Barney Frank gets biatch slapped by Bill O'reilley

[GenSeneca]

You've already issued your denial..nothing unusual there. The only question remains.. are you in fact aware of your desires or do they exist in a dormant form?

SOCIALIST TROLL BAIT!

Popeye... are you ready to admit to your Socialist tendencies or are you going to deny your hammer and sickle mentality?

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

All your post did was confirm the study, actually I would have been surprised at anything else. You're not taking advise from me, we're looking at a study.

The fact that you would even know where to find such a "study" rolleyes only serves to prove that you're one of the sick-o's yourself.

You've already issued your denial..nothing unusual there. The only question remains.. are you in fact aware of your desires or do they exist in a dormant form?

Oh really, I can play that silly game too.

Have you stopped sexually abusing your children and prostituting them out to support your drug habit? Don't bother denying it either, that would only serve to prove your sexual perversions and moral turpitude!

Now, do you REALLY want to play these silly games, or are you going to at least try to act like an adult?

 

[vyo476]

The fact that you would even know where to find such a "study" rolleyes only serves to prove that you're one of the sick-o's yourself.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Oh really, I can play that silly game too.

Have you stopped sexually abusing your children and prostituting them out to support your drug habit? Don't bother denying it either, that would only serve to prove your sexual perversions and moral turpitude!

The difference being that there's no scientific basis for your argument.

Now, do you REALLY want to play these silly games, or are you going to at least try to act like an adult?

Would this be the same "acting like an adult" that involves calling people "hedonistic c***suckin', pillow-bitin', rump rangers"?

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

What on Earth are you talking about?

Just playing games with one of the most intellectually and morally bankrupt individuals on the forum, why?

The difference being that there's no scientific basis for your argument.

And there's no "scientific" basis for his argument either, as the "study" was simply a self-fulfilling fantasy sponsored and paid for by fags, which totally negates any "conclusions" they may have reached. (PROVE me wrong!)

Would this be the same "acting like an adult" that involves calling people "hedonistic c***suckin', pillow-bitin', rump rangers"?

Tell ya what, why don't you tell me what YOU would have done if you were sitting in a nice restuarant, enjoying dinner with your wife and family, and some disgusting (as in he obviously hadn't washed in weeks) comes in and starts panhandling claiming to be a AIDS victim, and gets loud, rude, and refuses to leave you alone after repeated requests? HMMMM? Are you going to be all sweetness and nice, or are you going to get in his face and run the bum off? Never mind, I forgot, you don't have the stones to actually confront someone and defend your own rights.

LATE EDIT: And just for the record, I don't like fags, I've never liked fags, I never will like fags, and there's nothing you can say that's ever going to convince me that they're anything but sick demented hedonistic perverts, so don't bother wasting any more of your time.

 

[Pandora]

I don’t know how this thread turned into a homosexual issue but I don’t think a person has to approve of homosexual behavior or else they are a homophobe closet homosexual.

I do not approve of homosexual sex. I am not a closet homosexual. But when I say that I do not approve of homosexual sex people say that I must be a closet homosexual.

I also do not approve of random sex with multiple partners. No one ever accuses me of being a closet whore for saying that, just a prude

It bothers me when we are told we have to agree with behaviors we do not agree with or else we are bad people. My personal beliefs tell me that this is not something we should be participating in, like many other behaviors. No one can help if they get certain desires, but its weather or not we act on those desires is the issue.

To cherry pick some of those things and say AGREE WITH IT OR ELSE YOU ARE A BAD PERSON!! Is stupid and childish.

I think it would be horrible to dislike someone or be rude or mean to someone just because they had homosexual tendencies but I also think it is horrible for anyone to expect a person to put away their personal faith because another person expects you to accept their lifestyles.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

I don’t know how this thread turned into a homosexual issue but I don’t think a person has to approve of homosexual behavior or else they are a homophobe closet homosexual.

I do not approve of homosexual sex. I am not a closet homosexual. But when I say that I do not approve of homosexual sex people say that I must be a closet homosexual.

I also do not approve of random sex with multiple partners. No one ever accuses me of being a closet whore for saying that, just a prude

It bothers me when we are told we have to agree with behaviors we do not agree with or else we are bad people. My personal beliefs tell me that this is not something we should be participating in, like many other behaviors. No one can help if they get certain desires, but its weather or not we act on those desires is the issue.

To cherry pick some of those things and say AGREE WITH IT OR ELSE YOU ARE A BAD PERSON!! Is stupid and childish.

I think it would be horrible to dislike someone or be rude or mean to someone just because they had homosexual tendencies but I also think it is horrible for anyone to expect a person to put away their personal faith because another person expects you to accept their lifestyles.

It's that whole double-edged sword called "intolerence" that they love to swing around, but they forget that when they accuse someone of being "intolerent", they themselves are being intolerent! They expect everyone to be tolerant of their beliefs, but they're not tolerant of ours! Liberals are hypocritical, equivocal rats by nature, they can't help it, it's in their genetic makeup, but that doesn't make it right, and it sure as God made little green apples is no reason to accept it.

 

[vyo476]

Just playing games with one of the most intellectually and morally bankrupt individuals on the forum, why?

So there isn't any basis for the statement you made? It was just a "game?"

And there's no "scientific" basis for his argument either, as the "study" was simply a self-fulfilling fantasy sponsored and paid for by fags, which totally negates any "conclusions" they may have reached. (PROVE me wrong!)

The article Popeye quoted appeared in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Assocation. It is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that covers a wide range of psychological topics, including mood disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, and special states of consciousness. If you're going to state that it is "sponsored and paid for" by homosexuals, you're going to have to be the one to prove it. After all, I'm not the one who questions its standing as a scientific journal.

Here's a link to the journal's main page, if you'd care to try: http://www.apa.org/journals/abn/description.html

Tell ya what, why don't you tell me what YOU would have done if you were sitting in a nice restuarant, enjoying dinner with your wife and family, and some disgusting (as in he obviously hadn't washed in weeks) comes in and starts panhandling claiming to be a AIDS victim, and gets loud, rude, and refuses to leave you alone after repeated requests? HMMMM? Are you going to be all sweetness and nice, or are you going to get in his face and run the bum off?

Perhaps I would have asked the staff of the restaurant to intervene.

What I would not have done was "get right in his face" and start throwing insinuations around about his lifestyle. I would have attempted to be understanding, since obviously this man has a lot of problems - a lot more problems than, say, I do.

Never mind, I forgot, you don't have the stones to actually confront someone and defend your own rights.

Do not obsess yourself with your percieved knowledge of others. Unless you have some background for statements like that, making them does not enhance your argument at all. All it does is make you sound angry. Acting with regard to emotion above logic is supposedly a liberal failing.

LATE EDIT: And just for the record, I don't like fags, I've never liked fags, I never will like fags, and there's nothing you can say that's ever going to convince me that they're anything but sick demented hedonistic perverts, so don't bother wasting any more of your time.

If you are one hundred percent inflexible in your views, why do you bother coming to a forum? Shouldn't you be satisfied if the your self-assurance? Or are you here because you feel the need to share your stalwart views with those who are less informed (ie, us)? Huh, I thought elitism was a liberal failing, too.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

So there isn't any basis for the statement you made? It was just a "game?"

Just as much basis as there was for his.

The article Popeye quoted appeared in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Assocation. It is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that covers a wide range of psychological topics, including mood disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, and special states of consciousness. If you're going to state that it is "sponsored and paid for" by homosexuals, you're going to have to be the one to prove it. After all, I'm not the one who questions its standing as a scientific journal.

vyo, I challenge the validity of anything written by anyone who bases their entire profession on the ravings of a drug addled closet fag who had the hots for his sister. If you consider them "credible", that's your problem, but don't think for a moment that you can impose that garbage on me.

Perhaps I would have asked the staff of the restaurant to intervene.

Let me get this straight, you'd have gotten up from the table and walked away to find someone to help you, while your wife and children were left alone at the table with a mentally deranged, and admittedly AIDS infected bum? Yeah, that's REAL smart.......NOT!

What I would not have done was "get right in his face" and start throwing insinuations around about his lifestyle. I would have attempted to be understanding, since obviously this man has a lot of problems - a lot more problems than, say, I do.

So you admit that you're a coward, and aren't even smart enough to know that you NEVER leave your family in a position to be attacked by an obviously diseased and mentally deranged individual! Yeah, you're a REAL good example of American intestinal fortitude.

Do not obsess yourself with your percieved knowledge of others. Unless you have some background for statements like that, making them does not enhance your argument at all. All it does is make you sound angry. Acting with regard to emotion above logic is supposedly a liberal failing.

You've already proven me correct, both in your previous posts, and in this one, so it's not preception, it's observation.

If you are one hundred percent inflexible in your views, why do you bother coming to a forum? Shouldn't you be satisfied if the your self-assurance? Or are you here because you feel the need to share your stalwart views with those who are less informed (ie, us)? Huh, I thought elitism was a liberal failing, too.

I come here to discuss issues with those of like mind. Anyone else's opinions are strictly fodder for pure entertainment value.

 

[vyo476]

I don’t know how this thread turned into a homosexual issue

That's my fault, actually. I took offense to something that was said early in the thread and responded in kind. I'd split off the homosexual debate and move it to a more appropriate section of the forum if I thought it was necessary.

but I don’t think a person has to approve of homosexual behavior or else they are a homophobe closet homosexual.

There's a difference between disapproving of homosexual behavior and using bigoted epithets and insulting insinuations when faced with a homosexual.

I do not approve of homosexual sex. I am not a closet homosexual. But when I say that I do not approve of homosexual sex people say that I must be a closet homosexual.

Then they are misinformed as to the nature of homophobia. Having studied the matter rather closely, I wouldn't say you're a homophobe. I don't agree with you - but you're not a homophobe.

I also do not approve of random sex with multiple partners. No one ever accuses me of being a closet whore for saying that, just a prude

You'll find opponents of promiscuity on both sides of the sexual divide. Actually, if you're ever interested in learning more about the homosexual perspective (and can stomach a film that is sympathetic to homosexuality) you might try watching And the Band Played On. Ian McKllelan's character is a homosexual who is ardently anti-promiscuity.

It bothers me when we are told we have to agree with behaviors we do not agree with or else we are bad people. My personal beliefs tell me that this is not something we should be participating in, like many other behaviors. No one can help if they get certain desires, but its weather or not we act on those desires is the issue.

To cherry pick some of those things and say AGREE WITH IT OR ELSE YOU ARE A BAD PERSON!! Is stupid and childish.

I agree with you on this.

I think it would be horrible to dislike someone or be rude or mean to someone just because they had homosexual tendencies but I also think it is horrible for anyone to expect a person to put away their personal faith because another person expects you to accept their lifestyles.

Homosexuals expect acceptance only in so far as they aren't harrassed simply for being homosexual. Well, okay, the ones I agree with only expect that much; its true, some go further than that, and I've told them that frankly I can't get behind their point of view.

 

[vyo476]

vyo, I challenge the validity of anything written by anyone who bases their entire profession on the ravings of a drug addled closet fag who had the hots for his sister. If you consider them "credible", that's your problem, but don't think for a moment that you can impose that garbage on me.

Let me see if I understand what you're trying to say here.

You contend that psychology is based entirely on the ravings of a "drug addled" closet homosexual "who had the hots for his sister." Are you referring to Freud? Because you might want to know that there's a lot more to psychology than Freud.

In any case, the personal shortcomings of a scientist matter little in the light of peer-review. No matter how quirky Einstein was, the bomb that was based on his ideas still worked.

Let me get this straight, you'd have gotten up from the table and walked away to find someone to help you, while your wife and children were left alone at the table with a mentally deranged, and admittedly AIDS infected bum? Yeah, that's REAL smart.......NOT!



So you admit that you're a coward, and aren't even smart enough to know that you NEVER leave your family in a position to be attacked by an obviously diseased and mentally deranged individual! Yeah, you're a REAL good example of American intestinal fortitude.

There weren't any waiters in this "nice restaurant" of yours?

You've already proven me correct, both in your previous posts, and in this one, so it's not preception, it's observation.

Even if I had proven you correct in my previous post, the comments to which I stated you were obssessing yourself with your views of others were made before that post. So unless you consider yourself a prophet - try again.

I come here to discuss issues with those of like mind. Anyone else's opinions are strictly fodder for pure entertainment value.

You came to a non-partisan political forum only to be around people of a like mind?

 

[vyo476]

It's that whole double-edged sword called "intolerence" that they love to swing around, but they forget that when they accuse someone of being "intolerent", they themselves are being intolerent! They expect everyone to be tolerant of their beliefs, but they're not tolerant of ours! Liberals are hypocritical, equivocal rats by nature, they can't help it, it's in their genetic makeup, but that doesn't make it right, and it sure as God made little green apples is no reason to accept it.

I do my level best to be as tolerant of the conservative point of view as possible. If I thought it had no worth than I never would have come here in the first place; furthermore, discussion with intelligent conservatives has changed my views on a number of issues, such as gun control and abortion. In all fairness, you've put your finger on a large and unfortunate issue amongst my fellow liberals: that they don't recognize that tolerance must necessarily extend, at least in a limited capacity, to the intolerant.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

Let me see if I understand what you're trying to say here.

You contend that psychology is based entirely on the ravings of a "drug addled" closet homosexual "who had the hots for his sister." Are you referring to Freud? Because you might want to know that there's a lot more to psychology than Freud.

In any case, the personal shortcomings of a scientist matter little in the light of peer-review. No matter how quirky Einstein was, the bomb that was based on his ideas still worked.

Psychology isn't based on science vyo, it's based on "feelings", "emotions", and "interpretation". Physics is based on FACTS and SCIENCE.

There weren't any waiters in this "nice restaurant" of yours?

You're wasting your time vyo, and I'm not the least bit interested in playing your silly game, so let it go.

Even if I had proven you correct in my previous post, the comments to which I stated you were obssessing yourself with your views of others were made before that post. So unless you consider yourself a prophet - try again.

You yourself made it perfectly clear that you're a victim in waiting vyo, simply because you took offense at something that doesn't apply to you. You automatically look to pacify, you look for someone else to 'help' you, and you condemn those who stand up for themselves and their families as "aggressive". I've dealt with your type (liberal) my entire life, and you're all as predictable as the sun rising in the east, so it didn't take any great leaps of logic or even prophetic abilities to know where you were going before you even started down the path.

You came to a non-partisan political forum only to be around people of a like mind?

The only intelligent posts I've seen are from those of the conservative bent. The resident liberals tend to post garbage spam attacks and generally unintelligible nonsense, which I find to be quite amusing because they think they're oh so smart when the reality is that they're generally dumber than a box of rocks, so they are my "comic relief". It's just refreshing to know that there are actually people, from all around the country, and in fact from all over the world, who are even dumber than some of the ones that I work with every day, and that makes it easier for me to deal with them when I'm at my job!

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

I do my level best to be as tolerant of the conservative point of view as possible. If I thought it had no worth than I never would have come here in the first place; furthermore, discussion with intelligent conservatives has changed my views on a number of issues, such as gun control and abortion. In all fairness, you've put your finger on a large and unfortunate issue amongst my fellow liberals: that they don't recognize that tolerance must necessarily extend, at least in a limited capacity, to the intolerant.

And that last part of your very post is a primary example of the hypocrisy that I spoke of.

You call me "intollerent" because I don't like fags, but I can guarantee you that yourself are just as intollerent, if not moreso than I am. Everyone is.

Are you alergic to anything? Then you are "intolerent" of it.

Is there some food or beverage that you simply refuse to consume just because you really don't like it? You're being "intolerent".

Do you smoke? If not, then I bet you're "intolerent" of smokers.

I don't expect you to answer any of those questions vyo, but just think about it, and then you won't even try to play the intolerent game with me, because you'll realize that you've already lost before you even get to the starting line.

 

[Andy]

I am glad most conservatives are not this snippy. I don't think I would be open to conservatism, if I had been treated this way when I was liberal.

How you say it, is just as important as what you say.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

I am glad most conservatives are not this snippy. I don't think I would be open to conservatism, if I had been treated this way when I was liberal.

How you say it, is just as important as what you say.

By "snippy", I take it you mean unapologetically HONEST. Honesty is something that's been given a bad name by Communists/Socialists/Liberals because it totally destroys the entire concept of liberalism, so they invented PC as a means of making people feel bad about being honest.

Trust me, PC does NOT mean "politically correct", it means "Personal Cowardice".

As for when you were a liberal, that's something that most thinking people work themselves out of by the time they're 40. It's like the old saying, if you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart, if you're still a liberal when you get older, you have no brains. I haven't had a heart since I was 12 years old.