Liberal Forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3wSSShwwwo

Here, he praises Trump:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LIt6nMMVA8

Cannonpointer » 09 Aug 2018 10:26 pm » wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3wSSShwwwo

Here, he praises Trump:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LIt6nMMVA8

Suze Orman was a complete loser who drove halfway across the country to wait tables, and made her first million telling people on TV to cut up their credit cards.

Christopher Columbus possessed less knowledge than the average Spanish sailor, but cemented a legacy shared by few.

You don't actually have to be proficient or skilled at what it is you do in life to strike gold. The elite cabal of scientists, engineers, and artists are sitting in labs, cubicles, and studios doing their work for their overlords (owners) while the conspicuous jesters who've made a name are the equivalent of C-students in high school and college.

Ever wonder how a bunch of ****, average IQ talk show hosts made it onto national TV? There's your answer.

I made my own "Pareto" rule; instead of 20/80, it's 5/95.

5% of news is genuine, 95% is fake/****/infotainment.

5% of music is amazing, 95% is garbage.

5% of books are worth reading, 95% aren't.

5% of people you meet randomly are worth interacting with after a week, 95% aren't.

Dantev2 » 10 Aug 2018 8:59 pm » wrote:
Suze Orman was a complete loser who drove halfway across the country to wait tables, and made her first million telling people on TV to cut up their credit cards.

Christopher Columbus possessed less knowledge than the average Spanish sailor, but cemented a legacy shared by few.

You don't actually have to be proficient or skilled at what it is you do in life to strike gold. The elite cabal of scientists, engineers, and artists are sitting in labs, cubicles, and studios doing their work for their overlords (owners) while the conspicuous jesters who've made a name are the equivalent of C-students in high school and college.

Ever wonder how a bunch of ****, average IQ talk show hosts made it onto national TV? There's your answer.

I remember the day that teevee died. It used to have standards - it really did. Then one day, Sally Jesse Rafael said to a guest: "So you are saying that millions of Christians, for millions of years, have been wrong." She followed that with, "And we'll be back, after this message."

She kept her job, and television was sacrificed in the bargain. We really did have standards - young folks won't know that. But we did.

Cannonpointer » 11 Aug 2018 11:15 am » wrote:I remember the day that teevee died. It used to have standards - it really did. Then one day, Sally Jesse Rafael said to a guest: "So you are saying that millions of Christians, for millions of years, have been wrong." She followed that with, "And we'll be back, after this message."

She kept her job, and television was sacrificed in the bargain. We really did have standards - young folks won't know that. But we did.

I have no idea who that is, but I'll take your word for it.

Books went down the **** hole as well, no thanks to Amazon.

The publishing companies are evil, but Amazon opened the floodgates.

Cannonpointer » 11 Aug 2018 11:15 am » wrote:I remember the day that teevee died. It used to have standards - it really did. Then one day, Sally Jesse Rafael said to a guest: "So you are saying that millions of Christians, for millions of years, have been wrong." She followed that with, "And we'll be back, after this message."

She kept her job, and television was sacrificed in the bargain. We really did have standards - young folks won't know that. But we did.

Do you remember this?

https://www.thoughtco.com/stephen-colbe ... er-2734728

I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.

I believe in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. I believe it is possible. I saw this guy do it once in Cirque du Soleil. It was magical!

On Journalists:

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works.

The President makes decisions. He's the decider.

The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type.

Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head.

You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration? You know, fiction!

RW mouth breathers had a fat *** cock stuck up their *** and didn't appreciate the genius that went into this, if I recall correctly. They were demanding "apologies" afterwards after being thoroughly sodomized.

Dantev2 » 12 Aug 2018 9:24 am » wrote:
Do you remember this?

https://www.thoughtco.com/stephen-colbe ... er-2734728

On Journalists:

RW mouth breathers had a fat *** cock stuck up their *** and didn't appreciate the genius that went into this, if I recall correctly. They were demanding "apologies" afterwards after being thoroughly sodomized.

Yes, colbert was a living art work when he had his show.

And yes, he knew those bitches biblically, on a regular (nightly) basis.

Cannonpointer » 12 Aug 2018 4:54 pm » wrote:Yes, colbert was a living art work when he had his show.

And yes, he knew those bitches biblically, on a regular (nightly) basis.

Those "bitches" seem none the more intelligent now than they were back when the Shrub was pres.

Dantev2 » 12 Aug 2018 6:27 pm » wrote: Those "bitches" seem none the more intelligent now than they were back when the Shrub was pres.

Well, you are certainly correct about that.

They screech about reporters while ignoring that wall street tells the slugs what to say, leaving them still the same slavering servants of the same masters, while spouting populist slogans that they absolutely reviled during the dark days of obama.

I have absolute respect for anyone who changes his position - but not when he pretends that the new position was his all along. That tells me all I need to know about this "change." It's fashionable, not principled.

My principles have not changed, though SOME of my positions have. I was pro gay rights. I am not, anymore. I will happily vote for an out of the closet homophobe at this juncture. That is a change in position. I can say when and why it happened, but I hardly think that's necessary, given the left's recent shift to outright attacks on the science of gender.

The point is, I have owned my mistake. I was incorrect to add my voice to the chorus in favor of gay rights, well meaning though I was. I am not trying to pass myself off as having always held today's position, as our recent converts to faux-populism are wont.

Likewise, seeing trump as a triumphal middle finger - a heartfelt go **** yourself - to the machine in NO WAY obliges me to defend his insanities, nor do I ever. The leftists on this board BELIEVE I defend trump, for precisely the reason the righties BELIEVED I defended obama, back when they were the shrill, deranged clowns. Attacking bad arguments is not defending the target of those arguments - it's defending correct thinking. On the RARE occasion when conjobs attacked obama with a rational argument, I joined them, and added a bonus grievance or two.

I'm happy to roast the right - helped the mad canuck do so today, when he posted a most incredible clip of retarded right wing politicians advocating arming school children. I'm delighted to roast trump, too - though he sort of self-manages that chore. One needn't even shake well or add water - just roll tape.

No, they're no smarter, sadly. I have come to believe it's a function of IQ. That, and dealing with one's ego. The fear of admitting error is writ large on this board, and it often astounds me that it is so. I mean, we're **** anonymous. I have no idea what anyone looks like, how old they are, who they're sleeping with, how much they earn, etc. Nor do I care. Why should they fear admitting error under such conditions?

Cannonpointer » 12 Aug 2018 8:57 pm » wrote:Well, you are certainly correct about that.

They screech about reporters while ignoring that wall street tells the slugs what to say, leaving them still the same slavering servants of the same masters, while spouting populist slogans that they absolutely reviled during the dark days of obama.

I have absolute respect for anyone who changes his position - but not when he pretends that the new position was his all along. That tells me all I need to know about this "change." It's fashionable, not principled.

My principles have not changed, though SOME of my positions have. I was pro gay rights. I am not, anymore. I will happily vote for an out of the closet homophobe at this juncture. That is a change in position. I can say when and why it happened, but I hardly think that's necessary, given the left's recent shift to outright attacks on the science of gender.

The point is, I have owned my mistake. I was incorrect to add my voice to the chorus in favor of gay rights, well meaning though I was. I am not trying to pass myself off as having always held today's position, as our recent converts to faux-populism are wont.

Likewise, seeing trump as a triumphal middle finger - a heartfelt go **** yourself - to the machine in NO WAY obliges me to defend his insanities, nor do I ever. The leftists on this board BELIEVE I defend trump, for precisely the reason the righties BELIEVED I defended obama, back when they were the shrill, deranged clowns. Attacking bad arguments is not defending the target of those arguments - it's defending correct thinking. On the RARE occasion when conjobs attacked obama with a rational argument, I joined them, and added a bonus grievance or two.

I'm happy to roast the right - helped the mad canuck do so today, when he posted a most incredible clip of retarded right wing politicians advocating arming school children. I'm delighted to roast trump, too - though he sort of self-manages that chore. One needn't even shake well or add water - just roll tape.

No, they're no smarter, sadly. I have come to believe it's a function of IQ. That, and dealing with one's ego. The fear of admitting error is writ large on this board, and it often astounds me that it is so. I mean, we're **** anonymous. I have no idea what anyone looks like, how old they are, who they're sleeping with, how much they earn, etc. Nor do I care. Why should they fear admitting error under such conditions?

Well, I do suppose the one redeeming feature of this website is that everybody is free to attack one another. Most forums are echo chambers, where one mishap question or venture into dark territory gets you an IP ban (not too many people are savvy enough to circumvent those, but then again, it's probably not worth returning if that's what happened).

You could say the same about other "rights" like "women's rights" or "civil rights," which "evolved" from stopping wife beatings and lynchings to firing anyone who makes a bad sexual or racial joke at work.

The guy who write the tirade/Google manifesto was absolutely correct - the reason more women aren't in the glorified STEM fields is that they inherently are less inclined/interested/capable of that type of work. Nobody is stopping them from majoring in code monkeying or civil engineering at college, yet they think some mythical anvil is weighing them down.

Dantev2 » 12 Aug 2018 9:28 pm » wrote: Well, I do suppose the one redeeming feature of this website is that everybody is free to attack one another. Most forums are echo chambers, where one mishap question or venture into dark territory gets you an IP ban (not too many people are savvy enough to circumvent those, but then again, it's probably not worth returning if that's what happened).

You could say the same about other "rights" like "women's rights" or "civil rights," which "evolved" from stopping wife beatings and lynchings to firing anyone who makes a bad sexual or racial joke at work.

The guy who write the tirade/Google manifesto was absolutely correct - the reason more women aren't in the glorified STEM fields is that they inherently are less inclined/interested/capable of that type of work. Nobody is stopping them from majoring in code monkeying or civil engineering at college, yet they think some mythical anvil is weighing them down.

Yep - and notwithstanding you make that observation, differentiating yourself clearly and starkly from the "cultural marxism" that they detest, they will continue to call you a communist or socialist, since you don't agree with their bumper stickers and you don't run willy nilly to suck wall street's cock, as they do.

Cannonpointer » 12 Aug 2018 9:37 pm » wrote:Yep - and notwithstanding you make that observation, differentiating yourself clearly and starkly from the "cultural marxism" that they detest, they will continue to call you a communist or socialist, since you don't agree with their bumper stickers and you don't run willy nilly to suck wall street's cock, as they do.

I got under their skin so deeply (by pointing out the Greece has a smaller state sector than **** appearing at the top of Hurrdige's Freedumb Index) that they're still trying to pin me with meaningless labels.

They watched this when they were kids and thought it was anything but a farce:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_DaMKUP3Og

Cannonpointer » 12 Aug 2018 8:57 pm » wrote:Well, you are certainly correct about that.

They screech about reporters while ignoring that wall street tells the slugs what to say, leaving them still the same slavering servants of the same masters, while spouting populist slogans that they absolutely reviled during the dark days of obama.

I have absolute respect for anyone who changes his position - but not when he pretends that the new position was his all along. That tells me all I need to know about this "change." It's fashionable, not principled.

My principles have not changed, though SOME of my positions have. I was pro gay rights. I am not, anymore. I will happily vote for an out of the closet homophobe at this juncture. That is a change in position. I can say when and why it happened, but I hardly think that's necessary, given the left's recent shift to outright attacks on the science of gender.

The point is, I have owned my mistake. I was incorrect to add my voice to the chorus in favor of gay rights, well meaning though I was. I am not trying to pass myself off as having always held today's position, as our recent converts to faux-populism are wont.

Likewise, seeing trump as a triumphal middle finger - a heartfelt go **** yourself - to the machine in NO WAY obliges me to defend his insanities, nor do I ever. The leftists on this board BELIEVE I defend trump, for precisely the reason the righties BELIEVED I defended obama, back when they were the shrill, deranged clowns. Attacking bad arguments is not defending the target of those arguments - it's defending correct thinking. On the RARE occasion when conjobs attacked obama with a rational argument, I joined them, and added a bonus grievance or two.

I'm happy to roast the right - helped the mad canuck do so today, when he posted a most incredible clip of retarded right wing politicians advocating arming school children. I'm delighted to roast trump, too - though he sort of self-manages that chore. One needn't even shake well or add water - just roll tape.

No, they're no smarter, sadly. I have come to believe it's a function of IQ. That, and dealing with one's ego. The fear of admitting error is writ large on this board, and it often astounds me that it is so. I mean, we're **** anonymous. I have no idea what anyone looks like, how old they are, who they're sleeping with, how much they earn, etc. Nor do I care. Why should they fear admitting error under such conditions?

I am pro-gay rights because

1) it lowers the birth rate, which is a great thing
2) guys sucking cock or sodomizing each other is far preferable to child molesters becoming priests or bathrooming cons pretending they uphold family values

I don't blame the "gay community" (whatever that means) for the gender nonsense, which is a product of postmodernism gone haywire from Foucault and Derrida's philosophy back in the 50's and 60's.

I would ALSO remind you that the "traditional values" crowd is partly to blame for the mess we're in, because they suppressed LGBT groups for so long that it more or less came out as a violent outburst as opposed to a gradual, integrative process. I remember when they tried painting any non-heterosexual arrangement as the equivalent of endorsing pedophilia/bestiality.

I don't want the "genderless/no-family-values/pretend everyone is equal" paradigm championed by the regressive left, nor do I want the "nuclear family only" outdated crap championed by the right.

Based on your own story of upbringing, you know how that can end up.

Dantev2 » 13 Aug 2018 12:12 am » wrote: I am pro-gay rights because

1) it lowers the birth rate, which is a great thing
2) guys sucking cock or sodomizing each other is far preferable to child molesters becoming priests or bathrooming cons pretending they uphold family values

I don't blame the "gay community" (whatever that means) for the gender nonsense, which is a product of postmodernism gone haywire from Foucault and Derrida's philosophy back in the 50's and 60's.

I would ALSO remind you that the "traditional values" crowd is partly to blame for the mess we're in, because they suppressed LGBT groups for so long that it more or less came out as a violent outburst as opposed to a gradual, integrative process. I remember when they tried painting any non-heterosexual arrangement as the equivalent of endorsing pedophilia/bestiality.

THat has actually come to pass - they were proved correct. The latest abomination to ride gay coat tails are the "minor attracted persons" who want to have "a dialog" about **** children.

Dantev2 » 13 Aug 2018 12:12 am » wrote: I don't want the "genderless/no-family-values/pretend everyone is equal" paradigm championed by the regressive left, nor do I want the "nuclear family only" outdated crap championed by the right.

Based on your own story of upbringing, you know how that can end up.

LGBT LMNOP - minor attracted persons, loki the gender prankster - it's all come about on the back of normalizing queers.

Hey, I was all for it, for 20 years. I was in the van guard. I won. I was on the "right side of history."

I apologize for that - my bad.

Cannonpointer » 13 Aug 2018 4:51 pm » wrote:THat has actually come to pass - they were proved correct. The latest abomination to ride gay coat tails are the "minor attracted persons" who want to have "a dialog" about **** children.

LGBT LMNOP - minor attracted persons, loki the gender prankster - it's all come about on the back of normalizing queers.

Hey, I was all for it, for 20 years. I was in the van guard. I won. I was on the "right side of history."

I apologize for that - my bad.

They were not "proven" correct because the logic is wrong.

IIRC there is no law in Western countries that de-criminalizes pedophilia/bestiality/etc. I am no more concerned about this "push" you speak of any more than I am of FEMA camps, deep ecology, and phlogiston theory.

I would hope you need not be reminded that in today's day and age, media is inundated with the same boring messages (and messengers), and people exploit opportunities for grandeur by making preposterous arguments for the only purpose of standing out from the crowd.

20 years ago, Ann Coulter was a firebrand and incendiary; today, she is a washed up harpy vying with hundreds of others for any slice of attention.

Dantev2 » 13 Aug 2018 7:52 pm » wrote: They were not "proven" correct because the logic is wrong.

IIRC there is no law in Western countries that de-criminalizes pedophilia/bestiality/etc.

Yet.

The same could have been said, and truthfully, for decriminalizing homosexuality, before we decriminalized homosexuality. Acknowledging an agenda - and opposing it - is not the same as saying the agenda is already accomplished. It is arguing that it ought not to be accomplished.

And by the way, the age of consent is at 14 in more European countries than it is at 17, which is the oldest age of consent in any European country, including Turkey (which is Asian, dammit). And whereas sex with pubescent children is not the strict definition of pedophilia, letting 40 year olds sexually prey on 14 year olds is an agenda that I consider necessary to oppose - and an agenda worming its way inexorably into the LMNOP movement.

Dantev2 » 13 Aug 2018 7:52 pm » wrote: I am no more concerned about this "push" you speak of any more than I am of FEMA camps, deep ecology, and phlogiston theory.

But you DO recall that there once were laws against homosexuality, do you not?

And that those laws were removed from the books?

What makes you believe that other laws - say, Idunno, laws against sex with minors? - could not likewise be struck from the books?

Surely you and I CAN agree on these two facts:

1. That IS the agenda of the "M.A.P." crowd, and
2. They ARE being embraced by the LMNOP movement.

Dantev2 » 13 Aug 2018 7:52 pm » wrote: I would hope you need not be reminded that in today's day and age, media is inundated with the same boring messages (and messengers), and people exploit opportunities for grandeur by making preposterous arguments for the only purpose of standing out from the crowd.

20 years ago, Ann Coulter was a firebrand and incendiary; today, she is a washed up harpy vying with hundreds of others for any slice of attention.

Obama issued a title nine decree requiring schools to allow boys into the girls' showers. This isn't some paranoid response to a fringe movement - this is a reaction to reality, on the ground. At this very moment, thousands of prepubescent boys are being fed a chemical castration regime to block their normal sexual development on the preposterous argument that they are actually girls trapped in boys' bodies, and that they are sufficiently mature to make sexual decisions. Under what set of conflicting principles are children old enough to take medicines for sex change, yet too young to consent to sexual activity?

This isn't a "slippery slope" argument by any stretch of the imagination. The one idea - already implemented on the ground - leads inexorably to the other. Old enough to go in for a sex change, old enough to go in for sex. It's happening now - right now. And Cali in 2018 = Texas in 2028.

Cannonpointer » 13 Aug 2018 9:52 pm » wrote:Yet.

The same could have been said, and truthfully, for decriminalizing homosexuality, before we decriminalized homosexuality. Acknowledging an agenda - and opposing it - is not the same as saying the agenda is already accomplished. It is arguing that it ought not to be accomplished.

And by the way, the age of consent is at 14 in more European countries than it is at 17, which is the oldest age of consent in any European country, including Turkey (which is Asian, dammit). And whereas sex with pubescent children is not the strict definition of pedophilia, letting 40 year olds sexually prey on 14 year olds is an agenda that I consider necessary to oppose - and an agenda worming its way inexorably into the LMNOP movement.

Are the tides turning in favor of LMNOP?

http://www.people-press.org/2012/02/07/ ... 16-12-c-1/

Substitute "gay marriage" with LMNOP and notify me when the numbers reach such a critical mass.

Oppose them as you like, but it's not something I would even think of losing any sleep over. In fact, it hardly registers in my subconscious.

But you DO recall that there once were laws against homosexuality, do you not?

And that those laws were removed from the books?

Yes, and as I pointed out, it's a good thing since we won't have a bunch of "useless eaters" (not my term, I believe this is how the ruling class views the vast majority of people) lined up to be cogs in the capitalist machine. My support for gay marriage/gay rights is purely pragmatic; it has nothing to do with whether or not I prefer traditional over non-traditional marriage.

What makes you believe that other laws - say, Idunno, laws against sex with minors? - could not likewise be struck from the books?

Surely you and I CAN agree on these two facts:

1. That IS the agenda of the "M.A.P." crowd, and
2. They ARE being embraced by the LMNOP movement.

Those are indeed facts, and from those facts, you infer:

3. At some point, the LMNOP movement will successfully strike down laws against pedophilia.

I do not think this to be the case, and like I said, there are no polls I am aware of suggesting otherwise. In order for ANY movement to succeed, it must gain traction, or die.

I do not believe it will gain any traction.

Obama issued a title nine decree requiring schools to allow boys into the girls' showers. This isn't some paranoid response to a fringe movement - this is a reaction to reality, on the ground. At this very moment, thousands of prepubescent boys are being fed a chemical castration regime to block their normal sexual development on the preposterous argument that they are actually girls trapped in boys' bodies, and that they are sufficiently mature to make sexual decisions. Under what set of conflicting principles are children old enough to take medicines for sex change, yet too young to consent to sexual activity?

Obama was wrong, and so are those (worthless) parents, and this has already sparked a backlash.

I have a few theories as to why laws allowing gay marriage eventually passed. The first is that the unity of social libertarians and liberals overwhelmed social conservatives, who eventually caved. The second is that corporations love virtue signalling as a way to boost profits (Target and Starbucks seem to have this "science" down to a T), and once they realized how much money they could make painting rainbows over their advertisements, they fully backed gay marriage.

For the LMNOPs, there is hardly a "united front" pushing for this initiative; there are fringe elements who have completely lost their minds, but nobody cares about them anyway.

I don't see how corporate America stands to benefit, so I doubt they'll support any of this.

Go ask any liberal or libertarian, and I bet 99/100 will say, "No, I don't support pedophilia or allowing 40 year olds make sex with 16 yr olds. What kind of silly question is that anyway?" followed with a scowl.

Finally, I want to point out that "gay marriage" is a misnomer, because the US already allowed same sex unions/cohabitation. It was really just a ploy to gain tax benefits by redefining the term "marriage," and a cynical one at that.

Dantev2 » 13 Aug 2018 10:36 pm » wrote:
Are the tides turning in favor of LMNOP?

http://www.people-press.org/2012/02/07/ ... 16-12-c-1/

Substitute "gay marriage" with LMNOP and notify me when the numbers reach such a critical mass.

Oppose them as you like, but it's not something I would even think of losing any sleep over. In fact, it hardly registers in my subconscious.

Yes, and as I pointed out, it's a good thing since we won't have a bunch of "useless eaters" (not my term, I believe this is how the ruling class views the vast majority of people) lined up to be cogs in the capitalist machine. My support for gay marriage/gay rights is purely pragmatic; it has nothing to do with whether or not I prefer traditional over non-traditional marriage.

Those are indeed facts, and from those facts, you infer:

3. At some point, the LMNOP movement will successfully strike down laws against pedophilia.

I do not think this to be the case, and like I said, there are no polls I am aware of suggesting otherwise. In order for ANY movement to succeed, it must gain traction, or die.

I do not believe it will gain any traction.

Obama was wrong, and so are those (worthless) parents, and this has already sparked a backlash.

He still mainstreamed it, made it legal to chemically castrate boys - and I am an energized part of that backlash. Can't have a backlash without participants, so, say hi to a backlash participant.

Dantev2 » 13 Aug 2018 10:36 pm » wrote:
I have a few theories as to why laws allowing gay marriage eventually passed.

The matter was decided by the courts, as abortion was - not by voters, who said no overwhelmingly - even in california.

Dantev2 » 13 Aug 2018 10:36 pm » wrote:
The first is that the unity of social libertarians and liberals overwhelmed social conservatives, who eventually caved. The second is that corporations love virtue signalling as a way to boost profits (Target and Starbucks seem to have this "science" down to a T), and once they realized how much money they could make painting rainbows over their advertisements, they fully backed gay marriage.

For the LMNOPs, there is hardly a "united front" pushing for this initiative; there are fringe elements who have completely lost their minds, but nobody cares about them anyway.

I don't see how corporate America stands to benefit, so I doubt they'll support any of this.

Go ask any liberal or libertarian, and I bet 99/100 will say, "No, I don't support pedophilia or allowing 40 year olds make sex with 16 yr olds. What kind of silly question is that anyway?" followed with a scowl.

Finally, I want to point out that "gay marriage" is a misnomer, because the US already allowed same sex unions/cohabitation. It was really just a ploy to gain tax benefits by redefining the term "marriage," and a cynical one at that.

It's not ONLY how far they've come - it's also the rate of success that we have to be concerned about. We need to retard the pervert movement, in order to stop it where it is.

Everything - people, businesses, ideas - is always growing or shrinking, thriving or dying. Officially sanctioned sexual perversion is an idea whose time to die has come. As soon as we gave them "two consenting adults," they started going for one consenting adult and a rape victim. They're now comfortable talking about it publicly, and they demand the right to talk to KIDS about it in school - and their demands are being met. First graders are being taught about dick suckers and bull dykes, and being instructed to "celebrate" the "diversity" of ***.

They've come too far already - they need to be slapped down hard. And your assurance that not very many people hold the parents of child castration victims in high esteem doesn't prevent those victims' impending suicides. Our culture has become an AIDS garden watered by a suicide fountain.

The matter was decided by the courts, as abortion was - not by voters, who said no overwhelmingly - even in california.

This is a good point. However, I don't see the courts suddenly giving the green light to the pedophilia you mention. If there was, even someone like me (who doesn't take much interest in social issues) would happily voice my opposition.

It's not ONLY how far they've come - it's also the rate of success that we have to be concerned about. We need to retard the pervert movement, in order to stop it where it is.
Everything - people, businesses, ideas - is always growing or shrinking, thriving or dying. Officially sanctioned sexual perversion is an idea whose time to die has come. As soon as we gave them "two consenting adults," they started going for one consenting adult and a rape victim. They're now comfortable talking about it publicly, and they demand the right to talk to KIDS about it in school - and their demands are being met. First graders are being taught about dick suckers and bull dykes, and being instructed to "celebrate" the "diversity" of ***.
They've come too far already - they need to be slapped down hard. And your assurance that not very many people hold the parents of child castration victims in high esteem doesn't prevent those victims' impending suicides. Our culture has become an AIDS garden watered by a suicide fountain.

Eh...the main reason I'm skeptical of these claims is that it always has the markings of alarmist groups.

Your argument that the social conservatives ("purists") were "right" about homosexuality leading to darker paths is purely a coincidence from my POV. I wouldn't trust most of those people to tell the difference between the back and front of their right hand.

It's like what I told you over a year ago; the fact that idiots like Clamjob happen to be correct on one or two issues doesn't change the fact that I am extremely reluctant to agree with the likes of him on ANYTHING (even if he is correct) because I'd have to associate with such idiocy.

(But of course, you are right about the schools....)

Dantev2 » 14 Aug 2018 7:01 pm » wrote:
This is a good point. However, I don't see the courts suddenly giving the green light to the pedophilia you mention. If there was, even someone like me (who doesn't take much interest in social issues) would happily voice my opposition.


Eh...the main reason I'm skeptical of these claims is that it always has the markings of alarmist groups.

Your argument that the social conservatives ("purists") were "right" about homosexuality leading to darker paths is purely a coincidence from my POV. I wouldn't trust most of those people to tell the difference between the back and front of their right hand.

It's like what I told you over a year ago; the fact that idiots like Clamjob happen to be correct on one or two issues doesn't change the fact that I am extremely reluctant to agree with the likes of him on ANYTHING (even if he is correct) because I'd have to associate with such idiocy.

(But of course, you are right about the schools....)

Yes, I am right that american school children are being chemically castrated in service to a pedophilic agenda. Pretending prepubescent children have sexual agency if pedophilia be definition.

As there are no prosecutions and no protections being offered these children, the time for alarm is now.