Rate Thread
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NOM's plot to divide gays from blacks and hispanics
#11

[Image: tumblr_n60lwfr0nK1tvauwuo2_250.gif]
Reply

#12
TPTB have employed this practice all along. Once upon a time...people like these guys pitted the house vs the field slaves...the light skinned versus the dark skinned...

These fucking pricks are a special kind of hell on earth....
Reply

#13
Virge Wrote:That buzz is really a roar. There's a guy named Scott Lively out of Massachusetts (I love spelling that out right the first time) who's associated with the American Family Association (declared a hate group by US Army and SPLC) who's going on trial soon for crimes against humanity for exporting his version of gay hate to Uganda.

The turn in Russia against gays was the product of Putin consulting with a guy from NOM ( Forgot his name)

Oh. and Scott Lively has a book in the 6th printing called "The Pink Swastika" that teaches gays worked with Hitler and were responsible for lots of the Nazi crimes.

I'm so freakin relieved I read that, I saw a clip when Lively first visited Uganda and watched the disaster gain momentum. sadly the brain washed people who read his book will most likely be to far gone to hear the truth. it sucks to be black and gay especially here in the bible belt where you get to see the hate up close and personal.
[Image: tumblr_n60lwfr0nK1tvauwuo2_250.gif]
Reply

#14
Iceblink Wrote:.....gay marriage at the Supreme Court will lead to the government taking your guns away, and that our society will not allow gay marriage to stand because it is something as awful as segregation and slavery.

Ask me why I have guns. It's not the NWO I'm worried about. It's not the Supreme Court. I fought religious fundamentalists overseas and I'll do it at home if they leave no other options.

Iceblink Wrote:Ben Carson ............ "you're taking my words out of context."

Bullshit. He spoke directly from his heart. If you've seen the video of him saying it you know it. He had a smart ass twinkle in his eye like he was proud of himself.
Reply

#15
Virge Wrote:Bullshit. He spoke directly from his heart. If you've seen the video of him saying it you know it. He had a smart ass twinkle in his eye like he was proud of himself.

Ben Carson will never have a chance to say it. He will not be the nominee. He will early on be one of those candidates that the Republicans love, but when they realize they can't win with him they will abandoned him for someone else. The problem is in choosing a more moderate candidate they will have already damaged him by having to run to the religious right in the primaries and then having to try and back off from what he said during the general election. Whether they choose a far right candidate or a moderate candidate their problem is still the far right. They can't figure out that they cannot run a presidential election year the way they run a midterm election when few people show up to vote. They haven't figured out why they have received fewer votes in all but one election since 1992. It is about all the people they piss off and pissing people off is a great motivator to get people to vote.
Reply

#16
Iceblink Wrote:Ben Carson will never have a chance to say it. He will not be the nominee. He will early on be one of those candidates that the Republicans love, but when they realize they can't win with him they will abandoned him for someone else. The problem is in choosing a more moderate candidate they will have already damaged him by having to run to the religious right in the primaries and then having to try and back off from what he said during the general election. Whether they choose a far right candidate or a moderate candidate their problem is still the far right. They can't figure out that they cannot run a presidential election year the way they run a midterm election when few people show up to vote. They haven't figured out why they have received fewer votes in all but one election since 1992. It is about all the people they piss off and pissing people off is a great motivator to get people to vote.

Unfortunately..they DID figure out how to redistrict ...and with the Supreme Court allowing unlimited $$$$...they also can buy alot of deception with that money. When your strategy is to lie and throw shit against the wall...some of it sticks...just enough to get enough people to vote against their own interests.
Reply

#17
East Wrote:Unfortunately..they DID figure out how to redistrict ...and with the Supreme Court allowing unlimited $$$$...they also can buy alot of deception with that money. When your strategy is to lie and throw shit against the wall...some of it sticks...just enough to get enough people to vote against their own interests.

Redistricting is only buying time and it will probably benefit for many elections yet, but it is going to keep becoming more and more difficult as the population changes. African Americans and Hispanics are increasing their populations, especially in the south where Republicans are strong. The Hispanic population is increasing at a huge rate in Texas and Arizona and it is going to change those states. In states like Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin minorities continue to move from the cities into suburbs and more rural areas. They can;t keep redistricting unless they are going to start having the districts not connected. Also, presidential and Senate races are not decided by districts. Even in the midterm elections, the changing population is going to eventually catch up with them unless they can start appealing to all the people they turn off.
Reply

#18
Iceblink Wrote:Ben Carson will never have a chance to say it. He will not be the nominee. He will early on be one of those candidates that the Republicans love, but when they realize they can't win with him they will abandoned him for someone else.

I caught parts of the last Conservative Political Action Convention when it happened a few weeks ago. I saw one candidate break ranks to say he fully supports civil unions for gays. Naturally I thought he committed suicide by doing that. Nope. He came out on top in the straw poll. Rand Paul.

A friend sent me this about how CPAC is has started drastically changing. There's more info about it if you look past the mountains of crap put out by people who only live to smear anyone more conservative than Rahm Emmanuel.




East Wrote:Unfortunately..they DID figure out how to redistrict ...and with the Supreme Court allowing unlimited $$$$...they also can buy alot of deception with that money. When your strategy is to lie and throw shit against the wall...some of it sticks...just enough to get enough people to vote against their own interests.

I remember this from HS history. Gov Gerry of Massachusetts made up an odd voting district in 1812. A cartoon in a paper labeled the district a Gerrymander (governor's name + salamander) because of the shape of the new district. Gerry was in the Democratic-Republicans that became the Republican party of Lincoln.

It became the anti-slavery Republican party in the 1850s. They also supported BIG Federal government, HIGHER taxes, LESS power for states. But that's misleading. At that time half the states were almost exclusively controlled by Democrats who justified their slavery behind "states rights".... and the up until that point in time the federal government's budget was intentionally kept so low (by Democrats) to prevent it from becoming powerful enough to do anything about slavery. That explains them standing for higher taxes, a bigger federal government and less power for states.

In the early 1900s Socialism came over to the USA. By the election of 1912 some of its ideas had made their ways into the Republican, Democratic and Bull Moose parties who were all running presidential candidates.

Making this short... up until the 1930s the definition of the Republican party about the stayed the same as in Lincoln's time. By the 1950s it had been changed in dictionaries, almost to its opposite once Progressives in the Democratic party began instituting socialist programs and legislation. Republicans began to fight against everything socialism stands for>>> Centralized control, HUGE government, MORE regulation, MORE and MORE taxes. By the 1950s the definitions were in all the dictionaries.

What's this got to do with redistricting?
While the party that became Republicans really did invent it. Redistricting (Gerrymandering) was made an obscene injustice until the the years after the Civil War Reconstruction when Democrats created districts specifically to keep black REPUBLICAN voters as inconsequential minorities of negroes with no voting power. Then came the Democratic party's "calculate the number of peanuts in this jar" tests to qualify for voting for blacks. All the Jim Crow Laws came out of the Democratic Party's leadership.

Since then some of the things done by Democratic gerrymandering have gone past believable. Here's Congressional district #4 from Chicago. I won't give you the representative's name. Google the district and find out his name. Your first thought will be, "oh, that doesn't surprise me."

[Image: Illinois_US_Congressional_District_4_%28...013%29.tif]
Reply

#19
Rand Paul support civil unions for same sex couples, not marriage and he does support eliminating the institution of marriage for straight couples and just calling it civil unions for everyone. He said marriage for gay couples offends him. He supports one thing for same-sex couples and something else for opposite sex couples. If you are going to keep marriage as a government institution because of some people's religious beliefs, it needs to be there for everyone because there are Christian gays, why I will never understand, but there are quite a few of them.

Quote:Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, said he is offended by the use of marriage to describe same-sex unions in an interview on Fox News. The Republican said he prefers “traditional” marriage between a man and a woman.

“Ultimately, we could have fixed this a long time ago if we just allowed contracts between adults. We didn’t have to call it marriage, which offends myself and a lot of people," Paul said in the Friday interview. “I think having competing contracts that would give them equivalency before the law would have solved a lot of these problems, and it may be where we’re still headed."

http://www.ibtimes.com/rand-paul-same-se...eo-1840048

Rand Paul's views are not good enough on this issue. Separate but equal is not good enough, and if one version is giving preference to a certain religious view, that is not equal. He is also wrong when he says that is where we are headed. We are not heading to "competing contracts." Unless they somehow manage to get a constitutional amendment, which is nearly impossible, it is over if SCOTUS rules for marriage equality.
Reply

#20
Virge..history aside (and acknowledged)....present day...I will be blunt. I know Dems do the same thing.....my own district got lumped in with Lodi and Pleasanton for years....I live in Silicon Valley and they sliced a sliver of us to be part of the Lodi district which is 2 hours north because we are overwhelmingly Democrat/Liberal and they needed us to elect Jerry McNerney and offset the rural conservative Lodi voters.......

Now...we are back with the rest of the Bay Area and my vote goes to the local rep...and we have rejoined the rest of our fellow Silicon Valley residents in voting for our local rep...Zoe Lofgren...

I would be lying if I didn't say it doesn't bother me much when the Dems do it...because I like the outcome better than when the Republicans are doing the same. I would love to go for the principled response...but it is all too far gone now to stick to principles. Most of the time I just want California to secede.

The Republicans are not an option for me. They say they want less government...except they want to legislate who you love...what you do with your own body...they represent the religious right....they want to blur the lines between church and state...they don't believe in Global Warming....have little concern for the environment if it cuts into profit...overwhelmingly would vote to turn back the clock on equality under the law...

So...of course I am happy when another Dem gets in....and I am not even a Dem...they are too conservative for me. I have to plug my nose most of the time and cast my vote against a candidate rather than for one...and I have accepted this as something I will probably do til I die.
Reply



Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Why Trump Shouldn't Worry Gays kindy64 6 1,137 11-15-2016, 10:50 PM
Last Post: matty7
  Mosque for gays to open in France myapple 2 1,431 11-21-2012, 08:57 PM
Last Post: princealbertofb
  Gringrich says gays better vote for Obama pellaz 21 2,077 01-04-2012, 07:01 PM
Last Post: pellaz

Forum Jump:


Recently Browsing
1 Guest(s)

© 2002-2024 GaySpeak.com