# Ann Coulter's Oscar Predictions



## Adam's Apple (Mar 2, 2006)

Pretty good guesses, I would think, without having seen any of the movies.  

SPEAKING TRUTH TO DEAD HORSES: MY OSCAR PREDICTIONS
By Ann Coulter
March 1, 2006

This is my first annual Oscar predictions column, for which I am uniquely qualified by not having seen a single one of the movies nominated in any category. 

I shall grant my awards based on the same criteria Hollywood studio executives now use to green-light movies: political correctness. Also, judging by most of the nominees this year, the awards committee prefers movies that are wildly unpopular with audiences. 

The box office numbers for this year's favorite, "Brokeback Mountain," are more jealously guarded than the nuclear codes in the president's black box. Hollywood liberals want the government to release everything we know about al-Zarqawi, but refuse to release the number of people who have seen "Brokeback Mountain." 

I shall summarize the plots of the five movies nominated for best picture below: 

 "Brokeback Mountain" (gay) 
 "Capote" (death penalty with bonus gay lead) 
 "Crash" (racism) 
 "Good Night, and Good Luck" (McCarthyism) 
 "Munich" (Jew athletes at Munich had it coming) 

Everyone says it's going to be "Crash," but I think "Crash" is too popular with filmgoers. Moreover, Hollywood feels it has done enough for the blacks. Hollywood can never do enough for the gays. Gays in the military, gays in the Texas Rangers, gays on the range. It's like a brokeback record! As Pat Buchanan said, homosexuality has gone from "the love that dare not speak its name" to "the love that won't shut up." 

The best director award will go to ... Ang Lee, director of "Brokeback Mountain." (For analysis, see above.) Also, this is gays directed by an Asian, which should satisfy the gaysians. Hands down: Ang Lee. 

The nominees for best actor in a leading role are: 

 Philip Seymour Hoffman, "Capote" 
 Terrence Howard, "Hustle & Flow" 
 Heath Ledger, "Brokeback Mountain" 
 Joaquin Phoenix, "Walk the Line" 
 David Strathairn, "Good Night, and Good Luck" 

The winner in this category will be ... Philip Seymour Hoffman. The awards committee can't give everything to "Brokeback Mountain," and at least Truman Capote was gay (though not a cowboy). I personally would have chosen the lion in the Narnia movie, but he wasn't even nominated. 

The nominees for best actress in a leading role are: 

 Judi Dench, "Mrs. Henderson Presents" 
 Felicity Huffman, "Transamerica" 
 Keira Knightley, "Pride & Prejudice" 
 Charlize Theron, "North Country" 
 Reese Witherspoon, "Walk the Line" 

I gather Reese Witherspoon is very good in "Walk the Line," but that's irrelevant  this is the Oscars! Felicity Huffman plays a pre-op transsexual in "Transamerica." That strikes a chord in Hollywood. It's not exactly gay, but close enough! I say Huffman wins. 

For best actress in a supporting role, Rachel Weisz ought to win for "The Constant Gardener" because it's about how drug companies are evil, which to me is the essence of quality acting. Plus, English accent equals good acting. But Michelle Williams ("Brokeback Mountain") is engaged to Heath Ledger, who played a gay guy in "Brokeback Mountain." So I pick Weisz, with Williams as the dark-horse favorite. 

The best original screenplay will be "Good Night, and Good Luck" as Hollywood's final tribute to the old Stalinists (Hollywood's version of "The Greatest Generation"). George Clooney has been mau-mauing the awards committee by going around boasting that conservatives have called him a "traitor," although I believe the precise term was "airhead." 

Finally, my favorite category: best foreign language film. The nominees are: 

 "Don't Tell" (Italy) 
 "Joyeux Noel" (France) 
 "Paradise Now" (Palestine) 
 "Sophie Scholl" (Germany) 
 "Tsotsi" (South Africa) 

After consulting with the Yale admissions committee, the awards committee will give the Oscar to ... "Paradise Now," a heartwarming story about Palestinian suicide bombers. How good is it? Al-Jazeera gave it 4 1/2 pipe bombs. It's Air Syria's featured in-flight movie this month  go figure! I don't want to spoil the ending for you, but let's just say there won't be a sequel. 

Normally, the smart money is on the Holocaust movie, so any other year, "Sophie Scholl" would have been the clear favorite. Unfortunately for the makers of "Sophie Scholl," their Holocaust movie came out the same year as a pro-terrorist movie, so they lose. 

As a final prediction, for the second year, there will be no mention of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was brutally murdered by an angry Muslim a little over a year ago on the streets of Amsterdam. (Now that's blacklisted!) I also predict this will be the lowest-rated Oscars ever. Remember to turn off your cell phones, no talking ... or sleeping. 

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi


----------



## Abbey Normal (Mar 2, 2006)

Ann nailed it.


----------



## Dan (Mar 2, 2006)

Man, Conservatives are really becoming the new "the whole world is against us" paranoids, huh? :scratch: 

Why didn't everyone protest Philadelphia when it came out? I don't understand why everyone's taking Brokeback Mtn. so personally, as though this R-rated, VERY slow (i.e. uninteresting to kids) movie has been made simply as an F-you to America or something. I guess I'm probably a little late on the whole Brokeback debate, but it's all getting kind of irritating.

That, plus Ann Coulter is 1000X more annoying than Michael Moore and Al Franken combined could ever want to be.


----------



## KarlMarx (Mar 2, 2006)

Dan said:
			
		

> Man, Conservatives are really becoming the new "the whole world is against us" paranoids, huh? :scratch:
> 
> Why didn't everyone protest Philadelphia when it came out? I don't understand why everyone's taking Brokeback Mtn. so personally, as though this R-rated, VERY slow (i.e. uninteresting to kids) movie has been made simply as an F-you to America or something. I guess I'm probably a little late on the whole Brokeback debate, but it's all getting kind of irritating.
> 
> That, plus Ann Coulter is 1000X more annoying than Michael Moore and Al Franken combined could ever want to be.



Ann Coulter could argue circles around Misters Moore and Franken. What makes her so annoying to some is that she dares speak the truth.

Anyway, it's like this... Hollywood does bend over backwards, forwards and every which way for gays. It's no wonder that Hollywood is seeing a decline in movie attendance.... all I have to say is "keep it up tinseltown, eventually you live to regret it..."


----------



## manu1959 (Mar 2, 2006)

what a great line..........

"Paradise Now," a heartwarming story about Palestinian suicide bombers. How good is it? Al-Jazeera gave it 4 1/2 pipe bombs.


----------



## Adam's Apple (Mar 3, 2006)

If you ever get a chance to go hear Ann Coulter speak in person, DO IT.  You will be thoroughly entertained, I guarantee it.  She really takes her hecklers to the cleaners.  Personal experience has been an excellent teacher for Ann, and her detractors have only made it possible for her to beat them at their own game.


----------



## KarlMarx (Mar 3, 2006)

Adam's Apple said:
			
		

> If you ever get a chance to go hear Ann Coulter speak in person, DO IT.  You will be thoroughly entertained, I guarantee it.  She really takes her hecklers to the cleaners.  Personal experience has been an excellent teacher for Ann, and her detractors have only made it possible for her to beat them at their own game.


Yes, I can just see her speaking at Binghamton University (aka Bolshevik U)... I'll have to be sure to wear something that launders well ....


----------



## KarlMarx (Mar 3, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> what a great line..........
> 
> "Paradise Now," a heartwarming story about Palestinian suicide bombers. How good is it? Al-Jazeera gave it 4 1/2 pipe bombs.


better line....

_homosexuality has gone from "the love that dare not speak its name" to "the love that won't shut up." _


----------



## Adam's Apple (Mar 3, 2006)

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> Yes, I can just see her speaking at Binghamton University (aka Bolshevik U)... I'll have to be sure to wear something that launders well ....



Naw, too much security around at her events for things to get out of hand.  (Ann even brings along her own body guards.  Like I said, this lady learns from her life experiences.  )


----------



## Adam's Apple (Mar 3, 2006)

And speaking of nailing it about Hollywood in general......

*And Hollywood Wonders Why They're Failing*
By Tammy Bruce
December 17, 2005

Why, oh why, has Hollywood seen its worst boxoffice receipts in 15 years? The Golden Globe nominees for 2005 Best Picture say it all. Thought to be the precursor for the Oscar, here's what Hollywood thinks is their best of the year, and consequently what they think our culture should look like: 

1) A love story between two gay sheepherders (erroneously labeled 'cowboys' by the media, I suppose because they wear hats).*

2) A film portraying as noble the efforts of journalists to demonize and "take down" a US Senator whose anti-communist policies they did not like.*

3) A film about, as one movie-going reviewer noted, "...the horrors of big business and the way they are willing to experiment on the poor to achieve their goals..."*

4) The demonization of the average mid-western American man as someone who is no hero, but a cold-blooded killer at heart.*

5) And lastly, a Woody Allen film about infidelity. Well, he should know.*

[* 1) Brokeback Mountain, 2) Goodnight and Good Luck, 3) The Constant Gardener, 4) A History of Violence, 5) Match Point]

Hollywood honchos continue to wring their hands over why you've stopped going to the movies. They blame ticket prices and DVD availability. They had better start considering the fact that filmmakers are so disconnected, so nihilistic, that the hopelessness and hostility they feel toward the world now permeates their work. Americans will no longer go see movies which are nothing more than the manifestation of the backwash of malignant narcissists. We're also sick and tired of listening to actors lecture us about how awful the US is, and more recently, why a cold-blooded mass murdering gang founder should have been given clemency. Enough is enough.

Not only will we not go see films which insult us, we refuse to support an existential worldview. We happen to think life does matters, that decency is a good thing, and that people are inherently good, not bad. We also have stopped believing the lie that Americans are bad people. We looked away for 4 decades as that lie was spread, but that time is over. 

So you can take your gay sheepherder, noble communist supporting reporters, big-business is evil, Americans are hopelessly and inherently corrupt and violent and unfaithful movies and go to Cannes where at least the Parisian set will love you. But that won't exactly pay the bills, will it? 

It used to be whichever movie won the top awards guaranteed boffo box office. Not any longer. The Golden Globe (the 'foreign' press contingent) and the Oscar people are going to find that their nights of orgiastic self-congratulation won't get them much, if anything, any more. 

In the meantime, I'll be adding some of the old classics to my Netflix queue.


http://tammybruce.com


----------



## KarlMarx (Mar 3, 2006)

Adam's Apple said:
			
		

> Naw, too much security around at her events for things to get out of hand.  (Ann even brings along her own body guards.  Like I said, this lady learns from her life experiences.  )


You have to hand it to those leftists, so broad minded, so tolerant. 

What the f--- are they afraid of? Ann Coulter is, in her own words, "a 90 lb weakling"! What could she possibily say that could upset them so? Oh yes, I forgot, leftists and reality, like oil and water, do not mix

If you didn't know better, you might think she was speaking to an Al Queda gathering at Gitmo or at a prison with violent convicts rather than to American college students!

What ever happened to debate and intellectual discussion on our campuses?

Keep it up lefties, and we'll have a police state before you know it!


----------



## KarlMarx (Mar 3, 2006)

Adam's Apple said:
			
		

> And speaking of nailing it about Hollywood in general......
> 
> *And Hollywood Wonders Why They're Failing*
> By Tammy Bruce
> ...



BTW... let the record state that Tammy Bruce is a lesbian and even she finds fault with the current state of affairs in Hollywood... perhaps she's homophobic... but I doubt it. At any rate, I have to admire her, it must be tough being gay and speaking out against the gay elite at the same time. She must feel the pariah at times!


----------



## Nienna (Mar 3, 2006)

I wish I had her wit and HALF her guts. I love Ann Coulter! (In a NON-gay way!  )


----------



## Hobbit (Mar 3, 2006)

mom4 said:
			
		

> I wish I had her wit and HALF her guts. I love Ann Coulter! (In a NON-gay way!  )



So do I.  She's hot.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Mar 3, 2006)

I saw coverage of Tammy Bruce speaking. She is a conservative lesbian, who is very smart and an excellent speaker. The college audience heckled her too, and called her the same name they give to all conservatives- Fascist. When she asked the person to define Fascism, they were unable to. She absolutely nailed them, in a gracious way. I was very impressed. Liberals really get their hate on when someone who they think should be liberal, isn't.


----------



## Jimmyeatworld (Mar 3, 2006)

Dan said:
			
		

> Man, Conservatives are really becoming the new "the whole world is against us" paranoids, huh? :scratch:
> 
> Why didn't everyone protest Philadelphia when it came out? I don't understand why everyone's taking Brokeback Mtn. so personally, as though this R-rated, VERY slow (i.e. uninteresting to kids) movie has been made simply as an F-you to America or something. I guess I'm probably a little late on the whole Brokeback debate, but it's all getting kind of irritating.
> 
> That, plus Ann Coulter is 1000X more annoying than Michael Moore and Al Franken combined could ever want to be.



Philadelphia was a totally different movie. Strip everything down, and Philadelphia was about discrimination, a highly qualified lawyer that was screwed over by the company he worked for. Strip down Brokeback Mountain, and it's about two gay guys being gay.

I disagree with you so much on the Ann Coulter comment, I don't even know what to say.


----------



## Adam's Apple (Mar 4, 2006)

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> ... it must be tough being gay and speaking out against the gay elite at the same time. She must feel the pariah at times!



Yes, that was about as damning a critique on the status of Hollywood as a person could give.


----------



## Dan (Mar 4, 2006)

> Philadelphia was a totally different movie. Strip everything down, and Philadelphia was about discrimination, a highly qualified lawyer that was screwed over by the company he worked for. Strip down Brokeback Mountain, and it's about two gay guys being gay.



Well, not really. I'm just going by the story here, I haven't seen the movie, but in the story, the wives' struggles (knowing their husbands are gay) are just as important to the story as the main characters' inability to accept what they are.

And, SPOILERS, but there's a real lesson on bigotry, too. The one guy's father tells him from an early age how evil being gay is, and throughout the story you think that's going to come back, but instead, at the end, the other guy, who never faced any sort of bigotry at all, is beaten to death outside of a bar.

I really think the issue is that the men in Brokeback are portrayed as middle-class, rough, everymen, rather than NYC elite or whatever. I think it hits a little too close to home for some people, which isn't to say those people are gay themselves, but they take it very personal when people like them are portrayed as being gay.



> I disagree with you so much on the Ann Coulter comment, I don't even know what to say.



Fair enough. All those political pundit types irritate me, the only thing any of them are concerned with is getting their name in the news as much as possible and making as much money as possible.


----------



## Jimmyeatworld (Mar 4, 2006)

Dan said:
			
		

> Well, not really. I'm just going by the story here, I haven't seen the movie, but in the story, the wives' struggles (knowing their husbands are gay) are just as important to the story as the main characters' inability to accept what they are.



That's kind of my point. Granted, I didn't put it very well.

Take the gay story line out of Philadelphia, and you still have a movie. Say the main charecter got AIDS through a blood transfusion. There are certain parts that would have to be changed or re-written, but you could still have essentially the same movie. Take the gay story line out of Brokeback Mountain, and it changes the entire movie. Let's take Heath Ledger's role and give it to Heather Graham. Again, there are parts that change and re-writes, but what you end up with is far from the "if only the world would understand" story they are trying to push.

I also think the way the movie is advertised is misleading. If you didn't know what the movie was about, it comes off as something with a regular modern western storyline. If they are going to make a movie like that and present it the way they are, they should promote it more honestly.





			
				Dan said:
			
		

> Fair enough. All those political pundit types irritate me, the only thing any of them are concerned with is getting their name in the news as much as possible and making as much money as possible.



Yeah, don't get the wrong idea, I have my problems with Coulter as well, but I could spend a month straight listening to her before I could spend 10 minutes with Moore or Franken. I may not agree with Ann on everything, but at least I can see her reasoning on most things.


----------



## Kagom (Mar 4, 2006)

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> Ann Coulter could argue circles around Misters Moore and Franken. What makes her so annoying to some is that she dares speak the truth.
> 
> Anyway, it's like this... Hollywood does bend over backwards, forwards and every which way for gays. It's no wonder that Hollywood is seeing a decline in movie attendance.... all I have to say is "keep it up tinseltown, eventually you live to regret it..."


No, no she couldn't.  She could only spew counter bullshit to collide with their own bullshit.  I hate all three of them.  They're nothing but airheaded little shit-for-brains who think they know everything.  I can't say anything positive about any of them.

While she probably did pick the winners, her reasoning is slightly fucked up. 

McCarthy was a psychotic lunatic.  The reason these people were taking him down in the first place was not because of his policies, but because he was not only abusing his power and ruining people's lives, but he would've progressively been the next Hitler with communists (I know it's an extreme exaggeration, but you do get my point.  I can't think of anything better off the top of my head). Look at history and you'll even see that.  That's truly my biggest qualm with her bullshit in her oscar predictions.

I haven't seen The Constant Gardener to make any commentary on it.

Brokeback is about BISEXUAL sheepherders.  I just want to point that out.  I'm not gonna say anything more about it other than I don't think it was oscar worthy, but I did like it.  Walk the Line kicked Brokeback's ass.

History of Violence and Match Point I'm not even touching.  She probably actually *gasp* got those right.


----------



## dmp (Mar 4, 2006)

Kagom said:
			
		

> Brokeback is about BISEXUAL sheepherders.  I just want to point that out.



Uh, dude...brother...

If one guy has sex with another guy, they are 'gay'...'homosexual'.  People who don't have have sex with ther other-same of their gender aren't 'gay/homosexual'.   Those who only have sex with other-different gender are 'NOT gay/heterosexyal'

Easy.


----------



## Kagom (Mar 4, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Uh, dude...brother...
> 
> If one guy has sex with another guy, they are 'gay'...'homosexual'.  People who don't have have sex with ther other-same of their gender aren't 'gay/homosexual'.   Those who only have sex with other-different gender are 'NOT gay/heterosexyal'
> 
> Easy.


Uhm, they have sex with each other and females in this movie.  Therefore, they are bisexual because they are actually attracted to both sexes.


----------



## dmp (Mar 4, 2006)

Kagom said:
			
		

> Uhm, they have sex with each other and females in this movie.  Therefore, they are bisexual because they are actually attracted to both sexes.




Right - but they are HOMOSEXUAL because they have sex with others of the same gender.  Really shouldn't be that hard for you to understand bro.  Homosexual IS as homosexual does.  Homosexuality is behaviour-based.


----------



## Kagom (Mar 4, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Right - but they are HOMOSEXUAL because they have sex with others of the same gender.  Really shouldn't be that hard for you to understand bro.  Homosexual IS as homosexual does.  Homosexuality is behaviour-based.


I don't see it the way you do.  I see them as bisexual, not exclusively homosexual or heterosexual.


----------



## dmp (Mar 4, 2006)

Kagom said:
			
		

> I don't see it the way you do.  I see them as bisexual, not exclusively homosexual or heterosexual.




seriously, whatever makes you feel better.  Men who have sex with other men are NOT more normal simply because they like having sex with women on occasion..


----------



## Kagom (Mar 5, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> seriously, whatever makes you feel better.  Men who have sex with other men are NOT more normal simply because they like having sex with women on occasion..


I'm not saying they're more normal.  I'm saying they aren't homosexual or heterosexual, they're bisexual which is a mix of both worlds.  They have a sexual preference for both genders.  Does that make sense to you or are you too stubborn and stuck in your ways to actually notice this?

*Definition of Bisexual*

Bisexual: An individual who engages in both heterosexual and homosexual sexual relations. 

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10794

*Definitions 
bisexual
adj *

1. Sexually attracted to both males and females. Often (colloq) shortened to bi. 

http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=3&Keyword=Bisexual&goquery=Find+it!&Language=ENG

Bisexual can also mean hermaphrodite, but this is not the case of the way I'm using the word.


----------



## archangel (Mar 5, 2006)

Kagom said:
			
		

> I'm not saying they're more normal.  I'm saying they aren't homosexual or heterosexual, they're bisexual which is a mix of both worlds.  They have a sexual preference for both genders.  Does that make sense to you or are you too stubborn and stuck in your ways to actually notice this?
> 
> *Definition of Bisexual*
> 
> ...




hermaphrodite....is the only case that can be excused...a biological disaster...the only true bi-sexual...the rest are just sexual fetishes...get over it already...this subject has been beaten to death! Life has more important issues than who sleeps with who and why!


----------



## dmp (Mar 5, 2006)

Kagom said:
			
		

> I'm not saying they're more normal.  I'm saying they aren't homosexual or heterosexual, they're bisexual which is a mix of both worlds.  They have a sexual preference for both genders.  Does that make sense to you or are you too stubborn and stuck in your ways to actually notice this?
> 
> *Definition of Bisexual*
> 
> ...



You are wrong.    See, our sexuality isn't defined by who we are attracted to, but what we do about it.  A child molester is NOT a child molester until he/she acts on their desires.  A Murderer isn't a murderer until they kill.  A homosexual is a homosexual when they have sex with members of their gender.  

You can show all the definitions you like, I'm still absolutely correct.


----------



## Dan (Mar 5, 2006)

> You are wrong. See, our sexuality isn't defined by who we are attracted to, but what we do about it. A child molester is NOT a child molester until he/she acts on their desires. A Murderer isn't a murderer until they kill. A homosexual is a homosexual when they have sex with members of their gender.



There's no right or wrong answer to this, but as far as I'm concerned, someone who thinks about or seriously talks about molesting kids is just as much a piece of garbage as a molestor, if you ask me.


----------



## Annie (Mar 5, 2006)

Dan said:
			
		

> There's no right or wrong answer to this, but as far as I'm concerned, someone who thinks about or seriously talks about molesting kids is just as much a piece of garbage as a molestor, if you ask me.


Not to the 'imaginary child' vs. a real one.


----------



## Kagom (Mar 5, 2006)

archangel said:
			
		

> hermaphrodite....is the only case that can be excused...a biological disaster...the only true bi-sexual...the rest are just sexual fetishes...get over it already...this subject has been beaten to death! Life has more important issues than who sleeps with who and why!


You constantly say "fetish fetish!" and you have no scientific backing of any sort or do you really have the backing of a religious sort.  I dont' view heterosexuality as a fetish and I don't view bisexuality as a fetish.

Yes, this subject has been beaten to death numerous times and it only gets old when someone decides to fight on it.


----------



## Kagom (Mar 5, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> You are wrong.    See, our sexuality isn't defined by who we are attracted to, but what we do about it.  A child molester is NOT a child molester until he/she acts on their desires.  A Murderer isn't a murderer until they kill.  A homosexual is a homosexual when they have sex with members of their gender.
> 
> You can show all the definitions you like, I'm still absolutely correct.


You're not absolutely correct just because you say you are.  I'm going to refer back to Pale Rider as having said "Just because you claim something is true does not make it true."

Sexuality can be defined at times by who we are attracted to.  You can't count on someone who has homosexual thoughts to have heterosexual sex (most of the time).

But going by your logic, does that mean a person is heterosexual until they have sex?  Or is a person asexual until they have had sex with some gender?


----------



## archangel (Mar 5, 2006)

Kagom said:
			
		

> You constantly say "fetish fetish!" and you have no scientific backing of any sort or do you really have the backing of a religious sort.  I dont' view heterosexuality as a fetish and I don't view bisexuality as a fetish.
> 
> Yes, this subject has been beaten to death numerous times and it only gets old when someone decides to fight on it.




Did you actually read what you just wrote?

Fetish...per the Meriam-Webster Dictionary:an object of unreasoning devotion or concern...an object whos real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification...You my friend are suffering from a fetishism...to believe in;devotion to,or pathological attachment to fetishes...I rest my case!


----------



## dmp (Mar 5, 2006)

Kagom said:
			
		

> You're not absolutely correct just because you say you are.  I'm going to refer back to Pale Rider as having said "Just because you claim something is true does not make it true."
> 
> Sexuality can be defined at times by who we are attracted to.  You can't count on someone who has homosexual thoughts to have heterosexual sex (most of the time).
> 
> But going by your logic, does that mean a person is heterosexual until they have sex?  Or is a person asexual until they have had sex with some gender?




Sexuality is defined by WHO we have sex with, NOT illogical, unnatural, damaging urges.  

by 'your' logic, you're a pedophile bank robber.   I'm SURE you've seen a guy you THOUGHT coulda been 18, but maybe wasn't...and lusted for him...same as you've probably thought it'd be cool to have millions of dollars free.

Brother, you need counselling.  Before your 'urges' kill you.


----------



## Kagom (Mar 5, 2006)

archangel said:
			
		

> Did you actually read what you just wrote?
> 
> Fetish...per the Meriam-Webster Dictionary:an object of unreasoning devotion or concern...an object whos real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification...You my friend are suffering from a fetishism...to believe in;devotion to,or pathological attachment to fetishes...I rest my case!


But another male isn't an object of unreasoning devotion or concern.  I have a reason: I'm sexually attracted to males.  There is a difference between sexuality and fetish.


----------



## Kagom (Mar 5, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Sexuality is defined by WHO we have sex with, NOT illogical, unnatural, damaging urges.
> 
> by 'your' logic, you're a pedophile bank robber.   I'm SURE you've seen a guy you THOUGHT coulda been 18, but maybe wasn't...and lusted for him...same as you've probably thought it'd be cool to have millions of dollars free.
> 
> Brother, you need counselling.  Before your 'urges' kill you.


No, by my logic, none of that would be true.  By my logic, if you think it'd be cool to have a million dollars for free, that's wishful thinking.  If you see someone you thought could be 18 and lust after that person, that's just lusting for someone (unless that person is below 17).

My urges won't kill me.  I already know that now.  You all can continue saying that until you're blue in the face, but you don't know me well enough and you only assume my sexuality will kill me only because what you are told through your biased sources.  I live life to the fullest, but I am still careful about what I do so I can ensure I'll live longer and harm no one.  Besides, most urges can kill you, given that they can affect your life negatively through distractions (like flipping a coin in on-coming traffic...lame example, but you get the point), emotional/physical harm, etc.


----------



## archangel (Mar 5, 2006)

Kagom said:
			
		

> But another male isn't an object of unreasoning devotion or concern.  I have a reason: I'm sexually attracted to males.  There is a difference between sexuality and fetish.




I am a blunt guy...I have tried to be gentle with you on this issue...I defined your denial with a dictionary description...as pale told you up front and blunt...'until you see the problem and address it, it will never be solved' para phrased for gentleness! I'm done...carry on with your professed denial!


----------



## dmp (Mar 5, 2006)

Kagom said:
			
		

> No, by my logic, none of that would be true.  By my logic, if you think it'd be cool to have a million dollars for free, that's wishful thinking.  If you see someone you thought could be 18 and lust after that person, that's just lusting for someone (unless that person is below 17).






Exactly.  You get it, finally.  We aren't defined by our urges or inclinations - we're defined by our ACTING on those urges.  By choosing to have sex with men, you are homosexual.  If you never allow those urges to manifest, you're 'not homosexual'.  What you are then is a confused guy who needs somebody to help him find his way.  As you've allowed your urges to overcome good sense, you 'are' homosexual, and will need MUCH more restoration to be free from your deadly addictions.


----------



## Kagom (Mar 5, 2006)

archangel said:
			
		

> I am a blunt guy...I have tried to be gentle with you on this issue...I defined your denial with a dictionary description...as pale told you up front and blunt...'until you see the problem and address it, it will never be solved' para phrased for gentleness! I'm done...carry on with your professed denial!


I deny lies and falseness and I stick to truth.  All you are doing is supporting a lie that you (and others) strongly stick to.

*Sexual orientation refers to the sex, sexes, gender or genders, to which a person is attracted and which form the focus of a person's amorous or erotic desires, fantasies, and spontaneous feelings. The alternative terms sexual preference and sexual inclination have similar meanings. * [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation ]

versus

*Fetish...per the Meriam-Webster Dictionary:an object of unreasoning devotion or concern...an object whos real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification...to believe in;devotion to,or pathological attachment to fetishes... *

There is a difference between the two and you only don't wish to acknowledge that.  Also, did you feel a need to perhaps cut some things out and to also throw in commentary with the definition?


----------



## Kagom (Mar 5, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Exactly.  You get it, finally.  We aren't defined by our urges or inclinations - we're defined by our ACTING on those urges.  By choosing to have sex with men, you are homosexual.  If you never allow those urges to manifest, you're 'not homosexual'.  What you are then is a confused guy who needs somebody to help him find his way.  As you've allowed your urges to overcome good sense, you 'are' homosexual, and will need MUCH more restoration to be free from your deadly addictions.


Actually, I haven't confused my urges.  I have never possessed a sexual attraction to females and have to males.

It seems to me that the only person in need of restoration from any deadly addictions are people addicted to lying, alcohol, drugs, and other things that actively and passively destroy the body and harm other people.  Homosexuality is a sexual orientation that isn't deadly in and of itself.  Only people can make something deadly and they do with sexuality, religion, politics, etc.


----------



## dmp (Mar 5, 2006)

Kagom said:
			
		

> Actually, I haven't confused my urges.  I have never possessed a sexual attraction to females and have to males.
> 
> It seems to me that the only person in need of restoration from any deadly addictions are people addicted to lying, alcohol, drugs, and other things that actively and passively destroy the body and harm other people.  Homosexuality is a sexual orientation that isn't deadly in and of itself.  Only people can make something deadly and they do with sexuality, religion, politics, etc.



I bet you are about 60 years old and used to work for Cigarette companies...you sound JUST like them in the 80s.

"Cig's aren't addictive! There's NO un-biased link between Cigs and Cancer! C'mon! Tobacco is NATURAL - and not deadly..."

:-/

I love you man, but I'm tellin' you, you're taking years off your life and putting yourself in the path of a speeding train.  It's not to late to get off the tracks.


----------



## Kagom (Mar 5, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> I bet you are about 60 years old and used to work for Cigarette companies...you sound JUST like them in the 80s.
> 
> "Cig's aren't addictive! There's NO un-biased link between Cigs and Cancer! C'mon! Tobacco is NATURAL - and not deadly..."
> 
> ...


There is a difference between being gay and smoking cigarettes.  I don't feel I should have to explain that.

In fact, I think that is the worst analysis ever made.  Homosexuality doesn't kill people.  Not by itself.  The same goes for heterosexuality and bisexuality.  The orientations themselves do not kill, the people do.  People who are stupid and uneducated about their sexuality adn how sex works and the sort.

I am telling you that I won't be dying any time soon nor for a very long while.  You truly only have biased sources and beliefs on this issue.  It's a much different ballpark than cigarettes were.


----------



## Kagom (Mar 5, 2006)

Kagom said:
			
		

> I deny lies and falseness and I stick to truth.  All you are doing is supporting a lie that you (and others) strongly stick to.
> 
> *Sexual orientation refers to the sex, sexes, gender or genders, to which a person is attracted and which form the focus of a person's amorous or erotic desires, fantasies, and spontaneous feelings. The alternative terms sexual preference and sexual inclination have similar meanings. * [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation ]
> 
> ...


Also, I like this definition of Fetish I found: Fetish -  A condition in which arousal and/or sexual gratification is attained through inanimate objects (shoes, pantyhose) or non-sexual body parts (feet, hair).  Is considered a problem when the object is needed in order to obtain arousal or gratification and the individual can not complete a sexual act without this object present.


----------



## dmp (Mar 5, 2006)

Kagom said:
			
		

> There is a difference between being gay and smoking cigarettes.  I don't feel I should have to explain that.



Your excuses for your behaviour are the same.



> Homosexuality doesn't kill people.  Not by itself.  The same goes for heterosexuality and bisexuality.  The orientations themselves do not kill, the people do.  People who are stupid and uneducated about their sexuality adn how sex works and the sort.



RIGHT - People's BEHAVIOUR is what kills them.   Living a life full of homosexual contact/amusement/time-killing will abosoLUTELY remove years from your life. 



> I am telling you that I won't be dying any time soon nor for a very long while.  You truly only have biased sources and beliefs on this issue.  It's a much different ballpark than cigarettes were.



It's stupid because ANY source I give you which doesn't agree with what you've already made up your mind on, will be brushed aside as 'biased'.


----------



## Kagom (Mar 5, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Your excuses for your behaviour are the same.
> 
> RIGHT - People's BEHAVIOUR is what kills them.   Living a life full of homosexual contact/amusement/time-killing will abosoLUTELY remove years from your life.
> 
> It's stupid because ANY source I give you which doesn't agree with what you've already made up your mind on, will be brushed aside as 'biased'.


Life full of homosexual contact will not remove years from your life.  It does that just as much as heterosexual contact does.

No, because most sources you DO give ARE biased.  In your mind they aren't, but when they are examined, they ARE biased.  If you can give me non-uberbiased material, I'll agree with you.


----------



## dmp (Mar 5, 2006)

Kagom said:
			
		

> Life full of homosexual contact will not remove years from your life.  It does that just as much as heterosexual contact does.



See? that's just crazy talk.  Are you seriously unable to look at your lifestyle choices objectively?



> No, because most sources you DO give ARE biased.  In your mind they aren't, but when they are examined, they ARE biased.  If you can give me non-uberbiased material, I'll agree with you.



(sigh)...

Spend 15 minutes on google my friend..



> November 11, 2005 - The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has issued a warning about an alarming increase in the spread of syphilis nationwide and attributes most of the growth to gay sexual activities.
> 
> Dr. Ronald O. Valdiserri, acting director of the CDC's National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention says both syphilis and gonorrhea are both "a significant and ongoing threat to millions of Americans." The cost to the health care system is $13 billion a year.
> 
> ...



another...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11204417/

I believe you will whine and bitch and cry about the site this artical is posted on, but the article cites sources which are independant.

http://www.narth.com/docs/consequences.html#_edn3


----------



## Kagom (Mar 5, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> See? that's just crazy talk.  Are you seriously unable to look at your lifestyle choices objectively?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Narth is a biased...nay...an ungodly biased source full of misinformation and unproper research.

I'm aware of some of the higher risks of STDs and STIs.  However, I believe that the less protection and awareness people have, the higher the percentage of getting these terrible diseases and the such.

Being smart about sex and the sort will probably not have a negative effect on me.  Seeing as how I like to see myself as being educated of the dangers and all, I won't be having years shaved off my life as well as the same for fellow homosexuals I know who are just as educated (and often more than) as I am on sex and they won't be seeing years shaved off.  Playing it safe ensures you live longer.


----------



## dmp (Mar 5, 2006)

Kagom said:
			
		

> Narth is a biased...nay...an ungodly biased source full of misinformation and unproper research.
> 
> I'm aware of some of the higher risks of STDs and STIs.  However, I believe that the less protection and awareness people have, the higher the percentage of getting these terrible diseases and the such.
> 
> Being smart about sex and the sort will probably not have a negative effect on me.  Seeing as how I like to see myself as being educated of the dangers and all, I won't be having years shaved off my life as well as the same for fellow homosexuals I know who are just as educated (and often more than) as I am on sex and they won't be seeing years shaved off.  Playing it safe ensures you live longer.



Did you read the sources listed in the article?

Of COURSE NARTH is biased - they CARE about people and want people to stop killing themselves because of an addiction.

They're in the business of helping people.  

They have evaluated the data, and present the data.  You're not willing to learn, so you won't.


----------



## menewa (Mar 5, 2006)

Hobbit said:
			
		

> So do I.  She's hot.



yeah, transexuals are hot. you gotta lover her adam's apple. yummy.


----------



## MissileMan (Mar 5, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> You are wrong.    See, our sexuality isn't defined by who we are attracted to, but what we do about it.  A child molester is NOT a child molester until he/she acts on their desires.  A Murderer isn't a murderer until they kill.  A homosexual is a homosexual when they have sex with members of their gender.
> 
> You can show all the definitions you like, I'm still absolutely correct.



Tell that to the Catholic church.  Didn't they just make a rule that even non-practicing homosexuals can't be priests.  They seem to be of the opinion that if you think you're homosexual, you are homosexual.


----------



## dmp (Mar 5, 2006)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> Tell that to the Catholic church.  Didn't they just make a rule that even non-practicing homosexuals can't be priests.  They seem to be of the opinion that if you think you're homosexual, you are homosexual.




The rule is in place because people with the tendency shouldn't be put in position of temptation.


----------



## dilloduck (Mar 5, 2006)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> Tell that to the Catholic church.  Didn't they just make a rule that even non-practicing homosexuals can't be priests.  They seem to be of the opinion that if you think you're homosexual, you are homosexual.



Maybe they finally figured out that homosexuals were costing them big bucks and ruining thier "reputation".


----------



## menewa (Mar 5, 2006)

Kagom said:
			
		

> But going by your logic, does that mean a person is heterosexual until they have sex?  Or is a person asexual until they have had sex with some gender?



lol, good one. 

dmp just makes up definitions for terms like his last name is Webster. what a maroon.


----------



## MissileMan (Mar 5, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> The rule is in place because people with the tendency shouldn't be put in position of temptation.



Which tendency would that be?  Heterosexuals are immune from temptation?


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Mar 6, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Exactly.  You get it, finally.  We aren't defined by our urges or inclinations - we're defined by our ACTING on those urges.  By choosing to have sex with men, you are homosexual.  If you never allow those urges to manifest, you're 'not homosexual'.  What you are then is a confused guy who needs somebody to help him find his way.  As you've allowed your urges to overcome good sense, you 'are' homosexual, and will need MUCH more restoration to be free from your deadly addictions.


Is it only if you act on urges, or just if you act? What if you do something homosexual but don't have the deep-rooted urge to do so? Still homo?


----------



## Kagom (Mar 6, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Did you read the sources listed in the article?
> 
> Of COURSE NARTH is biased - they CARE about people and want people to stop killing themselves because of an addiction.
> 
> ...


Uhm...no.  NARTH is nothing but conservative propaganda bullshit with no actual factual (hehe, it rhymed) evidence other than results that were biased to begin with.

They claim to care and I can say that their hearts are in the right place to want to help a group of people they truly know nothing of, but what they say, do, and believe isn't right and is full of hot air being let out of a devil's ass (as my folks like to say).


----------



## Kagom (Mar 6, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Maybe they finally figured out that homosexuals were costing them big bucks and ruining thier "reputation".


No, they just need a scapegoat for their own faults in not monitoring and intervening with the pedophilia problem.


----------



## KarlMarx (Mar 6, 2006)

Kagom said:
			
		

> No, they just need a scapegoat for their own faults in not monitoring and intervening with the pedophilia problem.


You mean, by routing out gay priests? By the way, when many of these cases of abuse occured, the accepted "cure" in the psychiatric field was talk therapy... and so, the Church sent these priests to therapy so you see, they did do something...

And oh by the way, once a pedophile always a pedophile... so why doesn't the justice system start dealing with the problem by putting pedophiles in jail for the rest of their lives where they can't molest any more kids?

Back to the Church..., they are also doing something about the pedophile problem... no more gay priests, no gay seminarians, gays need not apply for the priesthood, which is the way it should be... will that solve the problem? No, not entirely, but it will take a big dent out of it...

Of course, you probably don't like that solution... but then I don't like you bashing the Catholic Church....


----------



## Kagom (Mar 6, 2006)

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> You mean, by routing out gay priests? By the way, when many of these cases of abuse occured, the accepted "cure" in the psychiatric field was talk therapy... and so, the Church sent these priests to therapy so you see, they did do something...
> 
> And oh by the way, once a pedophile always a pedophile... so why doesn't the justice system start dealing with the problem by putting pedophiles in jail for the rest of their lives where they can't molest any more kids?
> 
> ...


Look, as a former Catholic, I know what they are doing.  They are looking to gay priests and clergy for scapegoats.

Why didn't they report these pedophile priests in the first place and put them behind bars?  I don't know, but I wish they had.  It's horrible what happened.

I don't think it's going to affect the pedophilia problem, Karl.  I honestly don't.  Call me crazy, but it's just a gut feeling I have.  If we want to deal with the pedophile problem, we need to take up a more serious role when we find these problem priests and we also need to monitor closely what they are doing by having a parent around.


----------



## KarlMarx (Mar 6, 2006)

Kagom said:
			
		

> Look, as a former Catholic, I know what they are doing.  They are looking to gay priests and clergy for scapegoats.
> 
> Why didn't they report these pedophile priests in the first place and put them behind bars?  I don't know, but I wish they had.  It's horrible what happened.
> 
> I don't think it's going to affect the pedophilia problem, Karl.  I honestly don't.  Call me crazy, but it's just a gut feeling I have.  If we want to deal with the pedophile problem, we need to take up a more serious role when we find these problem priests and we also need to monitor closely what they are doing by having a parent around.



No.. we don't monitor pedophiles, we throw them in jail and throw away the key... period. They are not curable.... 

and it's not just Catholic priests ....  what's up with the justice system pussy footing around with pedophiles? Priests and lay people should all be put behind bars....


----------



## Kagom (Mar 6, 2006)

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> No.. we don't monitor pedophiles, we throw them in jail and throw away the key... period. They are not curable....
> 
> and it's not just Catholic priests ....  what's up with the justice system pussy footing around with pedophiles? Priests and lay people should all be put behind bars....


I couldn't agree with you more.


----------

