Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » Yesterday, 7:08 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:08 pm

I can't say what I would do, as I don't have a queer trans kid. But I DAMN sure wouldn't pretend to be so ignorant and disconnected that I couldn't understand "what the big deal is." The big deal is some OTHER guy's daughter not wanting YOUR freak in HER shower, Bobby - that is the big **** deal. 

Let's not stop until Bobby understands what the big deal is, shall we? Because the "disown/don't disown" argument that YOU - not the OP - are introducing is not the real issue here. The real issue is exactly what Bobby SAID the real issue is: "What's the big deal."

That's the issue. "What's the big deal." So let's talk about THAT issue - not the "disown/don't disown" issue that is ultimately a personal choice. Let's talk about why it's a big **** deal - and why Bobby de Niro is dishonest and wrong to pretend he is clueless.

Always the extreme 

I am saying that I wouldn’t abandon a family member for what they have become 

While it’s true that they don’t belong in bathrooms or sports 

they have the right to be who they want to be IMHO

hell … I have more of a negative opinion on them being in bathrooms than tRump does 

I have said before that I worked with several trans

confused? sure

dangerous? … no

like every other part of society, there are some **** up ones

dont pretend that I don’t care about that


 

JohnnyYou » Today, 3:59 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 3:59 am

Only place for cancer treatment in Maryland..

Requires hotel stays, etc. 2 hour commutes in rivers of metal enter into straight jacket land
 
Actually  in Towson. Doggone sone these young black females are super hot!

Yeah yeah - hot is exactly right. The VD % in those she-boons surpasses 80%. 4 out of 5 times, you're walking away with a firecracker in your ***. 
 
Any cancer treatment that doesn't include several days of water fast prior to being poisoned is purely intended to profit the cancer establishment. Any salutary effects are secondary and incidental. 

Mrkelly » Today, 7:05 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:05 am

Always the extreme 

I am saying that I wouldn’t abandon a family member for what they have become

Not even if the became a psychopath?

Not just asking out of curiosity. Most of the sex fiends you're defending are psychopaths, based on my web-based expertise.

Mrkelly » Today, 7:05 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:05 am

While it’s true that they don’t belong in bathrooms or sports 

they have the right to be who they want to be IMHO

Who they "want to be" is psychopaths that invade women's showers, sports, batter shelters, prison cells - entire lives and identities.

Mrkelly » Today, 7:05 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:05 am

hell … I have more of a negative opinion on them being in bathrooms than tRump does 

I have said before that I worked with several trans

confused? sure

dangerous? … no

like every other part of society, there are some **** up ones

dont pretend that I don’t care about that

First, I am pretending that Bobby de Niro doesn't care about that.

Second, they are a contagion. They are an astro-turfed contagion. They are sexual psychopaths who force themselves on decent people. It is one thing to feel like you shoulda been a gal. It is quite another to demand people pretend that you are - THAT is absolute narcissism and psychopathy.

Back to my question: would you continue to love and support a relative who is a psychopath? Because if your answer is no, then we are in agreement on everything except whether the trans contagion is psychopathic.
 

Cannonpointer » 29 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

29 minutes ago

Not even if the became a psychopath?

Not just asking out of curiosity. Most of the sex fiends you're defending are psychopaths, based on my web-based expertise.

Who they "want to be" is psychopaths that invade women's showers, sports, batter shelters, prison cells - entire lives and identities.

First, I am pretending that Bobby de Niro doesn't care about that.

Second, they are a contagion. They are an astro-turfed contagion. They are sexual psychopaths who force themselves on decent people. It is one thing to feel like you shoulda been a gal. It is quite another to demand people pretend that you are - THAT is absolute narcissism and psychopathy.

Back to my question: would you continue to love and support a relative who is a psychopath? Because if your answer is no, then we are in agreement on everything except whether the trans contagion is psychopathic.

No
 

Mrkelly » 14 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

14 minutes ago

No

Okay. So you, too, have lines. If you want to believe that dumping a psychopathic relative is morally superior to dumping a sexually confused one, bully for you. But if you understood that sexually confused on to also be a psychopath, you would dump him. 

And that is what some of us understand these insane people to be: narcissistic psychopaths who are an absolute threat to women and children. They demand the right to parade their infirmities and insanities as perfectly normal and force the world to hail them as such. They are both vanguard and buttress for NAMBLA and the freudian child-sexualization cabal. They are a cancer. YOU are free to embrace and accept and respect your cancer. Mine? I will excise it. Starve it. Reject it.