Anti-Gay Concentration Camps

[pocketfullofshells]

Why do some people, mostly on the left, strive for the unattainable ideas of "perfection" and "nirvana"?

Silly liberals wanting things to be better not worse...

 

[TruthSeeker]

NOT striving for perfectioin is a characteristic that I have always attributed to losers--whichever political stripe they may be.

I don't know if "leftists" believe the things you say they do, but I do know that Gipper wants the government to control women's bodies and prevent abortions. That seems like pretty intrusive big-government to me from someone who claims to be on the right hand end of the spectrum. How about you? Maybe some "rightists" want the government to be all and end all too.

There is no such thing as "perfection". Striving for something that is inherently impossible to attain is wrongheaded, senseless, and destructive.

I always love the argument about "government controlling women's bodies" from the supporters of INFANTICIDE.

The fact that women are capable of "controlling" their bodies only AFTER they have become impregnated has always been very confusing to those of us who believe in accountability, responsibility, and the sanctity of life.

But, then, on the other hand, LEFTISTS killing their unborn babies is probably a GOOD thing. Keeps the "herd" thinned out.

 

[PLC1]

This whole liberal/conservative thing is the work of immature adults.

If more people had integrity and core values and core beliefs, this childish "labeling" of people would not be so prevalent.

I'm with your there, but then....

If you leftists in here would read more of the things that I have posted,

Yes, labeling people is the work of immature people, no doubt. The whole "liberal/conservative" idea is simplistic nonsense as well.


Now, that's an interesting dichotomy, or perhaps it is a statement, followed by a demonstration of the concept in the statement.

Is labeling people "you leftists" somehow different, or is it the result of an immature liberal/conservative idea?

 

[Rick]

Silly liberals wanting things to be better not worse...

But somehow, they always end up making things MUCH worse.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I'm with your there, but then....

Yes, labeling people is the work of immature people, no doubt. The whole "liberal/conservative" idea is simplistic nonsense as well.

Now, that's an interesting dichotomy, or perhaps it is a statement, followed by a demonstration of the concept in the statement.

Is labeling people "you leftists" somehow different, or is it the result of an immature liberal/conservative idea?

Tell me what is more definitive........calling somebody a "liberal", or calling somebody a "leftist". "Liberal" means different things to different people, especially on the WORLD stage. "Leftist" is much more definitive.

Me calling somebody a "leftist" is an educated opinion based on the writings/opinions of that person. It is not namecalling. It is not labeling. It is a statement of fact.

Me criticizing "leftists" in-general, which I do much more often, is a criticism of their philosophy.....economic, social, and in-general.

Nobody can honestly call me a "conservative" or a Republican, based on my writings/opinions, but some people do anyway, because they can only function by labeling and pigeonholing everybody.

I am obviously an "independent" thinker, and anybody who consistently reads what I post in here knows that. I have a variety of opinions on a variety of topics. I don't blindly follow a specific political ideology, like many in here do. How many times have I used the phrase "Republicrats and Democans"?

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't blindly follow a specific political ideology, like many in here do.

While not "blindly", I do follow one specific political ideology - Capitalism. And despite claims about labeling being a bad thing, it's not. Peel the labels off all your medication and see how wonderful that is. Labels serve a necessary purpose, whether on a medicine bottle or in the political arena. The important part of labels is accuracy, you don't want to put a label for antacid on a bottle of stool softeners.

That's why people should label themselves, based on their actual beliefs, and then be proud of their label... As I am of mine. Of course some people mislabel themselves, intentionally or accidentally, that's where it's necessary to compare the contents to the label and see if a correction is required.

 

[TruthSeeker]

While not "blindly", I do follow one specific political ideology - Capitalism. And despite claims about labeling being a bad thing, it's not. Peel the labels off all your medication and see how wonderful that is. Labels serve a necessary purpose, whether on a medicine bottle or in the political arena. The important part of labels is accuracy, you don't want to put a label for antacid on a bottle of stool softeners.

That's why people should label themselves, based on their actual beliefs, and then be proud of their label... As I am of mine. Of course some people mislabel themselves, intentionally or accidentally, that's where it's necessary to compare the contents to the label and see if a correction is required.

I certainly wasn't referring to you, or many others in this forum, when I used the word "blindly". Rick, Bob, Who, you, and others are very consistent, very intelligent, and steadfast in your beliefs. Nevertheless, you are absolutely correct when you say that a person should EMBRACE their ideology, not run from it or call it something it isn't. But, you know as well as I do that the people on the "left" side of the spectrum like to use labels as a WEAPON, and for the most part, they deny what they are, and pretend to be something else.

As much as I disagree with our "Stalin", at least he is consistent, and he doesn't deny or sugar-coat his political leanings. He defends them "to the death" so to speak. I admire his tenacity and his consistency, no matter how screwed up his ideology and lack of historical knowledge is.

 

[PLC1]

Tell me what is more definitive........calling somebody a "liberal", or calling somebody a "leftist". "Liberal" means different things to different people, especially on the WORLD stage. "Leftist" is much more definitive.

Me calling somebody a "leftist" is an educated opinion based on the writings/opinions of that person. It is not namecalling. It is not labeling. It is a statement of fact.

Me criticizing "leftists" in-general, which I do much more often, is a criticism of their philosophy.....economic, social, and in-general.

Nobody can honestly call me a "conservative" or a Republican, based on my writings/opinions, but some people do anyway, because they can only function by labeling and pigeonholing everybody.

I am obviously an "independent" thinker, and anybody who consistently reads what I post in here knows that. I have a variety of opinions on a variety of topics. I don't blindly follow a specific political ideology, like many in here do. How many times have I used the phrase "Republicrats and Democans"?

So, define your terms.

What is a "leftist" in your lexicon? What is a "conservative"? We know what a Republican is.

 

[Dr.Who]

Clearly gay kids get abused at times.

Clearly the OP was wildly exaggerated too.

 

[PatrioticTriumph]

This is something the mainstream media has refused to report enough on. A company in Utah named "Teen Escort Services" is regularly contracted to kidnap LGBT teenagers in the middle of the night, deport them to a concentration camp in a country that doesn't extradite to the US, and torture them. The goal of these concentration camps is to beat "the gay" out of them. It's legal because homophobic parents sign over legal documents allowing them to go to these camps to "cure" their homosexuality. They are not allowed to leave these camps and are regularly tortured, they are also banned from speaking about the outside world. According to some testimonies, the teenagers tried to rebel against their Nazi overseers, but were gunned down with rubber bullets.

Please don't blame the entire United States for these crimes against humanity. In Utah (and Jamaica, which is where one of the concentration camps is located) teenagers lack the same basic human rights as adults and Utah is known for being predominantly Mormon. For those of you who don't know, Mormonism is a radical far right wing sect of Christianity that often does outrageous things and promotes incest, inbreeding, and now apparently the kidnapping & false imprisonment of minors. This is legal because the companies involved "donated" large sums of money to many politicians and the leader of one of the concentration camp operating companies, World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools, is a close personal friend of many politicians, including Mitt Romney.

Here's one victim's story: http://www.reddit.com/r/troubledteens/comments/hk0xy/a_gay_teen_describes_her_experience_at_a_utah/

Original Discussion on Facepunch: http://www.facepunch.com/threads/10...erience-at-a-Utah-WWASP-brainwashing-facility

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Association_of_Specialty_Programs_and_Schools

While I agree WWASP Gay rehab is not a psychologically healthy program and is founded on a questionable premise (is homosexuality a choice, classic nature vs. nurture). Your description of Mormonism and exaggeration is completely false.

If you believe that the LDS church allows polygamy or incest than you are living in hollywoodland (see: FLDS church). I might also add that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (a well-established democrat) is also a Mormon.

It is true that most Mormons are Conservative Republicans but an interesting thing to note is that the Mormon community has a large degree of deep-rooted welfare society and collectivism. The members pay 10% of their income to the church and the church in turn provides social and welfare services (not mention also buys large portions of major corporations and other businesses). Perhaps this explains why Romney implemented Universal Health Care (OOooo SOCIALIST!) in Massachusetts.

 

[Rick]

It is true that most Mormons are Conservative Republicans but an interesting thing to note is that the Mormon community has a large degree of deep-rooted welfare society and collectivism. The members pay 10% of their income to the church and the church in turn provides social and welfare services (not mention also buys large portions of major corporations and other businesses). Perhaps this explains why Romney implemented Universal Health Care (OOooo SOCIALIST!) in Massachusetts.

I'll leave it to someone with more patience to explain to our resident genius the difference between statist "healthcare" and religious charities.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I'll leave it to someone with more patience to explain to our resident genius the difference between statist "healthcare" and religious charities.

Good call, Rick. Better just to let "Einstein" blather on and on about how intellectually superior he is compared to the rest of us.

Hey Rick, did you get my response to your inquiry about silver? My computer has been acting up lately, and I'm not sure if my reply went through to you.

 

[PatrioticTriumph]

I'll leave it to someone with more patience to explain to our resident genius the difference between statist "healthcare" and religious charities.

Since there is such a huge difference between the two when you look at basic social collectivist theories .

Reminds me of an interesting book written by the president of the American Enterprise Institute (one of the largest Conservative think tanks, includes Newt Gingrich). "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism" by Arthur C. Brooks. Yes I read books by Conservative intellectuals (politics is not two-dimensional).

Brooks points out statistics that show Conservatives tend to donate more to charity than Liberals. I found this fascinating, in reality both Conservatives and Liberals believe in collectivism, only just in doing it in different ways. This also explains why minorities and foreigners gravitate towards the left, these people lack a community which they can rely on for welfare so they are forced to rely on the government. Whereas Conservatives usually come from backgrounds where they have a community to rely on and do not need Government to provide welfare programs, i.e. the LDS church is a great example. Thus, Conservatives see no need for government welfare programs while Liberals see it as essential. Brooks shows that Conservatives aren't actually anti-resdistribution of wealth, rather that they do it in a different way.

This also reminds me of when Milton Friedman claimed his economic model would work, and when asked, "what if someone loses their job and their house because of reasons they cannot control, (like the failure of a corporation they work for) what does that person have if there isn't any welfare progams?" Friedman responded with, "That man's neighbors should help him then so that he does not lose his home". Everyone then abondoned the Keynesian economic model that brought us growth and stablization from 1945 until the early 1970s, and adopted Friedman's model, which obviously causes false growth and "bubbles" that crash markets. Friedman, like many Conservatives, assumed that a person's neighbors/community would be a sufficient replacement for state welfare programs. That corporations and individuals could be trusted with market and social responsibility. Friedman was wrong.

It's obvious that Conservative economic policy is based on the assumption that human nature is not selfish, that the individual can be trusted with market and social responsibility. However, we can see time and time again that this assumption is a failure.

Yes, I just used a book written by the president of the AEI (one of the largest Conservative think tanks) and Friedman's economic model to show you the correlation between statist welfare programs, religious charities and differing views of redistribution of wealth .

 

[TruthSeeker]

Sorry PT, but you are just plain WRONG. (I see a trend here)

Ever heard of "fiat currency"? Ever heard of the Federal Reserve Bank? Ever heard of the "gold standard"? Ever heard of "pay as you go". Oh, wait a minute, that whole "pay as you go" thing is also known as "Austrian" economics.

On the other hand, "Keynesian" economics is, to put it simply in terms that you might understand, the belief that spending, borrowing, spending, borrowing, and repeating this cycle over and over again, somehow creates economic prosperity.

Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, and Jose Feliciano could all plainly see that this country is SQUARELY in the "tentacles" of Keynesian economics. So why can't you?

If you weren't so blinded by your partisanship, and if you weren't so overwhelmed with subjectivity, and completely lacking in intellectual honesty, your ridiculous lectures and your superiority complex would not be a problem for many of us.

But, do as you wish. You do provide pretty good entertainment. Sometimes.

 

[Pepper]

The conservative media has its hands full reporting all the substantial news of the day censored by the lib media.



No, I wouldn't do anything horrible to homosexuals of any age. I think they are what they are, and I don't have any problem with homosexuals until they start getting pushy and demanding special privileges.

Gay people haven't asked for special privileges. They have asked to be treated equally.

the problem is, if you beat up someone because you are personal pissed at them..or to steal there money ...its a attack on you,

when you beat up a random gay person ( or black, or even white) because of that reason...it sends a message to all of that group. Just like if I burned down a house of business out of personal anger at them...vs I burned down a church because I hate all Christians...When I burned the Church..the church was not my target...All Christians where the target...

Just like on Sept 11..the 3000 killed where not targeted....we as Americans where targeted as a whole...every American was a victim of that attack..and a target...( no not as much as those who died) Under the same idea of no hate crimes, it could be argued that there should be no terrorism laws as well...simply it was 3000 murders...But we don't say that..we call it a act of terrorism and have special extra laws for it...not because killing was different then if 3000 random people where murdered....but because terrorism we know has a greater effect on the population as a whole.

I state this as the argument for why we have hate crimes laws...even though I do agree that in most cases the punishment for the crime should be able to be strong enough with or without hate crimes laws.

Good post.

Sorry PT, but you are just plain WRONG. (I see a trend here)

Ever heard of "fiat currency"? Ever heard of the Federal Reserve Bank? Ever heard of the "gold standard"? Ever heard of "pay as you go". Oh, wait a minute, that whole "pay as you go" thing is also known as "Austrian" economics.

On the other hand, "Keynesian" economics is, to put it simply in terms that you might understand, the belief that spending, borrowing, spending, borrowing, and repeating this cycle over and over again, somehow creates economic prosperity.

Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, and Jose Feliciano could all plainly see that this country is SQUARELY in the "tentacles" of Keynesian economics. So why can't you?

If you weren't so blinded by your partisanship, and if you weren't so overwhelmed with subjectivity, and completely lacking in intellectual honesty, your ridiculous lectures and your superiority complex would not be a problem for many of us.

But, do as you wish. You do provide pretty good entertainment. Sometimes.

You are wrong about Keynesian economic theory.

In a downturn, government spends because it is the spender of last resort. In better economic times, government spends less so that private investment isn't crowded out. Do you see? The response is tailored to the facts of the situation.