A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Chrysler
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #221  
Old November 14th 04, 10:47 AM
Ted Mittelstaedt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> Ah - but that's the dillema, the paradox, of your cause. In order to
> have any support in the base of the Democratic party, you will have to
> get (or, should I say, stay) in bed with the likes of Michael Moore.


Oh I love it when conservatives think they know how to best run the
Democratic party!

> know and am related to Christians who think Michael Moore is wonderful.
> Like I say - quite a dilemma dna quite a paradox.
>
> You start dis'ing Michael Moore and his kind, telling them they can't be
> the darlings of their convention, that they have to stay in the
> background and keep their mouths shut, etc., and they will turn against
> the party. The support for it was already marginal enough. I'm
> thinking, and you probably realize in your heart of hearts, that the
> needle of the Dems pushing the gay marriage agenda *AND* simultaneously
> getting elected into political power is not threadable - unless they
> don't run openly on the agenda but keep it as a hidden agenda - but
> people would not fall for it - the people who would do that aren't smart
> enough to pull it off. Reality is a bitch.
>


Bill, did you ever read about this thing called "Prohibition" that happened
in
the history of this country?

Did you ever realize that Prohibition was opposed by the vast majority of
Americans
before, during, and after Prohibition?

Yet, it passed and became the law of the land.

American history is filled with many examples of a minority managing to
get it's way against the majority. That is what happened with slavery,
as a matter of fact, the majority of Americans wern't in favor of freeing
the
Blacks during the civil war.

The majority of times when the minority gets its way, if they can get their
way for long enough, they can convince the majority to come around to their
side. That is what happened with Abortion, which is why the conservatives
are still so ****ed-off about it. Sore losers.

Sometimes though, it does blow up in the minority's faces, such as
Prohibition
did.

Now, I will be the first to say that the pro-gay-marriage crowd doesen't
really
give a **** about the Democratic party. The problem is that this crowd has
a lot of money and during this last election, the movers and shakers in the
Democratic party thought that they could get away with taking the money of
this crowd, without getting tied up into their politics. The results of the
2004
election have proven that to be false, and the movers and shakers in the
Democratic party aren't going to make that mistake a second time, and you
will
see the gay-marriage crowd being quitely told to get lost.

But, just because this is going to happen, doesen't mean that chances of
the gay marriage agenda passing are going to get worse. The
pro-gay-marriage
people know that fighting this battle at the state's level is a waste of
time.
Gay marriage must be recognized universally, and globally, for it to really
exist. For that to happen, gay marriage must be guarenteed at a federal
level.

What I think they are laying the groundwork for is another major judicial
decision, a-la Roe vs Wade, that will invalidate a state law that denies
gay marriage. For this to happen of course, you need 5 things, first
you need to have some states with a law permitting gay marriage, second
you need to have some states with a law denying gay marriage, third
you need a test case, forth you need a strict constitutional interpretist
Supreme Court, and last you need a US congress that won't immediately
put into effect a Constitutional Convention and install an anti-gay-marriage
amendment into the US Constitution, in the wake of such a decision.

My guess is they are going to let all the pre-Age-of-Aquarius generation
die off before initiating the test case, because they know that anyone
over age 50 will **** gold bricks in opposition to the idea of gay marriage.
So, look for something like this to be initiated around year 2030. In the
meantime there's a lot of groundwork that still needs to be laid, if you
know what I mean. ;-)

Ted


Ads
  #222  
Old November 14th 04, 10:47 AM
Ted Mittelstaedt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> Ah - but that's the dillema, the paradox, of your cause. In order to
> have any support in the base of the Democratic party, you will have to
> get (or, should I say, stay) in bed with the likes of Michael Moore.


Oh I love it when conservatives think they know how to best run the
Democratic party!

> know and am related to Christians who think Michael Moore is wonderful.
> Like I say - quite a dilemma dna quite a paradox.
>
> You start dis'ing Michael Moore and his kind, telling them they can't be
> the darlings of their convention, that they have to stay in the
> background and keep their mouths shut, etc., and they will turn against
> the party. The support for it was already marginal enough. I'm
> thinking, and you probably realize in your heart of hearts, that the
> needle of the Dems pushing the gay marriage agenda *AND* simultaneously
> getting elected into political power is not threadable - unless they
> don't run openly on the agenda but keep it as a hidden agenda - but
> people would not fall for it - the people who would do that aren't smart
> enough to pull it off. Reality is a bitch.
>


Bill, did you ever read about this thing called "Prohibition" that happened
in
the history of this country?

Did you ever realize that Prohibition was opposed by the vast majority of
Americans
before, during, and after Prohibition?

Yet, it passed and became the law of the land.

American history is filled with many examples of a minority managing to
get it's way against the majority. That is what happened with slavery,
as a matter of fact, the majority of Americans wern't in favor of freeing
the
Blacks during the civil war.

The majority of times when the minority gets its way, if they can get their
way for long enough, they can convince the majority to come around to their
side. That is what happened with Abortion, which is why the conservatives
are still so ****ed-off about it. Sore losers.

Sometimes though, it does blow up in the minority's faces, such as
Prohibition
did.

Now, I will be the first to say that the pro-gay-marriage crowd doesen't
really
give a **** about the Democratic party. The problem is that this crowd has
a lot of money and during this last election, the movers and shakers in the
Democratic party thought that they could get away with taking the money of
this crowd, without getting tied up into their politics. The results of the
2004
election have proven that to be false, and the movers and shakers in the
Democratic party aren't going to make that mistake a second time, and you
will
see the gay-marriage crowd being quitely told to get lost.

But, just because this is going to happen, doesen't mean that chances of
the gay marriage agenda passing are going to get worse. The
pro-gay-marriage
people know that fighting this battle at the state's level is a waste of
time.
Gay marriage must be recognized universally, and globally, for it to really
exist. For that to happen, gay marriage must be guarenteed at a federal
level.

What I think they are laying the groundwork for is another major judicial
decision, a-la Roe vs Wade, that will invalidate a state law that denies
gay marriage. For this to happen of course, you need 5 things, first
you need to have some states with a law permitting gay marriage, second
you need to have some states with a law denying gay marriage, third
you need a test case, forth you need a strict constitutional interpretist
Supreme Court, and last you need a US congress that won't immediately
put into effect a Constitutional Convention and install an anti-gay-marriage
amendment into the US Constitution, in the wake of such a decision.

My guess is they are going to let all the pre-Age-of-Aquarius generation
die off before initiating the test case, because they know that anyone
over age 50 will **** gold bricks in opposition to the idea of gay marriage.
So, look for something like this to be initiated around year 2030. In the
meantime there's a lot of groundwork that still needs to be laid, if you
know what I mean. ;-)

Ted


  #223  
Old November 14th 04, 11:00 AM
linda
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Matthew Whiting wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>>> All of the homosexuals who are now happy heterosexuals. If it was
>>>> biological, they couldn't change their preference. If even one does
>>>> change, and many more than one have, then the biological argument goes
>>>> out the window.
>>>> Matt

>>
>>
>>
>>> Matt, Read your statistics and failures... also, read how many
>>> homosexual men marry homosexual women. are they hiding something? or is
>>> this just the perfect unions?

>>
>>
>>
>> It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.

>
>
> Actually, as an electrical engineer and computer scientist who works in
> an R&D facility of a Fortune 1000 company, I depend on science rather
> often. However, I'm talking real science, not junk science. Got any
> real science to support a genetic/biological basis for homosexuality?
> I've asked for data about three times here and have yet to see anything.
>
> Matt
>



Just a matter of time, Matt... and you will be eating your words....


Annu Rev Sex Res. 2002;13:89-140.


A critical review of recent biological research on human sexual orientation.

Mustanski BS, Chivers ML, Bailey JM.

Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington 47405, USA.


This article provides a comprehensive review and critique of biological
research on sexual orientation published over the last decade. We cover
research investigating (a) the neurohormonal theory of sexual
orientation (psychoneuroendocrinology, prenatal stress, cerebral
asymmetry, neuroanatomy, otoacoustic emissions, anthropometrics), (b)
genetic influences, (c) fraternal birth-order effects, and (d) a
putative role for developmental instability. Despite inconsistent
results across both studies and traits, some support for the
neurohormonal theory is garnered, but mostly in men. Genetic research
using family and twin methodologies has produced consistent evidence
that genes influence sexual orientation, but molecular research has not
yet produced compelling evidence for specific genes. Although it has
been well established that older brothers increase the odds of
homosexuality in men, the route by which this occurs has not been
resolved. We conclude with an examination of the limitations of
biological research on sexual orientation, including measurement issues
(paper and pencil, cognitive, and psychophysiological), and lack of
research on women.

Publication Types:
Review
Review, Academic

PMID: 12836730 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  #224  
Old November 14th 04, 11:00 AM
linda
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Matthew Whiting wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>>> All of the homosexuals who are now happy heterosexuals. If it was
>>>> biological, they couldn't change their preference. If even one does
>>>> change, and many more than one have, then the biological argument goes
>>>> out the window.
>>>> Matt

>>
>>
>>
>>> Matt, Read your statistics and failures... also, read how many
>>> homosexual men marry homosexual women. are they hiding something? or is
>>> this just the perfect unions?

>>
>>
>>
>> It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.

>
>
> Actually, as an electrical engineer and computer scientist who works in
> an R&D facility of a Fortune 1000 company, I depend on science rather
> often. However, I'm talking real science, not junk science. Got any
> real science to support a genetic/biological basis for homosexuality?
> I've asked for data about three times here and have yet to see anything.
>
> Matt
>



Just a matter of time, Matt... and you will be eating your words....


Annu Rev Sex Res. 2002;13:89-140.


A critical review of recent biological research on human sexual orientation.

Mustanski BS, Chivers ML, Bailey JM.

Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington 47405, USA.


This article provides a comprehensive review and critique of biological
research on sexual orientation published over the last decade. We cover
research investigating (a) the neurohormonal theory of sexual
orientation (psychoneuroendocrinology, prenatal stress, cerebral
asymmetry, neuroanatomy, otoacoustic emissions, anthropometrics), (b)
genetic influences, (c) fraternal birth-order effects, and (d) a
putative role for developmental instability. Despite inconsistent
results across both studies and traits, some support for the
neurohormonal theory is garnered, but mostly in men. Genetic research
using family and twin methodologies has produced consistent evidence
that genes influence sexual orientation, but molecular research has not
yet produced compelling evidence for specific genes. Although it has
been well established that older brothers increase the odds of
homosexuality in men, the route by which this occurs has not been
resolved. We conclude with an examination of the limitations of
biological research on sexual orientation, including measurement issues
(paper and pencil, cognitive, and psychophysiological), and lack of
research on women.

Publication Types:
Review
Review, Academic

PMID: 12836730 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  #225  
Old November 14th 04, 11:23 AM
Ted Mittelstaedt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"linda" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.

> >
> >
> >>i guess you are right.. it is a shame, too..

> >
> >
> > It is, really. Have you heard or read some of the horror stories of

severe
> > emotional scarring from those who've been suckered into the "ex-gay"
> > movement?
> >

> yes, i have... there is even a "homosexuals anonymous".. and they have a
> 14 step program, heck, alcoholics only get 12. doesn't sound quite
> right... does it?
> I am cutting and pasting most of the following: so don't think i am
> smart: (Ted, you are right, i am not intelligent enough to hold a
> conversation with a peanut, much less you..)
>


I never said you wern't intelligent enough to hold a conversation with
a peanut. If you recall I strongly emphasized that you needed to have
your internal philosophies worked out so that they were not inconsistent,
before you started posting on a topic. If you recall that was right
before you stopped e-mailing me privately.

In any case, if you hold with the idea of a biological basis for
homosexuality,
you are going to have to also hold to the idea of a biological basis for
both hetrosexuality, and for bisexuality, in order to be internally
consistent.

And if you are then consistent there is a perfectly reasonable explanation
for Matt's assertion that there are a lot of homosexuals that are now happy
hetrosexuals. And that is simply that these people are not, in fact,
hetrosexuals.
What they are, is they are bisexuals, who have decided to only be with
partners of the opposite sex, and don't realize that they are bisexuals, or
are ignoring that they are bisexuals, and are claiming to be hetrosexuals.

In any case, as you know this is one area that I tend to agree with Matt -
that
there is no physical/genetic reason to explain homosexuality. I see lots of
evidence that homosexuality AND hetrosexuality and bisexuality is a choice,
but little evidence that it is physical/genetic. However, just because I
think
the evidence points to it being a choice, doesen't mean I think that there
is
any evidence that this is a choice that occurs later in life or even as late
as
adolescence. Nor do I believe that there's credible evidence that this
choice
is one that the person has much control over.

I certainly remember myself as a very young pre-adolescent. The very first
time I ever saw a nudie picture of a naked woman, AKA pornography,
I got hard. And this was quite some time before I started growing hair
around my pubes, etc.

And as a parent I have watched both my children, both son and daughter,
under the age of 2, obviously getting a charge out of touching themselves.

So I pretty much think that the idea that children are asexual and have no
sexual feelings until adolescence to be a big bunch of dogcrap perpetuated
by really sexually screwed up adults.

We know that a great deal of things happen in the womb and in the first
6 months of life that are essentially programming. If you look at people
that have really deviant, to the point of sicko, sex patterns, such as
abusing
children, not being able to get hard unless they are whipping their partner
to
the point of drawing blood, etc. it seems that there's a coorelation between
these folks
and really screwed up home lives, and/or sex abuse when they are young.
Another way of saying this is that if you want to take a child and warp
them into a sexually sicko adult, you have a really good chance of doing so
if you get started abusing them really, really young.

What we can draw from this is that there is evidence that external
environmental
factors can program in certain kinds of sexual proclivities, if those
factors
are present during conception/incubation/early childhood development.

SO, it would not surprise me in the least if 50 years from now some
researcher
announces that if you want to increase your kids chances of being straight,
then have them listen to 4 hours of Mozart a day while they are a developing
fetus, and if you want to increase their chances of being gay, have them
listen to 4 hours of Richard Simmons workout tapes while they are a
developing fetus.

Now, where Matt and I differ, however, is that Matt apparently believes that
if someone is programmed to be gay, that they can later in life choose to
switch back, and that furthermore them switching back is somehow in the
interests of society. I don't believe that the first supposition has worked
when
dealing with cases of repeated child abusers, indicating that the
supposition
is totally bogus. And, I think the second supposition is a bunch of
bull****,
and is completely without merit.

Ted


  #226  
Old November 14th 04, 11:23 AM
Ted Mittelstaedt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"linda" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.

> >
> >
> >>i guess you are right.. it is a shame, too..

> >
> >
> > It is, really. Have you heard or read some of the horror stories of

severe
> > emotional scarring from those who've been suckered into the "ex-gay"
> > movement?
> >

> yes, i have... there is even a "homosexuals anonymous".. and they have a
> 14 step program, heck, alcoholics only get 12. doesn't sound quite
> right... does it?
> I am cutting and pasting most of the following: so don't think i am
> smart: (Ted, you are right, i am not intelligent enough to hold a
> conversation with a peanut, much less you..)
>


I never said you wern't intelligent enough to hold a conversation with
a peanut. If you recall I strongly emphasized that you needed to have
your internal philosophies worked out so that they were not inconsistent,
before you started posting on a topic. If you recall that was right
before you stopped e-mailing me privately.

In any case, if you hold with the idea of a biological basis for
homosexuality,
you are going to have to also hold to the idea of a biological basis for
both hetrosexuality, and for bisexuality, in order to be internally
consistent.

And if you are then consistent there is a perfectly reasonable explanation
for Matt's assertion that there are a lot of homosexuals that are now happy
hetrosexuals. And that is simply that these people are not, in fact,
hetrosexuals.
What they are, is they are bisexuals, who have decided to only be with
partners of the opposite sex, and don't realize that they are bisexuals, or
are ignoring that they are bisexuals, and are claiming to be hetrosexuals.

In any case, as you know this is one area that I tend to agree with Matt -
that
there is no physical/genetic reason to explain homosexuality. I see lots of
evidence that homosexuality AND hetrosexuality and bisexuality is a choice,
but little evidence that it is physical/genetic. However, just because I
think
the evidence points to it being a choice, doesen't mean I think that there
is
any evidence that this is a choice that occurs later in life or even as late
as
adolescence. Nor do I believe that there's credible evidence that this
choice
is one that the person has much control over.

I certainly remember myself as a very young pre-adolescent. The very first
time I ever saw a nudie picture of a naked woman, AKA pornography,
I got hard. And this was quite some time before I started growing hair
around my pubes, etc.

And as a parent I have watched both my children, both son and daughter,
under the age of 2, obviously getting a charge out of touching themselves.

So I pretty much think that the idea that children are asexual and have no
sexual feelings until adolescence to be a big bunch of dogcrap perpetuated
by really sexually screwed up adults.

We know that a great deal of things happen in the womb and in the first
6 months of life that are essentially programming. If you look at people
that have really deviant, to the point of sicko, sex patterns, such as
abusing
children, not being able to get hard unless they are whipping their partner
to
the point of drawing blood, etc. it seems that there's a coorelation between
these folks
and really screwed up home lives, and/or sex abuse when they are young.
Another way of saying this is that if you want to take a child and warp
them into a sexually sicko adult, you have a really good chance of doing so
if you get started abusing them really, really young.

What we can draw from this is that there is evidence that external
environmental
factors can program in certain kinds of sexual proclivities, if those
factors
are present during conception/incubation/early childhood development.

SO, it would not surprise me in the least if 50 years from now some
researcher
announces that if you want to increase your kids chances of being straight,
then have them listen to 4 hours of Mozart a day while they are a developing
fetus, and if you want to increase their chances of being gay, have them
listen to 4 hours of Richard Simmons workout tapes while they are a
developing fetus.

Now, where Matt and I differ, however, is that Matt apparently believes that
if someone is programmed to be gay, that they can later in life choose to
switch back, and that furthermore them switching back is somehow in the
interests of society. I don't believe that the first supposition has worked
when
dealing with cases of repeated child abusers, indicating that the
supposition
is totally bogus. And, I think the second supposition is a bunch of
bull****,
and is completely without merit.

Ted


  #227  
Old November 14th 04, 11:30 AM
Ted Mittelstaedt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Matthew Whiting wrote:

> >
> >
> >>>All of the homosexuals who are now happy heterosexuals. If it was
> >>>biological, they couldn't change their preference. If even one does
> >>>change, and many more than one have, then the biological argument goes
> >>>out the window.
> >>>Matt

> >
> >
> >>Matt, Read your statistics and failures... also, read how many
> >>homosexual men marry homosexual women. are they hiding something? or is
> >>this just the perfect unions?

> >
> >
> > It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.

>
> Actually, as an electrical engineer and computer scientist who works in
> an R&D facility of a Fortune 1000 company, I depend on science rather
> often. However, I'm talking real science, not junk science. Got any
> real science to support a genetic/biological basis for homosexuality?
> I've asked for data about three times here and have yet to see anything.
>


OK Matt, suppose your right and that people can choose to switch between
being homos or hetros whenever they choose.

The point you are ignoring is that a huge number of gays out there don't
want to stop being gay, and a huger number of hetros out there don't want
to stop being straight.

Why then, do you want to make them change? What purpose does it
serve for gays that don't want to change to have to change? And why
discriminate against them just because they don't want to change?

You claim to be a computer scientist, I would assume you would disagree
with people who think we would be better off without computers. Those
people think we would be better off burning all the computers just as
strongly as you feel we would be better off burning all the gays. You
however would demand they have a logical explanation as to why we should
burn all the computers, well we are demanding you have a logical explanation
as to why all the gays should stop being gay.

I think that whether or not gays can switch really has no relevance to
the issue of whether or not we should permit gay marriage. Why, may
I ask, do you?

Ted


  #228  
Old November 14th 04, 11:30 AM
Ted Mittelstaedt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Matthew Whiting wrote:

> >
> >
> >>>All of the homosexuals who are now happy heterosexuals. If it was
> >>>biological, they couldn't change their preference. If even one does
> >>>change, and many more than one have, then the biological argument goes
> >>>out the window.
> >>>Matt

> >
> >
> >>Matt, Read your statistics and failures... also, read how many
> >>homosexual men marry homosexual women. are they hiding something? or is
> >>this just the perfect unions?

> >
> >
> > It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.

>
> Actually, as an electrical engineer and computer scientist who works in
> an R&D facility of a Fortune 1000 company, I depend on science rather
> often. However, I'm talking real science, not junk science. Got any
> real science to support a genetic/biological basis for homosexuality?
> I've asked for data about three times here and have yet to see anything.
>


OK Matt, suppose your right and that people can choose to switch between
being homos or hetros whenever they choose.

The point you are ignoring is that a huge number of gays out there don't
want to stop being gay, and a huger number of hetros out there don't want
to stop being straight.

Why then, do you want to make them change? What purpose does it
serve for gays that don't want to change to have to change? And why
discriminate against them just because they don't want to change?

You claim to be a computer scientist, I would assume you would disagree
with people who think we would be better off without computers. Those
people think we would be better off burning all the computers just as
strongly as you feel we would be better off burning all the gays. You
however would demand they have a logical explanation as to why we should
burn all the computers, well we are demanding you have a logical explanation
as to why all the gays should stop being gay.

I think that whether or not gays can switch really has no relevance to
the issue of whether or not we should permit gay marriage. Why, may
I ask, do you?

Ted


  #229  
Old November 14th 04, 02:23 PM
Big Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:05:01 GMT, Sparky > wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:36:09 GMT, Sparky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Big Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:30:32 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, indago wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>041108 2142 - Wound Up posted:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the
>>>>>>>target of hatred
>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, then, maybe derision???
>>>>>
>>>>>"Maybe"...? Y'think?
>>>>>
>>>>>Turn on your TV set during primetime any night of the week. Scarcely a
>>>>>sitcom episode goes by without they don't make clunky, hamhanded innuendo
>>>>>or outright laughtrack-enhanced punchlines at the expense of
>>>>>cardigan-wearing, mincing, oh-so-coiffed fag-stereotypes, and entire
>>>>>series are built on same, e.g. "Will and Grace" or "Queer Eye for the
>>>>>Straight Guy" or "Queer as Folk".
>>>>>
>>>>>One doesn't have to work very hard to imagine how black people felt when
>>>>>they saw such as "What's Happenin?" on television. Hollywood, for their
>>>>>part, is glibly contrite for years of making money off black stereotypes,
>>>>>but they evidently have zero problem doing the selfsame thing with gays
>>>>>right now, today.
>>>>>
>>>>>Gandhi said of social change: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule
>>>>>and denounce you, then they debate you, then you win."
>>>>>
>>>>>-DS
>>>>
>>>>There's a group that come in for much more derision than homosexuals
>>>>on TV - the white male.
>>>>All you need to do to see this is to watch sitcoms and advertisements.
>>>>The poor bumbling white guy is the butt of so many jokes it's obvious
>>>>to anyone who watches.
>>>>But it's OK, because, after all, they are just, well, there.
>>>
>>>Feeling sorry for yourself, BB?
>>>
>>>Adult white guys still seem to be running things across the USA.

>>
>> So you don't think what I say is right?
>> Have you watched TV lately?

>
>Some. I think you're confusing fiction with reality.


So you think they aren't making these shows and commercials?
*That* would be fiction.
The reality is that these shows and commercials *are* being made and
shown.
>
>Are you saying adult white guys *aren't* running things across the USA?


Where are you getting this? You* do* realize that, despite the
descrimination against them, gays are productive members of society,
don't you?
No where am I saying that white males aren't doing anything. I'm
saying they are being discriminated against.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
  #230  
Old November 14th 04, 02:23 PM
Big Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:05:01 GMT, Sparky > wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:36:09 GMT, Sparky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Big Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:30:32 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, indago wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>041108 2142 - Wound Up posted:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the
>>>>>>>target of hatred
>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, then, maybe derision???
>>>>>
>>>>>"Maybe"...? Y'think?
>>>>>
>>>>>Turn on your TV set during primetime any night of the week. Scarcely a
>>>>>sitcom episode goes by without they don't make clunky, hamhanded innuendo
>>>>>or outright laughtrack-enhanced punchlines at the expense of
>>>>>cardigan-wearing, mincing, oh-so-coiffed fag-stereotypes, and entire
>>>>>series are built on same, e.g. "Will and Grace" or "Queer Eye for the
>>>>>Straight Guy" or "Queer as Folk".
>>>>>
>>>>>One doesn't have to work very hard to imagine how black people felt when
>>>>>they saw such as "What's Happenin?" on television. Hollywood, for their
>>>>>part, is glibly contrite for years of making money off black stereotypes,
>>>>>but they evidently have zero problem doing the selfsame thing with gays
>>>>>right now, today.
>>>>>
>>>>>Gandhi said of social change: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule
>>>>>and denounce you, then they debate you, then you win."
>>>>>
>>>>>-DS
>>>>
>>>>There's a group that come in for much more derision than homosexuals
>>>>on TV - the white male.
>>>>All you need to do to see this is to watch sitcoms and advertisements.
>>>>The poor bumbling white guy is the butt of so many jokes it's obvious
>>>>to anyone who watches.
>>>>But it's OK, because, after all, they are just, well, there.
>>>
>>>Feeling sorry for yourself, BB?
>>>
>>>Adult white guys still seem to be running things across the USA.

>>
>> So you don't think what I say is right?
>> Have you watched TV lately?

>
>Some. I think you're confusing fiction with reality.


So you think they aren't making these shows and commercials?
*That* would be fiction.
The reality is that these shows and commercials *are* being made and
shown.
>
>Are you saying adult white guys *aren't* running things across the USA?


Where are you getting this? You* do* realize that, despite the
descrimination against them, gays are productive members of society,
don't you?
No where am I saying that white males aren't doing anything. I'm
saying they are being discriminated against.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_gadkypy Michael Barnes Driving 4 January 4th 05 07:47 PM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ mixqec [email protected] Chrysler 37 November 18th 04 05:18 PM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ gadkypy Paul Antique cars 3 November 9th 04 07:54 PM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!___________ mixqec indago Chrysler 7 November 8th 04 06:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.