Republicans, Racists, And Nazis - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

boobmaster · 09-02-2004, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dig420
The only reason they have the ear of the President is because the Moron In Chief believes there has to be an Israeli state in existence in order to hasten the rapture. All Jews die at Armageddon.

The Jewish neocons are just taking advantage of the superstitious, ignorant Republican Party religious right. Can't blame them.

JESUS IS LORD

dig420 is a Dildo

dig420 · 09-02-2004, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by boobmaster
JESUS IS LORD

dig420 is a Dildo

and you're a not very interesting troll.

Fletch XXX · 09-02-2004, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dig420
and you're a not very interesting troll.

have you seen how pathetic boobmaster is?

he is CRYING for my attention

boobmaster · 09-02-2004, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dig420
and you're a not very interesting troll.

... and you're not a very intelligent MORON. Nowhere in the bible does it say that all the Jews die at Armageddon, DUMBASS!

boobmaster · 09-02-2004, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch XXX
have you seen how pathetic boobmaster is?

he is CRYING for my attention

Nobody insults my hero Ronald Reagan and survives my wrath.

Fletch XXX · 09-02-2004, 03:21 PM

you have no wrath just keep bumping my thread.

you are the target audience.

boobmaster · 09-02-2004, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch XXX
you have no wrath just keep bumping my thread.

you are the target audience.

Just don't mess with Reagan, THE GREATEST FUCKING US PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME.

Cory W · 09-02-2004, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
Dear moron, the vast majority of Americans didn't want women to vote, or get divorced, or allow blacks to vote, or allow blacks to go to the same schools as whites, or allow certain books to be published, or allow certain ethic groups to emigrate. The list is endless. It is always fun reading the reaction of knee-jerk Conservatives like you when they get a dose of history.

A liberal judiciary has saved American from being the jackboot dream of monarchists or the mob rule of lynching whites. Democracy can only exist when the rights of the minority are protected. Democracy is not majority rule but the participation of all of society. Go read a few books and come back when you have more knowledge.

Stop that. Common sense disrupts the flow around here.

Well said though

mule · 09-02-2004, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by boobmaster
Nobody insults my hero Ronald Reagan and survives my wrath.

If that's your role model I forgive you for being such a moron.

boobmaster · 09-02-2004, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mule
If that's your role model I forgive you for being such a moron.

Reagan was no dumbass, not like most Europeans I've met.

mule · 09-02-2004, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by boobmaster
Reagan was no dumbass, not like most Europeans I've met.

He was a senile imbecile. And I'm not european, when are you gonna get that through your thick skull?

Giorgio_Xo · 09-02-2004, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks
dear uneducated idiot, your statement above is false. I await the links proving your silly statements.

Sorry chump. its you who have no understanding of democracy. Democracy has no obligation to give credibility to the ideas of the extreme minority.
when you have to create lies like,"A liberal judiciary has saved American from being the jackboot dream of monarchists or the mob rule of lynching whites."
you should really just stop, you only embarrass yourself.

I stand by my words. I will gladly match my UC Berkeley Poli Sci degree with honors to anything you bring to the table. I studied under Kenneth Waltz, the foremost political theorist of the late 20th Century. My father served as an ambassador to UNESCO. So take your sad sack brain some where else because I know politics and history.

You so easily dismiss any contrary statements to your beliefs because you are frightened. It is a known fact the vast majority of the electorate during the late 19th and early 20th centuries was opposed to female voting rights, black voting rights, etc. Feel free to look up any of the Jim Crow laws or the Poll tax laws. In the first hundred years of the U.S. most states required that only property owners could vote. It is difficult to vote when women weren't allowed to own property in many states. Blacks were forced into seperate schools because of a conservative Supreme Court decision. The U.S. Constitution actually held that blacks weren't even full citizens and that they should only be counted as 3/5th of a man!

So 12 Clicks how about you post links to disprove me! I already did my work at Cal.

Troll.

DarkJedi · 09-02-2004, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TeenGodFather

Holy shit !! This is going into my sig

Fletch XXX · 09-02-2004, 03:37 PM

giorgio - i bet no one read the link from Reagans name on my blog.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/29/po...s-meyerson.php

It?s important to remember that Reagan, like Nixon, both stirred up and reaped gains from the white backlash of the ?60s. Reagan emerged as a national conservative leader when he campaigned for Barry Goldwater in 1964. Like Goldwater, he opposed the Civil Rights Act of ?64, which had abolished segregation in public facilities. When he ran against Brown two years later, he flayed the governor for backing legislation that would have outlawed racial discrimination in housing. He might never have been elected governor had it not been for the Watts Riots of 1965; that gave Reagan the opening to reach out to white working-class Democrats whose fear and resentment of blacks made them immediately susceptible to Reagan?s law-?n?-order one-liners.

Like Nixon, Reagan in his pre-grandfatherly phase was a master demagogue of divisiveness. When Berkeley radicals indulged in rhetorical revolutionary overkill, Governor Reagan went them one better. ?If it takes a bloodbath now, let?s get it over with,? he said during the conflicts over Berkeley?s ?People?s Park.? Those who?ve written this week that Reagan was never mean-spirited have conveniently forgotten his manipulation, every bit as cunning as Nixon?s, of cultural fury to political ends. To be sure, he was able to articulate, as Nixon never was, a positive (if dangerous and fantastical) vision of what the country could be, but we should never forget the depth and deftness of his demonization of people at the other end of the political spectrum. At his best, he could make such demonizations sound almost avuncular, as he did with his folk tale of the utterly fictitious Chicago woman whom he elevated into the Welfare Queen of the Western World. There was no detectable malice in his telling ? and countless retellings ? of the alleged woman?s alleged abuse of the welfare system; but the public-policy consequences of this tale were nothing but malicious.

Reagan?s political strategy entailed dividing Americans along lines of race ? wooing white Democrats to his column through a siren song of nationalism and cultural traditionalism (though not, in the latter case, to anywhere near the degree that Bush?s Republicans have come to rely on it). The strategy worked so well that Reagan was able to proceed unimpeded with his economic strategy, the real agenda of his presidency, which was to divide Americans along the quite different lines of class. His term in office was defined by the atmospherics and actuality of greed: Never, in a single presidency, have the rich gotten so much richer and the poor poorer. The share of the nation?s wealth controlled by the richest 1 percent during his presidency increased from 8 percent to 13 percent ? still, according to Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute, the greatest increase in wealth concentration of any presidency in our history. Virtually everyone else?s share declined.

mule · 09-02-2004, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
I stand by my words. I will gladly match my UC Berkeley Poli Sci degree with honors to anything you bring to the table. I studied under Kenneth Waltz, the foremost political theorist of the late 20th Century. My father served as an ambassador to UNESCO. So take your sad sack brain some where else because I know politics and history.

You so easily dismiss any contrary statements to your beliefs because you are frightened. It is a known fact the vast majority of the electorate during the late 19th and early 20th centuries was opposed to female voting rights, black voting rights, etc. Feel free to look up any of the Jim Crow laws or the Poll tax laws. In the first hundred years of the U.S. most states required that only property owners could vote. It is difficult to vote when women weren't allowed to own property in many states. Blacks were forced into seperate schools because of a conservative Supreme Court decision. The U.S. Constitution actually held that blacks weren't even full citizens and that they should only be counted as 3/5th of a man!

So 12 Clicks how about you post links to disprove me! I already did my work at Cal.

Troll.

Oh shit, now you've done it. He's gonna call you a nobody now

boobmaster · 09-02-2004, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mule
He was a senile imbecile. And I'm not european, when are you gonna get that through your thick skull?

European, Canadian. Same fucking thing. Both DUMBASSES.

SilverTab · 09-02-2004, 03:41 PM

haven't read most of the thread...but I had to say that seeing fletch being called a wigger was quite funny

SilverTab · 09-02-2004, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by boobmaster
European, Canadian. Same fucking thing. Both DUMBASSES.

coming from you..it's more than funny!

Fletch XXX · 09-02-2004, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SilverTab
haven't read most of the thread...but I had to say that seeing fletch being called a wigger was quite funny

Rule #3 in being a troll.

Automatically call your opponent something he is not and make him debate it.

I learned these rules long ago, he cant get me.

boobmaster · 09-02-2004, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch XXX
giorgio - i bet no one read the link from Reagans name on my blog.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/29/po...s-meyerson.php

It?s important to remember that Reagan, like Nixon, both stirred up and reaped gains from the white backlash of the ?60s. Reagan emerged as a national conservative leader when he campaigned for Barry Goldwater in 1964. Like Goldwater, he opposed the Civil Rights Act of ?64, which had abolished segregation in public facilities. When he ran against Brown two years later, he flayed the governor for backing legislation that would have outlawed racial discrimination in housing. He might never have been elected governor had it not been for the Watts Riots of 1965; that gave Reagan the opening to reach out to white working-class Democrats whose fear and resentment of blacks made them immediately susceptible to Reagan?s law-?n?-order one-liners.

Like Nixon, Reagan in his pre-grandfatherly phase was a master demagogue of divisiveness. When Berkeley radicals indulged in rhetorical revolutionary overkill, Governor Reagan went them one better. ?If it takes a bloodbath now, let?s get it over with,? he said during the conflicts over Berkeley?s ?People?s Park.? Those who?ve written this week that Reagan was never mean-spirited have conveniently forgotten his manipulation, every bit as cunning as Nixon?s, of cultural fury to political ends. To be sure, he was able to articulate, as Nixon never was, a positive (if dangerous and fantastical) vision of what the country could be, but we should never forget the depth and deftness of his demonization of people at the other end of the political spectrum. At his best, he could make such demonizations sound almost avuncular, as he did with his folk tale of the utterly fictitious Chicago woman whom he elevated into the Welfare Queen of the Western World. There was no detectable malice in his telling ? and countless retellings ? of the alleged woman?s alleged abuse of the welfare system; but the public-policy consequences of this tale were nothing but malicious.

Reagan?s political strategy entailed dividing Americans along lines of race ? wooing white Democrats to his column through a siren song of nationalism and cultural traditionalism (though not, in the latter case, to anywhere near the degree that Bush?s Republicans have come to rely on it). The strategy worked so well that Reagan was able to proceed unimpeded with his economic strategy, the real agenda of his presidency, which was to divide Americans along the quite different lines of class. His term in office was defined by the atmospherics and actuality of greed: Never, in a single presidency, have the rich gotten so much richer and the poor poorer. The share of the nation?s wealth controlled by the richest 1 percent during his presidency increased from 8 percent to 13 percent ? still, according to Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute, the greatest increase in wealth concentration of any presidency in our history. Virtually everyone else?s share declined.

RONALD REAGAN WAS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT OF THE 20TH CENTURY

quiet · 09-02-2004, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch XXX
Rule #3 in being a troll.

Automatically call your opponent something he is not and make him debate it.

I learned these rules long ago, he cant get me.

haha, oldest rule in the book

Giorgio_Xo · 09-02-2004, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by boobmaster
RONALD REAGAN WAS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT OF THE 20TH CENTURY

Are you kidding me? FDR wins that by a mile. He saved us from the inept and corrupt Hoover administration and won the largest, bloodiest war in history.

boobmaster · 09-02-2004, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
Are you kidding me? FDR wins that by a mile. He saved us from the inept and corrupt Hoover administration and won the largest, bloodiest war in history.

The Russians would have eventually taken Hitler down anyway. Reagan almost singlehandedly destroyed communism!

Fletch XXX · 09-02-2004, 04:01 PM

i laughed out loud when they kept replaying the footage of nancy walking up to rons casket.

the piece of shits library is right up the road from me where they had all that ronald regan funeral crap.

i havent laughed so hard since seeing nancy witnessing rons death.

funny funny funny.

like an old COmic Relief.

Giorgio_Xo · 09-02-2004, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by boobmaster
The Russians would have eventually taken Hitler down anyway. Reagan almost singlehandedly destroyed communism!

False. Russia didn't have the industrial capacity. Don't forget that Russia had lost against Japan in Mongolia in 1936 and fought to a draw against Finland in the Winter War. Russia could have pushed back Germany but it didn't have the Navy to fight Japan.

Reagan didn't destroy Communism. Communism collapsed on itself.

Reagan can only claim a weak victory against Grenada. He lost in Beruit. He fought to a draw in Nicaragua. He couldn't take down Castro. Reagan created the expansionist Saddam by tacitly approving the invasion of Iran.

boobmaster · 09-02-2004, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch XXX
i laughed out loud when they kept replaying the footage of nancy walking up to rons casket.

the piece of shits library is right up the road from me where they had all that ronald regan funeral crap.

i havent laughed so hard since seeing nancy witnessing rons death.

funny funny funny.

like an old COmic Relief.

Ronald Reagan = Two term President of the USA
Fletch = Nobody with a drug addiction

boobmaster · 09-02-2004, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
False. Russia didn't have the industrial capacity. Don't forget that Russia had lost against Japan in Mongolia in 1936 and fought to a draw against Finland in the Winter War. Russia could have pushed back Germany but it didn't have the Navy to fight Japan.

Reagan didn't destroy Communism. Communism collapsed on itself.

Reagan can only claim a weak victory against Grenada. He lost in Beruit. He fought to a draw in Nicaragua. He couldn't take down Castro. Reagan created the expansionist Saddam by tacitly approving the invasion of Iran.

You should sue UC Berkeley for NOT educating you.

Giorgio_Xo · 09-02-2004, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by boobmaster
You should sue UC Berkeley for NOT educating you.

I laugh in your face with that weak remark. I am sorry for you. I just owned you and you didn't like it. Go read some books.

theking · 09-02-2004, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SilverTab
haven't read most of the thread...but I had to say that seeing fletch being called a wigger was quite funny

Make your pick.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wigger

boobmaster · 09-02-2004, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
I laugh in your face with that weak remark. I am sorry for you. I just owned you and you didn't like it. Go read some books.

You're a typical liberal revisionist, which doesn't surprise me for a UC Berkeley grad, assuming you actually graduated.

(1) The Russian army was already moving the Nazis backwards BEFORE the US got into the war. It might have taken a few more years, but they still would have gotten to Berlin.

(2) If Reagan hadn't been so tough with the Russians, Communism would have still ruled Eastern Europe well into the 90s. Without Reagan, there would still be a Soviet Union. It pisses me off when liberal fucktards like you don't give him the credit he deserves.

(3) You are a moron.

C_U_Next_Tuesday · 09-02-2004, 04:32 PM

Hey man... dont tell me to die slow!

good rant

mule · 09-02-2004, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
I just owned you and you didn't like it.

Nah, he's like 12clicks: you owned him and he's too stupid to realise it.

Honeyslut · 09-02-2004, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
Make your pick.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wigger

whaddu yooz talkin bout niggah, diz iz inglish innit?

Giorgio_Xo · 09-02-2004, 04:44 PM

(1)

Russia was already receiving heavy industrial output from the U.S. prior to June 1941 whereby U.K. land lease materials were rerouted to Russia. This was critical for the Red Army. Starting in June of 1941 Russia began receive huge arms and materials shipments directly from the U.S.

Read from a Russian website: http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/...deliveries.htm

The author quotes: "American Lend-lease to the Soviet Union can be divided into the following phases:

- "pre Lend-lease" 22 June 1941 to 30 September 1941
- first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 1 October 1941)
- second protocol period from 1 July 1942 to 30 June 1943 (signed 6 October 1942)
- third protocol period from 1 July 1943 to 30 June 1944 (signed 19 October 1943)

- fourth protocol period from 1 July 1944, (signed 17 April 1945), formally ended 12 May 1945 but deliveries continued for the duration of the war with Japan (which the Soviet Union entered only 8 August 1945) under the "Milepost" agreement until 2 September 1945 when Japan capitulated. 20 September 1945 all Lend-Lease to Russia was terminated.

In addition to the aircraft deliveries American Lend-lease deliveries to Russia included also more than 400.000 trucks, over 12.000 tanks and other combat vehicles, 32.000 motorcycles, 13.000 locomotives and railway cars, 8.000 anti-aircraft cannons and machine-guns, 135.000 submachine guns, 300.000 tons of explosives, 40.000 field radios, some 400 radar systems, 400.000 metal cutting machi_ne tools, several million tons of foodstuff, steel, other metals, oil and gasoline, chemicals etc. A price tag was naturally attached to all deliveries, with following typical fighter prices:

P-40 Kittyhawk - 44.900 dollars, P-39 Airacobra - 50.700 dollars and P-47 Thunderbolt - 83.000 dollars."

He continues by saying : "Regardless of Soviet cold-war attempts to forget (or at least diminish) the importance of Lend-lease, the total impact of the Lend-Lease shipment for the Soviet war effort and entire national economy can only be characterized as both dramatic and of decisive importance. The outcome of the war on the East front might well have taken another path without Lend-lease."

(2)

Tough? Every U.S. President since Truman had been tough on Moscow. What was so difficult or different? The U.S. maintained the same policy of isolating Russia from capital while spending heavily on reasearch and development to maintain a technological lead. What did Reagan do that was any different? Star Wars? Every president had their own super-weapon to scare the Commies. Russian society was going to potentially collapse at any moment because of deep inefficiencies of economical capital. The Soviets lost because we out spent them - Truman policy.

(3)

A could a moron but I get laid and paid every day.

crowkid · 09-02-2004, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dead13
Good stuff man. I am in the middle of writing my thesis about the "The REAL New Republican Plan," no longer racism but placeism. You may be pretty interested in it when finished, as it is right in line with your article.

Put simply how they work as hard as they can to keep the poor and the force the middle class into poverty and it shows in all of their transparent policies and voting records.

Also includes my plan for how "New Democrats" must take back up the Civil Rights war and help to bring up the impoverished and less-privilaged in this country so we can ban together to finally defeat the Far Right. We will never outnumber them if our base is to fucking poor to do anything about them.

Man, I can't wait to read your thesis.. Tell ya what, print it out for me, mail it to me, and I promise you I will whipe my ass with it

...I love how you guys are so hypocritical, your sitting here in the PORN INDUSTRY, you make MULTIPLE G'S, are we really supposed to believe ANY of you give a SHIT about hardworking, poverty-living Americans? ROFL, you make me sick you fucking hypocrite, go to Starbucks and talk it over with your buddies.

Giorgio_Xo · 09-02-2004, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by boobmaster
You're a typical liberal revisionist

I was a Republican Party paying member until last year when I changed to the Libertarian Party. The true Republican Party no longer exists. It is now a party of former Dixiecrat segregationists i.e. Strom Thurmond-types who believe Blacks should still be refered to as hahahahahahas, and fundamentalist Christians.

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 09-02-2004, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TeenGodFather

I am stealing this.

Quote:

Originally posted by mule
Nah, he's like 12clicks: you owned him and he's too stupid to realise it.

Aint that the truth!

crowkid · 09-02-2004, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
I was a Republican Party paying member until last year when I changed to the Libertarian Party. The true Republican Party no longer exists. It is now a party of former Dixiecrat segregationists i.e. Strom Thurmond-types who believe Blacks should still be refered to as hahahahahahas, and fundamentalist Christians.

Strom Thurmond renounced his idiot ways nearly 50 years ago, and since, his voting record and actions, rather than words, have redeemed his humanity... Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, is a known racist and former member of the KKK, yet the Democrats are willing to overlook his past, and become hypocritical and point fingers at Mr. Thurmond..... not a surprise there folks...

Giorgio_Xo · 09-02-2004, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crowkid
Strom Thurmond renounced his idiot ways nearly 50 years ago, and since, his voting record and actions, rather than words, have redeemed his humanity... Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, is a known racist and former member of the KKK, yet the Democrats are willing to overlook his past, and become hypocritical and point fingers at Mr. Thurmond..... not a surprise there folks...

Strom Thurmond was a racist pig throughout his life. I am no fan of Robert Byrd either. There is no room for racism in the world.

Why are you bringing up the Democrats? (1) We are talking about Republicans. (2) I am not a Democrat. I am a Libertarian. Two completely different political parties.

genomega · 09-02-2004, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by boobmaster
You should sue UC Berkeley for NOT educating you.

mardigras · 09-02-2004, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

now run along halfwit. gays have every right afforded to strait people already.

In many states your employer can fire you just because he finds out you're gay.

Many times judges have overturned wills of persons in long-term gay relationships in favor of a family who didn't associate with the person for years.

Sometimes gays are not allowed to make decisions for a long-term partner who is in the hospital because they have no legal right to do so.

Gays are often not allowed to adopt or take in foster children, not even the difficult to place ones. Some people prefer to see them remain in institutions.

In some states a gay couple can be arrested for sodomy in the privacy of their own home because someone calls in a false police report. If they are caught in the act, it's a felony. 22 states still have laws against oral and anal sex on the books with prison terms of up to 20 years / $50,000 fine for conviction.

In a number of states the age of sexual consent for homosexuals is higher than that for heterosexuals.

Gays cannot serve their country if their "secret" gets out. With a critical shortage of Arabic/English translators a number were discharged for being found out gay.

Courts say it's OK to bar homosexuals from being scout leaders or big brothers/big sisters, even if they are teachers with great expertise.

Gays cannot collect benefits upon death of a spouse.

In many areas you can beat a person brutally for no other reason than you know/suspect they are gay and it will be treated as an assault no different than if it were a mutual fight. If a person was going around bashing blacks it would be an outrage if anyone suggested it wasn't hate crimes.

Those are just a few things off the top of my head. Gee Sparky, sure you don't want to reconsider your statement that gays have every right afforded to straight people already?

crowkid · 09-02-2004, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mardigras
In many states your employer can fire you just because he finds out you're gay.

Many times judges have overturned wills of persons in long-term gay relationships in favor of a family who didn't associate with the person for years.

Sometimes gays are not allowed to make decisions for a long-term partner who is in the hospital because they have no legal right to do so.

Gays are often not allowed to adopt or take in foster children, not even the difficult to place ones. Some people prefer to see them remain in institutions.

In some states a gay couple can be arrested for sodomy in the privacy of their own home because someone calls in a false police report. If they are caught in the act, it's a felony. 22 states still have laws against oral and anal sex on the books with prison terms of up to 20 years / $50,000 fine for conviction.

In a number of states the age of sexual consent for homosexuals is higher than that for heterosexuals.

Gays cannot serve their country if their "secret" gets out. With a critical shortage of Arabic/English translators a number were discharged for being forund out gay.

Courts say it's OK to bar homosexuals from being scout leaders or big brothers/big sisters, even if they are teachers with great expertise.

Gays cannot collect benefits upon death of a spouse.

In many areas you can beat a person brutally for no other reason than you know/suspect they are gay and it will be treated as an assault no different than if it were a mutual fight. If a person was going around bashing blacks it would be an outrage if anyone suggested it wasn't hate crimes.

Those are just a few things off the top of my head. Gee Sparky, sure you don't want to consider your statement that gays have every right afforded to straight people already?

man....that's gay

boobmaster · 09-02-2004, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
I was a Republican Party paying member until last year when I changed to the Libertarian Party. The true Republican Party no longer exists. It is now a party of former Dixiecrat segregationists i.e. Strom Thurmond-types who believe Blacks should still be refered to as hahahahahahas, and fundamentalist Christians.

A Libertarian. That explains a lot.

crowkid · 09-02-2004, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by boobmaster
A Libertarian. That explains a lot.

Boobmaster, walk beside me, as we explore the vast, neverending Liberal hallways of GFY.. Be careful, we're a minority here

Peaches · 09-02-2004, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mardigras
In many states your employer can fire you just because he finds out you're gay.

Many times judges have overturned wills of persons in long-term gay relationships in favor of a family who didn't associate with the person for years.

Sometimes gays are not allowed to make decisions for a long-term partner who is in the hospital because they have no legal right to do so.

Gays are often not allowed to adopt or take in foster children, not even the difficult to place ones. Some people prefer to see them remain in institutions.

In some states a gay couple can be arrested for sodomy in the privacy of their own home because someone calls in a false police report. If they are caught in the act, it's a felony. 22 states still have laws against oral and anal sex on the books with prison terms of up to 20 years / $50,000 fine for conviction.

In a number of states the age of sexual consent for homosexuals is higher than that for heterosexuals.

Gays cannot serve their country if their "secret" gets out. With a critical shortage of Arabic/English translators a number were discharged for being found out gay.

Courts say it's OK to bar homosexuals from being scout leaders or big brothers/big sisters, even if they are teachers with great expertise.

Gays cannot collect benefits upon death of a spouse.

In many areas you can beat a person brutally for no other reason than you know/suspect they are gay and it will be treated as an assault no different than if it were a mutual fight. If a person was going around bashing blacks it would be an outrage if anyone suggested it wasn't hate crimes.

Those are just a few things off the top of my head. Gee Sparky, sure you don't want to reconsider your statement that gays have every right afforded to straight people already?

1. In those same states you can be fired for wearing your hair in a way your boss doesn't like it

2. This also happens with unmarried AND married heterosexuals.

3. They would if they had a living will, power of attorney, etc.

4. Neither are many other people. Many married white couples are turned down for adopting black children even if the child is a special needs child and the other option is an institution.

5. This is true of ANY couple engaging in legal sodomy, not just gays. And yes, it HAS been filed with heterosexual couples - I've seen it happen when a woman gets pissed and knows she can get a guy arrested for going down on her.

6. I've not heard this - is that because of the sodomy laws? Even if the gays were allowed to marry, this wouldn't change in those states.

7. Actually there isn't really a "critical shortage".

In fact, the USAF currently has a completely freeze on giving out Arabic linguist jobs. And they were found out because they told. These people are making approximately 5 times in the private sector than they were making in the military, BTW. I have long suspected they knew this would happen and got themselves discharged, but of course I have no proof of that..........

8. Actually the courts said they wouldn't interfere with a private club and dictate to them who and who they shouldn't have as leaders. And well it should be - the government doesn't need to be involved in that.

9. Neither can unmarried couples. However, the decedent can put the person on their life insurance, in a will, etc. If you're talking about social security, the amount these days is a joke and soon to be gone anyway. Anyone who's depending on a spouse's SS to support them when they did is in for a world of surprise.

10. I personally don't think there should be any such thing as "hate crime". A beating is a beating is a beating. But many places DO consider straight on gay crime a hate crime - even with the person doing the beating might not even know they were assaulting a gay person...........

We all are treated differently. Always have been, always will be. The rights of gays have substantially increased over the years and I suspect they will continue to increase. But from the numbers I've seen, the majority of the US doesn't want to see them married. Personally I couldn't care less and if the people talking about the sanctity of marriage really meant it, they'd spend their time outlawing divorce. But politicians go with what the majority of their constituents wants. 'Tis how they became politicians.

12clicks · 09-06-2004, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
Dear moron, the vast majority of Americans didn't want women to vote, or get divorced, or allow blacks to vote, or allow blacks to go to the same schools as whites, or allow certain books to be published, or allow certain ethic groups to emigrate. The list is endless.

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks
dear uneducated idiot, your statement above is false. I await the links proving your silly statements.

Quote:

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
I stand by my words. I will gladly match my UC Berkeley Poli Sci degree with honors to anything you bring to the table. I studied under Kenneth Waltz, the foremost political theorist of the late 20th Century. My father served as an ambassador to UNESCO. So take your sad sack brain some where else because I know politics and history.

looks like this moron isn't going to come up with any links supporting his lies. (fairly typical of liberal halfwits)

just for shits and giggles, lets make fun of this moron for a minute.

A vast majority of Americans didn't want women to vote or get divorced?
what does it take to pass a constitutional amendment halfwhit? you should know this with that scary Political science degree.

how does that jive with your silly statement of "vast majority"
oh, and they weren't allowed to divorce by the "vast majority"? considering a population is roughly a 50/50 spit between male and female, who would the vast majority be? and who would they be divorcing? other women?

Are you sure your degree wasn't in Science Fiction?

Screaming · 09-06-2004, 06:19 PM

Giorgio_Xo · 09-06-2004, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks
looks like this moron isn't going to come up with any links supporting his lies. (fairly typical of liberal halfwits)

just for shits and giggles, lets make fun of this moron for a minute.

A vast majority of Americans didn't want women to vote or get divorced?
what does it take to pass a constitutional amendment halfwhit? you should know this with that scary Political science degree. how does that jive with your silly statement of "vast majority"
oh, and they weren't allowed to divorce by the "vast majority"? considering a population is roughly a 50/50 spit between male and female, who would the vast majority be? and who would they be divorcing? other women?

Are you sure your degree wasn't in Science Fiction?

I told you it was your responsiblilty to cite links to defeat my opinion. Your job. Do it. I dare you.

In response to your comment on the XIX Amendment, it took a small group of very dedicated women that were willing to be constantly jailed to have the Amendment pass. They shamed the majority into equal rights. The U.S. electorate did not vote to pass. It was decided by each individual state legislature. As the vote came in each state, the women would mobilize to the repective state to protest.

Secondly, divorced was an issue forced by several court decisions using the 14th Amendment whereby judges ruled that a woman's right to equal access was being denied by not affording them due process.

12 Clicks, you think in a linear fashion. You forget alot of women in the 19th and 20th Centuries weren't in favor of equal rights. Many were happy with their station. It took alot of work from a dedicated group.

It is up to you to post links. I dare you to formulate a rebuttal. You are the moron that thinks that any negation is sufficient. You are a coward if you don't do so. C'mon 12Clicks.

By the way, what sites do you operate?

fr8 · 09-06-2004, 07:30 PM

This is why I worry about our elected officials.

09-02-2004, 03:21 PM	#56
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	you have no wrath just keep bumping my thread. you are the target audience. __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

09-02-2004, 03:37 PM	#64
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	giorgio - i bet no one read the link from Reagans name on my blog. http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/29/po...s-meyerson.php It?s important to remember that Reagan, like Nixon, both stirred up and reaped gains from the white backlash of the ?60s. Reagan emerged as a national conservative leader when he campaigned for Barry Goldwater in 1964. Like Goldwater, he opposed the Civil Rights Act of ?64, which had abolished segregation in public facilities. When he ran against Brown two years later, he flayed the governor for backing legislation that would have outlawed racial discrimination in housing. He might never have been elected governor had it not been for the Watts Riots of 1965; that gave Reagan the opening to reach out to white working-class Democrats whose fear and resentment of blacks made them immediately susceptible to Reagan?s law-?n?-order one-liners. Like Nixon, Reagan in his pre-grandfatherly phase was a master demagogue of divisiveness. When Berkeley radicals indulged in rhetorical revolutionary overkill, Governor Reagan went them one better. ?If it takes a bloodbath now, let?s get it over with,? he said during the conflicts over Berkeley?s ?People?s Park.? Those who?ve written this week that Reagan was never mean-spirited have conveniently forgotten his manipulation, every bit as cunning as Nixon?s, of cultural fury to political ends. To be sure, he was able to articulate, as Nixon never was, a positive (if dangerous and fantastical) vision of what the country could be, but we should never forget the depth and deftness of his demonization of people at the other end of the political spectrum. At his best, he could make such demonizations sound almost avuncular, as he did with his folk tale of the utterly fictitious Chicago woman whom he elevated into the Welfare Queen of the Western World. There was no detectable malice in his telling ? and countless retellings ? of the alleged woman?s alleged abuse of the welfare system; but the public-policy consequences of this tale were nothing but malicious. Reagan?s political strategy entailed dividing Americans along lines of race ? wooing white Democrats to his column through a siren song of nationalism and cultural traditionalism (though not, in the latter case, to anywhere near the degree that Bush?s Republicans have come to rely on it). The strategy worked so well that Reagan was able to proceed unimpeded with his economic strategy, the real agenda of his presidency, which was to divide Americans along the quite different lines of class. His term in office was defined by the atmospherics and actuality of greed: Never, in a single presidency, have the rich gotten so much richer and the poor poorer. The share of the nation?s wealth controlled by the richest 1 percent during his presidency increased from 8 percent to 13 percent ? still, according to Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute, the greatest increase in wealth concentration of any presidency in our history. Virtually everyone else?s share declined. __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

09-02-2004, 03:41 PM	#67
SilverTab Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: MTL Posts: 5,060	haven't read most of the thread...but I had to say that seeing fletch being called a wigger was quite funny __________________ mmm my sig was too big... no more cool animation but hey still! need php? ICQ: 94586959

09-02-2004, 04:01 PM	#74
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	i laughed out loud when they kept replaying the footage of nancy walking up to rons casket. the piece of shits library is right up the road from me where they had all that ronald regan funeral crap. i havent laughed so hard since seeing nancy witnessing rons death. funny funny funny. like an old COmic Relief. __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

09-02-2004, 04:44 PM	#84
Giorgio_Xo Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 4,263	(1) Russia was already receiving heavy industrial output from the U.S. prior to June 1941 whereby U.K. land lease materials were rerouted to Russia. This was critical for the Red Army. Starting in June of 1941 Russia began receive huge arms and materials shipments directly from the U.S. Read from a Russian website: http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/...deliveries.htm The author quotes: "American Lend-lease to the Soviet Union can be divided into the following phases: - "pre Lend-lease" 22 June 1941 to 30 September 1941 - first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 1 October 1941) - second protocol period from 1 July 1942 to 30 June 1943 (signed 6 October 1942) - third protocol period from 1 July 1943 to 30 June 1944 (signed 19 October 1943) - fourth protocol period from 1 July 1944, (signed 17 April 1945), formally ended 12 May 1945 but deliveries continued for the duration of the war with Japan (which the Soviet Union entered only 8 August 1945) under the "Milepost" agreement until 2 September 1945 when Japan capitulated. 20 September 1945 all Lend-Lease to Russia was terminated. In addition to the aircraft deliveries American Lend-lease deliveries to Russia included also more than 400.000 trucks, over 12.000 tanks and other combat vehicles, 32.000 motorcycles, 13.000 locomotives and railway cars, 8.000 anti-aircraft cannons and machine-guns, 135.000 submachine guns, 300.000 tons of explosives, 40.000 field radios, some 400 radar systems, 400.000 metal cutting machi_ne tools, several million tons of foodstuff, steel, other metals, oil and gasoline, chemicals etc. A price tag was naturally attached to all deliveries, with following typical fighter prices: P-40 Kittyhawk - 44.900 dollars, P-39 Airacobra - 50.700 dollars and P-47 Thunderbolt - 83.000 dollars." He continues by saying : "Regardless of Soviet cold-war attempts to forget (or at least diminish) the importance of Lend-lease, the total impact of the Lend-Lease shipment for the Soviet war effort and entire national economy can only be characterized as both dramatic and of decisive importance. The outcome of the war on the East front might well have taken another path without Lend-lease." (2) Tough? Every U.S. President since Truman had been tough on Moscow. What was so difficult or different? The U.S. maintained the same policy of isolating Russia from capital while spending heavily on reasearch and development to maintain a technological lead. What did Reagan do that was any different? Star Wars? Every president had their own super-weapon to scare the Commies. Russian society was going to potentially collapse at any moment because of deep inefficiencies of economical capital. The Soviets lost because we out spent them - Truman policy. (3) A could a moron but I get laid and paid every day. __________________ Make Levees, Not War Last edited by Giorgio_Xo; 09-02-2004 at 04:48 PM..

09-02-2004, 04:32 PM	#81
C_U_Next_Tuesday WW4L Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: over the river and through the woods Posts: 10,581	Hey man... dont tell me to die slow! good rant

09-06-2004, 06:19 PM	#97
Screaming I can change this!!!!! Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 18,972	__________________

09-06-2004, 07:30 PM	#99
fr8 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,074	This is why I worry about our elected officials. __________________ █ joesmut (a) gmail Dot com █ Full Stack Developer