|
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 Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV
| The Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #38433] |
Do, 19 Mai 2005 08:33 |
|
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.
Hollywood Homosexuals are a similar group to the
Neo-Conservatives.
Neo-Conservatives differ from regular Conservatives
in 2 main respects:
1) NeoCons Love Sodomy, and
2) NeoCons Hate Arabs/Moslems and want to mass murder
them all over the world and con the US into supporting same.
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 Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #38434 ] |
Do, 19 Mai 2005 08:48 |
|
I'm sick of seeing queers on tv.
--
Ronald Schwarts
http://www.DirtyLiberal.com (ask about the free right wing bumper stickers
:-)
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YqWie.811$5p.264 [at] lakeread02...
> 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.
>
> Hollywood Homosexuals are a similar group to the
> Neo-Conservatives.
> Neo-Conservatives differ from regular Conservatives
> in 2 main respects:
> 1) NeoCons Love Sodomy, and
> 2) NeoCons Hate Arabs/Moslems and want to mass murder
> them all over the world and con the US into supporting same.
>
> 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 Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #38435 ] |
Do, 19 Mai 2005 09:06 |
|
Silly boy.
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YqWie.811$5p.264 [at] lakeread02...
> 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.
>
> Hollywood Homosexuals are a similar group to the
> Neo-Conservatives.
> Neo-Conservatives differ from regular Conservatives
> in 2 main respects:
> 1) NeoCons Love Sodomy, and
> 2) NeoCons Hate Arabs/Moslems and want to mass murder
> them all over the world and con the US into supporting same.
>
> 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 Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #39244 ] |
Do, 19 Mai 2005 11:47 |
|
fuck off and die , you loser
no one gives a fuck about your anti homo, anti jew agenda
*******************this is a sci fi group no one
cares***********************
drop dead you stinking one side one eyed gimp
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YqWie.811$5p.264 [at] lakeread02...
>> 2) NeoCons Hate Arabs/Moslems and want to mass murder
> them all over the world and con the US into supporting same.
>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: The Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #39249 ] |
Do, 19 Mai 2005 17:22 |
|
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:YqWie.811$5p.264 [at] lakeread02...
> >> 2) NeoCons Hate Arabs/Moslems and want to mass murder
> > them all over the world and con the US into supporting same.
"corks" <trigarti67 [at] nospam.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:428c60a9$0$16506$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> fuck off and die , you loser
> no one gives a fuck about your anti homo, anti jew agenda
> *******************this is a sci fi group no one
> cares***********************
> drop dead you stinking one side one eyed gimp
It is Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives who are the Haters here.
They do not just hate; they have the blood of 100,000's of Arabs/Moslems
on their hands and that number is going up.
And they want to sell Sodomy to you and your Son in TV and Movies.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #39250 ] |
Do, 19 Mai 2005 17:24 |
|
"DirtyLiberal" <dirtyliberal [at] dirtyliberal.com> wrote in message
news:VEWie.5068$S4.266 [at] tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> I'm sick of seeing queers on tv.
> Ronald Schwarts
> http://www.DirtyLiberal.com (ask about the free right wing bumper stickers
> :-)
This is no accident. They want to sell Sodomy to you and your Son.
The constant sale of Sodomy and other deviant content in the
Media to you and your kids needs to be stopped by federal law.
Politics
====================================
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:YqWie.811$5p.264 [at] lakeread02...
> > 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.
> >
> > Hollywood Homosexuals are a similar group to the
> > Neo-Conservatives.
> > Neo-Conservatives differ from regular Conservatives
> > in 2 main respects:
> > 1) NeoCons Love Sodomy, and
> > 2) NeoCons Hate Arabs/Moslems and want to mass murder
> > them all over the world and con the US into supporting same.
> >
> > 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 Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #39253 ] |
Do, 19 Mai 2005 18:50 |
|
"Roger" <rogerfx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DVWie.18797$J12.9455 [at] newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Silly boy.
It is the truth. Learn about your environment.
You can do it.
Politics
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:YqWie.811$5p.264 [at] lakeread02...
> > 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.
> >
> > Hollywood Homosexuals are a similar group to the
> > Neo-Conservatives.
> > Neo-Conservatives differ from regular Conservatives
> > in 2 main respects:
> > 1) NeoCons Love Sodomy, and
> > 2) NeoCons Hate Arabs/Moslems and want to mass murder
> > them all over the world and con the US into supporting same.
> >
> > 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 Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #39254 ] |
Do, 19 Mai 2005 18:54 |
|
and you want to murder jews and homo's , your'e no better
hypocrite
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yc2je.827$5p.573 [at] lakeread02...
>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:YqWie.811$5p.264 [at] lakeread02...
>> >> 2) NeoCons Hate Arabs/Moslems and want to mass murder
>> > them all over the world and con the US into supporting same.
>
> "corks" <trigarti67 [at] nospam.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:428c60a9$0$16506$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> fuck off and die , you loser
>> no one gives a fuck about your anti homo, anti jew agenda
>> *******************this is a sci fi group no one
>> cares***********************
>> drop dead you stinking one side one eyed gimp
>
> It is Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives who are the Haters here.
> They do not just hate; they have the blood of 100,000's of Arabs/Moslems
> on their hands and that number is going up.
> And they want to sell Sodomy to you and your Son in TV and Movies.
>
> Politics
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: The Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #39255 ] |
Do, 19 Mai 2005 18:55 |
|
isnt time you fuicked your sister, redneck
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zc2je.828$5p.539 [at] lakeread02...
> "DirtyLiberal" <dirtyliberal [at] dirtyliberal.com> wrote in message
> news:VEWie.5068$S4.266 [at] tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>> I'm sick of seeing queers on tv.
>> Ronald Schwarts
>> http://www.DirtyLiberal.com (ask about the free right wing bumper
>> stickers
>> :-)
>
> This is no accident. They want to sell Sodomy to you and your Son.
> The constant sale of Sodomy and other deviant content in the
> Media to you and your kids needs to be stopped by federal law.
>
> Politics
>
>
> ====================================
>
>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:YqWie.811$5p.264 [at] lakeread02...
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > Hollywood Homosexuals are a similar group to the
>> > Neo-Conservatives.
>> > Neo-Conservatives differ from regular Conservatives
>> > in 2 main respects:
>> > 1) NeoCons Love Sodomy, and
>> > 2) NeoCons Hate Arabs/Moslems and want to mass murder
>> > them all over the world and con the US into supporting same.
>> >
>> > 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 Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #39259 ] |
Do, 19 Mai 2005 19:44 |
|
"corks" <trigarti67 [at] nospam.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:428cc4e4$0$16467$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> isnt time you fuicked your sister, redneck
What a disgusting idea. Obviously, you must be one of the
Hollywood Homosexual public relations hacks working on
this Newsgroup.
Politics
ws:zc2je.828$5p.539 [at] lakeread02...
> > "DirtyLiberal" <dirtyliberal [at] dirtyliberal.com> wrote in message
> > news:VEWie.5068$S4.266 [at] tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> >> I'm sick of seeing queers on tv.
> >> Ronald Schwarts
> >> http://www.DirtyLiberal.com (ask about the free right wing bumper
> >> stickers
> >> :-)
> >
> > This is no accident. They want to sell Sodomy to you and your Son.
> > The constant sale of Sodomy and other deviant content in the
> > Media to you and your kids needs to be stopped by federal law.
> >
> > Politics
> >
> >
> > ====================================
> >
> >> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:YqWie.811$5p.264 [at] lakeread02...
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > Hollywood Homosexuals are a similar group to the
> >> > Neo-Conservatives.
> >> > Neo-Conservatives differ from regular Conservatives
> >> > in 2 main respects:
> >> > 1) NeoCons Love Sodomy, and
> >> > 2) NeoCons Hate Arabs/Moslems and want to mass murder
> >> > them all over the world and con the US into supporting same.
> >> >
> >> > 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 Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #39262 ] |
Do, 19 Mai 2005 20:33 |
|
"corks" <trigarti67 [at] nospam.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:428cc4b4$0$16453$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> and you want to murder jews and homo's , your'e no better
> hypocrite
I have never said any such thing.
Keep Sodomy off TV and stop killing innocent Arabs/Moslems.
What a disgusting idea you propose. Obviously, you must be one
of the Hollywood Homosexual public relations hacks working on
this Newsgroup.
Read the following more closely and you will understand my true views.
You will realize that you agree with me wholeheartedly.
Politics
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:yc2je.827$5p.573 [at] lakeread02...
> >> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:YqWie.811$5p.264 [at] lakeread02...
> >> >> 2) NeoCons Hate Arabs/Moslems and want to mass murder
> >> > them all over the world and con the US into supporting same.
> > "corks" <trigarti67 [at] nospam.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:428c60a9$0$16506$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >> fuck off and die , you loser
> >> no one gives a fuck about your anti homo, anti jew agenda
> >> *******************this is a sci fi group no one
> >> cares***********************
> >> drop dead you stinking one side one eyed gimp
> > It is Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives who are the Haters here.
> > They do not just hate; they have the blood of 100,000's of
> > Arabs/Moslems on their hands and that number is going up.
> > And they want to sell Sodomy to you and your Son in TV and Movies.
> > 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.
Hollywood Homosexuals are a similar group to the
Neo-Conservatives.
Neo-Conservatives differ from regular Conservatives
in 2 main respects:
1) NeoCons Love Sodomy, and
2) NeoCons Hate Arabs/Moslems and want to mass murder
them all over the world and con the US into supporting same.
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 Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #39265 ] |
Do, 19 Mai 2005 23:08 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ot3je.836$5p.413 [at] lakeread02...
> "Roger" <rogerfx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:DVWie.18797$J12.9455 [at] newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> Silly boy.
>
> It is the truth. Learn about your environment.
Sillier boy.
> You can do it.
>
> Politics
>
>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:YqWie.811$5p.264 [at] lakeread02...
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > Hollywood Homosexuals are a similar group to the
>> > Neo-Conservatives.
>> > Neo-Conservatives differ from regular Conservatives
>> > in 2 main respects:
>> > 1) NeoCons Love Sodomy, and
>> > 2) NeoCons Hate Arabs/Moslems and want to mass murder
>> > them all over the world and con the US into supporting same.
>> >
>> > 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 Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #40451 ] |
Fr, 20 Mai 2005 18:18 |
|
> One of the reasons the Hollywood Homosexuals behind
> Battlestar Galactica
>
plonk
--
©hri§tÇræm®
"The power of Cream compels you."
|
|
|
| Re: The Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #40452 ] |
Fr, 20 Mai 2005 18:20 |
|
> The constant sale of Sodomy and other deviant content in the
> Media to you and your kids needs to be stopped by federal law.
>
Blame the Bible and the Koran. They are filled with sodomy sanctioned by the
Lord Himself. I grow tired of trying to follow who is fucking whom in those
rags.
--
©hri§tÇræm®
"The power of Cream compels you."
|
|
|
| Re: The Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #40453 ] |
Fr, 20 Mai 2005 19:04 |
|
<©hri§tÇræm®> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cf7ae3bb63639f298aa25 [at] text.giganews.com...
> > The constant sale of Sodomy and other deviant content in the
> > Media to you and your kids needs to be stopped by federal law.
> Blame the Bible and the Koran. They are filled with sodomy
> sanctioned by the Lord Himself. I grow tired of trying to follow
> who is fucking whom in those rags.
> ©hri§tÇræm®
Are you saying you believe the Bible and/or Koran encourage
Sodomy in some of their chapters ?
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #40454 ] |
Fr, 20 Mai 2005 19:05 |
|
<©hri§tÇræm®> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cf7adb55da0facf98aa24 [at] text.giganews.com...
> > One of the reasons the Hollywood Homosexuals behind
> > Battlestar Galactica
> plonk
> ©hri§tÇræm®
Read more. This is the truth.
=================================
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.
Hollywood Homosexuals are a similar group to the
Neo-Conservatives.
Neo-Conservatives differ from regular Conservatives
in 2 main respects:
1) NeoCons Love Sodomy, and
2) NeoCons Hate Arabs/Moslems and want to mass murder
them all over the world and con the US into supporting same.
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
|
|
|
| BOT Re: The Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #40457 ] |
Fr, 20 Mai 2005 21:50 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_Noje.1483$5p.1425 [at] lakeread02...
> <©hri§tÇræm®> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1cf7adb55da0facf98aa24 [at] text.giganews.com...
>> > One of the reasons the Hollywood Homosexuals behind
>> > Battlestar Galactica
>> plonk
>> ©hri§tÇræm®
>
> Read more. This is the truth.
>
> =================================
>
> 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.
>
> Hollywood Homosexuals are a similar group to the
> Neo-Conservatives.
> Neo-Conservatives differ from regular Conservatives
> in 2 main respects:
> 1) NeoCons Love Sodomy, and
> 2) NeoCons Hate Arabs/Moslems and want to mass murder
> them all over the world and con the US into supporting same.
>
> 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 Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Cons . . . Blah, Blah, Blah Quit Bashing God! [message #40467 ] |
Sa, 21 Mai 2005 00:16 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9Moje.1481$5p.751 [at] lakeread02...
> news:MPG.1cf7ae3bb63639f298aa25 [at] text.giganews.com...
>> > The constant sale of Sodomy and other deviant content in the
>> > Media to you and your kids needs to be stopped by federal law.
>> Blame the Bible and the Koran. They are filled with sodomy
>> sanctioned by the Lord Himself. I grow tired of trying to follow
>> who is fucking whom in those rags.
>> ©hri§tÇræm®
>
> Are you saying you believe the Bible and/or Koran encourage
> Sodomy in some of their chapters ?
>
> Politics
People who say, "God hates fags!" are actually bashing God.
If he hates Gay people why doesn't he stop them from being
gay? He is God!
Is he powerless to? (Slam1) or Does he just prefer one
human over another and is a bigot? (Slam2)
Hate is a purely human trait that humans have been thrusting
upon other humans for as long as we have been around.
Seriously, why would God care who is sticking what into
whom as long as it is consensual. Flesh is also a human thing
not a Godly thing so "Sins of the flesh" (purely human BS)
don't mean much to an Almighty.
|
|
|
| Re: The Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #40468 ] |
Sa, 21 Mai 2005 00:27 |
|
"Numan" <tbrdmann [at] sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Aktje.1943$wb2.1893 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9Moje.1481$5p.751 [at] lakeread02...
> > news:MPG.1cf7ae3bb63639f298aa25 [at] text.giganews.com...
> >> > The constant sale of Sodomy and other deviant content in the
> >> > Media to you and your kids needs to be stopped by federal law.
> >> Blame the Bible and the Koran. They are filled with sodomy
> >> sanctioned by the Lord Himself. I grow tired of trying to follow
> >> who is fucking whom in those rags.
> >> ©hri§tÇræm®
> > Are you saying you believe the Bible and/or Koran encourage
> > Sodomy in some of their chapters ?
> > Politics
> People who say, "God hates fags!" are actually bashing God.
> If he hates Gay people why doesn't he stop them from being
> gay? He is God!
> Is he powerless to? (Slam1) or Does he just prefer one
> human over another and is a bigot? (Slam2)
> Hate is a purely human trait that humans have been thrusting
> upon other humans for as long as we have been around.
> Seriously, why would God care who is sticking what into
> whom as long as it is consensual. Flesh is also a human thing
> not a Godly thing so "Sins of the flesh" (purely human BS)
> don't mean much to an Almighty.
Sodomy is repulsive behavior, regardless of whether one believes
in God or not. If you had read the threads here in
some of the massive debates about Sodomy being sold in BSG
in the alt.battlestar-galactica Newsgroup, you would find that
very little of it has anything to do with religion.
I myself have no interest in religion besides how it represents
morality ancient in origin, which predate the establishments
of any of modern day religions.
Sodomy was disgusting to civilizations long before anyone started
believing in God.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Cons . . . Blah, Blah, Blah [message #40474 ] |
Sa, 21 Mai 2005 06:11 |
|
--
Numan
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yvtje.1491$5p.1364 [at] lakeread02...
> "Numan" <tbrdmann [at] sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Aktje.1943$wb2.1893 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9Moje.1481$5p.751 [at] lakeread02...
>> > news:MPG.1cf7ae3bb63639f298aa25 [at] text.giganews.com...
>> >> > The constant sale of Sodomy and other deviant content in the
>> >> > Media to you and your kids needs to be stopped by federal law.
>> >> Blame the Bible and the Koran. They are filled with sodomy
>> >> sanctioned by the Lord Himself. I grow tired of trying to follow
>> >> who is fucking whom in those rags.
>> >> ©hri§tÇræm®
>> > Are you saying you believe the Bible and/or Koran encourage
>> > Sodomy in some of their chapters ?
>> > Politics
>> People who say, "God hates fags!" are actually bashing God.
>> If he hates Gay people why doesn't he stop them from being
>> gay? He is God!
>> Is he powerless to? (Slam1) or Does he just prefer one
>> human over another and is a bigot? (Slam2)
>> Hate is a purely human trait that humans have been thrusting
>> upon other humans for as long as we have been around.
>> Seriously, why would God care who is sticking what into
>> whom as long as it is consensual. Flesh is also a human thing
>> not a Godly thing so "Sins of the flesh" (purely human BS)
>> don't mean much to an Almighty.
>
> Sodomy is repulsive behavior, regardless of whether one believes
> in God or not. If you had read the threads here in
> some of the massive debates about Sodomy being sold in BSG
> in the alt.battlestar-galactica Newsgroup, you would find that
> very little of it has anything to do with religion.
>
> I myself have no interest in religion besides how it represents
> morality ancient in origin, which predate the establishments
> of any of modern day religions.
> Sodomy was disgusting to civilizations long before anyone started
> believing in God.
>
> Politics
Well, you sound like a heterosexual since you find
the idea of fucking someone else in the ass as being
repulsive. Good for you. Congratulations.
|
|
|
| Re: The Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #40475 ] |
Sa, 21 Mai 2005 06:42 |
|
"Numan" <tbrdmann [at] sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Rxyje.2553$VB6.1537 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> Numan
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:yvtje.1491$5p.1364 [at] lakeread02...
> > "Numan" <tbrdmann [at] sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:Aktje.1943$wb2.1893 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> >> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:9Moje.1481$5p.751 [at] lakeread02...
> >> > news:MPG.1cf7ae3bb63639f298aa25 [at] text.giganews.com...
> >> >> > The constant sale of Sodomy and other deviant content in the
> >> >> > Media to you and your kids needs to be stopped by federal law.
> >> >> Blame the Bible and the Koran. They are filled with sodomy
> >> >> sanctioned by the Lord Himself. I grow tired of trying to follow
> >> >> who is fucking whom in those rags.
> >> >> ©hri§tÇræm®
> >> > Are you saying you believe the Bible and/or Koran encourage
> >> > Sodomy in some of their chapters ?
> >> > Politics
> >> People who say, "God hates fags!" are actually bashing God.
> >> If he hates Gay people why doesn't he stop them from being
> >> gay? He is God!
> >> Is he powerless to? (Slam1) or Does he just prefer one
> >> human over another and is a bigot? (Slam2)
> >> Hate is a purely human trait that humans have been thrusting
> >> upon other humans for as long as we have been around.
> >> Seriously, why would God care who is sticking what into
> >> whom as long as it is consensual. Flesh is also a human thing
> >> not a Godly thing so "Sins of the flesh" (purely human BS)
> >> don't mean much to an Almighty.
> >
> > Sodomy is repulsive behavior, regardless of whether one believes
> > in God or not. If you had read the threads here in
> > some of the massive debates about Sodomy being sold in BSG
> > in the alt.battlestar-galactica Newsgroup, you would find that
> > very little of it has anything to do with religion.
> >
> > I myself have no interest in religion besides how it represents
> > morality ancient in origin, which predate the establishments
> > of any of modern day religions.
> > Sodomy was disgusting to civilizations long before anyone started
> > believing in God.
> >
> > Politics
>
> Well, you sound like a heterosexual since you find
> the idea of fucking someone else in the ass as being
> repulsive. Good for you. Congratulations.
Normality is pretty easy to achieve. The problem is when
you have a small wealthy group of Hollywood Homosexual fatcats
who are determined to use science fiction TV shows as a vehicle
to sell Sodomy to you and your kids.
New laws are needed to prevent any wealthy Tom, Dick or Harry
from buying a piece of the media and selling their favorite self-serving
deviant behavior to you and your kids.
And if Crooked Judges interfere with these laws, in order to continue
to curry favor with the media, they need to be arrested and jailed.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #40487 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 01:54 |
|
More truth:
=============================
As anyone can see from the conflict which has been going
on here on this alt.battlestar-galactica Usenet Newsgroup,
Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives are desperate
on this public forums to spread their propaganda and to
censor anyone who would disagree with them.
Their goals are mainly to spread support for:
1) Homosexuality on your TV in the Movies to you and
your kids, and
2) Hate for Arabs/Moslems and support the war effort
to con Americans to abuse its military might to massacre
100,000's of defenseless Arabs/Moslems.
Many of these people working on these Newsgroups
are obviously paid Hollywood Homosexual
Neo-Conservative public relations workers.
Thus, if you go to a "moderated" forum, you may well find
that no conflict, as is ongoing here, exists. But why ?
It is because those Hollywood Homosexuals "moderated"
Blogs and Web 'Fan' Sites are able to Ban people that
disagree with them from the site and Delete any messages
posted by such people.
Of course such behavior is Censorship.
So what does this mean ?
It means that whatever you read on such public forums
is Not the truth and is controlled by Hollywood Homosexual
interests in a self-serving manner so that criticism of the goals
they really care about is eliminated.
Thus you are not reading the truth on any such public forums.
The only public forum that more or less grants full
Free Speech is the Usenet Newsgroups.
While you may have to tolerate insipid behavior by some
people engaging in namecalling, swearwords, epithets etc,
(usually by these very same Hollywood Homosexual paid hacks)
you always know that anyone who is determined to post the
Truth on a Usenet Newsgroup can do so, with no fear
that they will be Banned from the forum and their
messages Deleted.
Me, I like to go where I can find the Truth; I do not
care what else is going on there.
========================================
========================================
As I have stated, the BSG public relations hacks working on
this Newsgroup are desperate to put out the fire, any way
that can be accomplished.
1) Insults, threats and other attempts to intimidate me did not work.
2) False Complaints to my ISP did not work.
3) Now, the only other choice they have is to exploit the weakness
and loneliness of the few true viewers of the BSG series who are
left here leveraging their fake friendship with those left as a
bargaining chip to dissuade them from responding to my messages.
Generally in situations like this the people who are left on these
Newsgroups after all of these personal attack campaigns
have succumbed to the attacks and have been coopted by the
BSG public relations hacks, sheep to herded whichever way
the BSG Hollywood Homosexual hacks lead.
These BSG HH hacks threaten Newsgroup members,
claiming they will not converse with anyone who criticizes BSG,
or anyone else who converses with anyone who criticizes
the BSG series.
The joke is: why would anyone want to converse with anyone
whose sole job on this Newsgroup is to support BSG and sell
BSG related products, like DVDs ?
And those wealthy fatcat BSG Hollywood Homosexuals make
their living off chumps/stooges. You think these fatcats are going
to specially stop off their private jet, chauffeur to your house,
shake your hand and thank you for defending their right to
pervert you and your kid ?
You are just another piece of trash to be manipulated and
run over as far as they are concerned.
When I express my free speech on the Scifi web site, they
Ban me from their forum. Get the message what they think
about your right to free speech ?
Politics
"Roger" <rogerfx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pcrje.1714$kj7.1641 [at] newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_Noje.1483$5p.1425 [at] lakeread02...
> > <©hri§tÇræm®> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1cf7adb55da0facf98aa24 [at] text.giganews.com...
> >> > One of the reasons the Hollywood Homosexuals behind
> >> > Battlestar Galactica
> >> plonk
> >> ©hri§tÇræm®
> >
> > Read more. This is the truth.
> >
> > =================================
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Hollywood Homosexuals are a similar group to the
> > Neo-Conservatives.
> > Neo-Conservatives differ from regular Conservatives
> > in 2 main respects:
> > 1) NeoCons Love Sodomy, and
> > 2) NeoCons Hate Arabs/Moslems and want to mass murder
> > them all over the world and con the US into supporting same.
> >
> > 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 Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #40488 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 01:59 |
|
"P. Burrows" <me [at] privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cf9e585e166abbb989e2d [at] news.usenetserver.com...
> In article <YqWie.811$5p.264 [at] lakeread02>, jshocked [at] hotmail.com says...
> So John, how long have you been a homosexual?
Never. But here is the truth:
===excerpt from Heroism and Homosexuality in Battlestar Galactica===
"Bozo the Evil Klown" <Evilklowwn [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113186388.095171.98380 [at] l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> John Shocked wrote:
>> "Bozo the Evil Klown" <Evilklowwn [at] aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1113168694.292137.280520 [at] l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > John Shocked wrote:
>> >> <firelock_ny [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1113116320.818994.281910 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > John Shocked wrote:
>> >> >> What is clear though is that many people watching this series
>> >> >> believe that Baltar is a good enough person that they would not
>> >> >> mind him taking control of the government at this point.
>> >> > I think you'd have to go a long way to find any viewer
>> >> > who would think that Baltar is a "good person". It
>> > It's not any "goodness" on Baltar's part; he's the Vice President
>> > now, and with the President in the Brig the line of succession makes
>> > the Vice-President the leader of the government. The law
>> >***DOESN'T*** state that a good, just and moral person take over
>> > from the President, the law states that the Vice-President takes
>> > over.
>> The law is not in question in this thread: the issue is the intent
>> of the writers of this series and their Hollywood Homosexual
>> masters who create this make believe world we are watching.
>> Would you agree that what we know that Baltar has done in this
>> series is much worse than anything that Zerak has done ?
>> >> > might make good television if this traitorous scoundrel
>> >> > took over the Fleet's government, but only in the sense
>> >> > of watching a disaster happen so the heroes of the
>> >> > story have something to fix.
>> >> > Walt Smith
>> > It might even be interesting if the added responsibility inspires
>> > Baltar to find the inner strength he hasn't shown yet, maybe make
>> >at least an attempt to redeem himself?
>> How can you redeem a mega mass murderer ?
> With extreme difficulty. With Baltar, it would be impressive if he
> even summoned up enough strength and courage to even *try*.
The only legit script path for Baltar's character is to install
himself as the Cylon God.
He then would become the "Great Satan" of this series as he
should be and then the Galactica will marshal its forced
to fight against him.
>> Especially a guy who murdered these people for purely selfish
>> reasons, unlike Zerak who had humanitarian underpinnings for his
>> "blowing up a government building".
> Zerak talks like he had these high humanitarian ideals, but what we've
> *seen him do* show him to be an opportunistic manipulator. No doubt
> he would claim "humanitarian ideals" for his plan to be elected
> Vice-President and then assassinate Roslin.
>> By the way, I do not recall seeing a body count for Zerak's action:
>> have the writers ever stated that anyone was killed in that bombing ?
> It seems odd that if his bombing was bloodless that no one ever
> mentioned that in his defense.
I do not think anyone wants to defend him but I just do not remember a
bodycount on that bombing being presented. Anyone watching this series has
been exposed to the President and others commiserating about the 1300 lives
on the Olympic Carrier over and over. There may have been a Zerak bodycount
but I do not recall one presented.
>> >> Which BSG heroes ? Starbuck has already been bedded by Baltar
>> > Starbuck is also one of their top pilots; she devised the strategy that
>> > let them raid the Cylon fuel depot. She also found out Zarek's man
>> > had smuggled a gun into the political meeting just before the season
>> > finale.
>> Starbuck's character has been irretrievably besmirched by this
>> bedding by Baltar. This represents abnormal behavior by the writers,
> A man and a woman having sex is "abnormal???"
In this context, absolutely. Writers seldom defile their characters,
especially female characters who are supposed to be heroes, with casual sex
with evil characters in the show.
>> to damage the character of what should be one of the stars of the
>> series. Just imagine, if in Titanic a movie everyone saw, Kate Winslet's
>> character had casual sex with the Billy Zane character (I think I am
>> remembering those characters correctly).
>> It would have seriously damaged the movie and the movie would not
>> have sold anywhere near as well at the box office.
> Well, I can't comment on that- I'm the one person in America who never
> saw "Titanic." Then again, I'm also the one person who never sees the
> resemblance between James Callis and Alexander Siddig that everyone
> else sees.
I never heard that but now that I think about it there is some, since there
is
a resemblance and they are both Brits, although Siddig is of Saudi Arabian
ancestry, I believe.
>> >> and Apollo has a huge Sodomy question mark next to his name.
>> > It can't be that huge if most viewers aren't seeing it.
>> Saturday Night Live has already been parodying the presence
>> of Homosexual symbolisms in this BSG series with their Gays In Space
>> series of skits in their 30x12 and 30x15 2005 episodes so far.
>> Saturday Night Live has always had a shrewd eye for detection of
>> deceitful behavior by politicians and other institutions and perform
>> parodies to blow it up bigger so the people, who often act like mindless
>> sheep, can wake up,
> It used to, yes. SNL hasn't been funny for decades.
I did not say it was still consistently funny. But they have retained the
skill to spot deceitful behavior and the courage to parody it.
> And while the SNL parody of "Star Trek" was hysterical, in the original
> series the Enterprise was *never* pursued by a car from NBC. IMO what
> is shown on "Galactica" is more relevant to the "Galactica" series than
> what is shown on any other show.
Which SNL parody of Star Trek are you referring to ? Which episode ?
Not sure I understand this point.
>> knife in and see what is happening to them. That is, the producers
>> of this BSG series are not being honest and forthright about Apollo's
>> homosexuality.
> They've certainly managed to keep it hidden from virtually everyone.
Wrong, I can see it and so can Saturday Night Live. And SNL likely has
scores of people who study newspapers and culture for them.
>> They are trying to hint at it and have the viewers accept it before
>> they actually put Apollo and Zerak in bed together.
>> >> William Adama has arrested the President Roslin on what are
>> >> obviously superficial grounds (as I mentioned in another thread,
>> >> she did not do anything behind his back and told Starbuck to
>> >> talk about the search for Earth issue with Adama.
>> > She suborned Starbuck behind his back. Jeopardizing a rescue
>> > mission
>> It was never an either/or decision. I doubt that the script
>> presented
>> Roslin having knowledge that the Cylon ship was needed for something
>> else.
>> Again, I am not interested in what is in your mind about this series,
>> I am interested in what the script actually said. Your mind can be
>> manipulated
> Naw... *too* easy.
You are confident that your mind is impervious to the marketeers from
Hollywood telling you that, amongst other things, 'Sodomy's ok'.
>> by atmospherics and symbolisms. All marketers, not just
>> Hollywood Homosexuals, count on this phenomenon. These movie studios
>> are billion dollar operations and mistakes are not supposed to
>> occur in the scripts.
> Mistakes are not *supposed* to occur, but have you seen the recent
> "Star Trek" by-products? Some "Voyager" scripts were nothing but
> mistakes, all neatly printed and bound.
I did not watch much of the Star Trek series after The Next Generation,
until Earth: Final Conflict came along.
Maybe bad scripts is why. Certainly Star Trek Deep Space 9 had some
homosexual overtones in it that were repulsive such as the Captain calling
actress Terry Farrell "Old Man" because her character Jadzia Dax contained a
symbiant who was a man.
This kind of scummy genderbending started to dominate the series and drove
guys like me away from the series.
The one thing I know about Enterprise is that the Captain is the same guy
who played transvestite roles in Quantum Leap.
I have never watched any of both of these series.
>> > to go back and retrieve a historical trinket is not sound strategy,
>> > and Adama had the responsibility to prevent any further interference
>> > in military matters. Roslin knew the Raider was a unique military
>> > asset when she asked Starbuck to take it on her own personal quest.
>> > Now the question of who will try Roslin should add some gasoline to
>> > the fire next season. <G>
>> It is quite common for a politician in Washington today to plead
>> their case directly to the President and, if that does not work, find
>> someone close to the President and plead it to them and ask them
>> to go and persuade the President that this is the right course.
>> Lobbyists do this every day. This is what lobbyists call "access".
>> What is also clear here is that toward the end of this meeting
>> between President Roslin and Starbuck, Roslin told her to discuss
>> this search for Earth (which the Arrow represented) with Adama.
>> Thus, how could this possibly be considered "behind his back".
> She didn't ask Starbuck to discuss taking the Raider to Caprica. She
> told Starbuck that Adama lied about knowing where Earth was, to give
> the people hope. When Starbuck didn't believe her CO had lied, Roslin
> told Starbuck to ask Adama about *that*.
How could anyone ever imagine that Starbuck would not have discussed the
whole idea of going to Kobol with Adama ? Did President Roslin ever tell
her to take off with the Cylon FTL ship without his knowledge ?
Again, I have no investment in these characters, and thus it is ridiculous
to defend them; they are just TV characters coming out of the mind of a well
paid BSG writer. If you could tell me where Pres. Roslin whispers in a
darkened room (remember this is a TV show and the onus is on the
writers/producers make absolutely clear their intent) that Starbuck should
Not discuss this at all with Adama and to steal the Cylon FTL ship, then
what you are saying might be significant. The Pres did not even hint at the
action Starbuck took. Pres. Roslin told Starbuck to talk to Adama about the
matter: case closed.
I am open to the possibility that this section of the script was simply
poorly written, but the implication of what has happened here is that Adama
arrested the Pres on superficial and spurious grounds and it has made a
mockery of the final episode of the show.
>> >> Starbuck chose independently not to do that) and is thus tagged
>> >> as a despot. Tigh is a drunk.The Chief Engineer is in bed with a
>> >> Cylon woman in every closet in the Galactica.
>> > The Chief doesn't know Sharon is a Cylon- *and* he cut off their
>> > relationship after one of his men was punished for covering for one
>> > of their liasons.
>> The Chief cut off the relationship because he was ordered to do so by
>> a superior, Tigh, if I recall correctly.
> No, Tigh ordered them to stop but he kept meeting with Boomer in
> secret. When they were investigating the Cylon suicide bomber one of
> the engineers was caught trying to cover for the Chief. The Chief felt
> guilty about his man taking the fall for him, and that was when he told
> Boomer it was over.
That is how I recall the sequence. He was ordered by a superior to stop the
relationship: he did not stop the relationship out of any personal
morality, even when implications were staring him in the face that she was a
Cylon.
>> >> My guess though is that the Hollywood Homosexuals
>> >> behind Battlestar Galactica will tap Apollo to be the 'hero'
>> >> and are going to ally him with Zerak as the 'heroes' who are
>> >> in love and who they will endeavor to put in bed together.
>> > Apollo as the hero I can see, but I seriously doubt they'll try to
>> > make Zerak a "hero." (Whether Zerak tried to manipulate the
>> > situation to paint himself as a "hero" is an entirely seperate matter)
>> Altruistic intentions in a character are a clear indicator of
>> intended heroism in that character by the writers.
> Altruistic claims and actual altruism are two very different things.
Apollo has declared Zerak to be an altruist by his statements about his
books and so on. Apollo has only claimed that he opposed the violence that
Zerak later on began to use. This is the nucleus I believe that the
writers are steering toward for this team, I believe this Hollywood
Homosexual team, to be the 'heroes' of the show, battling ultimately against
Baltar and the Cylons.
>> That is, people who risk their own safety unnecessarily for the good
>> of others.
>> The writers are presenting those motives in 2 characters:
>> 1) Apollo who most recently put his own safety on the line in a
>> ridiculous scene in which he points the gun at Tigh long after the
>> moment he should have expressed his opposition directly to Adama.
>> 2) Zerak who put his liberty in danger unnecessarily by blowing up a
>> government building in which his documented writings make clear his
>> intentions were altruistic.
> Did you expect him to write a book about how he became a terrorist to
> further his own political ambitions? Again, Zerak makes a lot of mouth
> noises about what a good and noble guy he is, but what we've seen him
> do doesn't match up with his words.
What we know of his books, they are not terroristic but speak of the good of
mankind though he was not poor or disenfranchised himself.
>> i.e. neither of these 2 characters was "just doing their job" in
>> these particular actions.
>> >> Based on the script which has been exposed to the viewers in the
>> >> series, which person do you believe the viewers would have a low
>> >> opinion of: Baltar or Zerak ?
>> > Zerak is a politician in the slimiest sense of the word. While he
>> Zerak has clearly risked his own safety, not for personal gain, but
>> in documented writing, for the good of others.
>> What you claim is simply not what the script says.
> I know that Zerak's book makes Zerak out to be a heroic figure. His
> on-screen actions make him out to be just the opposite.
[[ The BSG writers portray Zerak as someone who has altruistic goals
and is willing to put his own life in danger to further those goals,
for a common good. That makes him a hero and the writers want to
put him together with Apollo to create the homosexual righteous heroic
team to defeat the Cylons. ]]
>> > seriously lacks the strength of any convictions Baltar sometimes
>> > shows flashes of a vestigial conscience. Baltar was duped into aiding
>> > the destruction of the Colonies, where Zerak knew full well what he was
>> > doing when he blew up the government building.
>> Again, I do not recall any presentation by the writers if anyone was
>> killed in the Zerak bombing, but what is clear is that Baltar's
>> involvement in 2 separate acts of mass murder for purely selfish reasons
>> should persuade anyone that he is an extremely evil character in the
>> series.
>> >From what I've seen, Baltar is more trustworthy than Zerak, in the
>> > same sense of Titan being warmer than Pluto.
>> What is so bad about Zerak, in your opinion, which makes him worse
>> than Baltar ?
> Baltar was *duped* into helping with the destruction of the Colonies.
> He never set out to commit genocide, and didn't know he was involved
> until after the attack had started. Zerak *knew* he was committing an
> act of terrorism, no matter how noble he spins it in his book.
If Baltar did not know what he was doing in compromising the space defenses
of the Colonies, then why, in the "33" episode, did he know immediately
that Dr. Amarak knew he was a traitor ? "6" speaks to him and states that
"he was onto us" and represents an immediate danger and must be muted.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #40489 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 04:18 |
|
In article <VEWie.5068$S4.266 [at] tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
"DirtyLiberal" <dirtyliberal [at] dirtyliberal.com> said:
> I'm sick of seeing queers on tv.
>
> --
> Ronald Schwarts
> http://www.DirtyLiberal.com (ask about the free right wing
> bumper stickers :-)
So gouge out your eyes.
--
William December Starr <wdstarr [at] panix.com>
|
|
|
| Re: The Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #40511 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 20:23 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C_yje.1519$5p.630 [at] lakeread02...
<Snip>
> "Normality" and " self-serving deviant behavior"
Hmmm. I agree with you that Judges should not be making
law but interrupting them. But who are you to throw around
terms like this? Are you part of the morality police?
As long as it is not illegal and it doesn't affect you
I think you should butt out. Because I know you don't
give two shits for me, my family, or my kids.
Numan
|
|
|
| Re: The Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #40515 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 21:59 |
|
"Numan" <tbrdmann [at] sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:j64ke.36$3D6.30 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C_yje.1519$5p.630 [at] lakeread02...
> <Snip>
> > "Normality" and " self-serving deviant behavior"
> Hmmm. I agree with you that Judges should not be making
> law but interrupting them. But who are you to throw around
The US Supreme Court may be allowed to strike down State
laws, since their role is to ensure federal laws and the federal
Constitution is adhered to, but the US Supreme Court has no
right to strike down federal laws.
The Constitution does not allow for this but it is a right federal
judges stole from the public in a decision in 1803 called
Marbury vs. Madison.
==============================
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.
==================================
> terms like this? Are you part of the morality police?
> As long as it is not illegal and it doesn't affect you
> I think you should butt out. Because I know you don't
> give two shits for me, my family, or my kids.
> Numan
The whole idea of democracy is commonality of interest.
Everyone ought to care as much about their kids as the
next person and should act accordingly with regard to new
needed laws to respond to a nationwide danger to their kids.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #40516 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 22:02 |
|
"William December Starr" <wdstarr [at] panix.com> wrote in message
news:d6oq5p$oda$1 [at] panix3.panix.com...
> In article <VEWie.5068$S4.266 [at] tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> "DirtyLiberal" <dirtyliberal [at] dirtyliberal.com> said:
> > I'm sick of seeing queers on tv.
> > Ronald Schwarts
> > http://www.DirtyLiberal.com (ask about the free right wing
> > bumper stickers :-)
> So gouge out your eyes.
> William December Starr <wdstarr [at] panix.com>
I would rather the viewing public exert more control
over what is on TV.
The US Supreme Court may be allowed to strike down State
laws, since their role is to ensure federal laws and the federal
Constitution is adhered to, but the US Supreme Court has no
right to strike down federal laws.
The Constitution does not allow for this but it is a right federal
judges stole from the public in a decision in 1803 called
Marbury vs. Madison.
==============================
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.
==================================
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #40596 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 03:50 |
|
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:0x5ke.896$rr.297 [at] fed1read01...
> The whole idea of democracy is commonality of interest.
> Everyone ought to care as much about their kids as the
> next person and should act accordingly with regard to new
> needed laws to respond to a nationwide danger to their kids.
>
> Politics
No it isn't. Democracy means you have the freedom to choose
in all aspects of life. If you talk about "commonality" as a replacement
for "common sense" then I would be much more inclined to agree
with some of your points. There are things you do and don't do
because it makes sense.
****Note: I give you credit. You are at least debating with people.
Numan
|
|
|
| Re: The Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservative Agenda in US Politics 2004 on TV [message #40606 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 05:39 |
|
"Numan" <tbrdmann [at] sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:lLvke.649$3D6.567 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:0x5ke.896$rr.297 [at] fed1read01...
> > The whole idea of democracy is commonality of interest.
> > Everyone ought to care as much about their kids as the
> > next person and should act accordingly with regard to new
> > needed laws to respond to a nationwide danger to their kids.
> > Politics
> No it isn't. Democracy means you have the freedom to choose
> in all aspects of life. If you talk about "commonality" as a replacement
> for "common sense" then I would be much more inclined to agree
> with some of your points. There are things you do and don't do
> because it makes sense.
Right, and if enough parents recognize thew reality of what is
happening in the media, realize the dangers of the muck there
perverting their kids in a direction that is not their parental intent,
then they ought to select Congressional representation who would
be fired up to pass laws to police the media more precisely in a
manner that would eradicate the muck before it reaches their kids.
That is democracy.
> ****Note: I give you credit. You are at least debating with people.
> Numan
You either come to the Usenet and utilize your freedom of speech to
discuss issues, or you can go to Blogs and be fed the muck of this or
that wealthy fatcat corporate interest who wants to control your impact
on the democratic process.
That also is a part of US democracy, when there are huge portions
of the US electorate who do not understand the democratic process.
Politics
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 12:10:52 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,08639 Sekunden |
