move-0n, corporations
> > >> hedging bets by paying off both sides, unions, etc) and they
> > >> realized they did not want to support a party that was
> > >> beholding to these kinds of malcontents. So, the
> > >> Democrats lost.
> > >
> > >Certainly the Democrats were hurt by this association with Sodomy.
> > >The fact is, Sodomy has nothing to do with the Left.
> > >It is being pushed by wealthy fatcats who demand that Democrats
> > >speak up for it in the campaign.
> > >Bush was a seriously injured candidate this time around 2004.
> > >If they could not beat him in 2004, they can never win the Presidency
> > >with their current issues. Now, Democrats are politicians.
> > >And no politician willingly supports any issue which is so unpopular
> > >as to lose 11 out of 11 ballot questions plebiscites in 11 states.
> > >That is a clear indication that the Democrats are being armtwisted
> > >into supporting this stupid issue.
> > >And many of those 11 were extremely lopsidesd votes.
> > >About 3 months before the 2004 elections, Brian Ross did a piece
> > >on ABC News I think it was where it studied Steve Bing's
> > >(a big time Hollywood Homosexual who had a real girlfriend
> > > Elizabeth Hurley whom he knocked up)
> > >enormous contributions to the Kerry Edwards campaign.
> > >Steve Bing in this piece was associated with the mafia and
> > >a hit man. At the end he asked the question: what does he want ?
> > >My guess is support for the homosexual agenda.
> > >
> > >> Same thing will happen in 2008, unless the Democrats
> > >> dissociate themselves (at least publically) from the fringe
> > >> wackos and adopt a strategy of soft conservatism as Clinton
> > >> did in the 1990s.
> > >> -Rich
> > >
> > >Right, this whole Homosexual agenda must be jettisoned by
> > >the Democrats. It is doing serious damage to the whole idea
> > >of representative democracy to have one of the parties trapped by
> > >campaign contributions into supporting this suicidal homosexual crap.
> > >In the case of Clinton, he was also bought and paid for by the
> > >Hollywood Homosexual elite in Hollywood, but in his case he lied
> > >to the public during the campaign to the point that no one knew
> > >that he intended to push this crazy Gays In The Military policy
> > >immediately that he entered office in 1993. But Clinton was just as
> > >bought and paid for on this issue as Kerry.
> > >
> > >And it resulted in the Democrats losing both Houses of Congress
> > >in the 1994 midterm elections.
> > >Too bad Clinton was not on the ballot in 1994. That would have
> > >been the last of him had he been.
> > >Instead other Democrats in Congress and Governors, including
> > >Governor Richards in Texas lost. And that Texas Governor's
> > >race was won by Republic George W Bush and was his stepping
> > >stone to the current mass murder of Arabs/Moslems for no reason
> > >in the Middle East by US Superpower weapons.
> > >
> > >This whole country is being played for chumps by
> > >Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives, who Love Sodomy
> > >and Hate and want to mass murder Arabs/Moslems all over the world.
> > >This needs to stop immediately.
> > >Democrats must jettison this Homosexual agenda crap.
> > >It has nothing to do with the Left.
> > >
> > >Politics
> >
> > I don't know, John. I think the run of the mill homo who is a dyed in
> > the wool, yellow dog democrat is going to have a SERIOUS problem with
> > your thesis. It's damn interesting though -- Hell, what might work,
> > might work. It's worth a try.
>
> It is a huge con job that the average homosexual is on the Left.
> The Left is comprised primarily of The Poor, Blacks, Unions and Women.
> Generally, Homosexuals and Drug Legalization crowd line up with the ACLU
> on most issues in a Conservative/Libertarian posture. They are way over
> on the other side of the spectrum.
>
> Georgw W. Bush had wrecked the economy, failed to prevent 9-11,
> failed to enlist for Vietnam and lied to con the US and the UK into this
> counter-productive war against Iraq.
> He was ripe for the taking in 2004 and the Democrats could not score.
> The 11 State Ballot Questions results on Sodomy proved why.
> Democrats should not be supporting this crap and should jettison these
> issues.
> If they do not, it will be suicide all over again in 2006 and 2008.
>
> Politics
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34600 ] |
Sa, 14 Mai 2005 17:20 |
|
> > > I don't know, John. I think the run of the mill homo who is a dyed in
> > > the wool, yellow dog democrat is going to have a SERIOUS problem
> > > with your thesis. It's damn interesting though -- Hell, what might
> > > work, might work. It's worth a try.
> >
> > It is a huge con job that the average homosexual is on the Left.
> > The Left is comprised primarily of The Poor, Blacks, Unions and Women.
> > Generally, Homosexuals and Drug Legalization crowd line up with
> > the ACLU on most issues in a Conservative/Libertarian posture.
> > They are way over on the other side of the spectrum.
> >
> > Georgw W. Bush had wrecked the economy, failed to prevent 9-11,
> > failed to enlist for Vietnam and lied to con the US and the UK into this
> > counter-productive war against Iraq.
> > He was ripe for the taking in 2004 and the Democrats could not score.
> > The 11 State Ballot Questions results on Sodomy proved why.
> > Democrats should not be supporting this crap and should jettison these
> > issues.
> > If they do not, it will be suicide all over again in 2006 and 2008.
> >
> > Politics
"PErthGUy20o5" <TUTMOSES [at] Egypt.com> wrote in message
news:42860bd6_1 [at] news.iprimus.com.au...
> He won because its just a case of "Better the devil you know"
> people didn't want to try a person they didn't know. Its not
> whom they liked the best, its whom they hated the least.
> Happened in Australia (John Howard, happened in England
> (Tony Blair) happened in W.A [Western Australia] (Geoff Gallop)
> and it happened there. (George Bush)
This sort of commentary characterizes the US electorate as fools and
I do not agree with this.
There are some issues that the US public is not aware of and I have
expressed the key items of that here, but this is caused by Corruption
in the Press which is Censoring critical information from the public.
For instance, there is the fact that Israel started the terrorism in the
Middle East in 1948 by going into Palestinian townships like Yassin
and murdering 100's of Palestinians. The terrorist Israeli state then
stole the land and property of the Palestinian who fled their homeland
and became the Palestinian Refugees. This is not complicated for the
Press to explain to the public but the Press is intentionally depriving the
public of this information, which is a disgrace.
In the recent British elections, the opposing Conservative Party to
Prime Minister Blair's Labour Party was heavily in support of the
involvement of Britain in the war against Iraq.
Thus, the UK public could not turn to Michael Howard, who is a
jewish hardliner against the Iraqis, to lead the country and remove
the Brits from the Iraq Massacre.
It was Blair's own Labour Party which contained around 50
hardliners who opposed the Iraq Massacre.
Blair's own Foreign Minister Robin Cook resigned rather than
assist Blair in leading Britain into this Iraq Massacre in the first place.
Probably something similar happened in Australia.
Is Western Australia and Australia proper considered to be
two different countries down there ?
Politics
===========================================
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:TF0he.31576$fI.19955 [at] fed1read05...
> > <wbt [at] privacy.net> wrote in message
> > news:7bn881dslnlrqmhl1j3e2ovs79qlcdq9os [at] 4ax.com...
> > > On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:39:08 -0700, "John Shocked"
> > > <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >"RichA" <none [at] none.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:3gu681lrhfdjli32e4hnejalps6fvdagg2 [at] 4ax.com...
> > > >> On Wed, 11 May 2005 23:04:00 -0700, "John Shocked"
> > > >> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >One of the reasons the Hollywood Homosexuals behind
> > > >> >Battlestar Galactica are pushing Sodomy symbolisms
> > > >> >in BSG is because they would desperately like to
> > > >> >reverse some of the following results which they
> > > >> >encountered in all 11 states in the US on November 3
> > > >> >2004 (US election day) which had Ballot Questions
> > > >> >(plebiscital votes by voters in a state controlling
> > > >> >their own state's laws) on the Homosexual Marriage
> > > >> >agenda. So if you are watching your favorite science
> > > >> >fiction show and then you notice something in the
> > > >> >script which does not make sense, it may be that it
> > > >> >was time for Word From BSG's Sponsor, the
> > > >> >Hollywood Homosexuals who are using the script as
> > > >> >their advertisement vehicle.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Homosexuals have had control of Hollywood since
> > > >> >around 1992, when Clinton (and Jerry Brown) ran for
> > > >> >President the first time. Even though they have been
> > > >> >pushing their agenda hard for all these years, they
> > > >> >are yet to win a single statewide vote. Clinton took
> > > >> >homosexual money in 1992 and as soon as he was
> > > >> >inaugurated started to implement policies that he
> > > >> >was bought and paid to implement -- Gays In The
> > > >> >Military, in 1993. This was an intense unpopular
> > > >> >policy initiative, shocked the public, and resulted
> > > >> >in the Democrats losing both Houses of Congress in
> > > >> >1994, and started a series of investigations into
> > > >> >Clinton's personal life, resulting finally in his
> > > >> >Impeachment in 1998. John Kerry (Democrat 2004
> > > >> >Presidential Candidate) again took homosexual money
> > > >> >in the 2004 election year. Democrats do not have
> > > >> >many sources of money, representing the poorer
> > > >> >segments of society
> > > >>
> > > >> See this is where you'd be wrong. The Democrats do
> > > >> have sources of money, they spent as much or more
> > > >> than the Bush people in the last election. Problem
> > > >> for them was that the average person KNEW where that
> > > >> money came from (Hollywood leftist homos, Move-0n, corporations
> > > >> hedging bets by paying off both sides, unions, etc) and they
> > > >> realized they did not want to support a party that was
> > > >> beholding to these kinds of malcontents. So, the
> > > >> Democrats lost.
> > > >
> > > >Certainly the Democrats were hurt by this association with Sodomy.
> > > >The fact is, Sodomy has nothing to do with the Left.
> > > >It is being pushed by wealthy fatcats who demand that Democrats
> > > >speak up for it in the campaign.
> > > >Bush was a seriously injured candidate this time around 2004.
> > > >If they could not beat him in 2004, they can never win the Presidency
> > > >with their current issues. Now, Democrats are politicians.
> > > >And no politician willingly supports any issue which is so unpopular
> > > >as to lose 11 out of 11 ballot questions plebiscites in 11 states.
> > > >That is a clear indication that the Democrats are being armtwisted
> > > >into supporting this stupid issue.
> > > >And many of those 11 were extremely lopsidesd votes.
> > > >About 3 months before the 2004 elections, Brian Ross did a piece
> > > >on ABC News I think it was where it studied Steve Bing's
> > > >(a big time Hollywood Homosexual who had a real girlfriend
> > > > Elizabeth Hurley whom he knocked up)
> > > >enormous contributions to the Kerry Edwards campaign.
> > > >Steve Bing in this piece was associated with the mafia and
> > > >a hit man. At the end he asked the question: what does he want ?
> > > >My guess is support for the homosexual agenda.
> > > >
> > > >> Same thing will happen in 2008, unless the Democrats
> > > >> dissociate themselves (at least publically) from the fringe
> > > >> wackos and adopt a strategy of soft conservatism as Clinton
> > > >> did in the 1990s.
> > > >> -Rich
> > > >
> > > >Right, this whole Homosexual agenda must be jettisoned by
> > > >the Democrats. It is doing serious damage to the whole idea
> > > >of representative democracy to have one of the parties trapped by
> > > >campaign contributions into supporting this suicidal homosexual crap.
> > > >In the case of Clinton, he was also bought and paid for by the
> > > >Hollywood Homosexual elite in Hollywood, but in his case he lied
> > > >to the public during the campaign to the point that no one knew
> > > >that he intended to push this crazy Gays In The Military policy
> > > >immediately that he entered office in 1993. But Clinton was just as
> > > >bought and paid for on this issue as Kerry.
> > > >
> > > >And it resulted in the Democrats losing both Houses of Congress
> > > >in the 1994 midterm elections.
> > > >Too bad Clinton was not on the ballot in 1994. That would have
> > > >been the last of him had he been.
> > > >Instead other Democrats in Congress and Governors, including
> > > >Governor Richards in Texas lost. And that Texas Governor's
> > > >race was won by Republic George W Bush and was his stepping
> > > >stone to the current mass murder of Arabs/Moslems for no reason
> > > >in the Middle East by US Superpower weapons.
> > > >
> > > >This whole country is being played for chumps by
> > > >Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives, who Love Sodomy
> > > >and Hate and want to mass murder Arabs/Moslems all over the world.
> > > >This needs to stop immediately.
> > > >Democrats must jettison this Homosexual agenda crap.
> > > >It has nothing to do with the Left.
> > > >
> > > >Politics
> > >
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34642 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 02:19 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%Gohe.32390$fI.7226 [at] fed1read05...
>
> For instance, there is the fact that Israel started the terrorism in the
> Middle East in 1948 by going into Palestinian townships like Yassin
> and murdering 100's of Palestinians. The terrorist Israeli state then
> stole the land and property of the Palestinian who fled their homeland
> and became the Palestinian Refugees. This is not complicated for the
> Press to explain to the public but the Press is intentionally depriving
> the
> public of this information, which is a disgrace.
Israel could have set up a Palestinian state in the 1950's without any
outside influence. They were hoping that the refuges would go away (flee to
Jordan or Saudi Arabia). Then you ended up with people in permanent refuge
status for 50 years.
I felt that Kerry was a weak candidate. I felt that all of his positions
were political calculations. He was taking positions without thinking about
them. Bush came out with proposals for space and bringing troops home from
foreign bases. Kerry immediately came out against those positions without
thinking about what he was saying. On Iraq, Kerry promised to bring troops
home in 4 years instead of 4 years and 3 days. On the subject of abortion,
I would like to see a democrat stand up and defend the pro-choice position.
Kerry's position seemed to be "I'll take the far left position, but I'll
compromise by not defending it." If you want to compromise, come out
against late term abortions or something. Kerry went with the wrong
compromise.
Hillary's chances would have been better if Bill had not survived his heart
troubles. Her cookie recipe didn't work as well as expected. If I were
Hillary running for President in 2008, I would go back to the health care
issue. It worked in 1992. She's going to be attacked for it no matter what
she does. She might as well run with it and defend her position. There is
no inherent reason for the religious right to oppose universal coverage. In
1994, Hillary made abortion part of her health plan, the religious right
came out against her plan.
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34670 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 05:42 |
|
"Michael Rhino" <news2005 [at] alexanderpics.com> wrote in message
news:%zwhe.15040$ya2.14556 [at] tornado.socal.rr.com...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%Gohe.32390$fI.7226 [at] fed1read05...
> > For instance, there is the fact that Israel started the terrorism in the
> > Middle East in 1948 by going into Palestinian townships like Yassin
> > and murdering 100's of Palestinians. The terrorist Israeli state then
> > stole the land and property of the Palestinian who fled their homeland
> > and became the Palestinian Refugees. This is not complicated for the
> > Press to explain to the public but the Press is intentionally depriving
> > the public of this information, which is a disgrace.
> Israel could have set up a Palestinian state in the 1950's without any
No they could not. Israel was by then the terrorists in the region and
were being opposed by their Palestinian victims. After those crimes,
Israel will never be able to set up anything in Palestine that lasts.
And now that the US has tipped its hand and has its hands covered in
Arab blood in Iraq, there appears to be a bleak future for the world
in this regard while the US remains the world's main superpower.
You cannot make peace with your hands covered in the blood of
one of the parties to that peace.
> outside influence. They were hoping that the refuges would go
> away (flee to Jordan or Saudi Arabia). Then you ended up with people
> in permanent refuge status for 50 years.
> I felt that Kerry was a weak candidate. I felt that all of his positions
> were political calculations. He was taking positions without thinking
about
> them. Bush came out with proposals for space and bringing troops home
from
> foreign bases. Kerry immediately came out against those positions without
> thinking about what he was saying. On Iraq, Kerry promised to bring
troops
> home in 4 years instead of 4 years and 3 days. On the subject of
abortion,
Kerry's problem on Iraq was that, like Michael Howard he supported the
second US invasion of Iraq, voting for it in the Senate. Then in the
Primariesto win the Democrat nomination he was forced to act like he
had opposed the war, when that was not true. Kerry was able to win the
Democrat nomination because he had a military background, which
George W. Bush did not have, and because the only Democrat candidate
who truly opposed the Iraq Massacre was Howard Dead, Governor of
Vermont. However, Dean had the problem that he was tiedup in supporting
the Hollywood Homosexual agenda, to the point of supporting Homosexual
Civil Unions in his state which I believe was the first to legislate this.
Thus, Sodomy already entered the campaign with Dean as its casualty,
forcing Democrats to pick Kerry instead.
But Kerry, as later developed had his own problem, as Crooked Judges
in his home state of Massachusetts abused their Judicial positions to
Make Law in 2004 right in the middle of this campaign, and they made
Homosexual Marriage legal in Massachusetts. At this point, the interests
of the true Left hung in the balance as The Poor, Blacks, Unions and
Women were depending on Kerry to separate himself completely from
this loser issue of Homosexual Marriage and come through to win the
election. He needed to make a clear statement heard far and wide of his
opposition to the Homosexual agenda and he failed to do this. And this
Homosexual crap turned out to be the key issue which lost the election
for him, as is obvious from the fact that on the same day of the election,
11 out of 11 US States votes by overwhelming margins to ban
Homosexual Marriage and in some cases Civil Unions from ever
occurring in their states.
> I would like to see a democrat stand up and defend the pro-choice
position.
> Kerry's position seemed to be "I'll take the far left position, but I'll
> compromise by not defending it." If you want to compromise, come out
> against late term abortions or something. Kerry went with the wrong
> compromise.
The abortion issue did not affect the election. The US public essentially
said to Kerry "if you oppose this Hollywood Homosexual agenda
" you can have the job". But Kerry's campaign was bought and paid for
by Hollywood Homosexual money. He simply did not feel free to make
this required position speech in his campaign and kept silent about the
issue, but the public were not going to accept that and would not allow
him to back into the office.
> Hillary's chances would have been better if Bill had not survived his
heart
> troubles. Her cookie recipe didn't work as well as expected. If I were
> Hillary running for President in 2008, I would go back to the health care
> issue. It worked in 1992. She's going to be attacked for it no matter
what
> she does. She might as well run with it and defend her position. There
is
> no inherent reason for the religious right to oppose universal coverage.
> In 1994, Hillary made abortion part of her health plan, the religious
right
> came out against her plan.
Clinton's Presidency was torpedoed again by this sick Homosexual agenda.
He took Hollywood Homosexual money in the 1992 campaign and ghosted
into the Presidency without people really knowing that this was his prime
agenda. Thus, when he in 1993 embarked on a huge campaign to sell
Sodomy to the US in the form of Gays In The Military, the public reacted
violently against this and his collapsed popularity resulted in the
Republicans
winning both houses of Congress from the Democrats in a huge landslide.
This victory for the Republicans shut down all legislative
initiatives like health Care which Clinton campaigned to implement, not to
mention instigate a slew of investigations of his life which eventually
resulted in
Clinton's impeachment. And the people who voted for the impeachment were
the very Republicans who won power in 1994 midterm elections because
of the Gays In The Military policy. Thus, there was a lot of
appropriateness
in Clinton's impeachment.
In short, this Sodomy issue has done serious damage to the interests of the
true
Left (The Poor, Blacks, Unions, and Women) because it has caused the party
the Left relies upon to lose power and influence over policy. And they have
lost
this power to support an issue, Sodomy which is primarily supported by and
engaged in by wealthy fatcat Neo-Conservatives, who normally
vote Republican anyway.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34697 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 09:37 |
|
|
You like the fucking Arabs so much, why don't you go live with them?
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34714 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 15:54 |
|
>>"Michael Rhino" <news2005 [at] alexanderpics.com> wrote in message
>>news:%zwhe.15040$ya2.14556 [at] tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%Gohe.32390$fI.7226 [at] fed1read05...
>>> > For instance, there is the fact that Israel started the terrorism in
the
>>> > Middle East in 1948 by going into Palestinian townships like Yassin
>>> > and murdering 100's of Palestinians. The terrorist Israeli state then
>>> > stole the land and property of the Palestinian who fled their homeland
>>> > and became the Palestinian Refugees. This is not complicated for the
>>> > Press to explain to the public but the Press is intentionally
depriving
>>> > the public of this information, which is a disgrace.
>>> Israel could have set up a Palestinian state in the 1950's without any
>>
>>No they could not. Israel was by then the terrorist
>>in the region and were being opposed by their
>>Palestinian victims. After those crimes, Israel will
>>never be able to set up anything in Palestine that
>>lasts. And now that the US has tipped its hand and
>>has its hands covered in Arab blood in Iraq, there
>>appears to be a bleak future for the world in this
>>regard while the US remains the world's main
>>superpower. You cannot make peace with your hands
>>covered in the blood of one of the parties to that
>>peace.
>>
>>> outside influence. They were hoping that the refuges would go
>>> away (flee to Jordan or Saudi Arabia). Then you ended up with people
>>> in permanent refuge status for 50 years.
>>> I felt that Kerry was a weak candidate. I felt that all of his
positions
>>> were political calculations. He was taking positions without thinking
>>about
>>> them. Bush came out with proposals for space and bringing troops home
>>from
>>> foreign bases. Kerry immediately came out against those positions
without
>>> thinking about what he was saying. On Iraq, Kerry promised to bring
>>troops
>>> home in 4 years instead of 4 years and 3 days. On the subject of
>>abortion,
>>
>>Kerry's problem on Iraq was that, like Michael Howard
>>he supported the second US invasion of Iraq, voting
>>for it in the Senate. Then in the Primariesto win
>>the Democrat nomination he was forced to act like he
>>had opposed the war, when that was not true. Kerry
>>was able to win the Democrat nomination because he
>>had a military background, which George W. Bush did
>>not have, and because the only Democrat candidate who
>>truly opposed the Iraq Massacre was Howard Dead,
>>Governor of Vermont. However, Dean had the problem
>>that he was tiedup in supporting the Hollywood
>>Homosexual agenda, to the point of supporting
>>Homosexual Civil Unions in his state which I believe
>>was the first to legislate this. Thus, Sodomy already
>>entered the campaign with Dean as its casualty,
>>forcing Democrats to pick Kerry instead.
>>
>>But Kerry, as later developed had his own problem, as
>>Crooked Judges in his home state of Massachusetts
>>abused their Judicial positions to Make Law in 2004
>>right in the middle of this campaign, and they made
>>Homosexual Marriage legal in Massachusetts. At this
>>point, the interests of the true Left hung in the
>>balance as The Poor, Blacks, Unions and Women were
>>depending on Kerry to separate himself completely
>>from this loser issue of Homosexual Marriage and come
>>through to win the election. He needed to make a
>>clear statement heard far and wide of his opposition
>>to the Homosexual agenda and he failed to do this.
>>And this Homosexual crap turned out to be the key
>>issue which lost the election for him, as is obvious
>>from the fact that on the same day of the election,
>>11 out of 11 US States votes by overwhelming margins
>>to ban Homosexual Marriage and in some cases Civil
>>Unions from ever occurring in their states.
>>
>>> I would like to see a democrat stand up and defend the pro-choice
>>position.
>>> Kerry's position seemed to be "I'll take the far left position, but I'll
>>> compromise by not defending it." If you want to compromise, come out
>>> against late term abortions or something. Kerry went with the wrong
>>> compromise.
>>
>>The abortion issue did not affect the election. The
>>US public essentially said to Kerry "if you oppose
>>this Hollywood Homosexual agenda " you can have the
>>job". But Kerry's campaign was bought and paid for
>>by Hollywood Homosexual money. He simply did not
>>feel free to make this required position speech in
>>his campaign and kept silent about the issue, but the
>>public were not going to accept that and would not
>>allow him to back into the office.
>>
>>> Hillary's chances would have been better if Bill had not survived his
>>heart
>>> troubles. Her cookie recipe didn't work as well as expected. If I were
>>> Hillary running for President in 2008, I would go back to the health
care
>>> issue. It worked in 1992. She's going to be attacked for it no matter
>>what
>>> she does. She might as well run with it and defend her position. There
>>is
>>> no inherent reason for the religious right to oppose universal coverage.
>>> In 1994, Hillary made abortion part of her health plan, the religious
>>right
>>> came out against her plan.
>>
>>Clinton's Presidency was torpedoed again by this sick
>>Homosexual agenda. He took Hollywood Homosexual money
>>in the 1992 campaign and ghosted into the Presidency
>>without people really knowing that this was his prime
>>agenda. Thus, when he in 1993 embarked on a huge
>>campaign to sell Sodomy to the US in the form of Gays
>>In The Military, the public reacted violently against
>>this and his collapsed popularity resulted in the
>>Republicans winning both houses of Congress from the
>>Democrats in a huge landslide.
>>
>>This victory for the Republicans shut down all
>>legislative initiatives like health Care which
>>Clinton campaigned to implement, not to mention
>>instigate a slew of investigations of his life which
>>eventually resulted in Clinton's impeachment. And
>>the people who voted for the impeachment were the
>>very Republicans who won power in 1994 midterm
>>elections because of the Gays In The Military policy.
>>Thus, there was a lot of appropriateness in Clinton's
>>impeachment.
>>
>>In short, this Sodomy issue has done serious damage
>>to the interests of the true Left (The Poor, Blacks,
>>Unions, and Women) because it has caused the party
>>the Left relies upon to lose power and influence over
>>policy. And they have lost this power to support an
>>issue, Sodomy which is primarily supported by and
>>engaged in by wealthy fatcat Neo-Conservatives, who
>>normally vote Republican anyway.
"Michael Alden" <drbencasey [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116142671.620913.265580 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You like the fucking Arabs so much, why don't you go live with them?
I think the US Bombs raining down on Iraqi men, women and
children civilians would spoil the skyline, so that is out of the question,
even if I wanted to.
However, are you claiming that it is ok to murder Arabs/Moslems
all over the world for no reason, claiming that they are all terrorists ?
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34718 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 17:08 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34721 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 17:13 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34722 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 17:22 |
|
"Nobody" <nobodynobody [at] hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:53pe819klielpi27ao0dti568a9fh4o20p [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 06:54:49 -0700, "John Shocked"
> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Michael Alden" <drbencasey [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1116142671.620913.265580 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> You like the fucking Arabs so much, why don't you go live with them?
> >I think the US Bombs raining down on Iraqi men, women and
> >children civilians would spoil the skyline, so that is out of the
question,
> >even if I wanted to.
> >However, are you claiming that it is ok to murder Arabs/Moslems
> >all over the world for no reason, claiming that they are all terrorists ?
> John Shocked.
>
> Discussions of the issues facing the Arab peoples of the world today
> are NOT on topic in ANY of the newgroups you insist on repeatedly
> cross-posting to -- namely, alt.battlestar-galactica, rec.arts.sf.tv,
> alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.startrek, alt.tv.scifi.channel, and
> rec.arts.tv. The fact that such discussions are off-topic is NOT a
> matter of opinion. Simply read the names of the groups. Your post
> here, and many other messages you have posted prior to this, are
> simply not relevant to the topics of the newgroups listed. Your flimsy
> pretense of making a passing reference to a TV show as a springboard
> into a lengthy discussion about Arabs and Jews does not negate the
> fact that you are simply discussing politics, and such discussions are
> not appropriate for these particular newgroups.
>
> If you wish to discuss politics (and you clearly do), you may go to
> one of the many newsgroups about politics to do so. Such discussions
> are appropriate in those newsgroups, and that is where they should be
> conducted. You will find that you receive much more interaction with
> others if you post political discussions in a newsgroup where such
> discussions are welcomed.
As I have stated earlier, the wealthy fatcat Hollywood Homosexual
Neo-Conservatives who are responsible for selling Sodomy to you
and your kids in the scripts of movies and TV series like Battlestar
Galactica and Star Trek:Deep Space Nine, are the same people who
Hate Arabs/Moslems and are determined to mass murder them all over
the world and con the US to pervert its military might to accomplish the
same.
These wealthy fatcat Neo-Conservatives pose a severe danger
to the country morally, to you and your kids whom they want
to encourage to engage in Sodomy, and
they also pose a severe danger to the US National Security.
These wealthy fatcat Neo-Conservatives are in control of the US and
the US public on many fronts needs to know who these people are,
what they want and the danger they pose.
Politics
==========================================
>>"Michael Rhino" <news2005 [at] alexanderpics.com> wrote in message
>>news:%zwhe.15040$ya2.14556 [at] tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%Gohe.32390$fI.7226 [at] fed1read05...
>>> > For instance, there is the fact that Israel started the terrorism in
the
>>> > Middle East in 1948 by going into Palestinian townships like Yassin
>>> > and murdering 100's of Palestinians. The terrorist Israeli state then
>>> > stole the land and property of the Palestinian who fled their homeland
>>> > and became the Palestinian Refugees. This is not complicated for the
>>> > Press to explain to the public but the Press is intentionally
depriving
>>> > the public of this information, which is a disgrace.
>>> Israel could have set up a Palestinian state in the 1950's without any
>>
>>No they could not. Israel was by then the terrorist
>>in the region and were being opposed by their
>>Palestinian victims. After those crimes, Israel will
>>never be able to set up anything in Palestine that
>>lasts. And now that the US has tipped its hand and
>>has its hands covered in Arab blood in Iraq, there
>>appears to be a bleak future for the world in this
>>regard while the US remains the world's main
>>superpower. You cannot make peace with your hands
>>covered in the blood of one of the parties to that
>>peace.
>>
>>> outside influence. They were hoping that the refuges would go
>>> away (flee to Jordan or Saudi Arabia). Then you ended up with people
>>> in permanent refuge status for 50 years.
>>> I felt that Kerry was a weak candidate. I felt that all of his
positions
>>> were political calculations. He was taking positions without thinking
>>about
>>> them. Bush came out with proposals for space and bringing troops home
>>from
>>> foreign bases. Kerry immediately came out against those positions
without
>>> thinking about what he was saying. On Iraq, Kerry promised to bring
>>troops
>>> home in 4 years instead of 4 years and 3 days. On the subject of
>>abortion,
>>
>>Kerry's problem on Iraq was that, like Michael Howard
>>he supported the second US invasion of Iraq, voting
>>for it in the Senate. Then in the Primariesto win
>>the Democrat nomination he was forced to act like he
>>had opposed the war, when that was not true. Kerry
>>was able to win the Democrat nomination because he
>>had a military background, which George W. Bush did
>>not have, and because the only Democrat candidate who
>>truly opposed the Iraq Massacre was Howard Dead,
>>Governor of Vermont. However, Dean had the problem
>>that he was tiedup in supporting the Hollywood
>>Homosexual agenda, to the point of supporting
>>Homosexual Civil Unions in his state which I believe
>>was the first to legislate this. Thus, Sodomy already
>>entered the campaign with Dean as its casualty,
>>forcing Democrats to pick Kerry instead.
>>
>>But Kerry, as later developed had his own problem, as
>>Crooked Judges in his home state of Massachusetts
>>abused their Judicial positions to Make Law in 2004
>>right in the middle of this campaign, and they made
>>Homosexual Marriage legal in Massachusetts. At this
>>point, the interests of the true Left hung in the
>>balance as The Poor, Blacks, Unions and Women were
>>depending on Kerry to separate himself completely
>>from this loser issue of Homosexual Marriage and come
>>through to win the election. He needed to make a
>>clear statement heard far and wide of his opposition
>>to the Homosexual agenda and he failed to do this.
>>And this Homosexual crap turned out to be the key
>>issue which lost the election for him, as is obvious
>>from the fact that on the same day of the election,
>>11 out of 11 US States votes by overwhelming margins
>>to ban Homosexual Marriage and in some cases Civil
>>Unions from ever occurring in their states.
>>
>>> I would like to see a democrat stand up and defend the pro-choice
>>position.
>>> Kerry's position seemed to be "I'll take the far left position, but
>>> I'll compromise by not defending it." If you want to compromise,
>>> come out against late term abortions or something. Kerry went
>>> with the wrong compromise.
>>
>>The abortion issue did not affect the election. The
>>US public essentially said to Kerry "if you oppose
>>this Hollywood Homosexual agenda " you can have the
>>job". But Kerry's campaign was bought and paid for
>>by Hollywood Homosexual money. He simply did not
>>feel free to make this required position speech in
>>his campaign and kept silent about the issue, but the
>>public were not going to accept that and would not
>>allow him to back into the office.
>>
>>> Hillary's chances would have been better if Bill had not survived
>>> his heart troubles. Her cookie recipe didn't work as well as
>>> expected. If I were Hillary running for President in 2008, I would
>>> go back to the health care issue. It worked in 1992. She's going
>>> to be attacked for it no matter what she does. She might as well
>>> run with it and defend her position. There is no inherent reason
>>> for the religious right to oppose universal coverage.
>>> In 1994, Hillary made abortion part of her health plan, the
>>> religious right came out against her plan.
>>
>>Clinton's Presidency was torpedoed again by this sick
>>Homosexual agenda. He took Hollywood Homosexual money
>>in the 1992 campaign and ghosted into the Presidency
>>without people really knowing that this was his prime
>>agenda. Thus, when he in 1993 embarked on a huge
>>campaign to sell Sodomy to the US in the form of Gays
>>In The Military, the public reacted violently against
>>this and his collapsed popularity resulted in the
>>Republicans winning both houses of Congress from the
>>Democrats in a huge landslide.
>>
>>This victory for the Republicans shut down all
>>legislative initiatives like health Care which
>>Clinton campaigned to implement, not to mention
>>instigate a slew of investigations of his life which
>>eventually resulted in Clinton's impeachment. And
>>the people who voted for the impeachment were the
>>very Republicans who won power in 1994 midterm
>>elections because of the Gays In The Military policy.
>>Thus, there was a lot of appropriateness in Clinton's
>>impeachment.
>>
>>In short, this Sodomy issue has done serious damage
>>to the interests of the true Left (The Poor, Blacks,
>>Unions, and Women) because it has caused the party
>>the Left relies upon to lose power and influence over
>>policy. And they have lost this power to support an
>>issue, Sodomy which is primarily supported by and
>>engaged in by wealthy fatcat Neo-Conservatives, who
>>normally vote Republican anyway.
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34724 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 17:34 |
|
"Nobody" <nobodynobody [at] hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9npe81lpb4d2t3g07jf4a8duademl02ha1 [at] 4ax.com...
> Correction: I see you included alt.politics.homosexuality in your most
> recent cross-posting. Of course that group welcomes some political
> discussions, as indicated by the word "politics" in the newgroup name.
> However, lengthy discussions of the Arab/Jewish conflict would be
> off-topic there just as it is in all the other newgroups you
> cross-posted to.
Asw I have stated, these issues are definitely on topic.
Rather than adopt this dishonest method of opposing my statements,
why not state your disagreement.
That would be honest response rather than to con people into
believing that free speech on the Usenet is limited. That is not true.
Whenever I have enough time, I may want to do something about
all of these false complaints you are making.
Politics
"Nobody" <nobodynobody [at] hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:53pe819klielpi27ao0dti568a9fh4o20p [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 06:54:49 -0700, "John Shocked"
> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Michael Alden" <drbencasey [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1116142671.620913.265580 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> You like the fucking Arabs so much, why don't you go live with them?
> >I think the US Bombs raining down on Iraqi men, women and
> >children civilians would spoil the skyline, so that is out of the
question,
> >even if I wanted to.
> >However, are you claiming that it is ok to murder Arabs/Moslems
> >all over the world for no reason, claiming that they are all terrorists ?
> John Shocked.
>
> Discussions of the issues facing the Arab peoples of the world today
> are NOT on topic in ANY of the newgroups you insist on repeatedly
> cross-posting to -- namely, alt.battlestar-galactica, rec.arts.sf.tv,
> alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.startrek, alt.tv.scifi.channel, and
> rec.arts.tv. The fact that such discussions are off-topic is NOT a
> matter of opinion. Simply read the names of the groups. Your post
> here, and many other messages you have posted prior to this, are
> simply not relevant to the topics of the newgroups listed. Your flimsy
> pretense of making a passing reference to a TV show as a springboard
> into a lengthy discussion about Arabs and Jews does not negate the
> fact that you are simply discussing politics, and such discussions are
> not appropriate for these particular newgroups.
>
> If you wish to discuss politics (and you clearly do), you may go to
> one of the many newsgroups about politics to do so. Such discussions
> are appropriate in those newsgroups, and that is where they should be
> conducted. You will find that you receive much more interaction with
> others if you post political discussions in a newsgroup where such
> discussions are welcomed.
As I have stated earlier, the wealthy fatcat Hollywood Homosexual
Neo-Conservatives who are responsible for selling Sodomy to you
and your kids in the scripts of movies and TV series like Battlestar
Galactica and Star Trek:Deep Space Nine, are the same people who
Hate Arabs/Moslems and are determined to mass murder them all over
the world and con the US to pervert its military might to accomplish the
same.
These wealthy fatcat Neo-Conservatives pose a severe danger
to the country morally, to you and your kids whom they want
to encourage to engage in Sodomy, and
they also pose a severe danger to the US National Security.
These wealthy fatcat Neo-Conservatives are in control of the US and
the US public on many fronts needs to know who these people are,
what they want and the danger they pose.
Politics
==========================================
>>"Michael Rhino" <news2005 [at] alexanderpics.com> wrote in message
>>news:%zwhe.15040$ya2.14556 [at] tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%Gohe.32390$fI.7226 [at] fed1read05...
>>> > For instance, there is the fact that Israel started the terrorism in
the
>>> > Middle East in 1948 by going into Palestinian townships like Yassin
>>> > and murdering 100's of Palestinians. The terrorist Israeli state then
>>> > stole the land and property of the Palestinian who fled their homeland
>>> > and became the Palestinian Refugees. This is not complicated for the
>>> > Press to explain to the public but the Press is intentionally
depriving
>>> > the public of this information, which is a disgrace.
>>> Israel could have set up a Palestinian state in the 1950's without any
>>
>>No they could not. Israel was by then the terrorist
>>in the region and were being opposed by their
>>Palestinian victims. After those crimes, Israel will
>>never be able to set up anything in Palestine that
>>lasts. And now that the US has tipped its hand and
>>has its hands covered in Arab blood in Iraq, there
>>appears to be a bleak future for the world in this
>>regard while the US remains the world's main
>>superpower. You cannot make peace with your hands
>>covered in the blood of one of the parties to that
>>peace.
>>
>>> outside influence. They were hoping that the refuges would go
>>> away (flee to Jordan or Saudi Arabia). Then you ended up with people
>>> in permanent refuge status for 50 years.
>>> I felt that Kerry was a weak candidate. I felt that all of his
positions
>>> were political calculations. He was taking positions without thinking
>>about
>>> them. Bush came out with proposals for space and bringing troops home
>>from
>>> foreign bases. Kerry immediately came out against those positions
without
>>> thinking about what he was saying. On Iraq, Kerry promised to bring
>>troops
>>> home in 4 years instead of 4 years and 3 days. On the subject of
>>abortion,
>>
>>Kerry's problem on Iraq was that, like Michael Howard
>>he supported the second US invasion of Iraq, voting
>>for it in the Senate. Then in the Primariesto win
>>the Democrat nomination he was forced to act like he
>>had opposed the war, when that was not true. Kerry
>>was able to win the Democrat nomination because he
>>had a military background, which George W. Bush did
>>not have, and because the only Democrat candidate who
>>truly opposed the Iraq Massacre was Howard Dead,
>>Governor of Vermont. However, Dean had the problem
>>that he was tiedup in supporting the Hollywood
>>Homosexual agenda, to the point of supporting
>>Homosexual Civil Unions in his state which I believe
>>was the first to legislate this. Thus, Sodomy already
>>entered the campaign with Dean as its casualty,
>>forcing Democrats to pick Kerry instead.
>>
>>But Kerry, as later developed had his own problem, as
>>Crooked Judges in his home state of Massachusetts
>>abused their Judicial positions to Make Law in 2004
>>right in the middle of this campaign, and they made
>>Homosexual Marriage legal in Massachusetts. At this
>>point, the interests of the true Left hung in the
>>balance as The Poor, Blacks, Unions and Women were
>>depending on Kerry to separate himself completely
>>from this loser issue of Homosexual Marriage and come
>>through to win the election. He needed to make a
>>clear statement heard far and wide of his opposition
>>to the Homosexual agenda and he failed to do this.
>>And this Homosexual crap turned out to be the key
>>issue which lost the election for him, as is obvious
>>from the fact that on the same day of the election,
>>11 out of 11 US States votes by overwhelming margins
>>to ban Homosexual Marriage and in some cases Civil
>>Unions from ever occurring in their states.
>>
>>> I would like to see a democrat stand up and defend the pro-choice
>>position.
>>> Kerry's position seemed to be "I'll take the far left position, but
>>> I'll compromise by not defending it." If you want to compromise,
>>> come out against late term abortions or something. Kerry went
>>> with the wrong compromise.
>>
>>The abortion issue did not affect the election. The
>>US public essentially said to Kerry "if you oppose
>>this Hollywood Homosexual agenda " you can have the
>>job". But Kerry's campaign was bought and paid for
>>by Hollywood Homosexual money. He simply did not
>>feel free to make this required position speech in
>>his campaign and kept silent about the issue, but the
>>public were not going to accept that and would not
>>allow him to back into the office.
>>
>>> Hillary's chances would have been better if Bill had not survived
>>> his heart troubles. Her cookie recipe didn't work as well as
>>> expected. If I were Hillary running for President in 2008, I would
>>> go back to the health care issue. It worked in 1992. She's going
>>> to be attacked for it no matter what she does. She might as well
>>> run with it and defend her position. There is no inherent reason
>>> for the religious right to oppose universal coverage.
>>> In 1994, Hillary made abortion part of her health plan, the
>>> religious right came out against her plan.
>>
>>Clinton's Presidency was torpedoed again by this sick
>>Homosexual agenda. He took Hollywood Homosexual money
>>in the 1992 campaign and ghosted into the Presidency
>>without people really knowing that this was his prime
>>agenda. Thus, when he in 1993 embarked on a huge
>>campaign to sell Sodomy to the US in the form of Gays
>>In The Military, the public reacted violently against
>>this and his collapsed popularity resulted in the
>>Republicans winning both houses of Congress from the
>>Democrats in a huge landslide.
>>
>>This victory for the Republicans shut down all
>>legislative initiatives like health Care which
>>Clinton campaigned to implement, not to mention
>>instigate a slew of investigations of his life which
>>eventually resulted in Clinton's impeachment. And
>>the people who voted for the impeachment were the
>>very Republicans who won power in 1994 midterm
>>elections because of the Gays In The Military policy.
>>Thus, there was a lot of appropriateness in Clinton's
>>impeachment.
>>
>>In short, this Sodomy issue has done serious damage
>>to the interests of the true Left (The Poor, Blacks,
>>Unions, and Women) because it has caused the party
>>the Left relies upon to lose power and influence over
>>policy. And they have lost this power to support an
>>issue, Sodomy which is primarily supported by and
>>engaged in by wealthy fatcat Neo-Conservatives, who
>>normally vote Republican anyway.
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34734 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 18:34 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> "Nobody" <nobodynobody [at] hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:53pe819klielpi27ao0dti568a9fh4o20p [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 15 May 2005 06:54:49 -0700, "John Shocked"
>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Michael Alden" <drbencasey [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1116142671.620913.265580 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> You like the fucking Arabs so much, why don't you go live with
>>>> them?
So why is it you drop out of threads that you can't seem to win?
Is it your underlying theme is much more important to you?
http://www.netaxs.com/~balpert/jewfaq.html
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34738 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 19:03 |
|
"L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
news:vK6dnXZ7ZqKH5xrfRVn-2g [at] comcast.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
> > "Nobody" <nobodynobody [at] hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:53pe819klielpi27ao0dti568a9fh4o20p [at] 4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 15 May 2005 06:54:49 -0700, "John Shocked"
> >> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> "Michael Alden" <drbencasey [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:1116142671.620913.265580 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> You like the fucking Arabs so much, why don't you go live with
> >>>> them?
> So why is it you drop out of threads that you can't seem to win?
> Is it your underlying theme is much more important to you?
> http://www.netaxs.com/~balpert/jewfaq.html
Which threads have I dropped out of ? Or are you referring to him.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34743 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 20:03 |
|
I've filed an abuse report with Google and Hotmail.
I and many others are tired of your off-topic spamming.
Hopefully you don't be here much longer.
John Shocked wrote:
> (his usual spam)
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34744 ] |
So, 15 Mai 2005 20:12 |
|
<hondainsightful [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116180217.449764.304290 [at] g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I've filed an abuse report with Google and Hotmail.
> I and many others are tired of your off-topic spamming.
> Hopefully you don't be here much longer.
> John Shocked wrote:
> > (his usual spam)
It is the truth. Keep reading and edify yourself.
You can do it. Have courage.
Politics
======================================
One of the reasons the Hollywood Homosexuals behind
Battlestar Galactica are pushing Sodomy symbolisms
in BSG is because they would desperately like to
reverse some of the following results which they
encountered in all 11 states in the US on November 3
2004 (US election day) which had Ballot Questions
(plebiscital votes by voters in a state controlling
their own state's laws) on the Homosexual Marriage
agenda. So if you are watching your favorite science
fiction show and then you notice something in the
script which does not make sense, it may be that it
was time for Word From BSG's Sponsor, the
Hollywood Homosexuals who are using the script as
their advertisement vehicle.
Homosexuals have had control of Hollywood since
around 1992, when Clinton (and Jerry Brown) ran for
President the first time. Even though they have been
pushing their agenda hard for all these years, they
are yet to win a single statewide vote. Clinton took
homosexual money in 1992 and as soon as he was
inaugurated started to implement policies that he
was bought and paid to implement -- Gays In The
Military, in 1993. This was an intense unpopular
policy initiative, shocked the public, and resulted
in the Democrats losing both Houses of Congress in
1994, and started a series of investigations into
Clinton's personal life, resulting finally in his
Impeachment in 1998. John Kerry (Democrat 2004
Presidential Candidate) again took homosexual money
in the 2004 election year. Democrats do not have
many sources of money, representing the poorer
segments of society. Since Kerry was from the state
of Massachusetts, a state which earlier in 2004
legalized Homosexual Marriage through a corrupt
bribed out Judges judicial decision (not a vote by
its legislature) the onus was on John Kerry to
separate himself from this suicidal issue in a very
very public manner.
However, because Kerry took Hollywood Homosexual
money in the 2004 year and before, he simply was not
able to do that. Thus in a year when Kerry was
running for President against George W. Bush, who
had a terrible record, who had had the Economy
collapse early in his first year (2001) and it
stayed that way till mid 2004, who also failed to
prevent the 9-11 Attacks on the World Trade Center
in 2001, who lied to drag the US into a war against
Iraq, when his allegations that Iraq had Weapons Of
Mass Destruction were false and various other
failures, Kerry still could not win because of the
Homosexual agenda balla and chain around his neck.
Kerry should have won this race 55%-45% if he was
not carrying this Homosexual agenda ball and chain.
And the following votes are an in indication of how
strongly people felt against this homosexual agenda
Kerry was pushing.
Several of these 11 states were Swing States -- they
were close in the previous election and would decide
the election in 2004. Many people went to vote
against the Homosexual Agenda, and voted against
Kerry as an afterthought.
Now Hollywood Homosexuals are wealthy fatcats and,
despite popular misconceptions, are overwhelming
Republican. They do not want Democrats like John
Kerry to win and then raise their taxes. Thus, there
may well be a scam going on here, to buy the
Democrat candidate each year and ask him to support
something the US public despises -- this time it was
Homosexual Marriage. If this buying every 4 years
of the Democrat candidate by Hollywood Homosexual
fatcats continues, it could be an extremely long
time before the Democrats ever come close to taking
back any of the branches of government again.
Here are the results from the 11 States who had the
Homosexual agenda on a ballot question 5 months ago:
=================================
Arkansas Ballot wording: Marriage consists
only of the union of one man and one woman. Legal
status for unmarried persons which is identical or
substantially similar to marital status shall not be
valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the
legislature may recognize a common law marriage from
another state between a man and a woman. The
legislature has the power to determine the capacity
of persons to marry, subject to this amendment, and
the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and
immunities of marriage.Result: Passed 75% to 25%
Georgia The measure amends the state constitution to
include the following statement: (a) This state
shall recognize as marriage only the union of man
and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex
are prohibited in this state. (b) No union between
persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this
state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This
state shall not give effect to any public act,
record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or
jurisdiction respecting a relationship between
persons of the same sex that is treated as a
marriage under the laws of such other state or
jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no
jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate
maintenance with respect to any such relationship or
otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties'
respective rights arising as a result of or in
connection with such relationship.Result: Passed 77%
to 23%.
Kentucky Only a marriage between one man and one
woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in
Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially
similar to that of marriage for unmarried
individuals shall not be valid or recognized.Result:
Passed: 75% to 25%.
Michigan The measure amends the state constitution
to include the following statement: To secure and
preserve the benefits of marriage for our society
and for future generations of children, the union of
one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only
agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union
for any purpose.Result: Passed: 59% to 41%.
Mississippi The measure amends the state
constitution to read: Marriage may take place and
may be valid under the laws of this state only
between a man and a woman. A marriage in another
state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the
same gender, regardless of when the marriage took
place, may not be recognized in this state and is
void and unenforceable under the laws of this
state.Result: Passed: 86% to 14%.
Montana The measure amends the state constitution to
read: Only a marriage between one man and one woman
shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this
state.Result: Passed: 66% to 34%.
North Dakota The measure amends the state
constitution to include the following statement:
Marriage consists only of the legal union between a
man and a woman. No other domestic union, however
denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or
given the same or substantially equivalent
effect.Result: Passed 73% to 24%.
Ohio The measure amends the state constitution to
include the following statement: Only a union
between one man and one woman may be a marriage
valid in or recognized by this state and its
political subdivisions. This state and its political
subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal
status for relationships of unmarried individuals
that intends to approximate the design, qualities,
significance or effect of marriage.Result: Passed
62% to 38%.
Oklahoma The measure amends the state constitution
to read: A Marriage in this state shall consist only
of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this
Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be
construed to require that marital status or the
legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried
couples or groups. B. A marriage between persons of
the same gender performed in another state shall not
be recognized as valid and binding in this state as
of the date of the marriage. C. Any person knowingly
issuing a marriage license in violation of this
section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.Result:
Passed 76% to 24%.
Oregon The measure would amend the state
constitution to read: It is the policy of Oregon,
and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage
between one man and one woman shall be valid or
legally recognized as a marriage.Result: Passed 57%
to 43%.
Utah The measure amends the state constitution to
read, 1. Marriage consists only of the legal union
between a man and a woman. 2. No other domestic
status or union, however denominated, between
persons is valid or recognized or may be authorized,
sanctioned, or given the same or substantially
equivalent legal effect as a marriage. Results:
Passed 66% to 34%.
==================================
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34805 ] |
Mo, 16 Mai 2005 02:33 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34809 ] |
Mo, 16 Mai 2005 03:08 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7PJhe.33025$fI.15343 [at] fed1read05...
>
> As I have stated earlier, the wealthy fatcat Hollywood Homosexual
> Neo-Conservatives who are responsible for selling Sodomy to you
> and your kids in the scripts of movies and TV series like Battlestar
> Galactica and Star Trek:Deep Space Nine, are the same people who
> Hate Arabs/Moslems and are determined to mass murder them all over
> the world and con the US to pervert its military might to accomplish the
> same.
How do you know? I think you are making the mistake of grouping everybody
you don't like into one group and thinking that they are a monolithic group
that supports everything you oppose. A lot of anti-homosexual religious
right people supported the war in Iraq.
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34845 ] |
Mo, 16 Mai 2005 13:56 |
|
There is no way for such a [alt.battlestar-galactica]
charter to even be discussed because the
only people left on this Newsgroup after harassment by paid
Hollywood Homosexual public relations hacks who work on
this Newsgroup are the hacks themselves and their stooges.
What would be more useful for the Usenet in general is a policy
which Bans personal attacks and thereby encourages people to
state their opinions without fear of 'harsh words' from these
hacks who work here for pay.
In addition, false complaints made by hacks to a Speaker's ISP
should be grounds for Banishment by the false complainer from
the Usenet.
Any time you see people operating with fear, when some hack
threatens to insult them or exclude them from any further
discussions has to be a top priority to combat.
I believe such people should be Banned from the Usenet
completely as their behavior is totally in opposition to the
free flow of ideas, which is the purpose of the Usenet.
This harassment is widespread on this Newsgroup and others
and is central to the methods commercial interests utilize
to control discussion here.
Again, the whole issue of Hollywood Homosexuals is central to
any frank discussion of Battlestar Galactica because it is obvious
that the series surreptitiously is selling Sodomy to you and your kids.
Saturday Night Live has recognized this and performed skits
parodying its inherent deception; others have recognized this content.
Viewers have a right to respond to this BSG series Sodomy
indoctrination that Hollywood Homosexuals are committing which
has as its target you and your kids.
In sum, I think the problems with hacks interfering with discussion
on this Newsgroup and others points up problems with the
policies of the ISPs and ISPs need to look at this Newsgroup
and formulate policy around how to encourage the free flow of
ideas and discussions which has been my intent.
Politics
===================================
"Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam [at] houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:150520052159318323%cmn-nospam [at] houston.rr.com...
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group alt.battlestar-galactica
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
> charter for the world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup
> alt.battlestar-galactica. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you
> cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are below.
>
> NEWSGROUP LINE:
> alt.battlestar-galactica Discussion of the three TV series.
>
> RATIONALE: alt.battlestar-galactica
>
> The group has been in existance for several years and has a moderate
> level of traffic. This Discussion is only to create a new Charter.
>
> CHARTER: alt.battlestar-galactica
>
> alt.battlestar-galactica is for discussion of the three television
> series: the "Classic" series from 1978,the "Galactica 1980" series, and
> the "Re-imagined" series from 2003, and the ideas, characters,
> technology and hardware that appear in them. Discussion of other
> projects by the people involved in making the series are also on-topic.
>
> This is an unmoderated discussion group. Since it's not a binaries
> group, binary posts are not allowed (not even pictures of naked
> Boomers) and will be cancelled in accordance with Usenet guidelines.
> Spam is Bad, and will also be cancelled in accordance with Usenet
> guidelines. Commercial ads and other off-topic posts, including
> political, religionist or Hollywood homosexuals discussion not related
> to the shows, are also Bad, but will not be cancelled because that's
> not part of Usenet guidelines. This doesn't mean we want them, though,
> so don't get any ideas.
>
> All posts should be text only. Please turn off HTML if your client uses
> it and remove all attachments including vcards.
>
> END CHARTER.
>
> PROCEDURE:
>
> This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
> of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
> should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
> for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
> proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups). There will be a Call
> For Votes (CFV) when the discussion indicates a level of agreement on
> the content. This discussion is simply to adopt a charter which defines
> the topic. Please do not attempt to vote until the call for votes.
>
> All discussion of this proposal should be posted only to
> alt.battlestar-galatica and nowhere else.
>
> This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
> guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
> to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these
> documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
> questions about the process.
>
> DISTRIBUTION:
>
> alt.battlestar-galactica
>
> Proponent: Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam [at] houston.rr.com>
============================================
"Nobody" <nobodynobody [at] hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4hpf81do7lchk4amck6f4ppa41o9netvv0 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 08:34:21 -0700, "John Shocked"
> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Asw I have stated, these issues are definitely on topic.
> >Rather than adopt this dishonest method of opposing my statements,
> >why not state your disagreement.
> >That would be honest response rather than to con people into
> >believing that free speech on the Usenet is limited. That is not true.
> >Whenever I have enough time, I may want to do something about
> >all of these false complaints you are making.
>
> I'll explain it one final time.
>
> USENET newsgroups are designed for discussing only certain topics, as
> indicated by their group titles. So, for instance, discussing things
> that are relevant to Star Trek is appropriate in alt.startrek, and
> things not relevant to Star Trek are not allowed.. Things that are not
> directly relevant to Star Trek are not allowed. You don't get to
> decide what is and is not off-topic, because the rule is: if your post
> is not directly related to the topic of the group then you are
> breaking the rules.
>
> You are simply breaking those rules by discussing other topics in
> these newsgroups. Which part of this don't you understand, exactly?
>
> Your endless discussions of your pro-arab, anti-homo viewpoints are by
> definition off-topic in the newgroups alt.battlestar-galactica,
> rec.arts.sf.tv, alt.startrek, alt.tv.scifi.channel, and rec.arts.tv,
> so please piss off and die. As long as you continue to post such
> off-topic messages to these groups, we will be reporting every such
> post to your ISP as a violation of their strict rules against posting
> off-topic messages in USENET newgroups.
>
> I could care less about your desire to have people argue with you
> about your silly opinions, or your attempts to clumsily bait people
> into doing so. Apparently you're too stupid to know the difference
> between someone who holds a contrary opinion and someone who is simply
> telling you that the entire discussion is not appropriate in the
> particular place you have chosen to discuss it. You're not very
> bright, are you?
>
> Rest assured your ISP will have to pay customer service reps to field
> each and every complaint you cause with your inappropriate
> behavior.Eventually you will generate enough complaints for it to be
> in their best interests as a business to yank your access, should you
> continue with your current foolish behavior. I wouldn't recommend it.
>
> Shape up or ship out. You really don't have a choice.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34847 ] |
Mo, 16 Mai 2005 14:31 |
|
"Michael Rhino" <news2005 [at] alexanderpics.com> wrote in message
news:toShe.15141$887.474 [at] tornado.socal.rr.com...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7PJhe.33025$fI.15343 [at] fed1read05...
> > As I have stated earlier, the wealthy fatcat Hollywood Homosexual
> > Neo-Conservatives who are responsible for selling Sodomy to you
> > and your kids in the scripts of movies and TV series like Battlestar
> > Galactica and Star Trek:Deep Space Nine, are the same people
> > who Hate Arabs/Moslems and are determined to mass murder them
> > all over the world and con the US to pervert its military might
> > to accomplish the same.
> How do you know? I think you are making the mistake of
>grouping everybody you don't like into one group and thinking
> that they are a monolithic group that supports everything you oppose.
> A lot of anti-homosexual religious right people supported the war in Iraq.
Read this:
http://www.fpif.org/papers/2004evangelical.html
=========Foreign Policy In Focus===excerpt======
Finally, the Christian right's access to power has been greatly
aided by the ties it has developed with neoconservatives
influential within the present administration. Neoconservative
intellectuals, many of them Jewish, may seem unlikely allies
for the Christian right, but this partnership has developed
across several issue areas. The most important basis for
this partnership is a common support for Israel or, to put
it more accurately, for the Likud Party's vision of Israel's
interests. The Christian right's support for Israel harks back
to the movement's beginnings in the late 1970s, but it has
risen to a higher level in the last few years. The 2002 annual
convention of the Christian Coalition culminated in a rally
for Israel, and Ralph Reed and Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein
recently founded a new group, Stand for Israel. Meanwhile,
throughout Christian right media, criticism of the Palestinians
and support for hard-line Israeli policies has grown more intense.
=============end of excerpt===============
Indiana Jones movies blur the difference between Nazis and Arabs.
There is the famous clip from one of those movies in which Harrison Ford
when faced with an Arab with inferior weaponry, a sword, pulls out
a gun and shoots the Arab. Note in that scene how Harrison Ford looks
away from the Arab as he is Directed to shoot the Arab, showing how
disgusting and hate-engendering that scene is.
Hollywood Homosexuals are a very similar group to the group well known
as Neo-Conservatives or Neo-Cons.
They generally are Conservatives who believe vehemently in Sodomy,
Israel and Individual Rights for people to engage in any kind of
behavior they want, with no moral societal rules.
Since most people do not know what a Neo-Conservative is and there
still exists some debate about their views, I use "Hollywood Homosexuals"
instead, because it directly addresses what I am concerned about and
is easier to understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_%28United_State s%29
http://www.hppub.com/dadtseq/gaycon.htm
Neo-Conservatives are the main propellants in this country of the
extermination of Arabs in the Middle East.
They are the ones who contributed huge amounts of money to Bush
and to the Conservative Think Tanks to develop the anti-Iraq coalition
and many people believe they have hijacked US Foreign Policy.
And Neo-Conservatives support Sodomy big time.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #34893 ] |
Mo, 16 Mai 2005 23:08 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #37583 ] |
Di, 17 Mai 2005 16:52 |
|
>
> Probably something similar happened in Australia.
> Is Western Australia and Australia proper considered to be
> two different countries down there ?
>
No, but we (W.A) did were going to secede in 1933 and others still want to
now. There's a separate country in W.A called Hutt River Province.
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #39287 ] |
Fr, 20 Mai 2005 04:19 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vK6dnXZ7ZqKH5xrfRVn-2g [at] comcast.com...
>> John Shocked wrote:
>>> "Nobody" <nobodynobody [at] hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:53pe819klielpi27ao0dti568a9fh4o20p [at] 4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 15 May 2005 06:54:49 -0700, "John Shocked"
>>>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Michael Alden" <drbencasey [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1116142671.620913.265580 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> You like the fucking Arabs so much, why don't you go live with
>>>>>> them?
>> So why is it you drop out of threads that you can't seem to win?
>> Is it your underlying theme is much more important to you?
>> http://www.netaxs.com/~balpert/jewfaq.html
>
> Which threads have I dropped out of ? Or are you referring to him.
>
> Politics
I see you have responded to an old message. Good to see you can hang in
there.
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #39288 ] |
Fr, 20 Mai 2005 04:20 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> There is no way for such a [alt.battlestar-galactica]
> charter to even be discussed because the
> only people left on this Newsgroup after harassment by paid
> Hollywood Homosexual public relations hacks who work on
> this Newsgroup are the hacks themselves and their stooges.
You would be better off in alt.conspiracy
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #39300 ] |
Fr, 20 Mai 2005 07:31 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #40450 ] |
Fr, 20 Mai 2005 17:50 |
|
"L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
news:4s2dncVDmoPV1BDfRVn-uA [at] comcast.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
> > "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:vK6dnXZ7ZqKH5xrfRVn-2g [at] comcast.com...
> >> John Shocked wrote:
> >>> "Nobody" <nobodynobody [at] hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:53pe819klielpi27ao0dti568a9fh4o20p [at] 4ax.com...
> >>>> On Sun, 15 May 2005 06:54:49 -0700, "John Shocked"
> >>>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "Michael Alden" <drbencasey [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:1116142671.620913.265580 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>> You like the fucking Arabs so much, why don't you go live with
> >>>>>> them?
> >> So why is it you drop out of threads that you can't seem to win?
> >> Is it your underlying theme is much more important to you?
> >> http://www.netaxs.com/~balpert/jewfaq.html
> >
> > Which threads have I dropped out of ? Or are you referring to him.
> >
> > Politics
>
> I see you have responded to an old message. Good to see you can hang in
> there.
Telling the truth is fun. Especially when the issues
are of "public importance".
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #40470 ] |
Sa, 21 Mai 2005 01:11 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4s2dncVDmoPV1BDfRVn-uA [at] comcast.com...
>> John Shocked wrote:
>>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:vK6dnXZ7ZqKH5xrfRVn-2g [at] comcast.com...
>>>> John Shocked wrote:
>>>>> "Nobody" <nobodynobody [at] hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:53pe819klielpi27ao0dti568a9fh4o20p [at] 4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 15 May 2005 06:54:49 -0700, "John Shocked"
>>>>>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Michael Alden" <drbencasey [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:1116142671.620913.265580 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>> You like the fucking Arabs so much, why don't you go live with
>>>>>>>> them?
>>>> So why is it you drop out of threads that you can't seem to win?
>>>> Is it your underlying theme is much more important to you?
>>>> http://www.netaxs.com/~balpert/jewfaq.html
>>>
>>> Which threads have I dropped out of ? Or are you referring to him.
>>>
>>> Politics
>>
>> I see you have responded to an old message. Good to see you can
>> hang in there.
>
> Telling the truth is fun. Especially when the issues
> are of "public importance".
>
> Politics
No matter how altered one's state of reality is, if the truth sets you free,
so be it.
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #40476 ] |
Sa, 21 Mai 2005 07:55 |
|
"L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
news:AvWdnUCv0b9G8xPfRVn-qA [at] comcast.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
> > "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4s2dncVDmoPV1BDfRVn-uA [at] comcast.com...
> >> John Shocked wrote:
> >>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:vK6dnXZ7ZqKH5xrfRVn-2g [at] comcast.com...
> >>>> John Shocked wrote:
> >>>>> "Nobody" <nobodynobody [at] hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:53pe819klielpi27ao0dti568a9fh4o20p [at] 4ax.com...
> >>>>>> On Sun, 15 May 2005 06:54:49 -0700, "John Shocked"
> >>>>>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Michael Alden" <drbencasey [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:1116142671.620913.265580 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>> You like the fucking Arabs so much, why don't you go live with
> >>>>>>>> them?
> >>>> So why is it you drop out of threads that you can't seem to win?
> >>>> Is it your underlying theme is much more important to you?
> >>>> http://www.netaxs.com/~balpert/jewfaq.html
> >>> Which threads have I dropped out of ? Or are you referring to him.
> >>> Politics
> >> I see you have responded to an old message. Good to see you can
> >> hang in there.
> > Telling the truth is fun. Especially when the issues
> > are of "public importance".
> > Politics
> No matter how altered one's state of reality is, if the truth sets you
free,
> so be it.
There are no altered states of reality. Only the truth
and what is not the truth.
Here's more, excerpted from the interesting thread:
Continuing Homosexual themes in BSG-Starbuck
as just "one of theboys"
========================================
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob [at] sob.com> wrote in message
news:42419608.8802046 [at] news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:06:42 -0800, "John Shocked"> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>>> Stardyke on the other hand is a mannish, pug-faced dyke
>>>> who plays a dyke
>>>> whose alleged boyfriend was killed in a flight accident.
>>> Afraid of the ladies are we? your venom belies your own
>>> latent homosexuality. few people get that worked up
>>> over a woman perceived to be
>>> homosexual......especially when she's,,um.....not
>>Again, a homosexual sympathizer accuses someone he dislikes
>>of homosexuality, essentially accepting that homosexuality
>>is putrid and that it would be an insult. This is a consistent
>>trend indicating severe self-hate on the part of homosexuals.
> I remind the reader that John's comments pertain only to
> Leftist Queers and not all homosexuals.
> Conservative (right wing) homosexuals have enough
> sense to stay under the radar.
Rubbish. There are numerous Talk Show hosts who are
overtly right wing Conservative.
Overwhelmingly, homosexuals are conservatives; they are wealthy,
own studios in Hollywood and do not want to pay more taxes,
which is perfectly understandable.
Hollywood Homosexuals care about two things:
Promoting homosexuality around he world and
killing as many Arabs and Moslems in the Middle East that
they can. Nothing else even comes close on their radar.
How often do you hear Hollywood Homosexuals talking about
true Left issues, like The Poor, Blacks, Unions and Women ?
How often do you read about a judge who makes an off the wall
and totally Unconstitutional decision favoring Homosexuality, then
do the same thing on the true Left issues I have enumerated.
There is no relationship between the two.
All progress made by the true Left in the US has been achieved
at various times through the Vote and democracy, not through
Crooked, Bribed Out Judges fixing cases for them.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #40479 ] |
Sa, 21 Mai 2005 16:35 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:AvWdnUCv0b9G8xPfRVn-qA [at] comcast.com...
>> John Shocked wrote:
>>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4s2dncVDmoPV1BDfRVn-uA [at] comcast.com...
>>>> John Shocked wrote:
>>>>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:vK6dnXZ7ZqKH5xrfRVn-2g [at] comcast.com...
>>>>>> John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>>> "Nobody" <nobodynobody [at] hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:53pe819klielpi27ao0dti568a9fh4o20p [at] 4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 May 2005 06:54:49 -0700, "John Shocked"
>>>>>>>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Michael Alden" <drbencasey [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:1116142671.620913.265580 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>> You like the fucking Arabs so much, why don't you go live
>>>>>>>>>> with them?
>>>>>> So why is it you drop out of threads that you can't seem to win?
>>>>>> Is it your underlying theme is much more important to you?
>>>>>> http://www.netaxs.com/~balpert/jewfaq.html
>>>>> Which threads have I dropped out of ? Or are you referring to
>>>>> him. Politics
>>>> I see you have responded to an old message. Good to see you can
>>>> hang in there.
>>> Telling the truth is fun. Especially when the issues
>>> are of "public importance".
>>> Politics
>> No matter how altered one's state of reality is, if the truth sets
>> you free, so be it.
>
> There are no altered states of reality. Only the truth
> and what is not the truth.
Perception of truth is the truth for those with a particular opinion of it,
and thus, it is altered, no matter the reality.
>
> Here's more, excerpted from the interesting thread:
> Continuing Homosexual themes in BSG-Starbuck
> as just "one of theboys"
>
More nonsense. Spend some time with your kids (if you have any). It works
wonders.
Why not drop all the pretenses and get to the root of your hidden agenda,
already.
<drivel deleted for brevity>
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #40492 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 04:29 |
|
"L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
news:S66dnVP9Gp7a2hLfRVn-rw [at] comcast.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
> > "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:AvWdnUCv0b9G8xPfRVn-qA [at] comcast.com...
> >> John Shocked wrote:
> >>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:4s2dncVDmoPV1BDfRVn-uA [at] comcast.com...
> >>>> John Shocked wrote:
> >>>>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:vK6dnXZ7ZqKH5xrfRVn-2g [at] comcast.com...
> >>>>>> John Shocked wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Nobody" <nobodynobody [at] hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:53pe819klielpi27ao0dti568a9fh4o20p [at] 4ax.com...
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 May 2005 06:54:49 -0700, "John Shocked"
> >>>>>>>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Michael Alden" <drbencasey [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>> news:1116142671.620913.265580 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>> You like the fucking Arabs so much, why don't you go live
> >>>>>>>>>> with them?
> >>>>>> So why is it you drop out of threads that you can't seem to win?
> >>>>>> Is it your underlying theme is much more important to you?
> >>>>>> http://www.netaxs.com/~balpert/jewfaq.html
> >>>>> Which threads have I dropped out of ? Or are you referring to
> >>>>> him. Politics
> >>>> I see you have responded to an old message. Good to see you can
> >>>> hang in there.
> >>> Telling the truth is fun. Especially when the issues
> >>> are of "public importance".
> >>> Politics
> >> No matter how altered one's state of reality is, if the truth sets
> >> you free, so be it.
> > There are no altered states of reality. Only the truth
> > and what is not the truth.
> Perception of truth is the truth for those with a particular opinion of
it,
> and thus, it is altered, no matter the reality.
> > Here's more, excerpted from the interesting thread:
> > Continuing Homosexual themes in BSG-Starbuck
> > as just "one of theboys"
> More nonsense. Spend some time with your kids (if you have any). It
works
> wonders.
> Why not drop all the pretenses and get to the root of your hidden agenda,
> already.
> <drivel deleted for brevity>
And what do you think that "hidden agenda" is ?
Politics
=================================================
[Excerpted from the huge alt.battlestar-galactica thread:
Entertainment Business Truth -- Fairness Doctrine #4
concerning what sort of people are these
Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives who are
determinedly selling Sodomy to your kids in the BSG series ]
"George Peatty" <pttyg47-1230 [at] copper.net> wrote in message
news:d5t2re0260a [at] drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <z9cge.62$ix3.27 [at] trndny07>, Snake says...
> >That is impossible for pluralism and tyranny are on opposite ends of the
> >political landscape. If you do not seek pluralism you do
> >indeed seek a form of tyranny - both are exclusive to one another.
> Nonsense. The tyranny of pluralism is the doctrine of political
> correctness. Give me a theocracy any day. It was Supreme Court
> Justice John Marshall who said that it was the privilege of Americans to
> prefer Christians as rulers. I heard someone online reply, to the effect,
> Christians, or anyone else. And, that is to vitiate Marshall's comments.
> No. Historically, it was, as de Tocqueville so eloquently described,
> a fundamental belief in Christianity underlying the principles of civil
> government that made this country unique among world governments.
> We have repudiated that belief in the name of pluralism, and we
> are the poorer for it.
John Marshall was the Crook Judge who in 1803 as Supreme Court
Chief Justice violated the Constitution in the Marbury v. Madison (1803)
decision in which he claimed that the Supreme Court had the right
to strike down the laws made by Congress.
The whole debate about whether Courts should be making law or not
emanates from this criminal acts by the Marshall Supreme Court in that year.
The Congress should pass a Statute striking down the Marbury vs Madison
decision, have the President sign it and then send troops into the Supreme
Court, if the Supreme Court continues to dispute the Constitution's clear
provision that Congress makes all laws.
The key problem here seems to be twofold:
1) most legislators are attorneys, and as such they consider this deviation
from the Constitution to be good for them since they have more influence
with Judges who run the Courts than other citizens, playing with the
intricacies of laws and court rules, and
2) the Courts are careful to curry favor with the Media, even to the point
of abusing the First Amendment to support muck like Pornography which
was never its intent.
This two pronged shroud is protecting this crooked ability of crooked judges
to exert supremacy over the people's laws even though the Constitution and
the Constitution's antecedent, the English Bill Of Rights (which arose out
of the blood of the English Civil War in the late1600's), sought to place
the legislature, Congress and the Parliament, above the Courts.
============================================
========excerpted from the alt.battlestar-galactica thread: =========
==="The BSG Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004"=====
"Bill" <xxx [at] yy.zz> wrote in message
news:%il8e.3287$HK6.799 [at] newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:AFk8e.7243$EX4.1661 [at] fed1read01...
>> "Bill" <xxx [at] yy.zz> wrote in message
>> news:qXj8e.8707$716.2874 [at] newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:JNj8e.7236$EX4.6802 [at] fed1read01...
>>>> "Bill" <xxx [at] yy.zz> wrote in message
>>>> news:%if8e.8633$716.8603 [at] newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:A5c8e.7205$EX4.142 [at] fed1read01...
>>>>>> "Bill" <xxx [at] yy.zz> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:df98e.3148$HK6.694 [at] newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:m288e.7168$EX4.467 [at] fed1read01...
>>>>>>>> "Bill" <xxx [at] yy.zz> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:ir68e.8331$716.4228 [at] newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:Za68e.7164$EX4.2608 [at] fed1read01...
>>>>>>>>>> "Bill" <xxx [at] yy.zz> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:pz_7e.2737$xI.687 [at] newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:9VZ7e.7117$EX4.2219 [at] fed1read01...
>>>>>>>>>>>>I take it you agree with the original post and that that is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>you chose not to attempt to dispute anything in the post.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for having the courage to agree with me, publicly. That
>>>>>>>>>>>> shows true grit, given the general level of courage here.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Politics
>>>>>>>>>>>> "e" <noone [at] some.domain> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:5VW7e.4482206$Zm5.702222 [at] news.easynews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <RhT7e.7093$EX4.1495 [at] fed1read01>, "John Shocked"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> make that a 24 pack of charmin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this clown is so full of shit it's eyes are brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the reasons the Hollywood Homosexuals behind Battlestar
>>>>>>>>>>>> Galactica are
>>>>>>>>>>>> pushing Sodomy symbolisms in BSG is because they would
>>>>>>>>>>>> desperately like to reverse some of the following results which
>>>>>>>>>>>> they encountered in all 11
>>>>>>>>>>>> states in the US on November 3 2004 (US election day) which
>>>>>>>>>>>> had Ballot
>>>>>>>>>>>> Questions (plebiscital votes by voters in a state controlling
>>>>>>>>>>>> their own
>>>>>>>>>>>> state's laws) on the Homosexual Marriage agenda.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So if you are watching your favorite science fiction show and
>>>>>>>>>>>> then you
>>>>>>>>>>>> notice something in the script which does not make sense, it
>>>>>>>>>>>> may be that it
>>>>>>>>>>>> was time for Word From BSG's Sponsor, the Hollywood Homosexuals
>>>>>>>>>>>> who are using the script as their advertisement vehicle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Homosexuals have had control of Hollywood since around 1992,
>>>>>>>>>>>> when Clinton
>>>>>>>>>>>> (and Jerry Brown) ran for President the first time.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Even though they have been pushing their agenda hard for all
>>>>>>>>>>>> these years,
>>>>>>>>>>>> they are yet to win a single statewide vote.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clinton took homosexual money in 1992 and as soon as he was
>>>>>>>>>>>> inaugurated
>>>>>>>>>>>> started to implement policies that he was bought and paid to
>>>>>>>>>>>> implement --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gays In The Military, in 1993. This was an intensely unpopular
>>>>>>>>>>>> policy
>>>>>>>>>>>> initiative, shocked the public, and resulted in the Democrats
>>>>>>>>>>>> losing both
>>>>>>>>>>>> Houses of Congress in 1994,
>>>>>>>>>>> What is your evidence for this? Because something occurs after
>>>>>>>>>>> something else does not imply cause and effect. Did not Newt and
>>>>>>>>>>> his Contract with America have the major effect? Can you prove
>>>>>>>>>>> it did not?
>>>>>>>>>>>> and started a series of investigations into
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clinton's personal life, resulting finally in his Impeachment
>>>>>>>>>>>> in 1998.
>>>>>>>>>>>> John Kerry (Democrat 2004 Presidential Candidate) again took
>>>>>>>>>>>> homosexual
>>>>>>>>>>>> money in the 2004 election year. Democrats do not have many
>>>>>>>>>>>> sources of
>>>>>>>>>>>> money, representing the poorer segments of society. Since
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kerry was from
>>>>>>>>>>>> the state of Massachusetts, a state which earlier in 2004
>>>>>>>>>>>> legalized Homosexual Marriage through a corrupt bribed
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence of this?
>>>>>>>>>> Sure, here is some:
>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/1204/ 120504-marshall.
htm
>>>>>>>>>> ===========================================
>>>>>>>>> This is not evidence. This says someone submitted a bill. Was it
>>>>>>>>> passed? What is the evidence and was it reviewed?
>>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>> Of course it is evidence. I assume the Massachusetts legislature is
>>>>>>>> gearing up for hearings on the matter.
>>>>>>> That's exactly your problem. Someone introduces a bill and you
>>>>>>> assume the legislature is doing something about it. It probably is
>>>>>>> not. In any case, you have presented no evidence that it is or what
>>>>>>> the outcome of any such hearings would be. All you've got is that
>>>>>>> someone is unhappy and introduced a bill.
>>>>>>>> You cannot impeach a judge on a whim.
>>>>>>> No one has been impeached. You can introduce any sort of bill you
>>>>>>> was.
>>>>>>>> JudicialWatch also thinks there is corruption in the Massachusetts
>>>>>>>> judiciary.
>>>>>>>> Now it must be true.
>>>>>>> Why must everything this organiztion think is true be true?
>>>>>> That was a sarcastic statement, but some Conservative and
>>>>>> Hollywood Homosexuals like JudicialWatch.
>>>>>>> Nor do they say anything about corruption. You are just lying again
>>>>>>> because you need. to.
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>> Straight up: are you being paid for your services on this forum
>>>>>> by any media organization or have you ever held a job in the media ?
>>>>>> Your services here are extraordinary; against all odds, losing
>>>>>> on every single point, you keep fighting.
>>>>>> Your services deserve to be compensated.
>>>>>> I just hope Hollywood Homosexuals are making this right for you.
>>>>>> Politics
>>>>> Now you are getting really desperate. You know you work for the
>>>>> Hollywood Homosexuals and are trying to make them ridiculous. Take the
>>>>> one point above to make it easy. How does someone introducing a bill
>>>>> provide evidence.
>>>>> Bill
>>>>
http://www.massnews.com/2004_editions/06_june/062104_indicem ent_of_marshall_
II.htm
>>>> Indictment of
>>>> Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall and
>>>> Associate Justices John M. Greaney,
>>>> Roderick L. Ireland and Judith A. Cowin
>>>> Count #1
>>>> Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall Did Encourage, Aid and Abet
>>>> Atty. Mary Bonauto and GLAD in Bringing the Lawsuit,
>>>> "Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health"
>>>> In Violation of the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct
>>>> Politics
>>> 1. This is not any sort of true indictment. It is just something someone
>>> wrote.
>>> 2. It has nothing at all to do with corruption (taking bribes) which was
>>> your charge.
>>> 3. This is no different that Scallia, for example, saying he is for the
>>> death penalty in a public setting.
>>> In short, you have still provided no evidence for your charge that the
>>> Mass. court came to their decision because of corruption.
>>> Bill
>>
>>
http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/5_May/052003_mn_margar et_marshall_know
s.shtml
>>
>> ==================================
>> Sidebar:
>> Margaret Marshall Knows
>> an Ethics Complaint Has Been Filed Against Her
>> Main Story: What's It Like to Tell Six Judges of the Supreme Court that
>> They Are Breaking the Law?
>>
>> MassNews Staff
>> May 20, 2003
>> Margaret Marshall knows that an Ethics Complaint, to remove her from both
>> cases about homosexual marriage, has been filed with the Commission on
>> Judicial Conduct because of the judge's close friendship and association
>> with Atty. Mary Bonauto, the homosexual lawyer for the plaintiffs in the
>> Goodridge case, as well as other partisans in the case...................
>> ===================================
>> Politics
> You are totally obtuse.
> 1. This has nothing to do with corruption as you claimed and you know it.
> 2. All this is is someone filing a charge. Which is no different than you
> making a charge.
> You continue to not support your claims.
> Bill
It certainly does deal with corruption. Ex Parte contact with the attorneys
representing one side of a pending case without the attorneys representing
the other side present is illegal and is grounds for removal of the judge.
In addition, appearing a events representing a partisan cause for which
cases are pending (like the case which resulted in thiscrook legalizing
Homosexual Marriage is also a violation of court rules and is grounds for
impeachment and removal of the judge.
=====================================================
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #40500 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 16:26 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:S66dnVP9Gp7a2hLfRVn-rw [at] comcast.com...
>> John Shocked wrote:
>>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:AvWdnUCv0b9G8xPfRVn-qA [at] comcast.com...
>>>> John Shocked wrote:
>>>>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4s2dncVDmoPV1BDfRVn-uA [at] comcast.com...
>>>>>> John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:vK6dnXZ7ZqKH5xrfRVn-2g [at] comcast.com...
>>>>>>>> John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Nobody" <nobodynobody [at] hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:53pe819klielpi27ao0dti568a9fh4o20p [at] 4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 May 2005 06:54:49 -0700, "John Shocked"
>>>>>>>>>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Alden" <drbencasey [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:1116142671.620913.265580 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> You like the fucking Arabs so much, why don't you go live
>>>>>>>>>>>> with them?
>>>>>>>> So why is it you drop out of threads that you can't seem to
>>>>>>>> win? Is it your underlying theme is much more important to you?
>>>>>>>> http://www.netaxs.com/~balpert/jewfaq.html
>>>>>>> Which threads have I dropped out of ? Or are you referring to
>>>>>>> him. Politics
>>>>>> I see you have responded to an old message. Good to see you can
>>>>>> hang in there.
>>>>> Telling the truth is fun. Especially when the issues
>>>>> are of "public importance".
>>>>> Politics
>>>> No matter how altered one's state of reality is, if the truth sets
>>>> you free, so be it.
>>> There are no altered states of reality. Only the truth
>>> and what is not the truth.
>> Perception of truth is the truth for those with a particular opinion
>> of it, and thus, it is altered, no matter the reality.
>>> Here's more, excerpted from the interesting thread:
>>> Continuing Homosexual themes in BSG-Starbuck
>>> as just "one of theboys"
>> More nonsense. Spend some time with your kids (if you have any).
>> It works wonders.
>
>> Why not drop all the pretenses and get to the root of your hidden
>> agenda, already.
>> <drivel deleted for brevity>
>
> And what do you think that "hidden agenda" is ?
>
> Politics
Just spit it out, already.
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #40524 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 02:26 |
|
"L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
news:04qdncKyOO00Cw3fRVn-3g [at] comcast.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
> > "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:S66dnVP9Gp7a2hLfRVn-rw [at] comcast.com...
> >> John Shocked wrote:
> >>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:AvWdnUCv0b9G8xPfRVn-qA [at] comcast.com...
> >>>> John Shocked wrote:
> >>>>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:4s2dncVDmoPV1BDfRVn-uA [at] comcast.com...
> >>>>>> John Shocked wrote:
> >>>>>>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:vK6dnXZ7ZqKH5xrfRVn-2g [at] comcast.com...
> >>>>>>>> John Shocked wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Nobody" <nobodynobody [at] hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>> news:53pe819klielpi27ao0dti568a9fh4o20p [at] 4ax.com...
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 May 2005 06:54:49 -0700, "John Shocked"
> >>>>>>>>>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Alden" <drbencasey [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>> news:1116142671.620913.265580 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You like the fucking Arabs so much, why don't you go live
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with them?
> >>>>>>>> So why is it you drop out of threads that you can't seem to
> >>>>>>>> win? Is it your underlying theme is much more important to you?
> >>>>>>>> http://www.netaxs.com/~balpert/jewfaq.html
> >>>>>>> Which threads have I dropped out of ? Or are you referring to
> >>>>>>> him. Politics
> >>>>>> I see you have responded to an old message. Good to see you can
> >>>>>> hang in there.
> >>>>> Telling the truth is fun. Especially when the issues
> >>>>> are of "public importance".
> >>>>> Politics
> >>>> No matter how altered one's state of reality is, if the truth sets
> >>>> you free, so be it.
> >>> There are no altered states of reality. Only the truth
> >>> and what is not the truth.
> >> Perception of truth is the truth for those with a particular opinion
> >> of it, and thus, it is altered, no matter the reality.
> >>> Here's more, excerpted from the interesting thread:
> >>> Continuing Homosexual themes in BSG-Starbuck
> >>> as just "one of theboys"
> >> More nonsense. Spend some time with your kids (if you have any).
> >> It works wonders.
> >> Why not drop all the pretenses and get to the root of your hidden
> >> agenda, already.
> >> <drivel deleted for brevity>
> > And what do you think that "hidden agenda" is ?
> > Politics
> Just spit it out, already.
Here is more of the truth. I just cannot stop telling it:
======================================
<Stamp [at] here.ca> wrote in message
news:3p6081pp3cupa6mjno4acd2pnmlmtdgus5 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 May 2005 19:16:17 -0700, "John Shocked"
> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> ><Stamp [at] here.ca> wrote in message
> >news:5qgv71pceeqbond0vsf4vnhvr3cp4bi2hj [at] 4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 09 May 2005 12:42:23 -0400, Sparky Spartacus
> >> <Sparky [at] universalexports.org> wrote:
> >> >John Shocked wrote:
> >> >> "Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky [at] universalexports.org> wrote in message
> >> >> news:NFEfe.35409$V02.30754 [at] fe08.lga...
> >> >>>John Shocked wrote:
> >> >>>>"manitou" <manitou910 [at] rogers.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>>news:R7udnaQc0OZ-AOffRVn-jg [at] rogers.com...
> >> >>>>>John Shocked wrote:
> >> >>>>>>Apollo being pulled down to the ground face down,
> >> >>>>>>sunny side up in an
> >> >>>>>>Oz-like grappling with another man.
> >> >>>>>Howe cum uh gay -- OOPS! -- geye lyke yoo wahcht "OZ"?
> >> >>>>>'sunny side up.........' ?
> >> >>>>>C. " just wonders..."
> >> >>>>Here is part of the case that proves that Sodomy is being
> >> >>>>sold to you and your Son in the Battlestar Galactica series
> >> >>>>by the wealthy fatcat Hollywood Homosexual
> >> >>>>Neo-Conservatives in Hollywood who control the series.
> >> >>>Have you ever wondered why you see homosexual overtones
> >> >>>in everything?
> >> >> Because the Sodomy symbolism is there in shows where
> >> >> Hollywood Homsoexuals hold control over the production.
> >> >> Only a chump/stooge could fail to recognize this when
> >> >> it is pointed out to them.
> >> >Riiiiiiiight.
> >> TIme to stop feeding this self loathing Troll.
> >It is the truth. Accept the truth. Accept reality.
> What truth Troll? Some childish story you and the rest of the
> frightened reactionary, so called Family Value Conservatives, have
> come up with?
>
> Where is the problem? What is it that so scares you? You go on as if
> watching this material turns people gay? Are you saying it turned you
> gay?
Again, we hear this common refrain from homosexuals:
everyone is homosexual and it is just a matter of time before it
comes out and everyone starts having homosexual sex.
Call of the wild sort of thing.
> >=======================================
> >Here is part of the case that proves that Sodomy is being
> >sold to you and your Son in the Battlestar Galactica series
> >by the wealthy fatcat Hollywood Homosexual
> >Neo-Conservatives in Hollywood who control the series.
> >=======================================
> >
> >I reprise some of the facts here:
> >
> >1) This Battlestar Galactica series seems to have a continuing
> >Homosexual agenda and determination to sell Homosexuality to
> >the masses, by hook or bycrook. Back In the 3rd episode
> >(Bastille Day) the whole Zerak relationship
> >was the producers trying to put Apollo and Zerak in bed together.
> >The producers feinted with a heterosexual rape, then hit their true
> >target which was to show Apollo being dragged to the ground
> >face down in an Oz-like prison attack.
> >Bastille Day is known in Europe to be a major celebratory day
> >for European homosexuals.
> >Apparently, in the next episode, Zerak returns and you better
> >believe that the producers will be determined to reestablish and
> >develop the possible Homosexual relationship between
> >Apollo and Zerak.
> >
> >Why do you think that the statements "You Bet Your Arse" and
> >"The Back Door is Open" when such prominent parts of this
> >weeks script (The Hand Of God),
> >both in reference to Apollo ?
> >So if you do not want to be sold Homosexuality by this series
> >or if you have kids you do not want to be sold Homosexuality
> >by this series, watch out.
> Utter nonsense. I am starting to think that the Republicans have it
> all wrong. There shouldn't be any censorship of Cable Networks but
> rather that there should be an intelligence test applied ahead of time
> before allowing people like yourself to gain access.
> Clearly you are not smart enough to be watching programs like this.
Cable TV is watched by a lot of people a lot less perceptive than I am.
People who do not recognize this Homosexual symbolism until you
point it out to them.
Those people are the true targets of these hidden advertisements,
since a hidden advertisement or Product Placement (in this case
the product is Sodomy) is much more powerful on the subconscious
than a straight up honest advertisement.
> >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.
> Right like your so called Bastille Day being a European Gay day?
> Of course like many Americans with no understanding of anything
> beyond their borders you do not realize that what you are saying
> here is that on July 4th most of the world celebrates gay actions?
> That is what Bastille Day is to the French, their Independence Day?
Homosexuals in the US, England and other places know that
Bastille Day is a major Homosexual holiday and some travel to
Paris on that day to attend that great disco in the Paris sky and
uhh... socialize.
> >3) In the BSG last episode of the season, Kobol's Last Gleaming Part II,
> >the Hollywood Homosexuals in control of BSG were able to crowbar
> > yet another Homosexual Rape symbolism scene into the show in
> > the scene in which Boomer is approached and surrounded by
> > what appears to be around 5 semi-nude sister Boomer-copies
> > who appear to be just about to forcibly undress and rape her.
> Well make up your mind here. For your conspiracy theory to work, in
> that rather small mind of yours, then what is considered male
> hetero-fantastic fantasy, (lesbianism, forced or otherwise), should
> never be present should it?
I do not understand this point. Male and female Sodomy
are almost equally repulsive to watch.
> >Her response is "oh no, this is not happening".
> >Many Homosexuals just love to be the first one to turn someone, maybe
your
> >son, perhaps in that Catholic Church rectory, onto that special secret
> >intimacy they promote, for the first time. They are absolutely loving
this
> >scene.
> Turn someone? Then it isn't rape is it you misanthrope. Man you are
> embarrassing even for a Troll? Or do you honestly believe that if you
> take it up the ass that you'll become one?
> Idiot.
You are saying that a child or a confused person in a situation
where Sodomy is forced upon them is not being raped ?
Church priests and Guys on college campuses are being charged
with rape for this kind of behavior.
> You have nothing to say. It is tiresome and boring and without
> any merit.
> A little frightened boy who thinks he can speak in platitudes of
> concepts he can't even begin to fathom.
> You're plonked Troll so happy jerking and then self flagellation to
> merit your sins.
> What an utter loser.
> Reply if you want but I won't see it. You have nothing to say.
> S.
As you know I know, all the people claiming upset about my messages
read every single one of my messages very closely. They just claim
they are not, in an attempt to con other gullible people into not
reading my messages.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #40525 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 02:57 |
|
John Shocked wrote:
> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:04qdncKyOO00Cw3fRVn-3g [at] comcast.com...
>> John Shocked wrote:
>>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:S66dnVP9Gp7a2hLfRVn-rw [at] comcast.com...
>>>> John Shocked wrote:
>>>>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:AvWdnUCv0b9G8xPfRVn-qA [at] comcast.com...
>>>>>> John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4s2dncVDmoPV1BDfRVn-uA [at] comcast.com...
>>>>>>>> John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:vK6dnXZ7ZqKH5xrfRVn-2g [at] comcast.com...
>>>>>>>>>> John Shocked wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Nobody" <nobodynobody [at] hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:53pe819klielpi27ao0dti568a9fh4o20p [at] 4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 May 2005 06:54:49 -0700, "John Shocked"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Alden" <drbencasey [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:1116142671.620913.265580 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You like the fucking Arabs so much, why don't you go live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with them?
>>>>>>>>>> So why is it you drop out of threads that you can't seem to
>>>>>>>>>> win? Is it your underlying theme is much more important to
>>>>>>>>>> you? http://www.netaxs.com/~balpert/jewfaq.html
>>>>>>>>> Which threads have I dropped out of ? Or are you referring to
>>>>>>>>> him. Politics
>>>>>>>> I see you have responded to an old message. Good to see you
>>>>>>>> can hang in there.
>>>>>>> Telling the truth is fun. Especially when the issues
>>>>>>> are of "public importance".
>>>>>>> Politics
>>>>>> No matter how altered one's state of reality is, if the truth
>>>>>> sets you free, so be it.
>>>>> There are no altered states of reality. Only the truth
>>>>> and what is not the truth.
>>>> Perception of truth is the truth for those with a particular
>>>> opinion of it, and thus, it is altered, no matter the reality.
>>>>> Here's more, excerpted from the interesting thread:
>>>>> Continuing Homosexual themes in BSG-Starbuck
>>>>> as just "one of theboys"
>>>> More nonsense. Spend some time with your kids (if you have any).
>>>> It works wonders.
>>>> Why not drop all the pretenses and get to the root of your hidden
>>>> agenda, already.
>>>> <drivel deleted for brevity>
>>> And what do you think that "hidden agenda" is ?
>>> Politics
>> Just spit it out, already.
>
> Here is more of the truth. I just cannot stop telling it:
>
But tell us your real agenda, already. It has nothing to do with
homosexuals or hollywood....
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #40527 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 03:04 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #40528 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 03:34 |
|
"L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
news:cL6dnbIiAMj5twzfRVn-ug [at] comcast.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
> > "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:04qdncKyOO00Cw3fRVn-3g [at] comcast.com...
> >> John Shocked wrote:
> >>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:S66dnVP9Gp7a2hLfRVn-rw [at] comcast.com...
> >>>> John Shocked wrote:
> >>>>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:AvWdnUCv0b9G8xPfRVn-qA [at] comcast.com...
> >>>>>> John Shocked wrote:
> >>>>>>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:4s2dncVDmoPV1BDfRVn-uA [at] comcast.com...
> >>>>>>>> John Shocked wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>> news:vK6dnXZ7ZqKH5xrfRVn-2g [at] comcast.com...
> >>>>>>>>>> John Shocked wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Nobody" <nobodynobody [at] hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>> news:53pe819klielpi27ao0dti568a9fh4o20p [at] 4ax.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 May 2005 06:54:49 -0700, "John Shocked"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael Alden" <drbencasey [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
news:1116142671.620913.265580 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You like the fucking Arabs so much, why don't you go live
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with them?
> >>>>>>>>>> So why is it you drop out of threads that you can't seem to
> >>>>>>>>>> win? Is it your underlying theme is much more important to
> >>>>>>>>>> you? http://www.netaxs.com/~balpert/jewfaq.html
> >>>>>>>>> Which threads have I dropped out of ? Or are you referring to
> >>>>>>>>> him. Politics
> >>>>>>>> I see you have responded to an old message. Good to see you
> >>>>>>>> can hang in there.
> >>>>>>> Telling the truth is fun. Especially when the issues
> >>>>>>> are of "public importance".
> >>>>>>> Politics
> >>>>>> No matter how altered one's state of reality is, if the truth
> >>>>>> sets you free, so be it.
> >>>>> There are no altered states of reality. Only the truth
> >>>>> and what is not the truth.
> >>>> Perception of truth is the truth for those with a particular
> >>>> opinion of it, and thus, it is altered, no matter the reality.
> >>>>> Here's more, excerpted from the interesting thread:
> >>>>> Continuing Homosexual themes in BSG-Starbuck
> >>>>> as just "one of theboys"
> >>>> More nonsense. Spend some time with your kids (if you have any).
> >>>> It works wonders.
> >>>> Why not drop all the pretenses and get to the root of your hidden
> >>>> agenda, already.
> >>>> <drivel deleted for brevity>
> >>> And what do you think that "hidden agenda" is ?
> >>> Politics
> >> Just spit it out, already.
> > Here is more of the truth. I just cannot stop telling it:
> But tell us your real agenda, already. It has nothing to do with
> homosexuals or hollywood....
I would be very interested to hear what the "real agenda" is...
spit it out and let's talk about it.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #40529 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 03:43 |
|
"No_One" <no.way [at] no.way.com> wrote in message
news:gva2919np0oeuv15npbvjd9s92f61pt9t8 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:57:09 -0700, "L Alpert" <alpertl [at] xxgmail.com>
> wrote:
> >But tell us your real agenda, already. It has nothing to do
> >with homosexuals or hollywood....
> Please stop arguing with John Shocked. The only thing
> you are accomplishing by winding him up is that you are
> motivating him to once again clutter up these 7 newsgroups
> with his off-topic posts. As you can see, the only way to
> "win" an argument with a troll is to ignore
> him and deny him the satisfaction of your attention. Thanks.
Here is a guy asking the Newsgroup to Censor themselves, in
order to Censor my speech. Pretty desperate measures for
a guy who has come here to the Usenet which is supposed
to be about free speech about important issues.
Pretty perverse and desperate tactics, would you not say ?
Politics
=====================================
[excerpted from the alt.battlestar-galactica Newsgroup
Bastille Day episode -- Anti-Arab Hate Message thread]
The BSG Bastille Day episode was the first
episode whose content and script made it clear
that Hollywood Homosexuals were in control
of the Battlestar Galactica franchise.
Certainly we have discussed here a great deal
about the Homosexual symbolisms in this
episode with Apollo being dragged to the
ground face down sunny side up in simulation
of a homosexual gang rape scene from the HBO
series Oz which was dominated by prison
homosexuality, constant references to Apollo
"choosing sides" (like sunny side up), etc.
However, this episode also showed the other
side of the Hollywood Homosexual coin -- anti-
Arab Hate.
Part of the message of this episode is that
leaders of downtrodden people, such as BSG Tom
Zarek leader of the prison revolt prisoners,
or Arafat of the Palestinians, should be
expected to sell out their constituency and
make a deal with the tyrant oppressing them
without acquiring the benefits in a deal that
would satisfy the people they represent.
Lines Apollo utters to Zarek in BSG Bastille
Day echo the crap we have been hearing in the
news about Arafat for 30 years in an attempt
to con the US public into believing that if
this Arafat guy was not in the way, Israel
would have peace with its neighbors:
"it's all about you isn't it"
"you really want a bloodbath don't you".
This idea that leaders like Zarek want to be
martyrs is a propagandist trap. That is a
major problem with this script. Such leaders
want to live through it and deliver the goods
for their followers.
Diverting attention away from those "goods"
and toward a personalization of issue or
demonization is the role of propaganda.
In another damaging part of this script Apollo
tells Zarak to call off his men, holding Zarak
at gunpoint. Zarak gives in, essentially
betraying his followers to save his own life
(that is what is portrayed by this script)
without a firm deal guaranteeing his own and
his followers' safety/liberty.
Thus the script does portray Zarak as the
leader of the other prisoners, who sold his
fellow prisoners out to save his own skin..
The Hollywood Homosexuals want the public to
believe that Israel is not in the wrong and
that they deserve to be at peace with their
neighbors, when the truth is that the state of
Israel started the terrorism in 1948 by
sending terrorist gangs to Palestinian
townships to drive Palestinians off their land
so that Israelis could immediately pass laws
to steal their land and property.
The US public should not allow themselves to
be conned by this nonsense that peace in the
Middle East is just around the corner if we
could just remove Arafat or Saddam Hussein or
anyone else.
Without Israel giving back all the land and property
they have stolen since the UN 1947 Palestine
Partition proclamation, and paying reparations
for all the Palestinians murdered
unnecessarily which now could mount into the
$100 Billions or even $Trillions.
If we compare this script to its parallel, the
US in Iraq, one thing is clear: the US has
shed a lot of blood in Iraq (well over 100,000
Iraqi civilians murdered, not including all
the Iraqi soldiers killed)and still they are
fighting us. Killing people is a big part of
subjugating any people. Somehow this episode
sidestepped that reality.
the deal Apollo struck in this episode could
never have been made; unless Zarek was an
extremely shallow uprising leader. That is, he
has no assurance that any election will take
place or an election date.
I do not think I saw Zarak speak to anyone he
represented at all in the episode. He spoke
solely to the new Apollo.
The producers obviously thought this meeting
of the two Apollo's was cute. However, this is
preventing the Zarek character from being
developed. Of course, we now know these two
characters are targeted by the Hollywood
Homosexuals in control of BSG to be in love.
They respect each other. True Love.
However, the existing widespread corruption
has supporting the extermination
of innocent Arabs in the Middle East since
1947-1948, when the Israelis
first starting the terrorism there with state-
sponsored terrorism in
Palestinian towns like Yassin, in which they
went in and murdered 100 men,
women and children and drove the younger women
around the neighborhoods,
naked, raping them. In 1948, it was these
acts committed by the Israelis
that terrorized the Palestinians and they fled
to neighboring countries like
Jordan and became known as "Palestinian
Refugees".
In fact, the leader of the state-sponsored
gang which murdered civilians in
Yassin was Menachem Begin, who was an outright
terrorist, who the Israeli
people later elected Prime Minister of their
terrorist Israeli state.
And the US people have no idea that any of
this is true, though now, a
Google search on items like Yassin and Begin
will now overpower the vice
these criminals have over the media and allow
interested citizens to
discover the truth.
A more realistic script would have involved
Zarak communicating mostly with his followers
concerning their demands; Apollo radioing back
to headquarters seeking authorization for
negotiation agreements; an initial skirmish in
which several people on both sides are killed;
a military standoff; the ultimatums by both
sides; perhaps hostages human or resource
based; and if Hatch's character is to survive
an agreement signed by the President and
Zarak; if Hatch's character is to die, then a
final battle and mop up.
This script just did not cut it.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Scifi Hollywood Homosexual Agenda in US Politics 2004 [message #40537 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 05:24 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 11:54:46 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,18179 Sekunden |
