What a SHAM.......an expose on the radical left.......

[Dr Wogga]

......first off Happy Thanksgiving to everyone on these boards except the pompous a-holes who have trouble with a dissenting opinion. This also is a shout-out to Wacki, as this is the 2nd of 6 promised topical posts, not designed to do anything more than elicit some honest debate, and of course, piss off the pathetic non-thinkers out there...........

Here is yet another round of dealing with the gay issues that have become so prevalent - and probably helped W to another 4 years. We have the gay marriage questions, gays in the military, gays in the boy scouts (BTW, the Good Dr will NEVER AGAIN donate to the United Way, since they (U.W.) have taken the radical step of labeling the Boy Scouts of America as a discriminatory organization), gay governors resigning amid scandals involving gay sack mates, gay TV hosts, weekly TV series exclusively devoted to gays, gay make-over artist for straights (as if being straight is now a stigma), and scads of 'outed or out-of-the-closet gay media stars in music, Hollywood, or TV. In other words: gay, gay, gay, gay....ad nauseum.

Now I ask you - would any of these highlighted homosexuality concerns be an issue if: THE HOMOS KEPT THEIR SEXUALITY TO THEMSELVES???? Think about it you liberal non-thinkers, we are talking about these issues because gays stick them in our face. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when you talk about your own sexuality and throw it in people's face and tell us to accept it. Well ain't that the cat's meow???Gee, that's like having someone get mad at you because you kept something untrue from them, only to turn around and tell them the reason I don't tell you things is because you get mad all the time?? Huh?? So you're gay, but its MY ISSUE?? Huh?? How would I know you're gay unless you tell me? Why are you telling me? It can only be to advance your own liberal gay agenda and ram it down our throats! We can legislate civil unions for two people who live together. They could be same sex, or different sex. In other words, civil unions for two people who live together but aren't married. How would we know the civil union was for a gay couple, or a straight couple unless THEY EFF'ING TELL US??

Pandering to gays is repulsive. You know why?? Because we wouldn't know we're dealing with a gay unless they tell us. We should not make laws based on sexual orientation, anymore than we should make laws because some people choose to be vegetarians, or prefer soda over bottled water. Its just another assault on our civil liberties. Again, we are being squeezed by the liberal gay movement. Squeeze back people. Say no to gay marriage. Say YES to civil unions.

[PhatTBoll]

So gay people should keep their true nature a secret because they make you uncomfortable. Is that it?

[nothumb]

Many gay people are not at all in-your-face about their sexuality. The fact that you perceive it as such is strange to me. I work at an agency where several of my supervisors or administrators are gay, but I've (strangely) never been asked to sign a petition backing gay marriage or even invited over to watch a Will and Grace marathon.

You are arguing that people have a choice about being gay. A lot of people disagree. And, regardless, we often make laws about choices people make, so to say that we shouldn't make laws about peoples' choices is not a really strong argument. If you have a problem with their choice, that's your decision, but to say it is not a matter that should be legislated is off the mark.

[ QUOTE ]
Pandering to gays is repulsive. You know why?? Because we wouldn't know we're dealing with a gay unless they tell us.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense to me. Please elaborate.

[ QUOTE ]
Its just another assault on our civil liberties.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really believe this? What liberty can you no longer take if Bob and Jim get married? Seriously.

[ QUOTE ]
Say no to gay marriage. Say YES to civil unions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you against one but not the other? I agree that society should sanction a legal, exclusive relationship for any unrelated couple that desires one. But why create a second class of relationships for gays and lesbians? Why do they not deserve to be married?

NT

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
......first off Happy Thanksgiving to everyone on these boards except the pompous a-holes who have trouble with a dissenting opinion. This also is a shout-out to Wacki, as this is the 2nd of 6 promised topical posts, not designed to do anything more than elicit some honest debate, and of course, piss off the pathetic non-thinkers out there...........

Here is yet another round of dealing with the gay issues that have become so prevalent - and probably helped W to another 4 years. We have the gay marriage questions, gays in the military, gays in the boy scouts (BTW, the Good Dr will NEVER AGAIN donate to the United Way, since they (U.W.) have taken the radical step of labeling the Boy Scouts of America as a discriminatory organization), gay governors resigning amid scandals involving gay sack mates, gay TV hosts, weekly TV series exclusively devoted to gays, gay make-over artist for straights (as if being straight is now a stigma), and scads of 'outed or out-of-the-closet gay media stars in music, Hollywood, or TV. In other words: gay, gay, gay, gay....ad nauseum.

Now I ask you - would any of these highlighted homosexuality concerns be an issue if: THE HOMOS KEPT THEIR SEXUALITY TO THEMSELVES???? Think about it you liberal non-thinkers, we are talking about these issues because gays stick them in our face. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when you talk about your own sexuality and throw it in people's face and tell us to accept it. Well ain't that the cat's meow???Gee, that's like having someone get mad at you because you kept something untrue from them, only to turn around and tell them the reason I don't tell you things is because you get mad all the time?? Huh?? So you're gay, but its MY ISSUE?? Huh?? How would I know you're gay unless you tell me? Why are you telling me? It can only be to advance your own liberal gay agenda and ram it down our throats! We can legislate civil unions for two people who live together. They could be same sex, or different sex. In other words, civil unions for two people who live together but aren't married. How would we know the civil union was for a gay couple, or a straight couple unless THEY EFF'ING TELL US??

Pandering to gays is repulsive. You know why?? Because we wouldn't know we're dealing with a gay unless they tell us. We should not make laws based on sexual orientation, anymore than we should make laws because some people choose to be vegetarians, or prefer soda over bottled water. Its just another assault on our civil liberties. Again, we are being squeezed by the liberal gay movement. Squeeze back people. Say no to gay marriage. Say YES to civil unions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with the basic premise of your post. However, I think the categorization of everyone being either "left" or "right" (based on just a few issues) is very damaging to the country. I don't think it is right (or correct) to categorize someone as "left" because they take a pro-gay stance. From what I've personally seen, it seems that pro-gay attitudes are fairly evenly distributed between the right and left. I am talking about real people, not politicians and pundits on TV.

[jokerswild]

Any straight person wouldn't bother paying attention to gays so much.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Any straight person wouldn't bother paying attention to gays so much.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think a large number of the right wing moral supremacist "tough guys" are homos. I am not referring to Wogga specifically, I thought he made a good point.

[Dr Wogga]

.....I love juicy wet 'gina. But, the fact that there is so much 'gay-everything' is, to me, the lunacy of where we have gone as a country. All gay legislation is attempts to legitimize and legalize people's private actions. Nothing more. The question is if you allow this, where does it stop? In other words if a large block of vegetarians force their non-meat eating habits on us, should we expect lawmakers to make laws re: vegetarian diets? Its just stupid.

[The once and future king]

In fact you are the one making gayness an issue by stipulating that gays be treated differently to heteros.

If they were totaly and completly the same under the law were is the issue then?

[MelchyBeau]

Err so whats the problem here? You state that Gay Legislation attempts to legitimize and legalize thier actions right? If what they did was illegal, it would be a victimless crime.

Legalizing something doesn't mean forcing. Libertarians believe that Marijuana should be legalized, they don't want to force everyone to light up.

Everyone has the right to speak, you also have the right to not listen.

Melch

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]
Many gay people are not at all in-your-face about their sexuality. The fact that you perceive it as such is strange to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting to see an annual "heterosexual pride parade."

On a similar note, I'm also still waiting to see a channel named "White Entertainment Television" which would then air things such as "The White Academy Awards" and other racial-separating shows.

[nothumb]

Straight white people get to have 'white entertainment tv' whenever they want, on any of the major networks. The fact we don't label it as such doesn't mean much. There is a BET because black people want to see television shows prominently featuring or covering events featuring their peers.

Your comments are fairly typical of the race-baiting conservative politics in this country. Oh, no, a gay parade and a black TV channel! It's not like I have tons of media and businesses desperately targeting and trying to please me! What is this world coming to?? BET is taking away my civil liberties!

Of course you will reply that you never took that logical step, that I am blowing this way out of proportion and calling you a racist, etc. No.

NT

[nothumb]

I think you're right, Doc. If we let gays get married, NAMBLA will be banging down the door to Congress, showing 'Alexander' as a propaganda film. People will say, "Screw it, might as well have incest, too!" And vegans will take away your cheese and ice cream from the super market.

Dogs, sheep and other barnyard animals will cower in fear.

Seriously, do you believe this? Or are you just repeating it.

I was disappointed that you didn't actually engage in the 'debate' around your 'topical post' except to address accusations that you were gay yourself.

NT

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
.....I love juicy wet 'gina. But, the fact that there is so much 'gay-everything' is, to me, the lunacy of where we have gone as a country. All gay legislation is attempts to legitimize and legalize people's private actions. Nothing more. The question is if you allow this, where does it stop? In other words if a large block of vegetarians force their non-meat eating habits on us, should we expect lawmakers to make laws re: vegetarian diets? Its just stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you Doc. But the problem (as I see it) is that discussions involving politics and government are no longer an effort in looking at all sides and genuinely trying to come to a solid conclusion based upon what is best for the country. My belief is that most people (50+%)don't give a crap about what is best for the country. I'm truly shocked that you haven't been flamed more in this thread. It seems that you are trying to have a logical discussion in a very illogical environment.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many gay people are not at all in-your-face about their sexuality. The fact that you perceive it as such is strange to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting to see an annual "heterosexual pride parade."

On a similar note, I'm also still waiting to see a channel named "White Entertainment Television" which would then air things such as "The White Academy Awards" and other racial-separating shows.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yea, "equality" is supposed to be such a damned big deal in this country. Yet most everyone would consider your statements above to be extremely racist (not me though).

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Straight white people get to have 'white entertainment tv' whenever they want, on any of the major networks. The fact we don't label it as such doesn't mean much.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that misses the point he is trying to make. Regardless of what you think of current TV programming, it would be purely inflammatory to have something like "White Entertainment Television". Personally, I think the general quality of TV programming sucks so bad that it's all a moot point anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
There is a BET because black people want to see television shows prominently featuring or covering events featuring their peers.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, this seems to be racist to me. We constantly hear how "we are all Americans", etc, etc. Yet, someone who defends racially oriented TV (as long as it's oriented towards a "minority") says that "black people want to see television shows prominently featuring or covering events featuring their peers."

[ QUOTE ]
Your comments are fairly typical of the race-baiting conservative politics in this country. Oh, no, a gay parade and a black TV channel! It's not like I have tons of media and businesses desperately targeting and trying to please me! What is this world coming to?? BET is taking away my civil liberties!

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you are taking this a little too far. I don't recall anyone saying anything about civil liberties. I think gay activists could really help their cause if they were to just try and understand basic human behavior. I think that anytime something is continually thrown in your face, human nature is to rebuff it.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone has the right to speak, you also have the right to not listen.

[/ QUOTE ]
For the sake of completeness, the following should be added to your statement above "people should be allowed to express their views without immediately being labeled a bigot, homophobe, racist, etc."

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
I was disappointed that you didn't actually engage in the 'debate' around your 'topical post' except to address accusations that you were gay yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's an astute observation. I've noticed this seems to be standard operating practice in this forum for a majority of posters.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that misses the point he is trying to make. Regardless of what you think of current TV programming, it would be purely inflammatory to have something like "White Entertainment Television".

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I got the point. He was upset that, despite the fact that white people have a vast majority of products and services geared towards their tastes, they are not allowed to label it as intended for whites. Or rather, that blacks are allowed to do so while whites would (probably) be criticized for doing so.

This is because of the fact that when we whites used to do this, it was called segregation. So feelings are running a bit high at times. Now, is there a difference between segregated public facilities, schools, etc, and targeted entertainment? Absolutely. But does BET or a gay pride parade really detract from this person's life? No. I acknowledge that a 'white' network would probably be criticized. But as a white person I don't feel a need to label stations as 'white-oriented.' It just isn't important, and I don't think it should be.

[ QUOTE ]
OK, this seems to be racist to me. We constantly hear how "we are all Americans", etc, etc. Yet, someone who defends racially oriented TV (as long as it's oriented towards a "minority") says that "black people want to see television shows prominently featuring or covering events featuring their peers."


[/ QUOTE ]

I have a strong respect for the power of the culturally rather conservative belief that people of like cultures tend to flock together. I don't have a problem with this. I think we should be respectful of other cultures, but to a certain extent that also means not trying to appropriate or blend incongruent influences. I'm not saying don't try (I thought Nelly and Tim McGraw was kind of funny) but I don't feel an urge to do so, you know?

I don't think that's racist. I can respect something without taking part in it.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are taking this a little too far. I don't recall anyone saying anything about civil liberties.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dr. Wogga said this in his original post. Different posters, similar sentiments. The passage you referenced was also intended to be superlative, but only slightly so. Know what I mean?

[ QUOTE ]
I think gay activists could really help their cause if they were to just try and understand basic human behavior. I think that anytime something is continually thrown in your face, human nature is to rebuff it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gays probably 'understand' human behavior with regard to grouping and exclusivity painfully well. Just as black people know far more about white people than whites do about blacks; because they are the minority and are often subject to the will of the majority.

Again, I don't see how gays 'throw things in your face' with regard to gay marriage. They are not sending out videos of their sexual escapades. Gay couples are usually more restrained in public than heterosexuals for fear of retribution.

The standard excuse here seems to be that people aren't going to accept something that's thrown in their face. I think it's a cop-out line that conceals how people are not ready to have homosexuality in publicly sanctioned relationships because they are not comfortable with it. I accept that this is a fact about most Americans. But I don't accept that excuse - I think people should call it what it is.

NT

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many gay people are not at all in-your-face about their sexuality. The fact that you perceive it as such is strange to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting to see an annual "heterosexual pride parade."

On a similar note, I'm also still waiting to see a channel named "White Entertainment Television" which would then air things such as "The White Academy Awards" and other racial-separating shows.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yea, "equality" is supposed to be such a damned big deal in this country. Yet most everyone would consider your statements above to be extremely racist (not me though).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, only those who do not really understand equality would deem it a racist comment. I currently every day see a TV ad for BET that says, "the only place to listen to black music," or something like that. Imagine the hoopla if some channel said a similar thing about "white music." I don't actually mind the labels. I just mind the hypocrisy of those who would refuse to have it both ways. Let's face it, there's a double-standard.

We could then talk about the many race-based movie and TV award shows out there. These things help promote "equal but separate" by the same vocal majority who supposedly are against such things.

I don't hate certain races or sexual preferences. I just hate hypocrites.

[nothumb]

Hi Kenrick,

I think people need to understand that 'separate but equal' is a doctrine that has been struck down when referring to public facilities, funding, etc. Culture and private enterprise are very different things.

Anyone who chooses to create 'targeted entertainment' risks alienating a certain segment of the market. This is a risk they are free to take.

One of the main reasons that most products aren't explicitly 'white oriented' (although there are other, more subtle linguistic terms that advertisers and manufacturers use to imply the same) is that many white people would feel guilty supporting such a product. So the market once again dictates the product.

Now, I'm not as fanatical a believer in the market as most people here are, but it's the current paradigm, so I have to roll with it. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

NT

NT

[nothumb]

BTW, if Dr. Wogga wants to talk about the 'radical left,' my politics are far more radical and leftist than those of probably anyone else here. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

So maybe we should be talking about the politics of the just-a-hair-left-of-center, milquetoast politically correct liberals. Then we'd have some common ground on who we hate.

Of course, I'd probably also call out the radical right, and we might have trouble.

NT

[bholdr]

*this is a purely satrical response to the Dr's post. I am not accusing DrWogga of being racist, etc*



dateline: 1955
Here is yet another round of dealing with the black issues that have become so prevalent - and probably helped W to another 4 years. We have the interracial marriage questions, blacks in the military, blacks in the boy scouts (BTW, the Good Dr will NEVER AGAIN donate to the United Way, since they (U.W.) have taken the radical step of labeling the Boy Scouts of America as a discriminatory organization), black governors resigning amid scandals involving black sack mates, black TV hosts, weekly TV series exclusively devoted to blacks, black make-over artist for whites (as if being white is now a stigma) In other words: black, black, black, black....ad nauseum.

Now I ask you - would any of these highlighted racial concerns be an issue if: THE BLACKS KEPT TO THEMSELVES???? Think about it you liberal non-thinkers, we are talking about these issues because blacks stick them in our face. .



*

[Dr Wogga]

....not wordsmithing here, but asking honestly, what does it mean if we are treated the same? Are you saying that gays should have the right to be married, and that if they cannot we are not treating them the same? honestly don't follow you. All people should all have the same rights under our constitution and BOR. My issue is hw do you know if someone is gay unless they tell you. Once they tell you, then they are asking you (us) to legislation their personal behavior. That's BS IMHO.

[Dr Wogga]

....I love satire. So did Amos and Andy, but now they aren't on TV anymore (I think one of he black media stars bought all the epsiodes and won't let them air on TV anymore). Anyway, to address black vs. gay. It's not a fair argument. You are making an equality out of race vs. personal behavior.

[Dr Wogga]

....I really wasn't going after any one specific poster (s) on this site. Just making a point that the gay movement is pushing their behavior on us and demanding things such as: Redefining the institution of marriage. Also, trying to push personal sexual preference into the politcally-correct mainstream and become a "minority." Think about the ramifications of these kinds of things.....suppose in a workplace setting a person volunteers to tell you that they are gay. Now the employer is on notice that they (the employer) could now be facing discriminatory practices if they lay them off. "My boss doesn't like queers, bubba."
Getting more ridiculous, what's to stop an anti-meat group from "demanding" lawmakers adopt legislation making vegetarians a minority. Where does this garbage stop?? When?

[nothumb]

You keep addressing this as if it were a choice when many, probably even most, say that it is not. Why are you ignoring everything I said?

NT

[Dr Wogga]

.....as most pro-gay dummies always do. If there were civil unions, how would anyone (except people like yourself who are obviously superior to regular folks) know if the union was between two gays, two straights, two eunuchs, or any combination thereof?? Why should we as a country allow marriage to be re-defined? the only logical reason is because gays are pushing it. And how do we know they are gay? Because they told us? Helloooooooooo Phat-head???? the point isn't whether it makes me or anyone else uncomfortable. The point is this is the gay storm troopers "bullying" tactics in trying to be legally recognized because of the BEHAVIOR THEY ENGAGE IN. Its just dopey. And if someone identifies themselves as a vegetarian, we should do what?? Re-write the effing constitution??

[Dr Wogga]

Oh, silly me. And exactly where does choice come into this? Lets try this: If you were a gay man and I cut off your balls, would you still be gay? Maybe, maybe not?? I mean what would happen to your sex drive?? Maybe you'd become a neuter, or a eunuch. OTOH, if you were a black man and I cut off your balls you'd still be black - only black and ball-less.

[nothumb]

Commiting a sexually deviant crime against an individual is not generally considered a legitimate means for determining how they should be legally treated.

If I painted everyone purple, black men would look the same as everyone else but gays would still be gay.

I don't understand your response. Your 'topical' thread continues to disappoint me. I'd appreciate if you would answer my questions.

NT

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
the point isn't whether it makes me or anyone else uncomfortable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah, it kind of is. Otherwise, concerns like these:

[ QUOTE ]
If there were civil unions, how would anyone (except people like yourself who are obviously superior to regular folks) know if the union was between two gays, two straights, two eunuchs, or any combination thereof?

[/ QUOTE ]

become pretty much moot, don't they? If gay people didn't make you uncomfortable, then what the hell would you care whether a civil union was between two gay people, or two straights, or whatever. It just wouldn't be an issue.

[ QUOTE ]
The point is this is the gay storm troopers "bullying" tactics in trying to be legally recognized because of the BEHAVIOR THEY ENGAGE IN. Its just dopey.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please show me evidence of these storm troopers. As for bullying, didn't quite a few states just pass bans on homosexuals enjoying any of the "incidents of marriage?"

Aren't you pro-civil unions? Aren't you pro-civil liberties? Why aren't you incensed that these state governments would take actions that would make your civil union proposal impossible? Where's the outrage?

Well?

Oh, right, there is none. You have wasted all your rage on some kind of perceived gay conspiracy.

Your original post expressed disdain for those who can't tolerate people with dissenting opinions. All I did was make a one-sentence post trying to clarify what the crux of your argument was. For my efforts I was greeted with a condescending response with a lot of question marks, complete with 3 personal attacks. What is your problem?

Finally...

[ QUOTE ]
And if someone identifies themselves as a vegetarian, we should do what?? Re-write the effing constitution??

[/ QUOTE ]

Last I checked, two vegetarians were allowed to marry each other. And this is accomplished without any pro-vegetarian language in state or federal law.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
....I really wasn't going after any one specific poster (s) on this site. Just making a point that the gay movement is pushing their behavior on us and demanding things such as: Redefining the institution of marriage. Also, trying to push personal sexual preference into the politcally-correct mainstream and become a "minority." Think about the ramifications of these kinds of things.....suppose in a workplace setting a person volunteers to tell you that they are gay. Now the employer is on notice that they (the employer) could now be facing discriminatory practices if they lay them off. "My boss doesn't like queers, bubba."
Getting more ridiculous, what's to stop an anti-meat group from "demanding" lawmakers adopt legislation making vegetarians a minority. Where does this garbage stop?? When?

[/ QUOTE ]
I am not grouping all gays together, but I have a good example of someone getting the "protected minority" treatment. At my previous job at a very large company, there was an assistant manager who was gay. He is a bright guy but has a major attitude problem. The reason he is stuck at the assistant manager level is because in order for him to move up he needs to have people actually report to him. It is impossible to have people report to him because he treats his employees so badly that they simply refuse to work for him. This has been tried numerous times, within a day or two he has women crying because they have to deal with his abuse and men typically just want to kick his ass. If this assistant manager did not constantly flaunt the fact that he is gay, I seriously doubt he would remain employed at the company. I have never seen a white heterosexual male, a black heterosexual male or any female treat employees that badly and still remain employed.

I know this is not the sort of thing that is prevalant. I am just giving an example of how gays do sometimes receive preferential treatment at the expense of others. I am in no way saying that this guy's meanness is indicative of gays either.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, if Dr. Wogga wants to talk about the 'radical left,' my politics are far more radical and leftist than those of probably anyone else here. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

So maybe we should be talking about the politics of the just-a-hair-left-of-center, milquetoast politically correct liberals. Then we'd have some common ground on who we hate.

Of course, I'd probably also call out the radical right, and we might have trouble.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't like the "radical left" term either. In this forum I am considered a flaming liberal purely because I am not a Bush fan. Such is modern political discussion.

[The once and future king]

You seem to ignore the fact that often they are asking for the reversal or removal of legislation that makes there sexual proclivities and choices illegal.

We should all be able to choose to marry and feck who ever we want as long as it is an agreement between two consenting adults.

Gays are/were often unable to make these choices because they were deemed illegal. Please tell me how they are supposed to redress this discrimination without in some way refering to their gayness.

[jakethebake]

I wouldn't give to the United Way anyway. I think like 30% of every $ you give goes to the UW's administrative costs. You're much better picking a charity from their list and giving directly if you want to do any good.

[BK_]

[ QUOTE ]
So gay people should keep their true nature a secret because they make you uncomfortable. Is that it?

[/ QUOTE ]

great summary

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't like the "radical left" term either. In this forum I am considered a flaming liberal purely because I am not a Bush fan. Such is modern political discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if that was before or after you labeled a good segment of right-wingers on these forums "pop conservatives" and said they are morons. If some call you a flaming liberal, I'd guess there's more to it than simply not being a Bush fan.

[dsm]

[ QUOTE ]
So did Amos and Andy, but now they aren't on TV anymore (I think one of the black media stars bought all the episodes and won't let them air on TV anymore)

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody is plotting to keep the public from ever viewing the Amos 'n Andy t.v. series again. All the shows are available on DVD or VHS to anyone who'd like to buy them (or rent from a video store).

Amos 'n Andy T.V. Series For Sale Here (http://amosnandy.net/dvds.html)

http://amosnandy.net/Amos3.jpg

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't like the "radical left" term either. In this forum I am considered a flaming liberal purely because I am not a Bush fan. Such is modern political discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if that was before or after you labeled a good segment of right-wingers on these forums "pop conservatives" and said they are morons.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was both before and after. I have no problem with conservative views, I hold many of them. My problem is with "pop" conservatives (they are morons, just like some crazy liberals who think we should all stop eating meat and driving cars). I think my definition of "pop conservatives" was explained well in the post to which you are referring.

[ QUOTE ]
If some call you a flaming liberal, I'd guess there's more to it than simply not being a Bush fan.

[/ QUOTE ]
You could guess that, but your guess would be wrong.

[arabie]

What you are saying heterosexuality isn't all over the place in a gay person's face? Imagine if you were gay how all your life experiences would change. And you can't say you and your friends didn't use the word "gay" with respect to everything negative. So i think its hard to deny the fact that the fight is often brought to them.

No doubt leftist activists are crazy and whatnot, however, this is does not apply to gay people as a whole by any means.

[jokerswild]

You are just another latent homophobe. I'm surprisded that adios hasn't verbally assaulted you. He is a gay Republican.
He shares your views on most things. He might talk you out of the closet.