Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn Karen)
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn Karen)
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... <snip> There you go again - Can't leave it alone, Is this on topic????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn Karen)
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn Karen)
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> |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn Karen)
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn Karen)
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> |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn Karen)
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn Karen)
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn Karen)
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn Karen)
"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? |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn Karen)
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn Karen)
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! |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn Karen)
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn Karen)
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? > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn Karen)
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 ****. |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn Karen)
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn 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! |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn Karen)
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn Karen)
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Who said this... (attn Karen)
"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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
karen... | Vegan | |||
Karen's "foster son" | Vegan | |||
Another of Karen's inconsistencies... | Vegan |