Who said:

The comparison [of homosexuality] with slavery is a stretch in
that some slave masters were ***, in that gays were never called
three-fifths human in the Constitution... and in that they
did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the rights to
vote...

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????



Scroll down for answer. Hehe.



















































Answer: Jesse Jackson, 16 February 2004.
http://snipurl.com/4kc1

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
<snip>

There you go again - Can't leave it alone, Is this on
topic????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>

What's your point?

Do you assume all African-Americans are identical and have no
variations in opinion? Some straights of any race get it, and
some straights of any race don't.

Rat

Rat wrote:
> What's your point?

The point is that your comparison is extremely offensive to the
descendants of slaves. As I have written to you before, blacks (and
Indians and even Hispanics) couldn't use the same bathrooms or drink
from the same fountains that white people like you used. Those groups
were also prohibited from living in your neighborhoods, and race could
be used against those groups in hiring practices. Blacks were only
considered 60% human in the Constitution for nearly its first hundred
years. There is NO comparison and such attempts to compare homosexuality
to race are offensive and specious. Jesse Jackson is correct in noting that.

<snip>

usual suspect wrote:
> Rat wrote:

>> What's your point?

> The point is that your comparison is extremely offensive to the
> descendants of slaves.

No, that is a false generalization. The article you quoted went
on to quote another African-American who specifically stated that
her experience being treated as unequal led her to understand and
support the *** drive for equality. Many African-Americans do see
a parallel between the treatment of blacks and the treatment of gays
and support *** equality for that very reason.

As I said, some straights of any race get it, and some straights of
any race don't.

<snip>

Rat

degeneRat wrote:
>>> What's your point?
>
>> The point is that your comparison is extremely offensive to the
>> descendants of slaves.
>
> No, that is a false generalization.

No, it's the widely held view in the black community. You can find
*individuals* who deviate from that view, but the *MAINSTREAM* BLACK
view is that such comparisons are specious AND highly offensive -- as I
have noted many times to you before. Not that I'd expect you to respect
such views or even cease making irrelevant and offensive comparisons.
You are, after all, offensive and morally revolting.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--If all blacks share the view of Maryland
pastor Thann Young, then the movement to legalize same-sex
"marriage" will be a tough sell.

The African Methodist Episcopal minister sees no comparison
between the civil rights movement of the 1950s and '60s and the
so-called homosexual rights movement of today. In fact, he is
quite offended by such parallels.

"As an African-American I really believe that this is probably
one the greatest insults you can offer to the African-American
struggle," he told Baptist Press. "... It tends to minimize or
even cheapen the struggle that African-Americans have
experienced in this country by comparing it in this manner."

Views within the black community mirror Young's. Polls
consistently show that blacks are more conservative than the
overall population on issues relating to homosexual activism.

A November Pew Research poll showed that by a 60-28 margin
blacks are opposed to same-sex "marriage." By comparison, the
general population is opposed by a margin of 59-32 percent.

While those numbers are similar, others aren't. The same poll
showed that blacks are much more likely to believe that
homosexuality is a matter of choice, not genetics. Fifty-eight
percent of blacks -- compared to 42 percent of the general
population -- said homosexuality is due to a lifestyle
preference. Only 15 percent of blacks -- and 30 percent of the
general population -- said it is something with which people are
born.

Such poll numbers are important because homosexual activists
recently have sided themselves with the civil rights movement,
saying they are fighting for equality much like blacks once
did....

Blacks are split on whether the issue of same-sex
"marriage" should change voting patterns.

"I think that there is a move that is beginning to happen where
African-Americans are beginning to look at political platforms,"
said Terriel R. Byrd, assistant professor of religion at Palm
Beach Atlantic University in Florida. He is black. "... I think
they're beginning to question whether or not they should be
committed to the parties that tend to lean toward those kind of
political viewpoints.

"As a result, you have African-Americans who are beginning to
question their allegiance to one party or another."
http://www.unioncitychristian.com/bl...arallel_be.htm

Whites and blacks also have different opinions on this question
[of homosexuality being a choice]. 48 percent of whites think
being homosexual is something that cannot be changed, but nearly
seven in 10 African Americans say homosexuality is something
that is chosen. Blacks are less supportive than whites of civil
unions, *** marriage and legal homosexual relations.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in589551.shtml

Face it: you're marginalized and can only engage in highly offensive
comparisons.

<snip>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
news
> degeneRat wrote:
> >>> What's your point?
> >
> >> The point is that your comparison is extremely offensive to the
> >> descendants of slaves.
> >
> > No, that is a false generalization.
>
> No, it's the widely held view in the black community. You can find
> *individuals* who deviate from that view, but the *MAINSTREAM* BLACK
> view is that such comparisons are specious AND highly offensive

Well said. Though black America has been lulled and conditioned to vote for
liberal Democrats, they remain, as a group, largely socially conservative.

Acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle isn't exactly widespread in the black
community.

Karl Hungus wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> news >
>>degeneRat wrote:
>>
>>>>>What's your point?
>>>
>>>>The point is that your comparison is extremely offensive to the
>>>>descendants of slaves.
>>>
>>>No, that is a false generalization.
>>
>>No, it's the widely held view in the black community. You can find
>>*individuals* who deviate from that view, but the *MAINSTREAM* BLACK
>>view is that such comparisons are specious AND highly offensive
>
>
> Well said. Though black America has been lulled and conditioned to vote for
> liberal Democrats, they remain, as a group, largely socially conservative.

Same with Mexican-Americans, and probably most other
Latino immigrant groups.

It's a testament to Republican ham-handedness, and a
partly factual perception of the Republicans as
xenophobic, that Latino voters still vote as heavily
Democratic as they do.

>
> Acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle isn't exactly widespread in the black
> community.

It is *only* widely accepted in urban enclaves of
overly intellectual, pseudo-liberal elitists.

The cultural decedent of the Klu Klux Klan - Johny Ballz wrote:

"overly intellectual, pseudo-liberal elitists."

A common fear of the sheep humping-shirtless overall-wearing, civil rights
violating white trash hillbillies is that an educated person gets uppity in his
presence. They hate anyone that strives for civility towards minorities or fights
for any kind of change they don't agree with. Mr Ball's "overt" problem with the
subject of veggie eating is the ethical and moral aspects of it. This stems from
the dark evil past of his bible thumping decedents of slave traders. They are so
hung up on the fact that their for fathers are all in hell burning like the
crosses they gathered under so many times in their lives. This is why the south is
gung ho on religion. They are desperate to redeem their evil past. Mr Ball your
hands slide down the slippery sides of the whole you dig with each of your
displays of your talents of demeaning attacks. In plain terms you are "overtly"
suffering from an inferiority complex and you do it here simply because you have
anonymity here like you fathers under the sheets they peered through on their
night rides!

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Karl Hungus wrote:
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > news > >
> >>degeneRat wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>What's your point?
> >>>
> >>>>The point is that your comparison is extremely offensive to the
> >>>>descendants of slaves.
> >>>
> >>>No, that is a false generalization.
> >>
> >>No, it's the widely held view in the black community. You can find
> >>*individuals* who deviate from that view, but the *MAINSTREAM* BLACK
> >>view is that such comparisons are specious AND highly offensive
> >
> >
> > Well said. Though black America has been lulled and conditioned to vote for
> > liberal Democrats, they remain, as a group, largely socially conservative.
>
> Same with Mexican-Americans, and probably most other
> Latino immigrant groups.
>
> It's a testament to Republican ham-handedness, and a
> partly factual perception of the Republicans as
> xenophobic, that Latino voters still vote as heavily
> Democratic as they do.
>
> >
> > Acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle isn't exactly widespread in the black
> > community.
>
> It is *only* widely accepted in urban enclaves of
> overly intellectual, pseudo-liberal elitists.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Karl Hungus wrote:
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > news > >
> >>degeneRat wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>What's your point?
> >>>
> >>>>The point is that your comparison is extremely offensive to the
> >>>>descendants of slaves.
> >>>
> >>>No, that is a false generalization.
> >>
> >>No, it's the widely held view in the black community. You can find
> >>*individuals* who deviate from that view, but the *MAINSTREAM* BLACK
> >>view is that such comparisons are specious AND highly offensive
> >
> >
> > Well said. Though black America has been lulled and conditioned to vote
for
> > liberal Democrats, they remain, as a group, largely socially
conservative.
>
> Same with Mexican-Americans, and probably most other
> Latino immigrant groups.
>
> It's a testament to Republican ham-handedness, and a
> partly factual perception of the Republicans as
> xenophobic, that Latino voters still vote as heavily
> Democratic as they do.


It's just as much a testament to the craftiness of the liberal Democrats
that they're able to sufficiently pander to groups that are otherwise
diametrically opposed to a left-wing agenda. Hell, maybe in their own
perverse way they really *are* about diversity. Their voting blocs
certainly span a wider social spectrum than the Republicans'. After all,
how many union steel workers do you see wearing Birkenstocks?

Karl Hungus wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Karl Hungus wrote:
> > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > > news > > >
> > >>degeneRat wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>>What's your point?
> > >>>
> > >>>>The point is that your comparison is extremely offensive to the
> > >>>>descendants of slaves.
> > >>>
> > >>>No, that is a false generalization.
> > >>
> > >>No, it's the widely held view in the black community. You can find
> > >>*individuals* who deviate from that view, but the *MAINSTREAM* BLACK
> > >>view is that such comparisons are specious AND highly offensive
> > >
> > >
> > > Well said. Though black America has been lulled and conditioned to vote
> for
> > > liberal Democrats, they remain, as a group, largely socially
> conservative.
> >
> > Same with Mexican-Americans, and probably most other
> > Latino immigrant groups.
> >
> > It's a testament to Republican ham-handedness, and a
> > partly factual perception of the Republicans as
> > xenophobic, that Latino voters still vote as heavily
> > Democratic as they do.
>
> It's just as much a testament to the craftiness of the liberal Democrats
> that they're able to sufficiently pander to groups that are otherwise
> diametrically opposed to a left-wing agenda. Hell, maybe in their own
> perverse way they really *are* about diversity. Their voting blocs
> certainly span a wider social spectrum than the Republicans'. After all,
> how many union steel workers do you see wearing Birkenstocks?

Where do you get a population of poor people to support a political party that
robs them and gives to the rich? You know like the way they would support a
football team? A race car team? Flag wavers that love their country but don't
have a clue how it is held up?

Answer? White southern protestants who are cultural decedents of the Klu Klux
Klan. Fathers grandfathers and great grand fathers all without an education.
They were scorned by the wealthy slave owners and by the cultured educated
northeasterns. The poor losers that everyone picks on. And the best they can do
is live up to their reputations as dumb self defeating idiots that cling to
group identity because the individual has such a poor image of himself.

The biggest joke is that millions of ignorant suckers think their is a
difference between the Repubs and the Dems. It is all a game the politicians
play and Idiots like suck it up the same way you believe that space men crash in
desert.

Karl Hungus wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> news
> > degeneRat wrote:
> > >>> What's your point?
> > >
> > >> The point is that your comparison is extremely offensive to the
> > >> descendants of slaves.
> > >
> > > No, that is a false generalization.
> >
> > No, it's the widely held view in the black community. You can find
> > *individuals* who deviate from that view, but the *MAINSTREAM* BLACK
> > view is that such comparisons are specious AND highly offensive
>
> Well said. Though black America has been lulled and conditioned to vote for
> liberal Democrats, they remain, as a group, largely socially conservative.
>
> Acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle isn't exactly widespread in the black
> community.

One sure way to know if man is in doubt about his sexual preference is by how
much he fears those that practice what he is secretly thinking about. The
attacking of homosexuals is nothing more than an attack on the taboo desires
lurking in the attacker.

A clear clue is the phrase "lifestyle" or "chosen lifestyle" As a hetro sexual
man I have no ability to be homosexual. I know I could not choose to have sex
with a man simply because I am not ***.

But you, you are saying it is choice which means in your mind it is an option,
thus the clear indicator that you have bisexual potential. You fear your sexual
potential and it shows!

Thus we see the simplistic and ignorant mind of a cultural decendent of the KKK!

Gangus Cone wrote:

<snip>

> One sure way to know if man is in doubt about his sexual preference is by how
> much he fears those that practice what he is secretly thinking about. The
> attacking of homosexuals is nothing more than an attack on the taboo desires
> lurking in the attacker.

> A clear clue is the phrase "lifestyle" or "chosen lifestyle" As a hetro sexual
> man I have no ability to be homosexual. I know I could not choose to have sex
> with a man simply because I am not ***.

> But you, you are saying it is choice which means in your mind it is an option,
> thus the clear indicator that you have bisexual potential. You fear your sexual
> potential and it shows!

<snip>

Well said! Very true!

People who are secure in their own sexuality are not homophobic; it's
the ones who are afraid of themselves who project their fears on to
others.

Rat

Karl Hungus wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Karl Hungus wrote:
>>
>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
>>>news >>>
>>>
>>>>degeneRat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>What's your point?
>>>>>
>>>>>>The point is that your comparison is extremely offensive to the
>>>>>>descendants of slaves.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, that is a false generalization.
>>>>
>>>>No, it's the widely held view in the black community. You can find
>>>>*individuals* who deviate from that view, but the *MAINSTREAM* BLACK
>>>>view is that such comparisons are specious AND highly offensive
>>>
>>>
>>>Well said. Though black America has been lulled and conditioned to vote
>
> for
>
>>>liberal Democrats, they remain, as a group, largely socially
>
> conservative.
>
>>Same with Mexican-Americans, and probably most other
>>Latino immigrant groups.
>>
>>It's a testament to Republican ham-handedness, and a
>>partly factual perception of the Republicans as
>>xenophobic, that Latino voters still vote as heavily
>>Democratic as they do.
>
>
>
> It's just as much a testament to the craftiness of the liberal Democrats
> that they're able to sufficiently pander to groups that are otherwise
> diametrically opposed to a left-wing agenda.

They aren't diametrically opposed; what's wrong with
you? They want the goodies the Democrats hand out, and
like human beings of any color in any place, they'll
whore themselves for goodies. They're no different
from anyone else. That the goodies come at the price
of their dignity, and turn them as individuals into
lifelong parasites, hardly matters.

> Hell, maybe in their own
> perverse way they really *are* about diversity. Their voting blocs
> certainly span a wider social spectrum than the Republicans'. After all,
> how many union steel workers do you see wearing Birkenstocks?
>
>
>

Gangus Cone wrote:

>
> Karl Hungus wrote:
>
>
>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
>>news >>
>>>degeneRat wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>What's your point?
>>>>
>>>>>The point is that your comparison is extremely offensive to the
>>>>>descendants of slaves.
>>>>
>>>>No, that is a false generalization.
>>>
>>>No, it's the widely held view in the black community. You can find
>>>*individuals* who deviate from that view, but the *MAINSTREAM* BLACK
>>>view is that such comparisons are specious AND highly offensive
>>
>>Well said. Though black America has been lulled and conditioned to vote for
>>liberal Democrats, they remain, as a group, largely socially conservative.
>>
>>Acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle isn't exactly widespread in the black
>>community.
>
>
> One sure way to know if man is in doubt about his sexual preference is by how
> much he fears those that practice what he is secretly thinking about.

If he's secretly thinking about it, you don't know it,
and therefore you don't know if he fears it or not.
This notion, that someone who expresses loathing of
queers is himself afraid that he might be queer, is a
canard. Does a black who hates whites have a secret
fear that he's going to start wearing polyester bowling
shirts and join the Rotary Club? You ****ing moron.

> The attacking of homosexuals is nothing more than an attack on the taboo
> desires lurking in the attacker.

Bullshit. Ha ha ha! You wouldn't have a ****ing clue
how to begin proving that. You've merely shown that
you're an ignorant **** who gullibly subscribes to
pop/junk psychology.

[...]

Thus we see the pseudo-intellectual raving of a moronic
fat ****.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Gangus Cone wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> One sure way to know if man is in doubt about his sexual preference is
>> by how
>> much he fears those that practice what he is secretly thinking about. The
>> attacking of homosexuals is nothing more than an attack on the taboo
>> desires
>> lurking in the attacker.
>
>
>> A clear clue is the phrase "lifestyle" or "chosen lifestyle" As a
>> hetro sexual
>> man I have no ability to be homosexual. I know I could not choose to
>> have sex
>> with a man simply because I am not ***.
>
>
>> But you, you are saying it is choice which means in your mind it is an
>> option,
>> thus the clear indicator that you have bisexual potential. You fear
>> your sexual
>> potential and it shows!
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Well said! Very true!

Utter bullshit, and so perfectly predictable that you'd
fall for it. You demonstrate your stupidity and lack
of intellect with every post these days, Karen.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Gangus Cone wrote:
>
> >
> > Karl Hungus wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
> >>news > >>
> >>>degeneRat wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>What's your point?
> >>>>
> >>>>>The point is that your comparison is extremely offensive to the
> >>>>>descendants of slaves.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, that is a false generalization.
> >>>
> >>>No, it's the widely held view in the black community. You can find
> >>>*individuals* who deviate from that view, but the *MAINSTREAM* BLACK
> >>>view is that such comparisons are specious AND highly offensive
> >>
> >>Well said. Though black America has been lulled and conditioned to vote for
> >>liberal Democrats, they remain, as a group, largely socially conservative.
> >>
> >>Acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle isn't exactly widespread in the black
> >>community.
> >
> >
> > One sure way to know if man is in doubt about his sexual preference is by how
> > much he fears those that practice what he is secretly thinking about.
>
> If he's secretly thinking about it, you don't know it,
> and therefore you don't know if he fears it or not.
> This notion, that someone who expresses loathing of
> queers is himself afraid that he might be queer, is a
> canard. Does a black who hates whites have a secret
> fear that he's going to start wearing polyester bowling
> shirts and join the Rotary Club? You ****ing moron.
>
> > The attacking of homosexuals is nothing more than an attack on the taboo
> > desires lurking in the attacker.
>
> Bullshit. Ha ha ha! You wouldn't have a ****ing clue
> how to begin proving that. You've merely shown that
> you're an ignorant **** who gullibly subscribes to
> pop/junk psychology.
>
> [...]
>
> Thus we see the pseudo-intellectual raving of a moronic
> fat ****.

Once again we see how the mind of a repressed potential homosexual lashes out in
rage at the possibility that his deep dark secret is being exposed. What if others
discover what his uncle did to him the barn when he was ten years old? No one came
to his rescue that day, they just thought the pigs were fighting over scraps! Now
he can't escape the conflict of this early trauma. Is he a dirty man just because
his uncle baptized him in the ways of his fore fathers?

Mr Ball, you are more than happy to be an ignorant asshole here so try not wine and
cry like a barn yard pig when others stick your shit right back in your mouth you
cry baby pussy!

Bahg Phlem wrote:

>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>
>>Gangus Cone wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Karl Hungus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
>>>>news >>>>
>>>>
>>>>>degeneRat wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What's your point?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The point is that your comparison is extremely offensive to the
>>>>>>>descendants of slaves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, that is a false generalization.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it's the widely held view in the black community. You can find
>>>>>*individuals* who deviate from that view, but the *MAINSTREAM* BLACK
>>>>>view is that such comparisons are specious AND highly offensive
>>>>
>>>>Well said. Though black America has been lulled and conditioned to vote for
>>>>liberal Democrats, they remain, as a group, largely socially conservative.
>>>>
>>>>Acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle isn't exactly widespread in the black
>>>>community.
>>>
>>>
>>>One sure way to know if man is in doubt about his sexual preference is by how
>>>much he fears those that practice what he is secretly thinking about.
>>
>>If he's secretly thinking about it, you don't know it,
>>and therefore you don't know if he fears it or not.
>>This notion, that someone who expresses loathing of
>>queers is himself afraid that he might be queer, is a
>>canard. Does a black who hates whites have a secret
>>fear that he's going to start wearing polyester bowling
>>shirts and join the Rotary Club? You ****ing moron.
>>
>>
>>>The attacking of homosexuals is nothing more than an attack on the taboo
>>>desires lurking in the attacker.
>>
>>Bullshit. Ha ha ha! You wouldn't have a ****ing clue
>>how to begin proving that. You've merely shown that
>>you're an ignorant **** who gullibly subscribes to
>>pop/junk psychology.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>Thus we see the pseudo-intellectual raving of a moronic
>>fat ****.
>
>
> Once again we see how the mind of a repressed potential homosexual

False.

"Gangus Cone" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Well said. Though black America has been lulled and conditioned to vote
for
> > liberal Democrats, they remain, as a group, largely socially
conservative.
> >
> > Acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle isn't exactly widespread in the
black
> > community.
>
> One sure way to know if man is in doubt about his sexual preference is by
how
> much he fears those that practice what he is secretly thinking about. The
> attacking of homosexuals is nothing more than an attack on the taboo
desires
> lurking in the attacker.
>
> A clear clue is the phrase "lifestyle" or "chosen lifestyle" As a hetro
sexual
> man I have no ability to be homosexual. I know I could not choose to have
sex
> with a man simply because I am not ***.
>
> But you, you are saying it is choice which means in your mind it is an
option,
> thus the clear indicator that you have bisexual potential. You fear your
sexual
> potential and it shows!

Clairvoyant, are we? Are you simply making a wild and unsupportable
inference based on my use of a single word? I'm guessing the latter (and
being that I'm not a clairvoyant, it's just that: a guess).



> Thus we see the simplistic and ignorant mind of a cultural decendent of
the KKK!

You're today's winner:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
.net...
> > It's just as much a testament to the craftiness of the liberal Democrats
> > that they're able to sufficiently pander to groups that are otherwise
> > diametrically opposed to a left-wing agenda.
>
> They aren't diametrically opposed; what's wrong with
> you? They want the goodies the Democrats hand out, and
> like human beings of any color in any place, they'll
> whore themselves for goodies. They're no different
> from anyone else. That the goodies come at the price
> of their dignity, and turn them as individuals into
> lifelong parasites, hardly matters.


That's my point, Jonathan: they want the goodies, they vote into power the
people who promise the goodies, then they get the goodies. Meanwhile, they
tend to remain, as a group, largely socially conservative; i.e., they tend
to be devoutly religious, and they tend to have disdain for such left-wing
virtues as abortion on demand and homosexuality. For a more timely example,
simply look at how many blacks are supporting school vouchers--something
vehemently opposed by the Left.

Of course, as we all can see, having the goodies dangled in front of one's
face is all too often sufficient enticement to lay one's virtues aside in
return for the material gain.

The dichotomy is glaringly obvious.