# Who are the real bigots?



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.



> After last nights vote, I heard a disturbingly large number of my  friends, national commentators, and others suggesting that this vote  just proves that North Carolinians (or at least a giant percentage of  us) are bigoted, homophobic, backwards people who are so filled with  hate that we oppose equality for certain groups just because we can. And see, thats just not the case. Yes, I voted against the  amendment, as did many of my friends and hundreds of thousands of other  NC residents. But I also know people who voted for it, and I know that  they are not simply bigoted, homophobic, backwards people. Its way more  complicated than that.
> Is there a lot of prejudice in North Carolina against LGBT people?  Absolutely there is. But its not, as some have imagined, just a matter  of bigoted homophobes. By and large, the prejudice that exists is a  matter of _a lack of understanding._ Many of the folks Ive talked to honestly believe that people _choose_ to be gay and could _choose_  not to be. They think that giving legal recognition to same-sex  partnerships would increase the number of people choosing to be gay, and  would therefore encourage more people to turn away from Gods plan for  their lives. When they talk about homosexuality as a perversion,  theyre not trying to be bigoted or mean; theyre being quite literal  about it.
> Those folks arent the only ones who supported the amendment, but in  my experience, they make up the lions share of those who were most  vocally in support. My Christian friends who understand what my life has  been like as a gay Christian may not support same-sex marriage, but  they tend to be way more thoughtful and careful about these questions,  and they are the ones who felt most torn about this amendment and all  the legal and moral issues it raised.
> Thats why I posted to Facebook: Yes, my states vote tonight  saddens me. But it is not, as some have imagined, about intentional  bigotry. It is about a lack of understanding, pure and simpleof who we  are, what we want, and why it matters. Education is needed, and that is  what I will keep dedicating myself to, every single day of my life.




Crumbs from the Communion Table &bull; A challenge to both sides of the Amendment One debate.


Next time somebody wants to dismiss everyone who disagrees with their views about same sex marriage as a bigot they should remember what the word actually means and take a step to end the intolerance.


Bigot [big-uht] (noun) a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.


----------



## g5000 (May 12, 2012)

> By and large, the prejudice that exists is a  matter of _a lack of understanding._



It has long been common knowledge that much discrimination is based on ignorance.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

g5000 said:


> > By and large, the prejudice that exists is a  matter of _a lack of understanding._
> 
> 
> It has long been common knowledge that much discrimination is based on ignorance.



It has long been common knowledge that much discrimination is based on fear. The problem with common knowledge is that is commonly wrong.


----------



## ABikerSailor (May 12, 2012)

g5000 said:


> > By and large, the prejudice that exists is a  matter of _a lack of understanding._
> 
> 
> 
> It has long been common knowledge that much discrimination is based on ignorance.



True.  What you fear most is that which you know the least about.

I wonder how many homophobes actually know a gay couple?


----------



## Lakhota (May 12, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > > By and large, the prejudice that exists is a  matter of _a lack of understanding._
> ...



That's funny, and makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## Luissa (May 12, 2012)

Is this kind of like Pale Rider calling me a racist because I don't like the fact he is a racist and a bigot?

You might not be a bigot if you have no problem with the person, just with their life style. But I can still find fault in the fact you feel someone is beneath you and should be denied a certain right due to the fact a book told you so, or any other reason for that matter. And thinking you are wrong does not make me a bigot.


----------



## Cowman (May 12, 2012)

As conservatives would have people believe, black people are the real racists and homosexuals are the real bigots.


----------



## LoneLaugher (May 12, 2012)

The blog's author has lots of stupid friends. That proves that they are not bigots. They are too stupid to be bigots. 

So please......don't insult the good people of NC by telling them that they have too many bigots!


----------



## California Girl (May 12, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > > By and large, the prejudice that exists is a  matter of _a lack of understanding._
> ...




Ain't that the truth.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 12, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So they're not simply bigots, they are simple ignorant bigots.

One more reason not to allow ourselves to succumb to mob rule.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 12, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > > By and large, the prejudice that exists is a  matter of _a lack of understanding._
> ...



Actually, it's been established that most homophobes are themselves fighting down gay tendencies...  

They did an expirament where they tested guys for their levels of homophobic attitudes and then divided them up into homophobic and non-homophobic groups.  

Then they put a sensor on their weiners and showed them gay porn.  

The Homophobic group was more likely to get a chubby watching that sort of thing.  

Which is kind of funny when you see some hater describing gay sex with lurid terms like bad slash-fiction.


----------



## Saigon (May 12, 2012)

Cowman said:


> As conservatives would have people believe, black people are the real racists and homosexuals are the real bigots.



And in one sense they would also be right - why do we believe that black people are less racist than white, or gay people less bigoted than straight?

I suspect bigotry and hatred exist around the world, across all ages, races and religions. It just may not always be directed in the way that we would expect.


----------



## Ravi (May 12, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Is this kind of like Pale Rider calling me a racist because I don't like the fact he is a racist and a bigot?
> 
> You might not be a bigot if you have no problem with the person, just with their life style. But I can still find fault in the fact you feel someone is beneath you and should be denied a certain right due to the fact a book told you so, or any other reason for that matter. And thinking you are wrong does not make me a bigot.


Yep.


----------



## code1211 (May 12, 2012)

Cowman said:


> As conservatives would have people believe, black people are the real racists and homosexuals are the real bigots.





Ah!  slinging mud?  What of the open minded who suspend a student for wearing a shirt with a Christian symbol, but allow the head dressing of the Moslems?

How about denying the option to say grace over lunch in a public school cafeteria?

There's plenty of fear and bigotry to go around and if we could all just let others do their own thing, the world would be a better place.


----------



## code1211 (May 12, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...





You gotta supply a link for this kind of thing.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 12, 2012)

.

Ignorance does not have to be a permanent condition.  People can change their minds with new information -- okay, except for partisan ideologues, who avoid and ignore all information contrary to their position, but they're a small minority -- so over time I suspect only the pure bigots will remain.  And they too are a small minority.

.


----------



## WillowTree (May 12, 2012)

Left wingers hate white Republicans and fox news just because they can. they act like immature teen age locker room queens over at msnbc. it's 24/7


----------



## editec (May 12, 2012)

Is bigotry always a bad thing?

I am rather bigoted against sexual predators.

My bigotry against those folks doesn't keep me awake at night from guilt.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 12, 2012)

editec said:


> Is bigotry always a bad thing?
> 
> I am rather bigoted against sexual predators.
> 
> My bigotry against those folks doesn't keep me awake at night from guilt.





Are you equating gays with sexual predators?

.


----------



## koshergrl (May 12, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > > By and large, the prejudice that exists is a  matter of _a lack of understanding._
> ...



See, that's bigotry right there.

Not everybody who disagrees with you about gay marriage is a homophobe.

And not everybody who is against changing the laws based on studies compiled by sex offenders and rapists (aka The Kinsey Institute, author of the meme "all sex is good sex! There are no rapists, just bad laws!") lives in a vacuum where there are no gay people. Not only is that bigotry on your part, it goes against the other meme "10 percent of the population is gay" (which was also established by Kinsey and is a lie).

So what lie do you stand by? The lie that homosexuality is common place, or the lie that everybody who disagrees with law changes aimed at destruction of the nuclear family ala Kinsey is an ignorant, isolated homophobe?


----------



## Sunni Man (May 12, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> Are you equating gays with sexual predators?


Gays are always on the prowl looking for new victims; so yes, they are predators of the worse kind.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 12, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you equating gays with sexual predators?
> ...




Yikes

I think it's possible that you believe that.


----------



## Sunni Man (May 12, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...


Much more than just possible; it's 100% the truth.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 12, 2012)

code1211 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Is homophobia associated with homosexual ar... [J Abnorm Psychol. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI

here you go. But it's like all science-y and we know you Wingnuts don't like Science and stuff.




> The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.


----------



## clevergirl (May 12, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




Of note- there were no "political" distinctions made only that all the men were against homosexuality but only "35" scored high on the homophobic (sic) test before being exposed to sexually erotic stimuli. This means that you can be against homosexuality (all the men were) without being homophobic (afraid) of it. The term homophobia would indicate fear of not dislike of... Hope that helps.

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in *exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia* (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.


----------



## alan1 (May 12, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Is bigotry always a bad thing?
> ...



He certainly didn't do anything such as what your question indicates.  Why would you ask such a question unless it was simply to stir up shit?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 12, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bigot [big-uht] (noun) a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.



You 
koshergirl
JoeB
NeoTrotsky
Uncensored Coyote
TDM
Cecelie1200

and several others from the far left and the far right


----------



## Saigon (May 12, 2012)

WillowTree said:


> Left wingers hate white Republicans and fox news just because they can. they act like immature teen age locker room queens over at msnbc. it's 24/7



It's hard to imagine a more bigoted statement than that.


----------



## WillowTree (May 12, 2012)

alan1 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


----------



## clevergirl (May 12, 2012)

Saigon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Left wingers hate white Republicans and fox news just because they can. they act like immature teen age locker room queens over at msnbc. it's 24/7
> ...



That was an over broad generalization- But since those swing both ways on message boards- yadayadayada~


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 12, 2012)

_yadayadayada_


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > > By and large, the prejudice that exists is a  matter of _a lack of understanding._
> ...



Apparently you did not read the OP, and you definitely missed the point of my post. Let me spell it out for you, people who rely on soundbites and "common knowledge" to form decisions are just as bigoted as the people who truly hate others for being different. I have lots of contempt for those who hate because that is all they know, but I have nothing for the idiots that think that anyone who doesn't understand them and/or agree with them but pity.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Of course it doesn't, to you. It requires the ability to think to understand why common knowledge only works in movies.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

Cowman said:


> As conservatives would have people believe, black people are the real racists and homosexuals are the real bigots.



Thank you for proving my point. Conservatives do not want you to believe that, they are just willing to accept that victims of racism and bigotry are just as human as the perpetrators, This allows us to show compassion for the acts that these people suffer while holding them to a standard that returning hate with hate only hurts them more.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 12, 2012)

The worst bigots I have ever come across are Liberals. They always try to label anyone who disagrees with their point of view with a hateful term. What's that saying "haters are going to hate". That's what Liberals are best known for.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.
> ...



Bigots are the people, like you, who refuse to change their position when presented with evidence. This guy took the trouble as a gay activist to point out to the world that the problem here is not that they are bigots who are unwilling to learn, the problem is that no one treats them with respect and sits down with them to show them that homosexuals are not part of a vast conspiracy to spread their lifestyle to everyone. In other words, if you treat people with contempt you get contempt.


----------



## blackhawk (May 12, 2012)

I have found the biggest racist and bigots usually turn out to be those who try and label other's as racist and bigots.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Actually, no such thing has been established. While it is true that some homophobes do have gay tendencies, that study you think proves one thing only proves that people will believe anything that supports their agenda.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bigot [big-uht] (noun) a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
> ...



Strange how a man who insists that sexual abuse of women turns them into lesbians thinks I am a bigot.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 12, 2012)

Strange how you can't comprehend simple English.

I said I was told by some lesbians they believed the abuse they received from men contributed to the development of their sexuality.

QPW is not only a bigot, but also dumb, and a very poor liar.


----------



## BDBoop (May 12, 2012)




----------



## JakeStarkey (May 12, 2012)

The gentleman from Georgia who suggested legislation ending the sanctions of the Civil Rights Act is a bigot.

Those who support him are bigots.

Those who call the supporters of an equal America bigots are the real bigots.

Bigots on this board will always be hit metaphorically in the face as hard as possible.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 12, 2012)

alan1 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...




*Perhaps you didn't see his response:*




Sunni Man said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...




*That's okay, I'm not expecting an apology!*

I gave him a chance to get out of his own statement by asking a question, allowing him to clarify if he wished.

Even given that chance, he chose to double down on his ignorance and bigotry.  Take it up with HIM.

That was easy.


.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 12, 2012)

big·ot
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
bigot - definition of bigot by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

big·ot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance 
Bigot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I guess it all depends upon what you choose as your definition of the word now doesn't it? It seems to me based on these other defitions that bigot applies quite well.

Now are you going "to dismiss everyone who disagrees with their (your) views" as you "suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded" as you stated in your post?

Funny how it's wrong to dismiss the "bigots" even as you dismiss others because they disagree with you.


----------



## sfcalifornia (May 12, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > > By and large, the prejudice that exists is a  matter of _a lack of understanding._
> ...



Which is a very good reason why civil rights are often decided by government and not by marjority vote.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 12, 2012)

California Girl said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Isn't "common knowledge" usually what rightwingers use to defend the stupid things that they say?? LOL I hear it all the time. A stupid claim is made and then to defend said stupid claim the poster argues that if you don't beleive what is "common knowledge" then you are ignorant because you don't beleive what they call "common knowledge" even as they fail to provide anything of substance to support thei beliefs. lol  

m14 shooter's rants in this thread are a perfect example.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/222871-regressive-gop-tries-to-thwart-gay-rights-7.html


----------



## ABikerSailor (May 12, 2012)

You know, I've had a lot of friends who were lesbians and gays.  Many of them had a specific "type" of person that they liked, just like heterosexuals.  Not every gay man or woman is looking for a straight person to "turn" to their way of sexuality, that's a large myth.

Just like some men like women who are big busts and blonde hair while others prefer C cups and short brown hair, gays have their type.

Interestingly enough, the people who are the most scared of gays trying to "turn" them are people those gays wouldn't find attractive.


----------



## Trajan (May 12, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



you're killing me here.....


----------



## Trajan (May 12, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, I've had a lot of friends who were lesbians and gays.  Many of them had a specific "type" of person that they liked, just like heterosexuals.  Not every gay man or woman is looking for a straight person to "turn" to their way of sexuality, that's a large myth.
> 
> Just like some men like women who are big busts and blonde hair while others prefer C cups and short brown hair, gays have their type.
> 
> Interestingly enough, the people who are the most scared of gays trying to "turn" them are people those gays wouldn't find attractive.



latency alert


----------



## Misty (May 12, 2012)

Who are the real bigots?  Liberals.


----------



## ABikerSailor (May 12, 2012)

Trajan said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know, I've had a lot of friends who were lesbians and gays.  Many of them had a specific "type" of person that they liked, just like heterosexuals.  Not every gay man or woman is looking for a straight person to "turn" to their way of sexuality, that's a large myth.
> ...



Actually, the reason gays don't scare me is because I'm already secure in my heterosexuality and know who I am.

And to tell you the truth?  Some of the people I've met have taught me some really great things, because they look at life from a different perspective than I do.

Being open minded is the way to learn the most.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 12, 2012)

Misty said:


> Who are the real bigots?  Liberals.


  Lefties and HardCons are bigoted against each other, true.


----------



## code1211 (May 12, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, I've had a lot of friends who were lesbians and gays.  Many of them had a specific "type" of person that they liked, just like heterosexuals.  Not every gay man or woman is looking for a straight person to "turn" to their way of sexuality, that's a large myth.
> 
> Just like some men like women who are big busts and blonde hair while others prefer C cups and short brown hair, gays have their type.
> 
> Interestingly enough, the people who are the most scared of gays trying to "turn" them are people those gays wouldn't find attractive.





It's the same with people against shepherds.  They can't even tell the cute sheep from the ugly ones.

Sheeesh!


----------



## Trajan (May 12, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



you're trying to hard...


----------



## Ravi (May 12, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


You can say a lot of things about Skull, but labeling him a bigot is incorrect.

Did bigotry or ignorance lead you to levy that charge?


----------



## koshergrl (May 12, 2012)

Regardless of whether Skull is a bigot or not, you are the last person in the world who would recognize bigotry.


----------



## Immanuel (May 12, 2012)

Bigotry comes in all shapes and sizes.  It comes from all political and sociological aspects.

Look in the mirror.  You will probably see a bigot, because quite frankly, bigotry is human nature.  Some can and do control it within them, but we all have our prejudices.

When I was reading this post by drsmith:



drsmith1072 said:


> big·ot
> One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
> bigot - definition of bigot by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> ...



I could not but help to think that the second definition he presented fits him to a "T".  There are others on the board who are "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices", but he most definitely fits the definition IMHO.  

drsmith, when was the last time your position "evolved"?  Have you ever met a conservative you liked?  Do you think there is any possibility that you might some day in your life? Are you going to dismiss everyone who disagrees with your views as you seem to have done in the past?  I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong about you.  Are you willing to "evolve"?

Before you ask, I can tell you without any hesitation that my views have "evolved" in many areas.  Abortion... I used to think that everyone who was pro-choice were thrilled to death at the thought of 4,000 babies dying every day.  Now, I realize, the vast majority of them are just as sickened by that idea as I am, but don't want government to interfere in our lives.  Gay Marriage... used to believe that marriage was a union between one man and one woman (still do that) and that the homosexuals could go screw themselves if they thought they were going to destroy the sanctity of marriage.  Now, I realize that homosexuals are discriminated in many ways, that they are entitled to the same rights and privileges as citizens of the United States as I am and that the government has no right being involved in the rites of the church.  Therefore, the government needs to establish civil union laws and all "marriages" need to be established under civil union contracts.  Churches should be free to marry whomever they want, but a "marriage" should not be given any special priviliges by the state.  Those are two areas.  There are others, but I am still not willing to claim that I am not a bigot.  I have my prejudices just like everyone else.

So, how, many of you are willing to be open minded and change your long held beliefs or are you willing to look yourself in the mirror and admit that you are a bigot?

Immie


----------



## Ravi (May 12, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> Bigotry comes in all shapes and sizes.  It comes from all political and sociological aspects.
> 
> Look in the mirror.  You will probably see a bigot, because quite frankly, bigotry is human nature.  Some can and do control it within them, but we all have our prejudices.
> 
> ...



You make some good points. Not sure if DrS should be the target of your wrath, but then again, he hasn't posted enough that I've read to decide.

I actually know two people that I consider conservatives that changed their minds on the gay rights issue from discussions on messagesboards. It is very gratifying to see someone have an epiphany.

And in case you don't think I've ever changed my mind, I did. About the 2nd amendment. And I even learned to not blame Dubya for all the woes in the world.


----------



## bobcollum (May 12, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So without the religious aspect of it they would have voted against a ban?

It sounds like you're trying to say that what they did could be seen, to the casual observer, as intolerant but it isn't really their fault, they're just acting and thinking as they were brought up to be. 

I've had a discussion with a very religious family member about this topic, and I get that message from them, that they don't personally dislike homosexuals, but based on religious creed they don't condone homosexuality. They'll fight to keep marriage between a man and a woman, they would ideally like to change them back to heterosexuality, as many view it as an conscience decision.

In other words they're intolerant of them. Whether they truly mean it in a sinister sense or not doesn't really matter. 

Anti-gay marriage advocate's issues are all in their head, their life would otherwise go unchanged if gay-marriage were legalized nationwide...again, besides the massive butt-hurt of it all.

The other side of the coin has a little more to do with real-world practicality.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Strange how you can't comprehend simple English.
> 
> I said I was told by some lesbians they believed the abuse they received from men contributed to the development of their sexuality.
> 
> QPW is not only a bigot, but also dumb, and a very poor liar.



You said you were told by dozens of lesbians, which is either proof that you are lying, or that you actually believe that crap. either way, it says a lot more about your bigotry than it does mine.


----------



## Immanuel (May 12, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bigotry comes in all shapes and sizes.  It comes from all political and sociological aspects.
> ...



drsmith and I don't get along.  I offended him once by thanking people in a thread.  He claimed I thanked them for being nasty to others and I don't recall it having been that way.

I don't believe that I have ever seen him post a polite comment to a conservative.  I'd simply like to see him and others on this board admit that we are all guilty of those very offenses.

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

BDBoop said:


>



Interesting that the person who likes to pretend she is open minded can't even address the actual subject.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The gentleman from Georgia who suggested legislation ending the sanctions of the Civil Rights Act is a bigot.
> 
> Those who support him are bigots.
> 
> ...



On the other hand, I could easily argue that anyone who thinks the government needs to sanction people for what happened decades ago is, at best, small minded. My experience is it makes little or no sense to punish children for something their grandparents did.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> big·ot
> One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
> bigot - definition of bigot by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> ...



Of course it does, to you, since applying the one I use would make you the bigot, and you find that utterly intolerable.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

sfcalifornia said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Congratulations on making the most absurd possible defense of government by majority rule.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Are you saying no moonbats ever resort to common knowledge to defend their position?In fact, you just invoked common knowledge (ie rightwingers use common knowledge) to defend your position, thus proving my point that common knowledge is commonly wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, I've had a lot of friends who were lesbians and gays.  Many of them had a specific "type" of person that they liked, just like heterosexuals.  Not every gay man or woman is looking for a straight person to "turn" to their way of sexuality, that's a large myth.
> 
> Just like some men like women who are big busts and blonde hair while others prefer C cups and short brown hair, gays have their type.
> 
> Interestingly enough, the people who are the most scared of gays trying to "turn" them are people those gays wouldn't find attractive.



Oddly enough, this has nothing to do with the point of the thread. Are you afraid to examine your own motives and root out your bigotry, is that why you keep attempting to deflect this back on others?


----------



## ABikerSailor (May 12, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Strange how you can't comprehend simple English.
> ...



There is a possibility that some event might push a woman towards lesbianism, but one event is not enough, there's also got to be hormonal as well as certain parts of their brain have to have developed in a certain way.  Swiss scientists have proven that gays and straights have different brain structures.

By the way, some lesbians have always been, and always will be, lesbian.  I had a friend of mine a few years back who liked to go out and shoot pool with me who was a lesbian.  One day, after we'd known each other about 6 months, she asked me if I would do her a favor.

I said sure, what did she need?  She then asked me if I would have sex with her so that she could verify if she was a lesbian or not.  We spent a lot of time discussing this, because I didn't want to end up losing a friend if things didn't work.  

Well, after starting to engage in intercourse, she asked me to stop, because she said she didn't feel right about what was happening, so I did.

We tried the same experiment about 2 months later with the same results.  Bottom line?  Sometimes an event in a persons life can cause them to turn, but most times it's just that you're born that way, because sexuality is pretty much determined at birth, with environment being only a small factor.


----------



## BDBoop (May 12, 2012)

I refuse to play your rubber/glue game, if that's what you were shooting for.

"You're the problem for saying there's a problem!" Pretty damn toxic rationale you got going on there, kemo sabe.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 12, 2012)

QWB is a fucktard, period.  I told him what I was told by some women (several dozen) and what they thought of the influence of male abusive.  Fuck him if he can't handle the truth.

ABS, I think both Nature and Nurture play roles in the determination, but I simply don't know how strong one or the other can be.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



What makes him not a bigot? Is it that you agree with him? By labeling an entire group of people that disagree with his position as ignorant bigots he exposed his own bigotry, All I did was call him on it. If that makes me an ignorant bigot, than I am an ignorant bigot.


----------



## ABikerSailor (May 12, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know, I've had a lot of friends who were lesbians and gays.  Many of them had a specific "type" of person that they liked, just like heterosexuals.  Not every gay man or woman is looking for a straight person to "turn" to their way of sexuality, that's a large myth.
> ...



Wrong, because a lot of people on this thread think that the whole agenda of the gays is to turn everyone into being like them, as well as many others on this thread who think that gays and lesbians are a bunch of sexual deviants who will have sex with anything.

I'm simply stating this is not true.  And, fwiw...........I've known that I was straight ever since I was 7.


----------



## Ravi (May 12, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


No, I almost never agree with him. I just know, unlike you, he doesn't come across as a bigot or a faux-libertarian.


----------



## Sunni Man (May 12, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> We tried the same experiment about 2 months later with the same results.  Bottom line?  Sometimes an event in a persons life can cause them to turn, but most times it's just that you're born that way, because sexuality is pretty much determined at birth, with environment being only a* small factor.*


The only "small factor' in your experiment with the lezbo was you!!

She couldn't feel anything and that's why called it quit's.

Because she didn't want to embarrass you.


----------



## Immanuel (May 12, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Ravi and Skull agree on something?

I don't know that I have ever seen anything that the two of them would agree on.

"That'll be the day", is now the song that I have stuck in my head.

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

bobcollum said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.
> ...



What makes you think the religious aspect was the deciding factor?

What I am doing is pointing out that I happen to agree with the author of the blog that the people who voted for the ban are not automatically bigots. the issue is a complex one, and it takes time to sort out the implications of all the various issues. My personal journey took may months of thoughtful prayer. Dismissing people as ignorant bigots simply because they disagree with you on an issue is the way bigots approach a subject, and is only going to entrench their resistance to change, just like it would if I treated you like an ignorant bigot because your belief that religion is the main reason people oppose same sex marriage.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Do you have a point here?

Didn't think so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Oddly enough, I actually started this thread, so I know what the issue of it is. Beleive it or not, it has nothing to do with who you sleep with. 

Tell me something, why do you feel a need to assert your masculinity by insisting you are only attracted to women?

Never mind, I don't really care and I don't want to make run around proving how tough you are. I suggest you go to a board that is orientated toward adult subjects if you actually want to talk about all the guys, I mean girls, you sleep with.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Yet, he just did. Interesting, isn't it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



They just agreed that they aren't the bigots because the only bigots are the ignorant rednecks that voted against same sex marriage.


----------



## Immanuel (May 12, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I don't think that I would call that agreement, but if you want to, it is okay with me.

Immie


----------



## Unkotare (May 12, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> People can change their minds with new information .




People can literally and physically change their brains with new information. True story.


----------



## Sunni Man (May 12, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> People can literally and physically change their brains with new information. True story.


Then you are SOL unkotard.

Because you have to have one in the first place.


----------



## bobcollum (May 12, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You okay? Sounds like you're upset.

That seemed to be the angle based on the excerpt provided...and the full blog entry didn't really go into other reasons, only that we should be aware that they truly believe they're doing the right thing and the reasons why they've come to their conclusions are complex...I get it.

What are some other reasons that people are against it that don't involve religion? I'm asking in all seriousness.

I like how you used the phrase "not automatically bigots", and I completely agree with that assessment, I'm sure they think it's the right thing to do. But it's almost like you yourself can see how it would come off as bigoted to others by saying it that way. 

This thread is ironic when you think that you're blaming us for not understanding how you think about it, but also the claim to not being informed enough about it.



			
				Quantum Windbag said:
			
		

> This guy took the trouble as a gay activist to point out to the world that *the problem here is not that they are bigots who are unwilling to learn, the problem is that no one treats them with respect and sits down with them to show them that homosexuals are not part of a vast conspiracy to spread their lifestyle to everyone.*



Some funky logic going on in this thread....


----------



## Unkotare (May 12, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > People can literally and physically change their brains with new information. True story.
> ...





Yeah, that means a lot coming from a fucking moron like you...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 12, 2012)

bobcollum said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bobcollum said:
> ...



It is not bigoted to say it that way, it is offensive, there is a difference. I use language to provoke emotional responses, not because I am emotional. I am not blaming you for not understanding why I support same sex marriage, I am pointing out to you that making unfounded assumptions about people based on your lack of tolerance is bigotry. 

Thanks for making my point.


----------



## bobcollum (May 12, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Where were my "unfounded assumptions" based on a "lack of tolerance" that helped in "making your point"? I'm starting to wonder whether you're able to conceptualize the dual-perspective you think others should have.

Also please try to answer this question you seemed to miss:



			
				bobcollum said:
			
		

> What are some other reasons that people are against it that don't involve religion? I'm asking in all seriousness.



Seems like you're trolling here more than anything else...playing head games.


----------



## koshergrl (May 13, 2012)

I'm not against it because of religion, except in the way I'm "against" all sin...covetnous, adultery, not honoring your mother and father....

I'm against it because it effectively removes the distinction for the best structure we have to raise kids in as something separate and special. I don't care if people are gay, but gay couples can't be married couples because they aren't a man and a woman. If they want to get married, they can. But marriage is the state of a man and a woman. Not two guys, two women, 3 women and a guy, or a kid and her doll.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 13, 2012)

bobcollum said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bobcollum said:
> ...



Your unfounded assumption was that I oppose same sex marriage, I don't. That assumption was based on your lack of tolerance, oi your idiocy. I chose to assume the least offensive option since you chose to interpret my offensiveness as intolerance, 

The Prime Minister of Australia is openly atheist, lives with a man who she is not married to, and opposes same sex marriage, go ask her what her rational for it is. Don't be surprised if it doesn't have anything to do with religion. Why should I answer a question that, if you truly want an answer to, you can learn the answers for yourself?I only research questions for two reasons, 1) I am curious about the answer, or 2) I get paid for my time.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 13, 2012)

> Many of the folks Ive talked to honestly believe that people choose to be gay and could choose not to be. They think that giving legal recognition to same-sex partnerships would increase the number of people choosing to be gay, and would therefore encourage more people to turn away from Gods plan for their lives. When they talk about homosexuality as a perversion, theyre not trying to be bigoted or mean; theyre being quite literal about it.



As already correctly noted, it is not bigotry to reject and be critical of the ignorance and animus exhibited above. 

That they are bigots as a good faith consequence of their religious dogma or ignorance of homosexuals in general neither mitigates nor justifies their bigotry. That they dont intend to be mean or bigoted is not an excuse, just as ignorance of the law is not an excuse.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 13, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Many of the folks Ive talked to honestly believe that people choose to be gay and could choose not to be. They think that giving legal recognition to same-sex partnerships would increase the number of people choosing to be gay, and would therefore encourage more people to turn away from Gods plan for their lives. When they talk about homosexuality as a perversion, theyre not trying to be bigoted or mean; theyre being quite literal about it.
> 
> 
> As already correctly noted, it is not bigotry to reject and be critical of the ignorance and animus exhibited above.
> ...



Learn to use the fracking quote button.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 13, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you equating gays with sexual predators?
> ...



Kinda like Mohammed the pederast


----------



## Ravi (May 13, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > Many of the folks Ive talked to honestly believe that people choose to be gay and could choose not to be. They think that giving legal recognition to same-sex partnerships would increase the number of people choosing to be gay, and would therefore encourage more people to turn away from Gods plan for their lives. When they talk about homosexuality as a perversion, theyre not trying to be bigoted or mean; theyre being quite literal about it.
> ...


Let me help you out. He was quoting from the link you posted in the OP. And his response to it was spot on.


----------



## bobcollum (May 13, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So I was right about the head games.

All you've proved in this thread is that you might be worth disregarding in the future.


----------



## koshergrl (May 13, 2012)

bobcollum said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bobcollum said:
> ...



Yes, because QW has consistently handed you ass to you all the way through it.
I'd ignore him completely if I were you. He shows you up for the intolerant, bigoted moron you are..


----------



## bobcollum (May 13, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Oh KG coming from someone that thinks the Holocaust was the result of a homosexual conspiracy makes this all the more wacky.

I've tried to seriously have a discussion about it, yet all I get is assumptions and labels. 

Tell me again how I lack perspective.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 13, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> Bigotry comes in all shapes and sizes.  It comes from all political and sociological aspects.
> 
> Look in the mirror.  You will probably see a bigot, because quite frankly, bigotry is human nature.  Some can and do control it within them, but we all have our prejudices.
> 
> ...



Funny but you don't even know me so how can you make such a judgement without it being based on your own bias and intolerance of those who dare disagree with you?



Immanuel said:


> drsmith, when was the last time your position "evolved"?



I have voted for a republicans in the past. Jack kingston comes to mind when I was stationed at HAAF in savannah, ga. I have civil conversations with civil conservatives all of the time. Maybe if the conservatives here were more civil things would change but most of what shows up here is the worst of the party. 



Immanuel said:


> Have you ever met a conservative you liked?



Yes I know and like several. Some are even engaged in politics. gasp!



Immanuel said:


> Do you think there is any possibility that you might some day in your life?



Based on the fact that I already do your assumptions aare nothing but your own bias and intolerance as you try to frame someone based on your own false assumptions about liberals. Kind of bigoted on your part. 



Immanuel said:


> Are you going to dismiss everyone who disagrees with your views as you seem to have done in the past?



funny you mention that since that is exactly what the author of this thread did in the op. 



Immanuel said:


> I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong about you.



You are wrong but I doubt that you will have the integrity to admit it.



Immanuel said:


> Are you willing to "evolve"?



Already have and still doing so today. however, based on your own posts you are not and never truly will. 



Immanuel said:


> Before you ask, I can tell you without any hesitation that my views have "evolved" in many areas.  Abortion... I used to think that everyone who was pro-choice were thrilled to death at the thought of 4,000 babies dying every day.  Now, I realize, the vast majority of them are just as sickened by that idea as I am, but don't want government to interfere in our lives.



HUH? The same rightwing that argues against big government never fails to use big government to try to enforce their religious and moral beliefs through legislation. Although I do agree that women do not want the government to tell them what to do with their body it's interesting that the right has no qualms with using big government to do just that.   



Immanuel said:


> Gay Marriage... used to believe that marriage was a union between one man and one woman (still do that) and that the homosexuals could go screw themselves if they thought they were going to destroy the sanctity of marriage.  Now, I realize that homosexuals are discriminated in many ways, that they are entitled to the same rights and privileges as citizens of the United States as I am and that the government has no right being involved in the rites of the church.



WOW! As a true conservative that shouldn't have been a step in evolving it should have been ingrained in your system. However, many conservatives seem to have issue with hypocrisy on the big government front. It's bad when they disagree with it but they appear to have no problem with it when they desire such interference. 



Immanuel said:


> Therefore, the government needs to establish civil union laws and all "marriages" need to be established under civil union contracts.  Churches should be free to marry whomever they want, but a "marriage" should not be given any special priviliges by the state.  Those are two areas.  There are others, but I am still not willing to claim that I am not a bigot.  I have my prejudices just like everyone else.



That's a good step however as long as the right uses big government to legitmize discrimination and get praised for doing so I will reseve the right to call them out for their hypocrisy. 



Immanuel said:


> So, how, many of you are willing to be open minded and change your long held beliefs or are you willing to look yourself in the mirror and admit that you are a bigot?
> 
> Immie



Your entire argument is flawed based on your bias and intolerance of liberals. You have an idea that you believe is representative of all liberals and that applies to me when it doesn't. Thanks for the spin.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 13, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bigotry comes in all shapes and sizes.  It comes from all political and sociological aspects.
> ...



the sad thing is that instead of addressing the actual content of my post and how I pointed out some of the flaws/bigotry within the OP immie took the opportunity to attack me based on his own bias against the left as he tries to define me based on some misguided belief of what he believes is representative of a liberal.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 13, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



I know what he was quoting, but the way he quoted it actually violated copyright laws by not giving proper attribution. Being as he is a wannabe lawyer in grade school, he needs to avoid breaking the law in such obvious, if trivial, ways. 

It also totally missed the entire point of the blog I linked to, which means it was far from spot on.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 13, 2012)

bobcollum said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bobcollum said:
> ...



If, by head games, you mean I am pointing out how calling people bigots does not make them bigots, or that assuming the only possible explanation for not supporting same sex marriage is religious ignores the fact that there are outspoken atheists that oppose it, then I plead guilty to head games. If it makes you more comfortable to ignore me in the future so you don't have to deal with your own bigotry, feel free to do so. 

If you actually want to grow, I suggest you pay attention to everyone, even the idiots, because I have seen everyone on this board have flashes of genius, even the asshole racists like Tank and Salt Jones.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 13, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



The post was indeed spot on.  QWB is indeed a blow bag, who violates general procedure as well as integrity when he posts.  This poster is one of the least respected on the board for excellent reason.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 13, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



WHo has done that? Based on the definitons that I provided they are indeed bigots based on their actios and their positions. So as far as I can tell no one is merely calling them bigots without justification. Based on their own actions they define themselves as such.




Quantum Windbag said:


> or that assuming the only possible explanation for not supporting same sex marriage is religious ignores the fact that there are outspoken atheists that oppose it,



When the core of the argument against it is that they need to protect the sanctity of marriage then yes the only explanation is a religious one. How many atheists fit your argument? got any real numbers or a reason why? 



Quantum Windbag said:


> then I plead guilty to head games.



your "head games" are more along the lines of strawman arguments and providing only the definiton of "bigot" that fits your needs as you exclude all others. 




Quantum Windbag said:


> If it makes you more comfortable to ignore me in the future so you don't have to deal with your own bigotry, feel free to do so.
> 
> If you actually want to grow, I suggest you pay attention to everyone, even the idiots, because I have seen everyone on this board have flashes of genius, even the asshole racists like Tank and Salt Jones.



says the poster who started this thread based on how you "dismiss everyone who disagrees with their <your> views" by calling them "small minded."


----------



## Cowman (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > As conservatives would have people believe, black people are the real racists and homosexuals are the real bigots.
> ...



Whoosh. Right over your head. I said the real racists, as in the ones who are racist as opposed to anybody else.

Of course there are racists across all ages, races and religions. You'd have to be dumb to think otherwise.

Conservatives have a unique ability of defending racist people and throwing back the racist moniker onto the victims of derogatory racial commentary. After all, "reverse racism" is the only racism that exists, and gays are oppressing the ability of people to discriminate.


----------



## Cowman (May 13, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Thanks for admitting that you're a delusional idiot.


----------



## koshergrl (May 13, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



I have a dear friend who is a professor at USC who believes racism is particular to white people. She doesn't think non-white people can be racist.


----------



## koshergrl (May 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Irony.

And what "general procedure" is violated when QW posts?

You don't make sense, compounded by lying, per usual.


----------



## Immanuel (May 13, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bigotry comes in all shapes and sizes.  It comes from all political and sociological aspects.
> ...



Thank you for answering the question.  I must tell you that I did not expect that.

You are wrong though, I do know you.  I know you from your posts and you are in line with the other leftwing wackos on here who have never made a single post where they said a decent thing about a conservative. 

This was my question:



> drsmith, when was the last time your position "evolved"?



This was your answer:



> I have voted for a republicans in the past. Jack kingston comes to mind when I was stationed at HAAF in savannah, ga. I have civil conversations with civil conservatives all of the time. Maybe if the conservatives here were more civil things would change but most of what shows up here is the worst of the party.



You didn't answer the question.  Have your positions ever "evolved"?  

The next question you answered.  Thank you.

The next question, I should have put "If not," in front.

Your next answer proves you are not very intelligent.  I have already discussed the OP.  No reason for me to do so again.  Here was your answer:



> funny you mention that since that is exactly what the author of this thread did in the op.



I was responding to your post because you have a history of bigotry on this site that is almost beyond compare.

Next question:



> Are you willing to "evolve"?



Next answer:



> Already have and still doing so today. however, based on your own posts you are not and never truly will.



Since you didn't give any examples, can I ask did you evolve into being an asshole when you joined the site and are you hoping on changing back?

Next in regards to my example you came up with this, what I am certain you consider intelligent response.  It makes no sense:



> HUH? The same rightwing that argues against big government never fails to use big government to try to enforce their religious and moral beliefs through legislation. Although I do agree that women do not want the government to tell them what to do with their body it's interesting that the right has no qualms with using big government to do just that.



Do you see me defending the right wing?  Do you see me defending Republicans.  Do you see me attempting to force my religious viewpoints on anyone?

And further nonsense from you:



> WOW! As a true conservative that shouldn't have been a step in evolving it should have been ingrained in your system. However, many conservatives seem to have issue with hypocrisy on the big government front. It's bad when they disagree with it but they appear to have no problem with it when they desire such interference.



You do realize don't you, that I was describing how I have evolved into what I believe to be a better human being.  What do "many conservatives" have to do with this discussion?

Next response:



> That's a good step however as long as the right uses big government to legitmize discrimination and get praised for doing so I will reseve the right to call them out for their hypocrisy.



Once again, do you see me praising big government?  Why are you not intelligent enough to call out the left for doing the exact same thing?

You should call people out for legitimizing discrimination.  Might be a damned good idea if you started with yourself.



> Your entire argument is flawed based on your bias and intolerance of liberals.



Hehe, that is hilarious.  I have a lot of friends on this site that are liberal.  I'm not intolerant of their viewpoints at all.  I am intolerant of the bigotry displayed by people such as yourself and Chris, rdean, TDM, William Joyce, bripat#### and a few others.



> You have an idea that you believe is representative of all liberals and that applies to me when it doesn't.



It doesn't?  Really?  Have you ever made a post on this site that complemented or supported anything said by a conservative?  Even one post?

You can simply answer yes or no and maybe you can name the conservative, but I don't believe you have.

So, I think I am right, you are a bigot.

Your friend,

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Feel free to report my posts, it will give the mods a laugh.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 13, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



well based on how you are obviously not interested in my responses and seem more interested in insulting me based solely on your preconceived notions about me there is no point is wasting my time responding to a hack who refuses to offer me the same courtesy.

Thanks for nothing hack.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 13, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bobcollum said:
> ...



Funny, I don't ever recall trying to make the argument that there are not bigots that oppose same sex marriage. I am just pointing out that dismissing all opposition to same sex marriage as bigotry makes anyone who does it a bigot. That has resulted in some lame attempts to argue that people who support something cannot be bigots. You are the one that is trying to insist that the only definition of a bigot that applies is one that excludes you. I am quite willing to admit my bigotry, I have been dealing with it for years. The result of that is I am better able to learn from people who disagree with me.

By the way, the only people who disagree with my views on this subject are the ones that think that their side has no bigots. since I actually support same sex marriage as long as the government insists on recognizes it, and am even comfortable with the idea of expanding the government recognition to other areas. I would actually prefer eliminating all preferential tax treatment based on preferred behavior patterns, aka morality, but there are too many idiots, like you, that prefer to legislate their morality than make their own choices for me to believe that will happen.

Please, continue to try to demonstrate my bigotry by making assumptions about my position based on your own bigotry, this thread has actually given me some of the most fun of anything I ever posted on this forum.


----------



## naturegirl (May 13, 2012)

People are people, some have strong opinions.  Just as I feel about birth control and abortions, sexual orientation is different from person to person.  

I think the government should stay out of everyone's bedrooms, Gay or Straight.  

They have no business telling anyone what's acceptable and what's not.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion, information creates a different mind set.  Cramming something down someone's throat isn't going to change their opinion, providing them with factual information instead of strong opinions gives them the information they can use.  They can also choose not to use it, it should be their choice, not the government's.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 13, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You are despised of truth, so I worry not about you, little one.

QWB is your equal.


----------



## koshergrl (May 13, 2012)

More irony.

And I don't recall ever hearing QW tell a lie, about himself or someone else.

You, however....


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 13, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



And i quote



Quantum Windbag said:


> I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.



In that phrase alone you are declaring that the "bigots" are nopt the people against same sex marriage and that those who think so are "small minded." Maybe you meant to say something else but the content of your post is quite clear. 

Then you go on to try to argue that those who believe bigots are against same sex marriage are bigots themselves based on your chosen defintion of "bigot."



Quantum Windbag said:


> Next time somebody wants to dismiss everyone who disagrees with their views about same sex marriage as a bigot they should remember what the word actually means and take a step to end the intolerance.
> 
> 
> Bigot [big-uht] (noun) a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.






Quantum Windbag said:


> I am just pointing out that dismissing all opposition to same sex marriage as bigotry makes anyone who does it a bigot.



there in lies the flaw in your argument. Pointing out bigotry does not make one a bigot. Engaging in acts that show how you are intolerant of others is bigotry. A person asking to be treated equally in the face of bigotry is not a bigot.




Quantum Windbag said:


> That has resulted in some lame attempts to argue that people who support something cannot be bigots.



Really? anyone can be a bigot but your definition and interpretation is hardly the end all and be all interpretation.



Quantum Windbag said:


> You are the one that is trying to insist that the only definition of a bigot that applies is one that excludes you.



I am?? Really? Where? 



Quantum Windbag said:


> I am quite willing to admit my bigotry, I have been dealing with it for years. The result of that is I am better able to learn from people who disagree with me.



well good for you if true but based on what and how you write it seems that you still have a long way to go.



Quantum Windbag said:


> By the way, the only people who disagree with my views on this subject are the ones that think that their side has no bigots.



really?? I disagree with you and I don't doubt that my side has bigots. Now where does that leave your all enveloping argument? 




Quantum Windbag said:


> since I actually support same sex marriage as long as the government insists on recognizes it, and am even comfortable with the idea of expanding the government recognition to other areas. I would actually prefer eliminating all preferential tax treatment based on preferred behavior patterns, aka morality, but there are too many idiots, like you, that prefer to legislate their morality than make their own choices for me to believe that will happen.



An all or nothing approach is interesting and would be a good thing but as soon as you try that there are those that will argue that you are trying to distroy the sanctity of marriage or violating their freedom of religion even though many have argued that it doesn't apply to same sex marriage. 



Quantum Windbag said:


> Please, continue to try to demonstrate my bigotry by making assumptions about my position based on your own bigotry,



HUH?? your "bigotry" or intolerance of others is evident in your OP when you choose "to dismiss everyone who disagrees with" your position as you declare that they are small minded for disagreeing with you.




Quantum Windbag said:


> this thread has actually given me some of the most fun of anything I ever posted on this forum.



I am certian that based on your delusions and failure to recognize the difference between bigotry and pointing it out even as you fail to address your own intolerance of those who disagree with you that you are having "fun." No matter how much others are laughing at you. 

BTW, what is really funny is that I asked you a few simple questions about your own statements and you couldn't even bother to answer them. Imagine that.


----------



## francoHFW (May 13, 2012)

Those who hate , discriminate against, and support policies that do the same to, minorities like blacks, hispanics, gays, foreigners, women, etc. IE the GOP- if you don't believe, ask those minorities. Change the channel and think, dupes. God will not be amused by willful ignorance and arrogance.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 13, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> More irony.  And I don't recall ever hearing QW tell a lie, about himself or someone else.  You, however....


  You and truth telling are not buddies.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 13, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> In that phrase alone you are declaring that the "bigots" are nopt the people against same sex marriage and that those who think so are "small minded." Maybe you meant to say something else but the content of your post is quite clear.
> 
> Then you go on to try to argue that those who believe bigots are against same sex marriage are bigots themselves based on your chosen defintion of "bigot."



Apparently your understanding of English is about as solid as your understanding of politics. Since you are obviously so much smarter than me, and everyone else, why don't you explain how dismissing an entire state as bigots because they voted against same sex marriage isn't small minded. Before you try go back and actually read the blog I linked to where an outspoken gay man who lives in North Carlina is offended by the idiots, like you, who do this because he is actually friends with some of those people, and knows that they are not making that decision based on bigotry. Or would doing so actually expose your belief system to facts that conflicting information that would cause you to short circuit if you tried to consider it?



drsmith1072 said:


> there in lies the flaw in your argument. Pointing out bigotry does not make one a bigot. Engaging in acts that show how you are intolerant of others is bigotry. A person asking to be treated equally in the face of bigotry is not a bigot.



How is that a flaw in my argument? Did I say that people who want equal treatment are bigots? No, what I said is that people who refuse to change their beliefs when presented with factual evidence that contradicts it are bigots. I can point to people on the right in this thread who are being bigots without a bit of a problem. I can also point to people on the left who are being bigots, one of them is you because you refuse to admit that it is actually possible to vote against something you like unless the person doing it is a bigot even when  gay man steps up to point out they aren't. 

Why does that offend you?



drsmith1072 said:


> Really? anyone can be a bigot but your definition and interpretation is hardly the end all and be all interpretation.



Didn't say it was. If I actually believed the claptrap you keep trying to say I do I wouldn't have admitted I am a bigot, would I?



drsmith1072 said:


> well good for you if true but based on what and how you write it seems that you still have a long way to go.



Maybe,m but not nearly as far as you do, and certainly not in the way you mean.



drsmith1072 said:


> really?? I disagree with you and I don't doubt that my side has bigots. Now where does that leave your all enveloping argument? [/qipte]
> 
> The problem here is not that your side has bigots you refuse to see, the problem here is that you personally are the bigot. This can easily be demonstrated by the fact that despite the fact that I have clearly demonstrated that I actually support same sex marriage you are still insisting that I am the one that needs to adjust my attitude because it does not fall into line with what you believe.
> 
> ...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 13, 2012)

francoHFW said:


> Those who hate , discriminate against, and support policies that do the same to, minorities like blacks, hispanics, gays, foreigners, women, etc. IE the GOP- if you don't believe, ask those minorities. Change the channel and think, dupes. God will not be amused by willful ignorance and arrogance.



You oppose policies that discriminate against minorities? Would that include a policy that deliberately makes them less capable than other groups? Do you oppose affirmative action?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 13, 2012)

"I am not dismissing everyone who disagrees with me, all I am doing is pointing out that the people who dismiss everyone who disagrees with them as a bigot is showing a high degree of intolerance and bigotry."

Live the words, or metaphorically die by them.


----------



## Immanuel (May 13, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



I asked you perfectly honest questions and gave you a perfectly easy way to state that you are not the bigot you come across as.  I was kind of hoping you would take the opportunity.  But, you replied with bullshit bigotry.  I should have known you would.  

You didn't even read my reply.

It is obvious who is the bigot and that would be you.  And quite frankly, I would prefer to be a hack than a discriminating bigot.

Sianora, bigot.

Immie


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 13, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > > By and large, the prejudice that exists is a  matter of _a lack of understanding._
> ...


Enough to know that they do not wish to know. And that's the way it is. 
It's called minding one's own business.
I do not want to know these people. I don't wish to interact with them. I absolutely oppose being forced to accept their lifestyle. It is their personal affair. It should be kept that way.
On a personal note, I think gay people should do whatever makes them happy so as long as I am not involved or forced to be relieved of my core beliefs on the matter.
5 billion people on this planet love the sport of soccer. I cannot watch the game for 30 seconds without requiring a pot of coffee to stay awake. 
I understand the culture of the fandom of soccer. I choose not to get involved.
No I am not "comparing soccer fanatacism to gay marriage. I simply am making an analogy.


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 13, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What I find humorous is that in 2008 there enough liberals in the state of NC to give Obama their 13 electoral votes. Based on that fact, where were they last Tuesday? All those liberal, seemingly favorable to gay marriage voters?
Turnout was very high in NC. Over 60% of eligible voters. Could it be NC has far fewer libs than many election analysts thought? Or is that even moderate libs and middle of the road democrat voters actually do not favor gay marriage?
This is what kills me about the left. They expect all democrats to march in 100% lockstep with the "cause".


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 13, 2012)

I gather dems no more march in lock step than pubs.  Unless it is refusing to govern: that McConnell and Boehner got bent over by the TP caucuses and taught a lesson.  What will be fun will be the assignments that don't go to the rump remainder of the TP still in Congress in January, which will be at least 50% less than now.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> "I am not dismissing everyone who disagrees with me, all I am doing is pointing out that the people who dismiss everyone who disagrees with them as a bigot is showing a high degree of intolerance and bigotry."
> 
> Live the words, or metaphorically die by them.



Is that too complicated for you to understand? Should I say it again using one syllable words?


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 13, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Is bigotry always a bad thing?
> ...


Holy shit.....Really dude? Are you that much of a reactionary non-thinker?


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 13, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > In that phrase alone you are declaring that the "bigots" are nopt the people against same sex marriage and that those who think so are "small minded." Maybe you meant to say something else but the content of your post is quite clear.
> ...



I have no qualms with what he said. My argument is concerned with YOUR statements and how your framed your OP. Why is that so hard for your to understand? 



Quantum Windbag said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > there in lies the flaw in your argument. Pointing out bigotry does not make one a bigot. Engaging in acts that show how you are intolerant of others is bigotry. A person asking to be treated equally in the face of bigotry is not a bigot.
> ...



I explained it quite clearly. Maybe you should focus on your own lack of understanding of the english language and less time worrying about mine? 




Quantum Windbag said:


> No, what I said is that people who refuse to change their beliefs when presented with factual evidence that contradicts it are bigots.



that is NOT what you said in the excerpt that I was commenting on so what are you playing at now? 



Quantum Windbag said:


> I can point to people on the right in this thread who are being bigots without a bit of a problem.



you and your seven personalities don't count as 8. Instead of claimng that you can do why not just do it?



Quantum Windbag said:


> I can also point to people on the left who are being bigots, one of them is you *because you refuse to admit that it is actually possible to vote against something you like unless the person doing it is a bigot* even when  gay man steps up to point out they aren't.




I never said anything of the kind but then you know that already don't you? So why LIE about my position like that? 



Quantum Windbag said:


> Why does that offend you?



WHy does your dishonest attempt to redefine my arguments to suit your needs offend me?? Hmm? i can think of a frew reasons. 




Quantum Windbag said:


> Didn't say it was. If I actually believed the claptrap you keep trying to say I do I wouldn't have admitted I am a bigot, would I?



a halfassed admission you would be "QUITE WILLING" to admit your bigotry in an attempt to give validity to your argument means very little. However, thanks anyway. 

Ok we will just stop right here where you omitted part of the previous post in an attempt to avoid answering a question you knew that you could not answer even though you repeated the false allegation here in this one. here is the omission on your part



Quantum Windbag said:


> You are the one that is trying to insist that the only definition of a bigot that applies is one that excludes you.




and i asked 

I am?? Really? Where?

So if you are going to be that blatantly dishoenst then what is the point of debating?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 13, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > "I am not dismissing everyone who disagrees with me, all I am doing is pointing out that the people who dismiss everyone who disagrees with them as a bigot is showing a high degree of intolerance and bigotry."
> ...



You understand, so for you from now on, it is put up or get shut up.

Just saying.  Oh, don't act the e-thug.  You are too much of a hunnee for that.


----------



## koshergrl (May 13, 2012)

Pffft, lololol. You're such a bozo, js.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 13, 2012)

You are such a loony goony, kg.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 13, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



My "famed" OP consisted of two sentences. I went to the trouble of repeating them and specifically asking what it was you found offensive about them, you couldn't actually find an answer, so I guess you chose to ignore the question.

Yet, somehow, I am the close minded bigot because I do not agree with you.

Just as an aside, I never said you said the portion you emphasized in your attempt to make me look stupid, I said you refuse to admit it. You still have not done so, have you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I am a hunnee? Thank you.

Just an FYI, I am spoken for, and I actually prefer people who can think.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 13, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



you did no such thing but then you have alredy been shown to be dishonest so making false claims now really isn't that much of a stretch for you is it? 

Oh and i read your "reply" however, since your "replies" never really addressed the actual content of my post nor answered the questions that I asked I decided to treat you with the same avoidance that you are treating me with. 

In the previous exchange I spent a lot of time responded to every aspect of your post and you couldn't do the same so there is no point in wasting my time responding to it all again when you refuse to offer me the same courtesy.

Run along little hack. LOL Thanks again for nothing.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 13, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


  That is good you will have someone who can think for you, because it will be needed in the marriage.


----------



## Joshuatree (May 13, 2012)

I believe...that it's possible, for a gay man or a gay woman, to become heterossexual. I know for personal experience that God CAN do things that for us are impossible.

Have you ever heard about a man called Michal Glatze? He used to be one of the most well known gay activists in the USA and now he's... heterossexual! 

Confessions of a former &#8216;gay rights&#8217; leader


----------



## Mac1958 (May 13, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...





Evidently you didn't read his response, which was in the affirmative.

But don't let that stop your little insults.

Too funny.


.


----------



## Immanuel (May 13, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Didn't address the content of your posts? 

You are so dishonest in this post.  I responded to everyone of your deflections and responses.  It is quite noticeable that you are refusing to answer the question as to whether or not you have ever made a polite response to a conservative.  Your avoidance of the question which would be as simple as a yes or no answer is noteworthy.

You are an idiot.  My initial post to you and every post after word did in fact address the content of your posts.

Your initial post defined bigotry with two similar definitions.

I very clearly addressed your definitions and then preceeded to further the discussion.

The only questions you have asked me in this discussion are:



> Funny but you don't even know me so how can you make such a judgement without it being based on your own bias and intolerance of those who dare disagree with you?



I answered that.  I said I do know you by your posts.



> HUH?



Sorry, I don't have an answer to that.  In English, what were you trying to ask me there?

Those are the only two questions you have asked me in this thread.  One was asked and answered, the other wasn't even asked in English.  I can't reply to it.

You are obviously a bigot.  When you call QW a bigot you are pointing out your hypocrisy.

Be well, bigot.

Immie


----------



## Darkwind (May 13, 2012)

Anyone know what a "Hero" is?

Its just a sandwich.

Anyone know what a Bigot is?

Its just an overused word with no meaning.

Anyone care to guess why bigot no longer has any value or meaning?

I won't wait up.


----------



## Joshuatree (May 13, 2012)

How a &#8216;gay rights&#8217; leader became straight


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 13, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




Nope I answered it and you discarded my answer. Not my problem. Go find it if you want i am through wasting my time reposting things for you.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Yet, somehow, I am the close minded bigot because I do not agree with you.



Did I say that exactly?? Really? Care to show me when and where I said that? Not that you will based on how you have failed to back up your other attempts to redefine my posiions by putting words into my mouth. 



Quantum Windbag said:


> Just as an aside, I never* said you said the portion* you emphasized in your attempt to make me look stupid, I said you refuse to admit it. You still have not done so, have you?



Which portion was that? specifics please. Do you really not remember what you said?

BTW how would the whole state of NC is bigoted based on how only 61% voted in favor of the amendment? 

Still waiting on that list of rightwing and left bigots in this thread.

Still on you to show when and where I stated that I refuse to admit that it's possible to vote against something without being a bigot.



Quantum Windbag said:


> I can also point to people on the left who are being bigots, one of them is you because you refuse to admit that it is actually possible to vote against something you like unless the person doing it is a bigot



Still waiting on you to show where i insisted the following.



Quantum Windbag said:


> You are the one that is trying to insist that the only definition of a bigot that applies is one that excludes you



However, my guess is that you avoided them to begin with there is no point in waiting on integrity that will never come from you.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 13, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Oh and just saw this post and had to laugh. you chime in attack me personally and call me names as you redefine me based on your bias and assumptions and you think I am upset because of some past disagreement that you claim exists but I honestly don't remember? LOL 

Hate to burst your self absorption bubble but I couldn't have cared less about you until you chimed in to attack me personally. lol


----------



## Joshuatree (May 13, 2012)

At age 22, I became an editor of the first magazine aimed at a young, gay male audience. It bordered on pornography in its photographic content, but I figured I could use it as a platform to bigger and better things.

Sure enough, Young Gay America came around. It was meant to fill the void that the other magazine Id worked for had created  namely, anything not-so-pornographic, aimed at the population of young, gay Americans. Young Gay America took off.

Young Gay America launched YGA Magazine in 2004, to pretend to provide a virtuous counterpart to the other newsstand media aimed at gay youth. I say pretend because the truth was, YGA was as damaging as anything else out there, just not overtly pornographic, so it was more respected.

It took me almost 16 years to discover that homosexuality itself is not exactly virtuous. It was difficult for me to clarify my feelings on the issue, given that my life was so caught up in it.

Homosexuality, delivered to young minds, is by its very nature pornographic. It destroys impressionable minds and confuses their developing sexuality; I did not realize this, however, until I was 30 years old.

(...)

In my experience, coming out from under the influence of the homosexual mindset was the most liberating, beautiful and astonishing thing Ive ever experienced in my entire life.

- Michael Glatze


----------



## Ravi (May 13, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


Usually Immie is a pretty balanced person. Currently, and sadly, he's caught a case of ODS. Hopefully it isn't terminal.


----------



## Ravi (May 13, 2012)

naturegirl said:


> People are people, some have strong opinions.  Just as I feel about birth control and abortions, sexual orientation is different from person to person.
> 
> I think the government should stay out of everyone's bedrooms, Gay or Straight.
> 
> They have no business telling anyone what's acceptable and what's not.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion, information creates a different mind set.  Cramming something down someone's throat isn't going to change their opinion, providing them with factual information instead of strong opinions gives them the information they can use.  They can also choose not to use it, it should be their choice, not the government's.


The most ironic thing about the gay marriage issue is that social conservatives, by their non-stop demonization of gays, helped gay people come out of the closet to defend themselves.

Good post, btw.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (May 13, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> *Who are the real bigots?*





> *The Hiller Armament Company*



​


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 13, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Nope, but then you already know that don't you? 



Immanuel said:


> I responded to everyone of your deflections and responses.



Nope, but then you already know that don't you? Saying "good answer" or thannking me for an answer and then running on with your rant that I am bigotted beucase you kn ow mke based on the few posts that i have posted over the years is discarding my responses and failing to actually address them.  



Immanuel said:


> It is quite noticeable that you are refusing to answer the question as to whether or not you have ever made a polite response to a conservative.  Your avoidance of the question which would be as simple as a yes or no answer is noteworthy.



Nope done so in the other thread but after you start discarding my reponses I decided there was no point in wasting my time with the rest of your drivel when you will only do the same to those response that you can't spin or run counter to your predisposed opinions.



Immanuel said:


> You are an idiot.  My initial post to you and every post after word did in fact address the content of your posts.



Says the hack. who puts words in my mouth and assumes to know what i am really thiniking as he ignores what I actually said. 



Immanuel said:


> Your initial post defined bigotry with two similar definitions.
> 
> I very clearly addressed your definitions and then preceeded to further the discussion.




If you mean that you insulted me based on your bias and assumptions then yeah sure you addressed everything. LOL 



Immanuel said:


> The only questions you have asked me in this discussion are:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here is your "answer"



Immanuel said:


> You are wrong though, I do know you.  I know you from your posts and you are in line with the other leftwing wackos on here who have never made a single post where they said a decent thing about a conservative.



You claim that you do know me based on my posts and claim that I never made a single post taht said a decent thing about a conservative but that is false. My comments about jack kingston alone show that ot be the case. The sad thing is that you made that accusation based on your own bias and assumptions and were WRONG. Furthermore, can one actually claim knowledge of the person behind the screenname based solely on the content of thei posts? NO. 



Immanuel said:


> > HUH?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't have an answer to that.  In English, what were you trying to ask me there?



context please. What was the "huh?" in response to? How is that not english?



Immanuel said:


> Those are the only two questions you have asked me in this thread.  One was asked and answered, the other wasn't even asked in English.  I can't reply to it.



so "huh?" in response to one of your posts is not english? WOW!




Immanuel said:


> You are obviously a bigot.



says the hack who decided I was a bigot merely because I disagree with his predisposed opinions and apparently some slight he perceived in the past that I can't even remember.



Immanuel said:


> When you call QW a bigot you are pointing out your hypocrisy.
> 
> Be well, bigot.
> 
> Immie



Really? How? How is my pointing out his bigotry considered hypocrisy? Funny how you failed to show anything to suppoort such an accusation but then when you are filled with hatred and obsession as you obviously are there is no need for a reason is there?


----------



## Ravi (May 13, 2012)

Bottom line:

If the people that voted to ban gay marriage weren't bigots, they wouldn't have voted to ban gay marriage.

No real conservative or liberal would ever be for denying someone a right simply because of their sexual orientation.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (May 13, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> *Who are the real bigots?*





> *North Carolina; 1929 - 1974*​



​


----------



## koshergrl (May 13, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Bottom line:
> 
> If the people that voted to ban gay marriage weren't bigots, they wouldn't have voted to ban gay marriage.
> 
> No real conservative or liberal would ever be for denying someone a right simply because of their sexual orientation.


They haven't been denied anything; they've refused to participate. If they choose to marry a person of the opposite sex, they will be able to be married just like anyone else who wants to marry a person of the opposite sex, regardless of sexual orientation.

They've just chosen not to participate in the construct. If they choose to participate, they can.


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> I gather dems no more march in lock step than pubs.  Unless it is refusing to govern: that McConnell and Boehner got bent over by the TP caucuses and taught a lesson.  What will be fun will be the assignments that don't go to the rump remainder of the TP still in Congress in January, which will be at least 50% less than now.



You "gather"?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 13, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



If you actually addressed my two sentences in the OP and what it was I said that was bigoted feel free to go back and show me where. Until you do you are an idiotic bigot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 13, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Bottom line:
> 
> If the people that voted to ban gay marriage weren't bigots, they wouldn't have voted to ban gay marriage.
> 
> No real conservative or liberal would ever be for denying someone a right simply because of their sexual orientation.



Thank you for being honest and making the only point that this thread is trying to make.


----------



## bobcollum (May 13, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line:
> ...



There he goes again...it's our fault for not understanding that they don't mean to be bigots, even if the end result mimics a bigoted judgment.

I guess...


----------



## Immanuel (May 13, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



My god, you are a middle schooler.



> Nope, but then you already know that don't you? Saying "good answer" or thannking me for an answer and then running on with your rant that I am bigotted beucase you kn ow mke based on the few posts that i have posted over the years is discarding my responses and failing to actually address them.



A few posts?  I am sure you can count to three.  That is what a few is.

You have over 5930 posts of nothing but hate.  The vast majority of them prove that you are a bigot, and, I'm not exactly certain I would call any of your post about Mr. Kingston as being polite to conservatives.

Here are some of the older ones. And the comment about willow just furthers proof that you can't be polite to anyone you don't agree with.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...bagger-to-tea-party-folks-36.html#post2459467

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...bagger-to-tea-party-folks-44.html#post2466316

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-h-r-5741-is-now-in-debate-2.html#post2558393

Holding up three posts out of nearly 6000 doesn't make you a pillar of impartiality, especially when all three of them were, in fact, rude to conservatives, The Rabbi and Willow, and the third was a slam on Glenn Beck.  You must be a very proud bigot.



> Nope done so in the other thread but after you start discarding my reponses I decided there was no point in wasting my time with the rest of your drivel when you will only do the same to those response that you can't spin or run counter to your predisposed opinions.



More lies on your part.  I have responded to all of your posts and not discarded a one of your responses.



> Says the hack. who puts words in my mouth and assumes to know what i am really thiniking as he ignores what I actually said.



More lies from the bigot.



> If you mean that you insulted me based on your bias and assumptions then yeah sure you addressed everything. LOL



My own biases?  Can you show anything that shows my assumptions to be incorrect?  Got anything besides your hate-filled, "I am a swell guy because I once voted for Jack Kingston" posts all three of which were actually proof of what I said in the first post.



> You claim that you do know me based on my posts and claim that I never made a single post taht said a decent thing about a conservative but that is false. My comments about jack kingston alone show that ot be the case.



Liar, your three posts, the only three posts you made about Kingston before today, were, in fact, proof that you are a bigot with half-assed attempts at justifying your damned bigotry by throwing out a name of a person who nobody even knows here.

Face it, you are a damned bigot and your calling me a hack is not going to change that.



> The sad thing is that you made that accusation based on your own bias and assumptions and were WRONG.



Really?  Still going with the whhhaaaaa whhhhaaaaaa I'm not a bigot defense?  

It isn't working.



> Furthermore, can one actually claim knowledge of the person behind the screenname based solely on the content of thei posts? NO.



Seeing as how all of my points about knowing you have very clearly been in reference to the man (are you even a man?) online, that doesn't make any sense.  Clearly online you are a bigot.  You have laid out your defense... "I'm not a bigot because a long long time ago, I voted for a Republican named Jack Kingston" and it simply doesn't hold water. 



> context please. What was the "huh?" in response to? How is that not english?



Follow the links like I had to do.  It was in your response to my efforts to show how I had evolved over the time I have been posting.  One of the very first posts you made and either in regards to my statement about evolving in my stance on abortion or on gay marriage.



> so "huh?" in response to one of your posts is not english? WOW!



Huh, doesn't leave any room for an answer that is for sure.  It's an interjection used as an exclamation of surprise.  Not a question.  How is anyone supposed to answer that?  At the best it is a moron speaking out his incomprehension.  



> says the hack who decided I was a bigot merely because I disagree with his predisposed opinions and apparently some slight he perceived in the past that I can't even remember.



Is it really so difficult to understand that one, I would much rather be a hack than a bigot.  At least hacks have a moral backbones.  Bigotry is based upon the immorality of discrimination.  Call me a hack all you want.  The proof is in the pudding that I treat left and right quite fairly.  Conversely the proof is in the pudding that you do not.



> Really? How? How is my pointing out his bigotry considered hypocrisy? Funny how you failed to show anything to suppoort such an accusation but then when you are filled with hatred and obsession as you obviously are there is no need for a reason is there?



Really?  Who's filled with hatred and obsession?  You are the one that is obsessed with hatred.  I'm sitting here laughing my ass off at your extremely feeble attempts at proving that you are not a damned bigot and failing at doing so.  

This has been a classic conversation, and I can't believe that you have allowed me to get away with proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are in fact a bigot.

This is hilarious!

Thank you very much for the laughs my friend,

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 13, 2012)

bobcollum said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Did I say that?

Ravi clearly stated that the only reason to vote against same sex marriage is bigotry. Do you see that as anything other than bigotry? If you do, explain how in a way that actually makes sense. I posted a link to an entire blog post written by a gay man about why it is wrong to dismiss their actions as bigotry, yet she still insists that it is, despite the evidence to the contrary. Yet, for some reason, I am the one that is not making sense.

You figure it out.


----------



## ABikerSailor (May 14, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line:
> ...



So, in other words, it's do as we do and you're okay, but do different and you'll be persecuted?

Well, I'm not surprised, it's kinda what I'd expect out of Kaiser Twat.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I posted a link to an entire blog post written by a gay man about why it is wrong to dismiss their actions as bigotry, . . .


  Yet you don't accept the conclusions of several dozen lesbians that they believed male abuse facilitated their sexuality?

Yes, you ae a wind bag.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Everybody is a bigot anyone who says they aren't is a liar, or a person who can't think for themselves and is what I call a tumbleweed that move about as the political winds blow.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

bigrebnc demonstrates an usual moment of self clarity.

I applaud him.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc demonstrates an usual moment of self clarity.
> 
> I applaud him.



I said everybody unless you are a tumbleweed are you a tumbleweed jake?


----------



## candycorn (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The root of most bigotry is ignorance.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc demonstrates an usual moment of self clarity.
> ...



I applaud you for recognizing and admitting to your fault.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

I am bigoted against liars like  you.

I am bigoted against folks like you who pretend you understand when you don't.

I am bigoted against folks like you who hate the Constitution.

bigrebnc, other than that, I salute you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Jake is a bigot who thinks that a woman is asking for what she get's just because of something she is wearing.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Jake seems to think a woman deserves what she get's just because of the way she is dressed. DOES HE MEAN RAPE IS OK?



JakeStarkey said:


> Some women want to be able to dress any way, act any away, or speak any way without condemnation.
> 
> Not going to happen.  Dress like a slut, you are a slut.  Act like a slut, you are a slut.  Speak like a slut, you are a slut.
> 
> ...






JakeStarkey said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Today's young women are succeeding in making it cool to be a slut. Look how most young women dress today. Listen to their language. Look at their favorite musicians and actresses.
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

littledebfascist writes, "Jake is a bigot who thinks that a woman is asking for what she get's just because of something she is wearing."

A lie.  Or you can link to where I said that.  Thank you for making this easy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> littledebfascist writes, "Jake is a bigot who thinks that a woman is asking for what she get's just because of something she is wearing."
> 
> A lie.  Or you can link to where I said that.  Thank you for making this easy.



Liar Why is that you can't read what you posted? Are you a clothes nazi?


JakeStarkey said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

Link it then.


----------



## bobcollum (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I read the entire blog post in an earlier attempt to understand the op as much as possible before I commented on it. It was a huge factor leading to my guess that many people in that group feel that way for religious reasons, you know, because that's the only reason the blogger actually mentioned, though obviously there are others as well...you got pretty butt-hurt when you felt I left them out. You'd think there were many other examples of non-religious-anti-gay-marriage people, but I only got one from you and then you barked for me to do my own research, presumably because you can't be bothered to make a good case.

This thread is never going to go anywhere productive.


----------



## BDBoop (May 14, 2012)

candycorn said:


> The root of most bigotry is ignorance.



And on the same note, slightly different direction - if you know, really know, someone who is LGBT; how you can tell them that what makes them THEM is abhorrent to YOU.

And in my estimation, especially if that 'someone' is your offspring.

Dick Cheney can attest to that.


----------



## koshergrl (May 14, 2012)

The fact that a sex act defines them is their problem, not mine.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Link it then.


Link to what? Your post?



OK



JakeStarkey said:


> Some women want to be able to dress any way, act any away, or speak any way without condemnation.
> 
> Not going to happen.  Dress like a slut, you are a slut.  Act like a slut, you are a slut.  Speak like a slut, you are a slut.
> 
> ...






JakeStarkey said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Today's young women are succeeding in making it cool to be a slut. Look how most young women dress today. Listen to their language. Look at their favorite musicians and actresses.
> ...



Jake  thinks a woman deserrves what she get's because of what she wears He's a clothes NAZI. And thanks for the neg.


----------



## candycorn (May 14, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > The root of most bigotry is ignorance.
> ...



Well, it's like I said on a different thread.

Nobody that anyone has ever heard of has been on the pro-gay marriage side of the argument, had a change of heart, then reversed course after knowing same-sex couples.  I imagine the "born again" types may have an intellectual change of heart but informed decisions upon this topic have always been on the side of acceptance.  

That is how you know you're right about something.  The future looks quite bright for those on the side of an enlightened approach.  The youth of this nation have roundly accepted it, 12% of the states now allow it and data is pouring in that shows that gay marriage is no threat to the institution or the nation's "morals" which have hetero marriages ending in divorce about 1/2 of the time; as if morality of heteros is unassailable if you use the same measuring stick.  

I'm pretty sure the right wing posters here understand that they are about to be condemned to the dustbin of history and that has resulted in the sad faux rage, mean spirited posts, cynical nature of Obama's announcement, etc...


----------



## Cowman (May 14, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> The fact that a sex act defines them is their problem, not mine.



A sex act defines them no more than it defines you.


----------



## koshergrl (May 14, 2012)

What ridiculous garbage.

You do realize that Pooper is one of the most ignorant trolls on the site? That she's proud of the fact that she doesn't bother educating herself (reading) about topics she doesn't hesitate to opine on?

The pro-homosexual lobby can only gain power and support by lying about the other side. I'm not ignorant at all...the repeated and false carping that anyone who doesn't want the laws changed to accomodate gays who want to be considered married, even though they have opted out of that construct, "hates" gays, or even more idiotic, have never "known" gays is ridiculous. If homosexuality is so normal and widespread, as the homosexual lobby claims (citing the studies of the child molester Kinsey, of course) then you are arguing against your own propaganda.

Likewise, it's a lie that everybody who opposes state-recognized, state-enforced, gay marriage, is "ignorant". If that were true, there would be no intelligent, well educated people standing against it. That's so ridiculous it makes a person wonder why the homosexual lobby even employs that particular strategy...then you see retards like Boop and Ravi swallowing it and you realize..they're talking to their base. Who ARE ignorant and uneducated, and who support them blindly when they are deluged with propaganda.

So is Romney an ignorant hick? Do you think he's never known a gay couple?

The bigotry is so on the side of the homosexual lobby it's ridiculous. The stupid meme that anyone who doesn't believe in state supported homosexual marriage is an ignorant, bigoted homophobe is just more propaganda. The bigotry is on the other side...those who proudly bray that anyone who doesn't buy their agenda is "stupid", "ignorant", "bigoted". 

In fact, that is the bigotry, right there.


----------



## BDBoop (May 14, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> What ridiculous garbage.
> 
> You do realize that Pooper is one of the most ignorant trolls on the site? That she's proud of the fact that she doesn't bother educating herself (reading) about topics she doesn't hesitate to opine on?
> 
> ...



If he really knows them, and still thinks they should be denied marriage - then my estimation of him would drop even further.


----------



## koshergrl (May 14, 2012)

Cowman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that a sex act defines them is their problem, not mine.
> ...


 
Sure it does. 
LGBT
GLAAD
ILGA
Association of Gay & Lesbian Psychiatrists...

I'd say they very much define themselves by a single sex act.


----------



## Cowman (May 14, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Because you're stupid. Do you define heterosexuals by a single sex act? Because you should, if you're going to do the same to homosexuals.

"Lesbian" and "Gay" are not sex acts, idiot.


----------



## Ravi (May 14, 2012)

bobcollum said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bobcollum said:
> ...


You have to wonder if the blog post in the OP is for real....what is actually being said by the blogger that it is gay people's own fault that people vote against gay marriage.

How ridiculous can it get.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > I posted a link to an entire blog post written by a gay man about why it is wrong to dismiss their actions as bigotry, . . .
> ...



Remember how I told you once that everything doesn't revolve around you? There are actually exceptions to that Jake, this does revolve around you. I don't accept that anyone actually told you that. I think you made it up in order to justify your absurd belief that sexual abuse turns women into lesbians.

Just in case you missed my point, I think you are a lying sack of shit, and I will happily point that out anytime I catch you in a lie.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.
> ...



There is that common knowledge again.


----------



## koshergrl (May 14, 2012)

Good grief, you're going to be busy.

Pretty much everybody on the site recognizes him for a blatant and giddy liar about every topic he blabs on.

He doesn't even try to hide it, he thinks it's cute.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> littledebfascist writes, "Jake is a bigot who  thinks that a woman is asking for what she get's just because of  something she is wearing."
> 
> A lie.  Or you can link to where I said that.  Thank you for making this easy.



Umm, he did. 

Before you even asked on top of that. I guess you tried this before.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



If we apply logic to your position you believe that dressing like a slut causes rape, and you also believe that being raped turns women into lesbians. That means you believe that dressing like a slut turns women into lesbians.


​


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

bobcollum said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bobcollum said:
> ...



The blogger was talking specifically about his Christian friends who voted for the amendment. I doubt he personally knows a significant portion of the state so I didn't apply his personal experience to the entire state. I still want to know what makes you think that the deciding factor for people who voted against this is religion. When I asked, you acted like it was my responsibility to explain other people's motives, then negged me when I pointed out that the Prime Minister of Australia is an atheist who opposes same sex marriage, and that it is highly unlikely her objections to it are religious in nature.

The entire point of the blog was that this is a complex issue, and that dismissing it as mere bigotry is not the right approach. I have pointed that out more than once, yet you are acting like I am avoiding a conversation. Unlike you, I don't pretend to understand the motivations of people I don't know. That means I don't have the answers you want so I suggested you do a little research for yourself because, frankly, I don't care why they voted against it, all I care about is how I can convince them they are wrong.

I can't do that as long as there are idiots like Ravi who apply their bigotry and lump them all into a category they do not belong in.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > The root of most bigotry is ignorance.
> ...



I have found that bigots are quite capable of telling their children that they are abhorrent.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

candycorn said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Nobody? Care to bet on that? I can think of at least one right off the top of my head, the fact that he recently decided to take a dive on that position only matters to idiots.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Good grief, you're going to be busy.
> 
> Pretty much everybody on the site recognizes him for a blatant and giddy liar about every topic he blabs on.
> 
> He doesn't even try to hide it, he thinks it's cute.



He's just a troll.


----------



## BDBoop (May 14, 2012)

Cowman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

Ravi said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Yeah, that is what he said. 

What I got out of it is that he blames people like you. He is doing the best he can to explain the situation, and then some idiot gets up on a soapbox and tells the people that he is working on that they hate their friend because they oppose letting him do something they believe is going to cause him harm. If anyone is personally to blame for the vote in North Carolina it is you.


----------



## BDBoop (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Well, apparently Mr. Cheney didn't go there.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I guess that means he is not a bigot.


----------



## BDBoop (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I didn't allege that he was.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Link it then.
> ...



That is a paste and cut job, bigrebnc.  The second part was not about the slut walk.  The second part was about woman saying whatever they wanted.  Post the full posts and links from both of them for everybody to see.

You are an out and out liar, and you get to pay the price.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You lied that I said something I did not, I fucked you up, and now you are whining.  I love catching you in lies.

Losah girl!


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

> Jake  thinks a woman *deserrves *what she get's because of what she wears He's a clothes NAZI. And thanks for the neg.


  He can't post the threads and the numbers where that is true.  He also got negged for the lie.  That's why he is crying.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


No it was not you ignorant bastard.


bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Link it then.
> ...






> That is a paste and cut job, bigrebnc.  The second part was not about the slut walk.



It's a cut and paste of what you said and both quotes came from the slut thread and are talking about what a woman wears.




> Post the full posts and links from both of them for everybody to see.



Dumb ass both quotes  are in full and can be traced back to the original thread. You're lying if you say they aren't.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



TWO back to back lies. keep it up you fucking clothes NAZI. Why do you think a woman get's what she deserves when she doesn't wear what you approve of?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

Link to the supposed post, bigrebnc.  You are on the run now.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

Post the links, bigrebnc, but you can't.  You are caught.  But good.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I already did on several occasions and you ingored it so why should I waste my time doing it again all so you can ignore it again and pretend it doesn't exist? 

Furthermore, I see you failed to cack up your claims AGAIN.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Yet, somehow, I am the close minded bigot because I do not agree with you.



Did I say that exactly?? Really? Care to show me when and where I said that? Not that you will based on how you have failed to back up your other attempts to redefine my posiions by putting words into my mouth. 



Quantum Windbag said:


> Just as an aside, I never* said you said the portion* you emphasized in your attempt to make me look stupid, I said you refuse to admit it. You still have not done so, have you?



Which portion was that? specifics please. Do you really not remember what you said?

BTW how would the whole state of NC is bigoted based on how only 61% voted in favor of the amendment? 

Still waiting on that list of rightwing and left bigots in this thread.

Still on you to show when and where I stated that I refuse to admit that it's possible to vote against something without being a bigot.



Quantum Windbag said:


> I can also point to people on the left who are being bigots, one of them is you because you refuse to admit that it is actually possible to vote against something you like unless the person doing it is a bigot



Still waiting on you to show where i insisted the following.



Quantum Windbag said:


> You are the one that is trying to insist that the only definition of a bigot that applies is one that excludes you



However, my guess is that you avoided them to begin with there is no point in waiting on integrity that will never come from you.

Againj why should I waste my time responding to your posts if you are just going to run away from the content of mine and pretend it doesn't exist?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

Windbag makes stupid comments, claims everybody is bad, and then cries.

Almost as bad as koshergirl.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line:
> ...



Apparently your poiint is that if they disagree with you then they are a bigot. Which is why you tend to call anyone who disagrees with you and your spin a bigot. 

The sad thing is that by arguing that if they don't see it your way then they are bigots your stance puts you right in the middle of your own definition of bigot. LOL


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Post the links, bigrebnc, but you can't.  You are caught.  But good.



Someone does understand how the quote function works. Could someone explain to the stupid son of a bitch?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Post the links, bigrebnc, but you can't.  You are caught.  But good.
> ...



Post the links to the quotes, both sets.  The second you do that, it is oversville for you.


----------



## NLT (May 14, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > > By and large, the prejudice that exists is a  matter of _a lack of understanding._
> ...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Excuse me, I said you believe it, not that you said it, stop lying.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> > Jake  thinks a woman *deserrves *what she get's because of what she wears He's a clothes NAZI. And thanks for the neg.
> 
> 
> He can't post the threads and the numbers where that is true.  He also got negged for the lie.  That's why he is crying.



Those little blue arrows next to your name takes anyone who clicks to them to your post. That means he did post the threads and the numbers. Not only are you a liar, you don't know how the Internet works.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Losah girl.  You must be tied with alliebaba.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > > Jake  thinks a woman *deserrves *what she get's because of what she wears He's a clothes NAZI. And thanks for the neg.
> ...



No, he did not post the links, losah girl.  That's the point.  You are so exposed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > > Jake  thinks a woman *deserrves *what she get's because of what she wears He's a clothes NAZI. And thanks for the neg.
> ...



He doesn't understand. He is showing what most has suspected about him.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...




Are you trying to be like Jake? Insist you said something, and refuse to show you did when asked? I would be willing to admit I missed your response, if you could find it, but you can't. Interesting.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Dumb ass do you understand how the quote feature works?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Yep that is my point, if you are an idiot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Funny, I was able to follow the links he didn't post. Does someone need to make a video showing you how to follow links?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



post the links, losah boy


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



post the links, bigrebnc


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No, you were not.  Request the post the links.


----------



## koshergrl (May 14, 2012)

Typical Jake. 

Links not necessary. If you doubt the veracity of the quotes, I suggest you report them, and link the original quotes to the mods.

Idiot.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Typical Jake.
> 
> Links not necessary. If you doubt the veracity of the quotes, I suggest you report them, and link the original quotes to the mods.
> 
> Idiot.



I have earlier today.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Typical Jake.
> ...



Are the mods laughing at you yet?


----------



## BDBoop (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I should sell the links, what with me having them and all.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

They are worth gold, BDBoop.


----------



## Charles_Main (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A real Bigot is anyone who makes assumptions about People based on There own Preconceived Notions about that "type of Person", and based on Stereotypes. 

It does not matter if you are talking about a Racial or Religious Group, or People with q Particular Political Belief. If you run around assuming you know what motivates them, and what is in there hearts, based on what group you perceive them to be in.

you are a Bigot.

No One Group has a Monopoly on being Bigots, However there is one group that some of at least, always goes around Calling others things like Racists, Homophobes, Bigots etc. All the while Engaging in very Bigot like behavior themselves. 

I will let you guess who they are


----------



## BDBoop (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> They are worth gold, BDBoop.



To who?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > They are worth gold, BDBoop.
> ...



To the one telling the truth, of course.


----------



## BDBoop (May 14, 2012)

Because you know, I quoted you in my response in that thread.


----------



## koshergrl (May 14, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.
> ...


 
Not wanting to call homosexuals "married" even though they haven't participated in the construct isn't bigoted.

It would be bigotry if we refused to allow them to marry a person of the opposite sex based on their sexual preference, however. 

Again, that's a subtle, but important, difference, and as such, far beyond your comprehension capability.

As it is, gays are perfectly welcome to get married, just as heteros are...they just have to find a person of the opposite sex who doesn't mind that they're gay.


----------



## freedombecki (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That would include every being specie on the planet.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Because you know, I quoted you in my response in that thread.



Quote me again then.  I never said a woman should be assaulted or raped for what she wore.

Link to it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



What is there to post? I posted the whole quote as part of the quote feature. Click on the blue arrow and it will take you directly to the thread.


----------



## koshergrl (May 14, 2012)

They already proved it. Loon. Now time to bounce back to another thread where you've been exposed, and pretend you haven't, there.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Because you know, I quoted you in my response in that thread.
> ...



No here's what you said jake



JakeStarkey said:


> garyganu said:
> 
> 
> > Today's young women are succeeding in making it cool to be a slut. Look how most young women dress today. Listen to their language. Look at their favorite musicians and actresses.
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



If you post the link to what I supposedly said, you will lose.  You know it, and I know it.


----------



## BDBoop (May 14, 2012)

I'd give the boy a hand, but I'm already locking horns with him and feel no desire to do him any favors.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> I'd give the boy a hand, but I'm already locking horns with him and feel no desire to do him any favors.



Look BD Boop that is in that thread not this thread. It's all good. I'm only doing this to jake because he's a first class jack ass troll I try not to take threads and introduce them into another one. I have done it a couple of times but in this case considering the title of this thread about being bigot's the post I quoted of jakes is not going off topic. Our discussion in that thread will stay in that thread.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Anymore denial and others will see how much of a liar you are.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > I'd give the boy a hand, but I'm already locking horns with him and feel no desire to do him any favors.
> ...



BDBoop will do whatever she will do.

bigrebnc has quasi-confessed to quote shopping.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Why don't you report my quotes and see how the mods handle it?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

I have.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> I have.



Good let's see if they edit my post. If they do not edit it then it proves you are a liar.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 14, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



LOL so your failure to answer my simple questions reflects negatively on me?? LOL 





Immanuel said:


> A few posts?  I am sure you can count to three.  That is what a few is.
> 
> You have over 5930 posts of nothing but hate.  The vast majority of them prove that you are a bigot, and, I'm not exactly certain I would call any of your post about Mr. Kingston as being polite to conservatives.
> 
> ...



 Nothing but hate?? You just showed three examples that is not true so thanks for exposing your dishoensty. LOL 

BTW holding up three posts out of 5930+ does not proof anything about the content of the other 5927+ posts. LOL only a complete moron would believe that it does.

So now being "rude" to someone who was rude and or intolerant towards me makes me a bigot?? LOL thanks for the spin. You are being "rude" to me bsaed on how I insulted you in the past so based on your new definition does tha make you a bigot as well? LOL



Immanuel said:


> More lies on your part.  I have responded to all of your posts and not discarded a one of your responses.



No you haven't. responded to the actual content of my posts. saying "thanks for answering" as you discard the answer and continue with your attempts to define me based on your own bias is not responding to my posts. 





Immanuel said:


> More lies from the bigot.



nope, I actually showed you putting words into my mouth as yoyu tried to argue that I "accused the republicans of being responsible for the problem when you know full well that just weeks before the collapse, Barney Frank assured us there was nothing to worry about." when my comment had NOTHING to do with the timeline you claimed I was referring to and  "if you could actually read through your frothing anger" the  you would have kown I refering to back when democrats were in the minority. 





Immanuel said:


> My own biases?  Can you show anything that shows my assumptions to be incorrect?  Got anything besides your hate-filled, "I am a swell guy because I once voted for Jack Kingston" posts all three of which were actually proof of what I said in the first post.




Yes and i have but you bypassed those responses and pretended that they did not exist or merely called me a liar. example incoming.




Immanuel said:


> Liar, your three posts, the only three posts you made about Kingston before today, were, in fact, proof that you are a bigot with half-assed attempts at justifying your damned bigotry by throwing out a name of a person who nobody even knows here.
> 
> Face it, you are a damned bigot and your calling me a hack is not going to change that.



LOL face it you are a hack and your calling me a damned bigot is not going to change that. LOL 

see how easy that is.



Immanuel said:


> Really?  Still going with the whhhaaaaa whhhhaaaaaa I'm not a bigot defense?
> 
> It isn't working.



this is a perfect example your so-called "responses" to a lot of the content of my posts. Thanks for clearing up that you do NOT response to everything I post. LOL 





Immanuel said:


> Seeing as how all of my points about knowing you have very clearly been in reference to the man (are you even a man?) online, that doesn't make any sense.  Clearly online you are a bigot.  You have laid out your defense... "I'm not a bigot because a long long time ago, I voted for a Republican named Jack Kingston" and it simply doesn't hold water.



LOL so you proved your point because you say so? LOL OMG you are hilarious. FACT is that you haven't proven anything except that you a re desperate and obsessed with trying to tear me down for some slight i made against you in the past whch I don't even remember. LOL 




Immanuel said:


> Follow the links like I had to do.  It was in your response to my efforts to show how I had evolved over the time I have been posting.  One of the very first posts you made and either in regards to my statement about evolving in my stance on abortion or on gay marriage.



LOL you said "huh?" was not english when it clearly is a way to communicate to you that your message either did not make sense or was not clear. If you lack the ability to understand simple english then that is not my problem. 



Immanuel said:


> Huh, doesn't leave any room for an answer that is for sure.  It's an interjection used as an exclamation of surprise.  Not a question.  How is anyone supposed to answer that?  At the best it is a moron speaking out his incomprehension.



surprise?? Is thbat the only way it is used or defined?? I didn't thinki so. once again you CHOOSE to be willfully ignorant in a desperate attempt to pretend to not understand that I was asking for clarification. You are pretending to be that ignorant aren't you?



Immanuel said:


> > says the hack who decided I was a bigot merely because I disagree with his predisposed opinions and apparently some slight he perceived in the past that I can't even remember.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it really so difficult to understand that one, I would much rather be a hack than a bigot.  At least hacks have a moral backbones.  Bigotry is based upon the immorality of discrimination.  Call me a hack all you want.  The proof is in the pudding that I treat left and right quite fairly.  Conversely the proof is in the pudding that you do not.



so based on your new defitnion of bigot, how does it apply to me? LOL Oh and I commented on the insult that you took at some past disagreement we had. Apparently itt affected you a lot more than it did me. Maybe that is why you are so obsessed with me? 



Immanuel said:


> > Really? How? How is my pointing out his bigotry considered hypocrisy? Funny how you failed to show anything to suppoort such an accusation but then when you are filled with hatred and obsession as you obviously are there is no need for a reason is there?
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Who's filled with hatred and obsession?  You are the one that is obsessed with hatred.  I'm sitting here laughing my ass off at your extremely feeble attempts at proving that you are not a damned bigot and failing at doing so.



So I point out based on the content of your posts that you obviously hate me and are obsessed with me and your best response is tantamount to a "I'm rubber you're glue" response? LOL and you call me childish? LOL  



Immanuel said:


> This has been a classic conversation, and I can't believe that you have allowed me to get away with proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are in fact a bigot.
> 
> This is hilarious!
> 
> ...



you declaring victory whn you have had NONE only further shows how delusional you are. You make decdlarationg about the content of the entirety of my roughly 6,000 posts and believe that posting three that show me making a positive comment about kingston is proof that I am a bigot. LOL The fact that I have said psitive things about him alone means that i am not what you are trying to define me as. 

Logic is not on your side. you should hve given up after your first attempt to put words in my mouth was thrown back at you but you.

Your friend,

drsmith1072. 

LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 14, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



kosher might as well just try to argue that "they are allowed to participate and ride the bus but they have to ride in the back." Or "they can participate and drink from a public water fountain just not this one." or "they can participate and go to school just not this one." and based on how "they" are "allowed to participate" there is no discrimination.

LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 14, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.
> ...



Wouldn't the person who can't think for themselves be just as bigoted as the person who thinks for them? LOL


----------



## Immanuel (May 14, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



You just don't know when to quit, do you mr bigot?

Your own defense sunk you from the very beginning.

Do you really think voting for a Republican many years ago means your not a damned bigot?  

I even linked to the posts that you claimed proved you weren't a bigot.

Want me to quote them for you?

Here:

I will remove the quotes you used, but since you probably are not smart enough to know about the link arrows, just click on the arrow next to your name and it will take you back to the post.

I will also highlight the parts that do your ass in and prove that you are in fact a bigot.



drsmith1072 said:


> Actually when I was stationed at HAAF in Savannah, GA I met Jack Kingston a few times. I liked him as a person and voted for him despite the fact that we disagreed politically on more than a few things. So what was that you were saying??
> 
> BTW I probably watch more foxnews than I do of msnbc. *Especially that dishonest hack beck with all of his rants and rails as he tries to hold obama accountable for something someone else said or did*. Like his recent rant about the justice department being in court over reading e-mails which is derived from the pattriot act. However, beck doesn't tell you where it comes from because then you and he couldn't blame obama for it.



How left wing bigoted can you get and still claim not to be a bigot?



drsmith1072 said:


> *Yeah, willow will just ignore anything that doesn't suit her spin. She attacked me the other day saying that I could never say anything nice about a republican however when i showed that I could when i spoke kindly of Jack Kingston and admitted voting for him when I lived in his district, she avoided my post like it was the plague.
> 
> She has her mind set on what she believes about those who disagree with her and she will not let facts interfere with that misguided belief*.



Kudos to you... you voted for a Republican.  Was he conservative too?  



drsmith1072 said:


> *And yet you are WRONG again. Why do you always feel the need to try and put words into my mouth so you can dishonestly attack me for something I never said?? Oh well it's just more of the typical dishonesty that I was referring to.
> 
> BTW how do any of your trolling attacks address what i said about froggy being dishonest in trying to link this to obama?? *
> 
> ...



Should we give you a pat on the back for that one?

By the way, I have noticed a pattern the past two days, the only argument you seem to be able to come up with is a lie and is also a projection.  You consistently claim people put words in your mouth, but I have noticed that you tend to do that quite often.

By the way, I thought I might try and help you a little bit.  I did some searching and found a link to the 12 step approach to over coming an addiction.  Seems the first step is admitting that you are addicted:



> 1) an admission of powerlessness over the substance, person, thought or activity to which one is addicted.



The 12-Step Program

You might try starting with step one in order to over come your addiction to hate and bigotry.  You are in my prayers.

Again, thank you so much for the laughs, bigot.

Your friend,

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.
> ...



Only the ones that never change their minds.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 14, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> The fact that a sex act defines them is their problem, not mine.



The fact that a sex act defines marriage should be everyone's problem.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Saysthe hack who made claims about me and as of yet hasn't backed them up so why is it that you think I should offer your a curtesy that you refuse to offer me? 



Quantum Windbag said:


> Yet, somehow, I am the close minded bigot because I do not agree with you.



Did I say that exactly?? Really? Care to show me when and where I said that? Not that you will based on how you have failed to back up your other attempts to redefine my posiions by putting words into my mouth. 



Quantum Windbag said:


> Just as an aside, I never* said you said the portion* you emphasized in your attempt to make me look stupid, I said you refuse to admit it. You still have not done so, have you?



Which portion was that? specifics please. Do you really not remember what you said?

BTW how would the whole state of NC is bigoted based on how only 61% voted in favor of the amendment? 

Still waiting on that list of rightwing and left bigots in this thread.

Still on you to show when and where I stated that I refuse to admit that it's possible to vote against something without being a bigot.



Quantum Windbag said:


> I can also point to people on the left who are being bigots, one of them is you because you refuse to admit that it is actually possible to vote against something you like unless the person doing it is a bigot



Still waiting on you to show where i insisted the following.



Quantum Windbag said:


> You are the one that is trying to insist that the only definition of a bigot that applies is one that excludes you



However, my guess is that you avoided them to begin with there is no point in waiting on integrity that will never come from you.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You argue that anyone who disagrees with your argument that anyone who believe NC citizens who voted for the amendment are bigots is a bigots themselves.

That is what you have ben arguing this whole time. If I am wrong show me how.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Don't you think it's a little hypocritical on your part to demand that I go back and find my past comments even as you refuse to do the same?


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 14, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Yeah it's the "they can "participate" and ride the bus but they have to ride in the back argument.

I find it hilarious that you would choose to define freedom as being limited is such a manner. 
They have the freedom to do what they want as long as they do it accordance with how you want big government to define it based on your religious and moral limitations. 
Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. I thought for certain anti-big government, constitution loving conservatives would understand that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I did go back and show you the two sentences of my OP, and I specifically asked you to tell me what it was about them that you thought was bigoted. Your response was you already have.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Or course it is, but windbag is a hypocrite.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


He said he he did.



> I did go back and show you the two sentences of my OP


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



For the idiots.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 14, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



WOW you are really obssessed aren't you. LOL So sine you are bplaying the "i'm going to ignore everything that you post" (even as you lie and claim that you respond to everything) tacic I will apply the same to you. 

If you are just going to turn tail and run then  why should I bother responding to your illogical hater filled and obsessive rants? 

LOL so your failure to answer my simple questions reflects negatively on me?? LOL 





Nothing but hate?? You just showed three examples that is not true so thanks for exposing your dishoensty. LOL 

BTW holding up three posts out of 5930+ does not proof anything about the content of the other 5927+ posts. LOL only a complete moron would believe that it does.

So now being "rude" to someone who was rude and or intolerant towards me makes me a bigot?? LOL thanks for the spin. You are being "rude" to me bsaed on how I insulted you in the past so based on your new definition does tha make you a bigot as well? LOL



No you haven't. responded to the actual content of my posts. saying "thanks for answering" as you discard the answer and continue with your attempts to define me based on your own bias is not responding to my posts. 





nope, I actually showed you putting words into my mouth as yoyu tried to argue that I "accused the republicans of being responsible for the problem when you know full well that just weeks before the collapse, Barney Frank assured us there was nothing to worry about." when my comment had NOTHING to do with the timeline you claimed I was referring to and "if you could actually read through your frothing anger" the you would have kown I refering to back when democrats were in the minority. 






Yes and i have but you bypassed those responses and pretended that they did not exist or merely called me a liar. example incoming.




LOL face it you are a hack and your calling me a damned bigot is not going to change that. LOL 

see how easy that is.



this is a perfect example your so-called "responses" to a lot of the content of my posts. Thanks for clearing up that you do NOT response to everything I post. LOL 





LOL so you proved your point because you say so? LOL OMG you are hilarious. FACT is that you haven't proven anything except that you a re desperate and obsessed with trying to tear me down for some slight i made against you in the past whch I don't even remember. LOL 




LOL you said "huh?" was not english when it clearly is a way to communicate to you that your message either did not make sense or was not clear. If you lack the ability to understand simple english then that is not my problem. 



surprise?? Is that the only way it is used or defined?? I didn't thinki so. once again you CHOOSE to be willfully ignorant in a desperate attempt to pretend to not understand that I was asking for clarification. You are pretending to be that ignorant aren't you?



so based on your new defitnion of bigot, how does it apply to me? LOL Oh and I commented on the insult that you took at some past disagreement we had. Apparently itt affected you a lot more than it did me. Maybe that is why you are so obsessed with me? 




Immanuel said:


> Really? Who's filled with hatred and obsession? You are the one that is obsessed with hatred. I'm sitting here laughing my ass off at your extremely feeble attempts at proving that you are not a damned bigot and failing at doing so.



So I point out based on the content of your posts that you obviously hate me and are obsessed with me and your best response is tantamount to a "I'm rubber you're glue" response? LOL and you call me childish? LOL 




Immanuel said:


> This has been a classic conversation, and I can't believe that you have allowed me to get away with proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are in fact a bigot.
> 
> This is hilarious!
> 
> ...



you declaring victory whn you have had NONE only further shows how delusional you are. You make decdlarationg about the content of the entirety of my roughly 6,000 posts and believe that posting three that show me making a positive comment about kingston is proof that I am a bigot. LOL The fact that I have said psitive things about him alone means that i am not what you are trying to define me as. 

Logic is not on your side. you should hve given up after your first attempt to put words in my mouth was thrown back at you but you.

Your friend,

drsmith1072. 

LOL

I said I am yor friend so i am not a bigot. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



And i responded but you ignored my responses and proceded to ask me to respond AGAIN. 

However, you are still avoiding the content from my other posts and how you tried to pu words into my mouth but then based on your avoidance thus far I don't expect you to have the integrity to respond anyway. BTW I have reposted them multple times. So what's your excuse?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...


Don't say Quantum does not deliever when asked.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Would you like me to go back and take a screenshot of that post to prove you did not actually respond to my question?


----------



## Immanuel (May 14, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Logic is very much on my side.  

Are you able to find any posts, any posts at all, that you would like to submit into evidence that you are not a bigot?  If not the case is closed and by your own words, submitted into evidence earlier, you have convicted yourself.

Your typing abilities disintegrate when you get pissed off.  It is evident that you are on the verge of a meltdown.  QW and I have sent you to the brink of a meltdown and we didn't even have to conspire to do so.

You're as pissed at me for pointing out your lies and bigotry as I am sitting here chuckling at your stupidity and laughing at your inability to prove me wrong when I support my case that you are in fact a bigot.  

You know, I couldn't have gotten anymore satisfaction out of this conversation if I had proven that rdean, Chris, or TDM were bigots by their own words and believe me, they are.  The problem is that all three of them are smart enough to know better than to get into such a discussion with anyone and would have avoided my taunts earlier in the thread.  How does it feel to know that TDM is actually smarter than you are?

You're my friend?  Haha, yeah, if we were sitting in the same room together your typing from last night and from posts this afternoon/evening are pretty good evidence that you would have taken a swing at me sometime in the last 24 hours.  Deservedly so, I might add.

I have to say though, that I am deeply concerned with your mental state.  Anyone that has the capacity to hate that you seem to have is in serious trouble.

I will continue to pray for your well being.

Your friend,

Immie


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



And what happen to the link in this post jake? Why didn't you post a link?



JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's one quote
> ...


----------



## koshergrl (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


 
Classic.

Another favorite of his..and Drock's, which is why I get those two confused..."This has already been linked/proven/whatever".


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



'bout time, hoserbag.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


That's not a link jake that photoshop I posted the links in quote form.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Because they are in full, they are complete, they are in context, and they reveal you to be a quote shopper.  Tough to be you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



They are linked nor are they accessible to the thread they came from. After all that's what you have been bitching about since I called you on being a NAZI 

At least I posted the quotes the way they can be traced back to the thread they came from.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



They are clearly identified by thread and post numbers as I requested from you.

You lied, I showed it, and tough to be you.

bigreb fail, nothing new.


----------



## BDBoop (May 14, 2012)

I'm missing the fail bit. Please draw a diagram.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 14, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



LOL I can and I did because he hasn't.


drsmith1072 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Yet, somehow, I am the close minded bigot because I do not agree with you.
> ...



I asked for all of the above and got NO response.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Well it depends upon which time you take a screenshot of doesn't it? You have asked me for the same response several times so how hard would it be to find a single instance of me not responding?


----------



## bobcollum (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



The reason why is in my previous comment: "It was a huge factor leading to my guess that many people in that group feel that way for religious reasons, you know, because that's the only reason the blogger actually mentioned, though obviously there are others as well..."

Honestly, I can't think offhand of someone explaining their disagreement about homosexuality to me without the statement being religiously based, aside from the obvious KKK member or something of that nature. It doesn't mean I think there aren't other instances, but I just don't know of many. I didn't think it was out of the realm of reason to get some info from you on the topic since I figured you'd like to present evidence to your initial claim. I was obviously wrong, as you listed one person and told me to go out and prove your own case. Considering my honest intentions and what I saw as you being pissy about it I negged you, big whoop. 



			
				QuantumWindbag said:
			
		

> The entire point of the blog was that this is a complex issue, and that dismissing it as mere bigotry is not the right approach. I have pointed that out more than once, yet you are acting like I am avoiding a conversation. Unlike you, I don't pretend to understand the motivations of people I don't know. That means I don't have the answers you want so I suggested you do a little research for yourself because, frankly, I don't care why they voted against it, all I care about is how I can convince them they are wrong.
> 
> I can't do that as long as there are idiots like Ravi who apply their bigotry and lump them all into a category they do not belong in.



I'm pretty sure I said in my first or second post that I get it, I get what you're saying. It's just that it's a two-way street...you have to realize what it looks like to the rest of us.

People tend to focus on the end result, not how it got there.

I see a group of people that I feel should be treated normally can't do something that other people can do. Allowing them to marry has no effect on my life whatsoever, aside from the extra information required in my memory to know that they can.

The end result as far as I'm concerned is discriminatory. I almost don't care how you got there...though I still haven't really gotten a reason yet.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Tis what tis, Dr.  And note the disparity of who is supporting who on quantum's side.  Interesting.  Not surprising.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 14, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



not really. LOL your next comment shows that to be the case.



Immanuel said:


> Are you able to find any posts, any posts at all, that you would like to submit into evidence that you are not a bigot?  If not the case is closed and by your own words, submitted into evidence earlier, you have convicted yourself.



So according to your so-called logic I am not innocent until proven guilty but guilty until proven innocent?? LOL So much for your so-called logic. LOL



Immanuel said:


> Your typing abilities disintegrate when you get pissed off.



no, actually I bought a new PC and it has a laptop size keyboard. That and I had to go for a while so i was in a rush to finish before I left. 



Immanuel said:


> It is evident that you are on the verge of a meltdown. QW and I have sent you to the brink of a meltdown and we didn't even have to conspire to do so.



LOL now that is hiarlious and if you had the integrity to respond to my content instead of turing tail and ruinning away like a coward even you would see that I am not on the losing end of this debate. 



Immanuel said:


> You're as pissed at me for pointing out your lies and bigotry as I am sitting here chuckling at your stupidity and laughing at your inability to prove me wrong when I support my case that you are in fact a bigot.




how have you supported your case? You have repeated the false claim but haven't provded anything of substance to prove anything other than the fact that you are a dishonest troll who is obviously obsessed with me for some strange reason. It's sad. 



Immanuel said:


> my lies?? like what?



you tried to argue that "Huh?" was english for one. lol 

you claim to have proven the accusation that I am a bigot when you have not.

you have redefined "bigot" on several occasion to try and claim it applies to me when it doesn't.

You have claimed to respond to everything when you don't. 

You put words into my mouth as you tried to argue that I "*accused the republicans of being responsible for the problem when you know full well that just weeks before the collapse, Barney Frank assured us there was nothing to worry about*." when my comment had NOTHING to do with the timeline you claimed I was referring to.

You argue that becuase you only found three out of 5930 posts that mention jack kingston in a positive manner that the rest of my posts are proof that my posts are "nothing but hate" and that I am bigot.


*How about those lies? Although why should I bother? You are just going to run away anyway. LOL*




Immanuel said:


> You know, I couldn't have gotten anymore satisfaction out of this conversation if I had proven that rdean, Chris, or TDM were bigots by their own words and believe me, they are.  The problem is that all three of them are smart enough to know better than to get into such a discussion with anyone and would have avoided my taunts earlier in the thread.  How does it feel to know that TDM is actually smarter than you are?



keep telling yourself that but I seriously doubt that efter getting exposed and dishonest cowardly hack that you were happy about it. LOL



Immanuel said:


> You're my friend?



as much as you are mine. Does saying that mean that I am not a bigot? 



Immanuel said:


> Haha, yeah, if we were sitting in the same room together your typing from last night and from posts this afternoon/evening are pretty good evidence that you would have taken a swing at me sometime in the last 24 hours.  Deservedly so, I might add.



this is just further proof that you don't know a thing about me. I have civil discussions with civil people all of the time but then you are not civil and have not been since you trolled into this thread attacking me. 



Immanuel said:


> I have to say though, that I am deeply concerned with your mental state.  Anyone that has the capacity to hate that you seem to have is in serious trouble.



who came into this thread attacking whom? You came in calling me a bigot and then proeceded to make a fool out of yourself trying to support that false claim. You even went so far as to say that being "rude" now equals being a bigot. 



Immanuel said:


> I will continue to pray for your well being.
> 
> Your friend,
> 
> Immie



Bless your heart but you can keep the insincere bs to yourself.

your friend,

drsmith1072.

lol


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


But they aren't linked nor did you post them in the quote form. Stop bitching when someone doesn't post a link when you don't post a link in the same thread you are whining about someone else not posting a link. Fucking hypocrite.


----------



## Immanuel (May 14, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Scrolling through your bullshit, I find more of the same old whining.

You continue to prove that you are an immature whiner as well as a hater and a bigot.

By the way, I did go look up Jack Kingston.  Congratulations, he appears to be conservative.  By your admission that you have personally met the man you have proven that you have voted for a conservative.  You do not deserve a pat on the back for this.  For all we know, you voted for him and claim to like him because he kissed your grandchild.  Not only that, but I believe yesterday, you very distinctly stated that you would not vote for him again.  Why is that?

Your 5950+ posts have proven that you are, in fact, a bigot.  Nothing you can say or do about that unless you can provide any proof in your postings that you have been polite to conservatives on this site.  That was the initial request and to date, you have tried but failed to do so.

Your continued attempts to deny your bigotry only make you more pitiful.

Please, I'm having a blast with this, do keep trying.

Your friend,

Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2012)

Reb, you have failed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Reb, you have failed.




Jake got schooled


----------



## koshergrl (May 14, 2012)

Jake's been schooled repeatedly.

That doesn't mean he's learned.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You challenged reb, not me. How did I find them if reb didn't post the links?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



I see how it works now, I ask you to explain your insistence that my OP is bigotted, you reply with a bunch of questions that have nothing to do with what I asked, and then you claim I am not answering your questions. Tell me something, is there a reason your reply conveniently edits out what I asked that you find offensive?

If you want answers feel free to start actually answering the questions I ask first.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

bobcollum said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bobcollum said:
> ...



Let me see if I can explain this to you even more bluntly that I already have.
*
I did not write the blog I quoted, I am not responsible for anything he said, and I am certainly not responsible for the ideas that you get after filtering it through your bias.*

The point I am making is that people who dismiss people they do not take the time to understand as bigots are engaging in bigotry themselves. Personally, I happen to think the second type of bigotry is more despicable than any bigotry that might arise from people having grown up in a culture that taught them since birth that homosexuality is wrong, even criminal. Kids that think they are smarter than their elders always end up learning they aren't.


----------



## Lakhota (May 14, 2012)




----------



## Lakhota (May 14, 2012)




----------



## drsmith1072 (May 14, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Once again, I addressed the entirety of your posts, gave you what you asked for and you responded with the typical avoidance and self proclaimed phoney victory. Yeah, keep running away coward but the fact is that you asked "what lies?" so I cited your lies and you turned tail and ran away. 

Your cowardice and avodance of facts that counter your spin show that you nothing but a worhtless troll. LOL 

You have been weighed, you have been measured and you have been found wanting.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



LOL I have repeatedly asked you questions throughout this thread and haven't gotten any real responses and now you try to hold your answers ransom until I answer your question again. LOL

You made allegations and false claims so I asked you to provde the substance and you failed. Now you are arguing that you will answer my questions if I answer yours AGAIN but somehow I don't buy it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

Lakhota said:


>


I am sure this is wrong because Cailfornia and North Carolina around the same time repeal the exception for marrying first cousins
Cousin marriage legal
Alabama
Alaska
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina*
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins


----------



## Lakhota (May 14, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



I suggest you reread your link and check out the * beside North Carolina...


----------



## Immanuel (May 14, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Your crap isn't changing.  I've already responded to your lies about me putting words in your mouth more times than necessary.  It is moronic that you keep going with that line.  My god, I imagine in the last two days, you have used that line on QW and myself over a hundred times.  It didn't play out then and it is not going to play out now.  Its moronic at the very least.

Your tune hasn't changed.  You believe that voting for a single Republican means you are not a bigot.  Yet, when the evidence is in front of you that those three posts were in fact bigotted you continue to whine that you voted for a conservative once in a long time ago.  But, you also said, if I am correct, that you would not vote for him now.  Why is that?  Because you have "evolved" into a bigot since then?

Perhaps the truth is that way back in history you were not a bigot, but since you have been on this site, you have not one single post that is not a slam on conservatives.  You are a bigot, no matter how hard you scream... "I AM NOT A BIGOT!!!!"  You are a frigging bigot no matter how many times you scream otherwise.

You scream... that the facts show you are not a bigot, but I have presented the facts.  You can't or won't show any facts that dispute what I have already shown.

You're an idiot.  I've continually presented the fact that you screamed that voting for Kingston meant that you were not a bigot.  But, your own posts prove that you are a bigot.  If you believe that you are not a bigot... why don't you present some evidence that you are not?  Why? Because you can't.

You can whine all you want, but you have only sealed your fate.

I'm no troll, but you are welcome to try that line all you want. But I must tell you that I would prefer being a troll over being a bigot.  There is not much worse than being a person that discriminates against other people out of hatred and you have proven yourself to be just that.  Congratulations on that.  I bet you are damned proud of yourself.

Be proud of being a bigot. It seems to be all you have got.

Your friend,

Immie


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



I said I believe it's wrong because California and North Carolina around the same time repeal the exception for marrying first cousins


----------



## bobcollum (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You play the effin victim in this thread like nobody's business, and it's pathetic. 

I'm pretty much done with listening to you make excuses for again, what equates to discrimination. You know the anti-homosexual crowd comes off as bigots to most others, but you want to make excuses for them.

Playing in this merry-go-round of a conversation with you is an exercise in futility. You've done absolutely nothing to show that you deserve any more understanding or compassion than the people that are truly being held down. Try to figure out what I'm saying, it might help you someday.

**unsubscribes**


----------



## ERGO (May 14, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlpmRMximW4&feature=related&skipcontrinter=1]The Racial Supremacist State of Israel - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYBsDwjezQI]Top Rabbi Exposes Jewish Racism! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 14, 2012)

ERGO said:


> The Racial Supremacist State of Israel - YouTube
> Top Rabbi Exposes Jewish Racism! - YouTube



David duke what a asshat looks like a pile of shit if you ask me my opinion


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 14, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



says the cowardly avoiding hack who parrots the same "winning" bs over and over again claimin he ha proven an accusation in whch his best argument was to claim I am guilty until proven innocent based on how you demmanded that I prove your accusation false.



Immanuel said:


> I've already responded to your lies about me putting words in your mouth more times than necessary.



when and where? link? 



Immanuel said:


> It is moronic that you keep going with that line. My god, I imagine in the last two days, you have used that line on QW and myself over a hundred times.  It didn't play out then and it is not going to play out now.  Its moronic at the very least.



as long as it applies I will use it and since it still applies there is no point in not "going" with it. LOL 



Immanuel said:


> Your tune hasn't changed.



says the cowardly avoiding hack who parrots the same "winning" bs over and over again claimin he ha proven an accusation in whch his best argument was to claim I am guilty until proven innocent based on how you demmanded that I prove your accusation false. lol



Immanuel said:


> You believe that voting for a single Republican means you are not a bigot.



Really?? when and where did i say that? LIAR. 



Immanuel said:


> Yet, when the evidence is in front of you that those three posts were in fact bigotted



reapeating your LIES again. How were those post bigoted? You said i was "rude" and that made them bigoted and yet I don't believe that is the actual defintion of the word. YOU LOSE AGAIN.





Immanuel said:


> you continue to whine that you voted for a conservative once in a long time ago.  But, you also said, if I am correct, that you would not vote for him now.  Why is that?  Because you have "evolved" into a bigot since then?




I already explained why moron. once again you show your inability to follow a simple mconversation. I said he is a nice guy but I would not vote for him again because I disagree with his policy decisions. No hate, just a simple disagreement. 



Immanuel said:


> Perhaps the truth is that way back in history you were not a bigot, but since you have been on this site, you have not one single post that is not a slam on conservatives.  You are a bigot, no matter how hard you scream... "I AM NOT A BIGOT!!!!"  You are a frigging bigot no matter how many times you scream otherwise.



I just think it's hilarious how your whole argument has been reduced to screaming "YOU ARE A BIGOT" even though you have failed to prove that allegation. LOL 



Immanuel said:


> You scream... that the facts show you are not a bigot, but I have presented the facts.  You can't or won't show any facts that dispute what I have already shown.



what facts? you posted only THREE posts of mine and claim that the content of those THREE show that the other 5930+ posts are proof that I am a bigot. You haven't offered anything of substance and no matter how many times you repeat it repetition alone will not change a thing.



Immanuel said:


> You're an idiot.



says the cowardly hack. LOL 



Immanuel said:


> I've continually presented the fact that you screamed that voting for Kingston meant that you were not a bigot.  But, your own posts prove that you are a bigot.  If you believe that you are not a bigot... why don't you present some evidence that you are not?  Why? Because you can't.



actually you asked for proof that I said anything positive about a conservative. I made my statements about kingston and you ran with the rest of it all on your own. 



Immanuel said:


> You can whine all you want, but you have only sealed your fate.



says the hack who doesn't know when he has lost basd on his own dishoensty and cowardice.



Immanuel said:


> I'm no troll, but you are welcome to try that line all you want.



how you entered the thread and came at me and have continued to avoid the actual content yes you are a troll.



Immanuel said:


> But I must tell you that I would prefer being a troll over being a bigot.



too bad for you beause you seem to be both.



Immanuel said:


> There is not much worse than being a person that discriminates against other people out of hatred and you have proven yourself to be just that.



what have I done to prove that I hate other people and discriminate against them based on that hate?? Got proof? I didn't think so. thanks for trolling though. 



Immanuel said:


> Congratulations on that.  I bet you are damned proud of yourself.
> 
> Be proud of being a bigot. It seems to be all you have got.



LOL still trying oh so desperately to teear me down. How sad is that? 



Immanuel said:


> Your friend,
> 
> Immie



Your friend, 

drsmith1072

lol


----------



## Londoner (May 14, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



On some levels, the mind is almost biologically inclined toward bigotry. That is, we all divide reality into chunks - good, bad, normal, abnormal. We all have a native reaction to the shifting phantasmagoria of shapes objects colors smells and people that drift into and out of our purview. Nobody views the world through dispassionate, clinical, neutral eyes. In fact, believing that your country or your group is special or "chosen" is important for national survival - meaning: soldiers don't die for the periodic table; they die because they think their nation is sacred/special/superior. 

So yes, we all have strong opinions on what is good and what is bad ....superior and inferior. But, tragically, only the right wants Washington to enforce their special list of sacred things. Only the right wants Washington to force their brand of morality on the states.

I say to hell with _Washington_-codified marriage. I say get rid of Washington-based marriage -  gay, straight, farm animal. Don't give that power to Washington. Let the free individual decide what is sacred. At least let the states decide. 

Conservatives want Big Brother to enforce the Sacred. They crave big government. As for me, I don't want Washington to stand between myself and God. Let him judge me. I don't need some brownshirt endorsing my marriage (but the Right does need government - they always have). The government should issue contracts to consenting adults so that they can participate in the juridical and financial elements of partnership *BUT* they should not weigh-in on the sacred content of the soul; they should not decide things like the love between consenting adults. They should return the content of things like "Love" and "marriage" to free individuals. The world only works when the marketplace of possibilities is as expansive as free consenting adults want to make them.

I remember when a bunch of Conservatives in my town tried to shut down businesses which they found distasteful. They were opposed not by the commie Liberals, but by Libertarians who said "government had no business telling people what to sell. Let the market decide. If free consumers don't want to buy what someone is selling, than so be it - the market - not government - will shut them down. Trust the people to know what is good and bad. Trust consenting adults to define marriage for themselves. Don't let Washington tell consenting adults who they can (or how they should) love. Get Government off the backs of free people. Period.

Attention Rightwing: stop making Washington bigger. We're sick of it. Let free adults decide for themselves.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Yes, you have repeatedly asked me questions. I even answered them, for a while. Feel free to ask as many more as you want, just don't expect me to answer any more until you actually answer my one, rather simple, question.


----------



## Immanuel (May 14, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



LOL

Desperately.  I'm trying desperately to tear you down?  Are you seriously that stupid.

I'm laughing my ass off at you and I have been for two days now.

You are just to damned stupid that by your own definition and your own posts you have torn your self down.  How pitiful can you get?

You have not presented one single post which can even remotely be considered a polite post to a conservative.

I can list many liberals that I have very good relationships with: BDBoop, JakeStarkey, Rightwinger, Care4all, Sky Dancer (although she and I do have our fights), Synthaholic, working on relations with luddly.neddite, Dr. Grump, NYCarbiner, Midcan5 and building one with Candycorn.  There are ten liberal people who I have decent relationships with and that is just off the top of my head.  There are many others.

The ones I don't get along with are the people like you: rdean, Chris, TM.  Geez isn't it kind of funny that all four of you have the same MO and hatred for people that don't agre with you?  On the liberal side those are about the only four (including you) I can think of at the moment.  

So, I'm a bigot?  Yeah right. Try again.  Go with that.  

In the meantime, you can cook in your on sauce since it seems so important for you to prove that I have misjudged you.  Too bad you still can't come up with one single post that doesn't make you look like the bigoted asshole you are.

I'm praying for you.

Your friend, 

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

bobcollum said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bobcollum said:
> ...



Wow.

Refusing to play your petty game is playing the victim. you are almost as deluded as Jake and smith.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

Londoner said:


> On some levels, the mind is almost biologically inclined toward bigotry. That is, we all divide reality into chunks - good, bad, normal, abnormal. We all have a native reaction to the shifting phantasmagoria of shapes objects colors smells and people that drift into and out of our purview. Nobody views the world through dispassionate, clinical, neutral eyes. In fact, believing that your country or your group is special or "chosen" is important for national survival - meaning: soldiers don't die for the periodic table; they die because they think their nation is sacred/special/superior.
> 
> So yes, we all have strong opinions on what is good and what is bad ....superior and inferior. But, tragically, only the right wants Washington to enforce their special list of sacred things. Only the right wants Washington to force their brand of morality on the states.
> 
> ...



You were doing so well, then you stuck your foot in your mouth and choked.

If the right are the only ones that want Washington to enforce their sacred list of special things how do you explain the uproar over the Delta Smelt? Do you think that a little fish matters more than feeding millions of people in anyone's mind because they actually weighed the various factors logically? The sacred things on the left are just as important to them, and they are just as willing to use Washington to promote their religion. Just because you agree with that religion does not make it right.

Your bigotry is a lot larger than you think it is.


----------



## Luissa (May 15, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> > On some levels, the mind is almost biologically inclined toward bigotry. That is, we all divide reality into chunks - good, bad, normal, abnormal. We all have a native reaction to the shifting phantasmagoria of shapes objects colors smells and people that drift into and out of our purview. Nobody views the world through dispassionate, clinical, neutral eyes. In fact, believing that your country or your group is special or "chosen" is important for national survival - meaning: soldiers don't die for the periodic table; they die because they think their nation is sacred/special/superior.
> ...



Show me where the left wants to use the government to promote their religion. I am sure there is some cases, but nothing like the right. Wanting to deny a person a right because their religious book tells them that their life style is wrong is allowing one's religion to shape a law.
Other than what the bible says about homosexuals, and without using procreation as an argument, please tell me why two consenting adults should not be allowed to marry?

Before you argue, the reason why I took out procreation is because many straight couples cannot have children together. Using that argument doesn't work in the modern age. 

If you say gay marriage your are full of shit.


----------



## koshergrl (May 15, 2012)

So many logical fallacies and falsehoods (or just ignorance, it's hard to tell.)

So little time. I'm off to bed, it's been a long one.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2012)

koshergirl lives in a world of delusion along with her running buds.

Just sayin'.

Good morning, koshergirl.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> koshergirl lives in a world of delusion along with her running buds.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> Good morning, koshergirl.



Jakes a clothes NAZI and thinks he has a right to dictate what kind of clothes is acceptable to wear in public.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > koshergirl lives in a world of delusion along with her running buds.
> ...



We the People do have the right.  Go in public naked from the waist down and tell me what happens.


----------



## koshergrl (May 15, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Londoner said:
> ...



The progressive religion is atheism, abortion, and homosexuality.

Now come again?


----------



## koshergrl (May 15, 2012)

What the hell is a running bud?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2012)

Good morning, delusional girl.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 15, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So even though you have avoided and refused to answer my questions you expect me to answer yours when I already have but you missed it and now pretend it never happened?

My questions were simple too and unlike me you never even bothered to answer so it's hilarious taht you are trying to hide behind the "answer my question first" bs.  

You didn't answer them to begin with so why should I believe that you will answer them even after I answer your question AGAIN?


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 15, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Notice no response to the actual content even as he continues to claim I am bigot because according to him I am guilty until proven innocent. You made the accusation the burden of proof is on you. 

Yor arguments have been shown to be worthless whether it's the "your three posts show that you are rude and that makes you a bigot" argument or it's the "the content of those three posts show that the other 5930+ post are 'nothing but hate'" arguments.

Again logic is not on your side and the fact that you continue to avoid content as you run with your unsubstantioated accusations shows that you nothing but a worthless troll.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Being naked has nothing to do with you being a Clothes NAZI after all stupid if your naked you don't have any clothes on for you to judge.


----------



## Immanuel (May 15, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



You're an idiot desperately trying to prove that you are not also a bigot.  It has already been proven that you are.  What else do I need to do except go on laughing at you for being such a frigging idiot.

I never once in my wildest dreams thought you would go this far to prove something that doesn't matter.  I highly doubt anyone else is even following this conversation, but for three days you have floundered like a fish out of water demanding that you are not a bigot because in one moment of weakness you voted for a Republican and you are clueless as to why neither I or anyone else will not pat you on the back and give you an "attaboy".

Do you even know what unsubstantiated means?  Basically it means unproven.  By the evidence YOU cited and by your own definition, you have substantiated the fact that you are indeed a bigot.  A stupid bigot too because you keep attempting to deny it.

Your evidence... your definition... equals you are a bigot.

And I for one will continue to laugh at you for as long as you whine... "I'm not a bigot damnit!  I know I'm not.  I voted for Jack Kingston once before... I wouldn't vote for him now, but damn it I did once.  That proves I'm not a bigot".

You're hilarious and a lot of fun.

Your friend,

Immie


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 15, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



What you fail to understand is that I don't have to prove I am not a bigot. That burden lies with you and no matter how many times you claim that you have proven the fact is that based on the actual content of your posts you haven't.

How has it been proven?? Please explain if you can? 

Being "rude" is not the same as being a bigot but you tried to claim that it was. That was one of your claims of proof. How is being "rude" the same as being a bigot?

The content of three posts is not proof or evidence of the content of the othe 5930+ posts which is another argument tyhta you tried to make. How can you define the content of 5930+ posts based on the content of three? 

disagreeing with you or anyone for that matter is not proof of hatred or intolerance on my part which is part of the core of your accusation. How is disagreement proof of hatred and intolerance? 

Your alleged proof is proof of nothing. So what else have you got to offer?

BTW it is still innocent until proven guilty and you haven't proven that I am a bigot and never will based on the actual content of your allegations. LOL


----------



## koshergrl (May 15, 2012)

Who cares what a bigot says about anything?


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 15, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Who cares what a bigot says about anything?



According to the OP being dismissive of those who disagree with you makes you the bigot.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Next time somebody wants to dismiss everyone who disagrees with their views about same sex marriage as a bigot they should remember what the word actually means and take a step to end the intolerance.
> 
> 
> Bigot [big-uht] (noun) a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.


----------



## koshergrl (May 15, 2012)

Not true, bigot.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 15, 2012)

The sad thing is there in lies QW's own bigotry based on his own interpretation of the word bigot.

He says that dismissing those who disagree with you on same sex marriage as a bigots makes you guilty of intolerance and then he cites the defintion of a bigot as including intolerance. 

But then isn't he being dismissive of those who disagree with his position as he claims they are guilty of intolerance and therefore bigots?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2012)

Dr. S, the far left and the right wacks are bigots because they keep insisting they can use their own rather than historical and definitive terms.  Then they call the mainstream bigots.  The wacks are a silly lot.


----------



## koshergrl (May 15, 2012)

Liar.


----------



## BDBoop (May 15, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Liar.



LAIR! L2spell!


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Liar.


----------



## Luissa (May 15, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Our religion is abortion and homosexuality?
Do I pray to RuPaul and Ellen?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Liar.



Clothes NAZI.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2012)

Luissa said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



You don't?   heretic!


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



 please put your underwear and pants back on!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Only a faggot would imagine a man out of his clothes.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 15, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Londoner said:
> ...



I did, or did you miss the reference to the Delta Smelt? The idea that fish have the same legal rights as humans is based religious precepts, just like the idea that unborn children have the same right to life as born children do is. Get you head out of your ass and read what I am posting.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 15, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> koshergirl lives in a world of delusion along with her running buds.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> Good morning, koshergirl.



Quite true, but at least she doesn't believe that dressing like a slut turns women into lesbians.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 15, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



No. The part you are upset about is I actually stopped answering your questions because you won't answer mine. In other words, you expect me to answer your questions even though you haven't answered mine.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Or a man aware of another man's failings.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > koshergirl lives in a world of delusion along with her running buds.  Just sayin'.  Good morning, koshergirl.
> ...



I would hope she does not believe such a thing, or you either for that matter.


----------



## koshergrl (May 15, 2012)

What the HELL is a running bud?

I'm not sure how slutty dressing would turn women into lesbians. It doesn't even make sense to me, so it seems I don't believe that.


----------



## Vast LWC (May 15, 2012)

One is not less of a Bigot because they act from fear or ignorance.

They are simply a cowardly, stupid bigot.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 15, 2012)

There are many valid arguments for preserving and protecting traditional marriage that have absolutely nothing to do with anybody's opinion about gay people.

There is a strong level of bigotry involved in an unwillingness to include those arguments into the debate without labeling those presenting them as intolerant, bigots, homophobes, hatemongers or worse.

For instance, the gay people among my family are family.  And deeply loved.  The closest thing I have to a godson is gay, I love him dearly, and his life partner is one of my favorite Facebook game buddies and I look forward to meeting him in person.  (They live 1600 miles away.)  Our next door neighbors are a gay couple (guys) that we exchange baked goods with and visit with several times a week.   My secretary, self identified as lesbian, was one of the best damn secretaries I've ever had and I was privileged to attend her 'wedding'.  My second in command at a large social agency I headed was lesbian and remains a good friend to this day long after we both moved on to other things.  She has been a guest in our home on more occasions than I can remember.

And I would still probably vote to preserve the traditional definition of marriage for reasons totally unrelated to homosexuality.

Again tolerance works both ways and requires understanding from more than one point of view.


----------



## NLT (May 15, 2012)

Luissa said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


----------



## Vast LWC (May 15, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> There are many valid arguments for preserving and protecting traditional marriage that have absolutely nothing to do with anybody's opinion about gay people.
> 
> There is a strong level of bigotry involved in an unwillingness to include those arguments into the debate without labeling those presenting them as intolerant, bigots, homophobes, hatemongers or worse.
> 
> ...



Voting to deny the same rights to one group of Americans that others enjoy is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "Tolerance".

You can redefine it any way you want, trying to deny homosexuals the same rights enjoyed by straight people, because you don't like their sexual preference, is pretty much the definition of "bigoted", and unconstitutional, as per the 14th amendment.

If you were to allow for a state-defined Civil Union, and then a religious definition where some Civil Unions are considered "marriage", then that would be one thing, as you could apply the same rights and privileges under the law to both arrangements, and no rights would be denied...

But that's not what NC did, is it?

North Carolina not only denied homosexuals the right to marriage, *but they specifically made any civil union or any type of common-law marriage illegal.*

Which makes the people in NC who voted for that particular bit of crap ignorant bigots.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 15, 2012)

Vast LWC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > There are many valid arguments for preserving and protecting traditional marriage that have absolutely nothing to do with anybody's opinion about gay people.
> ...



Intolerance also seems to create a reading dysfunction that makes people read into an argument an element that simply is not there.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 15, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



LOL keep telling yourself that coward. I answered your question earlier in this thread and recently but I sincerely doubt that you will have the integrity to go back and respond to mine.

and now that I have read down I see that you have not responded to my answer to your question. Imagine that.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5286466-post311.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5286566-post313.html


----------



## Vast LWC (May 15, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Intolerance also seems to create a reading dysfunction that makes people read into an argument an element that simply is not there.



So, you support civil unions for homosexual couples that confer all the same rights and privileges upon them that straight married couples enjoy?

If so, then I have no beef with your point of view whatsoever.

You can call "marriages" whatever you want, so long as all rights are protected equally under the law.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 15, 2012)

Vast LWC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Intolerance also seems to create a reading dysfunction that makes people read into an argument an element that simply is not there.
> ...



I have no problem and HAVE supported a concept of civil unions not just for homosexual couples, but for ALL who need to form themselves into family units that would offer the protections and privileges that they need but who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to enter into a traditional marriage defined as a man or woman.

I don't see gay people as their own group.  I see them as people.  I oppose special privileges for special interest groups of all types.  I do support treating everybody as people with the same rights as everybody else.

And my point of view is not the least bit homophobic.  And I still would most likely vote to defend the traditional definition of marriage and that would have nothing whatsoever to do with any opinion, good or bad, that I hold of people who happen to be gay.


----------



## Vast LWC (May 15, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> I have no problem and HAVE supported a concept of civil unions not just for homosexual couples, but for ALL who need to form themselves into family units that would offer the protections and privileges that they need but who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to enter into a traditional marriage defined as a man or woman.
> 
> I don't see gay people as their own group.  I see them as people.  I oppose special privileges for special interest groups of all types.  I do support treating everybody as people with the same rights as everybody else.
> 
> And my point of view is not the least bit homophobic.  And I still would most likely vote to defend the traditional definition of marriage and that would have nothing whatsoever to do with any opinion, good or bad, that I hold of people who happen to be gay.



Then we have no disagreement, you are not a bigoted person.

However, the law that was recently passed in North Carolina was not in any way similar to the point of view you just expressed.  And that is of course, what triggered all this.

And I'm pos repping you for my incorrect assumption.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 15, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



I see the problem, you think that setting up a straw man and beating the crap out of it is answering questions. Funny thing, whenever anyone else does that you call it lying.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 15, 2012)

Vast LWC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problem and HAVE supported a concept of civil unions not just for homosexual couples, but for ALL who need to form themselves into family units that would offer the protections and privileges that they need but who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to enter into a traditional marriage defined as a man or woman.
> ...



Aw thanks LWC, but you're allowed to have incorrect assumptions about me.   Almost everybody does.  

No, I know I am not in the least bit homophobic, judgmental about homosexuality, or bigoted.  And I fully understand the reason behind the NC law, but I do wish they had worded it differently.  You get such strong language in the face of what many pro-traditional-marriage folks consider a full fledged frontal assault.  If both sides could just back up, take the wrong assumptions out of it, and really discuss the pros and cons of the whole thing, I think we could get to the place that everybody needs to be much more quickly.

But as long as we have those on the right making it a religious issue, and those on the left accusing anybody who is pro traditional mariage of being homophobic bigots, no constructive dialogue is likely to take place.


----------



## MaxCha (May 15, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Perfect. Lets start with the cons. If two adults of the same sex who love each other get married, the negative impacts will be (insert answer here)?

Abstract answers, the same ones used against women and racial minorities in the past like "to preserve the foundation of our nation" or "keep sacred the moral values that define our society" aren't answers, as they don't indicate any negative impacts beyond the scope of one persons subjective beliefs.

Saying "Pedophilia will increase, as shown by this study" or "Straight people will suddenly believe marriage has no value and cease to marry or care for their children as is clearly shown by this study" would be a solid piece of evidence.

And people that describe their friendship with gays, but still wish to deny them equal rights (referring to marriage, ability to serve in the military, adopt children etc) remind me of those nice people in the 60's who knew many black people who were wonderful people, but still thought it best to preserve our nation's core values and not allow blacks to serve in the military, marry white people etc...

I know you personally are not mean-spirited or bigoted, but you fall on the extreme, more kindly end of a wide spectrum of people.


----------



## Ravi (May 15, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> The sad thing is there in lies QW's own bigotry based on his own interpretation of the word bigot.
> 
> He says that dismissing those who disagree with you on same sex marriage as a bigots makes you guilty of intolerance and then he cites the defintion of a bigot as including intolerance.
> 
> But then isn't he being dismissive of those who disagree with his position as he claims they are guilty of intolerance and therefore bigots?


Read enough of QW's posts and your brain cells get destroyed. But yes, that is basically what is going on here.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 15, 2012)

Ravi said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > The sad thing is there in lies QW's own bigotry based on his own interpretation of the word bigot.
> ...



Truth destroys your brain cells? Are they made up of anti-truth?


----------



## Ravi (May 15, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Only a glutton for punishment would imagine you without your clothes.

And yes, faggot is a bigoted term, bigot.


----------



## Ravi (May 15, 2012)

Vast LWC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problem and HAVE supported a concept of civil unions not just for homosexual couples, but for ALL who need to form themselves into family units that would offer the protections and privileges that they need but who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to enter into a traditional marriage defined as a man or woman.
> ...


Aside from the fact that she sees allowing gays to marry as giving them special privileges even though, as she says, they are simply people, what's not to agree with.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 15, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> The sad thing is there in lies QW's own bigotry based on his own interpretation of the word bigot.
> 
> He says that dismissing those who disagree with you on same sex marriage as a bigots makes you guilty of intolerance and then he cites the defintion of a bigot as including intolerance.
> 
> But then isn't he being dismissive of those who disagree with his position as he claims they are guilty of intolerance and therefore bigots?



Its also a transparent attempt to stifle dissent with regard to those who will seek to have the North Carolina measure invalidated, by impugning their character and bringing into question their motives.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 15, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



For me it is very simple.  Gays already have the same rights as everybody else concerning marriage.  They can get married so long as they follow the very same rules that everybody else follows.

Marriage laws exist for one purpose and one purpose only:  to protect any children that result from the marriage.  Every law involving marriage is toward that end whether or not any children actually result from the marriage.

The unintended but very real side effect of the traditional marriage is more stable neighhborhoods, less crime, better schools, a stronger economy, and the priceless benefits to the child who grows up with a loving mother and father in the home.  This is beneficial to all kids whether they are gay or straight.

The traditional marriage has been under severe assault now for a half century and I want us to strengthen and appreciate it, not further weaken it or relegate it to less important status.  You simply cannot change the definition of marriage without making it something different than it is.

So my reasons for wanting to protect traditional marriage have absolutely nothing to do with denying anybody rights and has absolutely nothing at all to do with sexual orientation.  It has everything to do with preserving a time honored American tradition ithat is essential to give kids their very best circumstance in life and preserve a stronger America.


----------



## koshergrl (May 15, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > The sad thing is there in lies QW's own bigotry based on his own interpretation of the word bigot.
> ...



You mean by calling them "racist" or "homophobe"?

Oh..wait...


----------



## Dr Grump (May 15, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yep, certainly sounds like those on this board who are against gay marriage are bigots...thanks for highlighting it...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




Do I need to keep repeating myself I AM A BIGOT and men who imagine other men out of their clothes are faggots.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 16, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > The sad thing is there in lies QW's own bigotry based on his own interpretation of the word bigot.
> ...



Do you even know how to follow a chain of logic to a conclusion? How is a blog written by a gay man who opposes the measure an attempt to stifle dissent with respect to people who oppose the measure?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 16, 2012)

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.
> ...



Yep, that is exactly what I said. Thanks for proving your idiocy, and my point.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Then if you are opposed to universal marriage, you are not a true conservative or libertarian.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



You're an idiot The only true libertarian are Anarchist and anarchy leads to tyranny and no true conservative support gay marriage.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



A religous conservative is a theocrat thus no true conservative.

You are wrong about libertarianism.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You're just wrong on everything idiot.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2012)

You don't get your own definitions, bigrebnc.  Fact of life.  Move along.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> You don't get your own definitions, bigrebnc.  Fact of life.  Move along.



You don't get to use your own definitions either jake that's is a fact of life go sit in the corner


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2012)

Do you really know what a libertarian philosophy is, bigrenbc?  Didn't think so.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Do you really know what a libertarian philosophy is, bigrenbc?  Didn't think so.



Dumb ass you said true libertarian  you don't get to define what is and what is not.
I see what you are you are an authoritarian. You think you have the authority to tell someone what they can and cannot wear.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2012)

I see you have no idea what you are talking about.  At least you are consistent about that.

No, anarchism and libertarianism are no more equivalent than are the Democrats and socialism.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> I see you have no idea what you are talking about.  At least you are consistent about that.
> 
> No, anarchism and libertarianism are no more equivalent than are the Democrats and socialism.



The authoritarian speaks,


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2012)

And the bigot listens!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> And the bigot listens!



I'm a bigot that is true but I place a boot in the ass of authoritarian like you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2012)

The bigot is a day dreamer too!


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares what a bigot says about anything?
> ...



Too bad you weren't able to comprehend what he said.

Here let me point out what you obviously did not understand.  He said, that being a bigot is being utterly intolerant of differing creeds, beliefs or opinions.  He said being a bigot was *NOT* simply disagreeing with someone else.

You see, before you act as stupidly as you did, you should actually read and comprehend the post you are commenting on.

Note once again for the utterly dense:  QW clearly and correctly stated that simply disagreeing with someone is not bigotry.  Bigotry is the intolerant and hateful treatment of another class of people.  

That is why you are a bigot, drsmith.  NOT because you disagree with someone.  Everyone disagrees with someone else, but rather because your posts are 100% hateful and intolerant of conservatives.

Your friend,

Immie


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The bigot is a day dreamer too!



The authoritarian going to go to the corner and cry because he can't get his way.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2012)

You are delusional in your day dreams.


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

Vast LWC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > There are many valid arguments for preserving and protecting traditional marriage that have absolutely nothing to do with anybody's opinion about gay people.
> ...



I would agree with almost all of this.

I do not agree with your last "BLANKET" statement.  Surely many who voted for this did so as bigots, but you cannot be certain that all who voted against "gay marriage" in this case did so as bigots.  Perhaps, they have legitimate religious beliefs about the term marriage and although they are not intolerant of or hateful to homosexual couples, they believe that marriage is sacred.  Of course, IMHO they are not paying attention to things like divorce rates, but still.  One need not hate people to vote against something that other people support.

From the little I know of the NC law, I would not have supported it.  Although, I do believe the rite of marriage is sacred, I believe it is a religious rite and because of the Separation of Church and State, it should remain as such.  I fully support civil unions for all couples not just homosexuals.  Marriage should return to being a rite of the church and only a rite of the church.  Couples who wish to be married (a religious blessing upon their union) should do so in their own church... and yes, that too applies to homosexuals.

Immie


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I'm a bigot for not supporting the abnormal and illegal act of homosexuality
I'm also a bigot for not supporting the right for family members to marry.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Homosexuality is part of nature, thus natural, and it is not illegal.

Incest is illegal.  We have some on the board for lowering consent ages and permitting brothers/sisters to marry.

Strange thinking.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 16, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Typical. You asked for an answer and were given one and then discard it wiuthout even addressing it. How is what I said a strawman? I cited your own words so please explain if you can. 

Why are you running away from your own words and are you now going to renege and avoid answering my questions? 

Thought so. Thanks for showing how little integrity you have.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


Not human nature If it was part of human nature humans would be asexual.

Why is incest illegal jake?


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 16, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



More insults in lieu of a real counter ususally means that you have nothing valid to offer. 

Instead of running and hiding behind lame and baseless personal attacks why not respond to the content?

Why can't you answer these simple questions about your own words?


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Those were written as statements.  That tells me that you are admitting to being a bigot.  If you say you are, I will accept your word or it.  I didn't call you a bigot.  I don't know that you voted for the law or if you did, why you did so.

If those were intended as questions, I didn't say you were a bigot.  What were your reasons for voting for the law, if you did?

Immie


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 16, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > The sad thing is there in lies QW's own bigotry based on his own interpretation of the word bigot.
> ...



You can't call them bigots because doing so makes you guilty of intolerance and a bigot. LOL


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2012)

Homosexuality is part of human nature, has been since the beginning of time.  It exists in the lower species.  Tell me why incesit is illegal, bigrebnc, and why you support it.  We are all interested, I am sure.


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



More lies from you.

What makes you a bigot is your past performance.

If you want to call me a bigot, you have to point out that 100% of my posts are hateful to liberals or homosexuals or people of color or whatever class of people you want to claim I am bigotted against.  Hell, I'll be nice to you and even give you 80% of my posts... good luck.

Your friend,

Immie


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




I make no bones about it I am a bigot and anyone who says they aren't a bigot is lying to themselves. What I said was a statement.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Homosexuality is part of human nature, has been since the beginning of time.  It exists in the lower species.  Tell me why incesit is illegal, bigrebnc, and why you support it.  We are all interested, I am sure.



If homosexuality was here from the beginning of time why aren't humans Asexual? Why Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2012)

Being opinionated, bigrebnc, is not necesarrily being bigoted.  Know the difference.

Your premise about natural homosexuality is false.  Prove it if you can.  You can't.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Being opinionated, bigrebnc, is not necesarrily being bigoted.  Know the difference.
> 
> Your premise about natural homosexuality is false.  Prove it if you can.  You can't.



Adj.	1.	bigoted - blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view"

Are humans Asexual?


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 16, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



I beleive he is refering to your comments not the blog. You try to argue that anyone who calls them bigots is guilty of intolerance and according to the definition that you provided that intolerance makes them a bigot. 

Which according to your own spin about being dismissive of those who diagree with you makes you guilty of the same intolerance and bigotry.



Quantum Windbag said:


> I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as being intolerant which according to your own spin makes you intolerant and a bigot.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

a·sex·u·al  (-sksh-l)
adj.
1. Having no evident sex or sex organs; sexless.
2. Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction that occurs without the union of male and female gametes, as in binary fission or budding.
3. Lacking interest in or desire for sex.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 16, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Again you claim that someone proved your point even as you fail to show how they did any such thing. 

Please clarfiy your point and show how people are wrong instead merely claiming they are if you can. 

you do have the substance to back up your spin don't you?


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 16, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



ah the troll who runs away from the fact that he accused me of "hatred" in my posts and then pastes previous posts of mine that were all about mere disagreements with no example of "hatred" LOL GJ on that one troll.

what you missed in your desperate attempt to troll me is the fact that my statement includes the word "dismissive" as part of the requirement that QW set up.



drsmith1072 said:


> According to the OP being *dismissive* of those who disagree with you makes you the bigot.



 I am not saying that "simply disagreeing with someone" makes you a bigot. In that respect you are being dishonest or you simply lack the intellegence to comprehend what you read. Which is it? 

here is QW's post again. 



Quantum Windbag said:


> Next time somebody wants to dismiss everyone who disagrees with their views about same sex marriage as a bigot they should remember what the word actually means and take a step to end the intolerance.
> 
> 
> Bigot [big-uht] (noun) a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.



This is obviously an attempt by QW to argue that being "dismissive" of someone who disagrees with you makes you intolerant and then he goes on to state that intolerance is a part of being a bigot. What was the point of that if not to imply that "being dismissive of those who disagree with you makes you the bigot?"


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 16, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



what am i lying about? in the op qw asked "who are the real bigots?"

then he presents an argument that states 



Quantum Windbag said:


> Next time somebody wants to dismiss everyone who disagrees with their views about same sex marriage as a bigot they should remember what the word actually means and take a step to end the intolerance.
> 
> 
> Bigot [big-uht] (noun) a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.



which means that if you are dismissive of those who disagree with you that makes you intolerant and therefore, based on the definition and the title of the op that he provided, qw is implying that you are the bigot. 



Immanuel said:


> What makes you a bigot is your past performance.
> 
> If you want to call me a bigot, you have to point out that 100% of my posts are hateful to liberals or homosexuals or people of color or whatever class of people you want to claim I am bigotted against.  Hell, I'll be nice to you and even give you 80% of my posts... good luck.



says the hack who calls me a bigot when he has failed to show that 100% of my posts are hateful and in fact has posted quotes of those that are not disproving his own argument. LOL


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



drsmith should learn from you.

I made that very same point in my initial post regarding bigotry before he and I even started our conversation.  Everyone has their prejudices.  Some do, in fact, learn to control them and realize that those prejudices are their problem and no one else's.

Drsmith has been screaming for four days now that he is not a bigot.  He's not only a bigot, but an asshole and a liar.  Anyone who claims they are not prejudiced against others is, in fact, a liar.  Drsmith has proven by his own posts that he is a bigot against conservatives.  He is hate-filled and he is an asshole.

He simply can't come to grips with the fact that others see him as a bigotted asshole.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Anyone who had the reading comprehension skills of a third grader would realize that his post states that there is a difference between just disagreeing with someone's point of view and being a bigot.  I'm sorry, you can't comprehend that.

Your friend, 

Immie


----------



## Vast LWC (May 16, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Not human nature If it was part of human nature humans would be asexual.
> 
> Why is incest illegal jake?



That makes no sense at all.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 16, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Actualy I have ben asking you to prove your allegations and you have failed miserably. 

You have argued that being "rude" makes me a bigot.

you have presented posts of mine saying thay are proof of hatred when they were mere disagreement.

You have even said that in order to prove you to be a bigot I would have to cite 100% your posts and show that eveyone is proof that you are a bigot and yet you haven't done the same for me.

your failure to prove your allegation across two threads has no bearing on me. LOL


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Hack?

Right.  I have given you the opportunity to provide one single post that was not hateful on your account.  Then I gave you the chance to prove that I am a bigot and I didn't even require you to go to the standards that I have gone to.  I'm asking you to provide one post out of six thousand.  You must be really, really sorry if you can't even do that.

I cut you a hell of a lot of slack.  I gave you the slack, because I know I can easily find many posts in which I have been polite to liberals and quite frankly, except for my dealings with TM and yourself, I don't think you can find very many posts at all that could even be considered "hateful" to a liberal.  

Would you really like to be held to proving the same standards as I have held you to?  That would require you to prove that nearly 14000 of my posts are hateful in reference to liberals rather than only 11,200.  I can ask you to do so if you would like.

I have said that I don't usually read the posts of rdean, Chris or sealybobo, but I wouldn't consider that to be hateful.  And actually, there are some conservatives (realize that some does not make me a bigot) that I like even less than tdm or the three listed above.  

I don't want to be unfair to you.  Have at it, prove that all 14,013 (including this post) of my posts are hatefut to liberals... good frigging luck, my friend.

Your friend,

Immie


----------



## Vast LWC (May 16, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> I would agree with almost all of this.
> 
> I do not agree with your last "BLANKET" statement.  Surely many who voted for this did so as bigots, but you cannot be certain that all who voted against "gay marriage" in this case did so as bigots.  Perhaps, they have legitimate religious beliefs about the term marriage and although they are not intolerant of or hateful to homosexual couples, they believe that marriage is sacred.  Of course, IMHO they are not paying attention to things like divorce rates, but still.  One need not hate people to vote against something that other people support.
> 
> ...



So you are saying many people in North Carolina voted for this bill, and did not realize there was a stipulation that denied all other types of union in it?

If such people exist, then, yes, my blanket statement would not apply.  However, voting for something without reading it is a pretty damn foolish thing to do.


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...





> You have argued that being "rude" makes me a bigot.



Never once did I say that being rude made you a bigot.  You are not only a bigot but a liar as well and desperate to boot.  You go well beyond rude in every one of your posts.

What is that that you keep crying about?  Don't put words in my mouth?  Isn't that what you keep crying about and have done so everytime some points out what kind of a bigotted asshole you are?

You defined the word bigot in your first post about the subject.  Live with it.

Your friend,

Immie


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 16, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



aw you call me names and fail to present a valid vounter argument. that means that you lose again, However, by now I bet you are used to that. LOL 

How is calling someone else intolerant as you present a definition of the word bigot which includes "intolerant" as you ask the question "who are the real bigots" not an attempt to dismiss and call those who diagree with you a bigot? 

Also it doesn't change the fact that you lied and misrepresented the argument by claimiing it was about "simply disagreeing" when the core of my statement ahd to do with "dismissing" those who disagree with you and that is based on QW's own words. 

Where is your proof that 100% of my posts are hate filled? LOL


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

Vast LWC said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > I would agree with almost all of this.
> ...



Did I use the word many?

You implied all.  I said some.



> voting for something without reading it is a pretty damn foolish thing to do.



Hehe, maybe you should tell that to Nancy Pelosi and everyone of the Democrats that voted for Obamacare?

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Since you can not present even one post that was not hate filled, and I have presented many that are, the sample is plenty large enough to sink your desperate ass.

The offer stands... present one that is not hate filled by you.

Hell, when we started this discussion, I told you that if you could tell me the conservatives name and subject of such a post that I would accept that.  But, you can't even do that.  

Admit it you dumb son of a bitch, you are a bigotted asshole.  Keep denying it, and it only makes you out to be a lying bigotted asshole.

Your friend,

Immie


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 16, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




and here it is.



Immanuel said:


> Holding up three posts out of nearly 6000 doesn't make you a pillar of impartiality, especially when all three of them were, in fact, *rude to conservatives*, The Rabbi and Willow, and the third was a slam on Glenn Beck.  You must be a very proud bigot.



LOL

and I asked on several occasions how being "rude" is the same as being a bigot but you never responded. LOL 

BTW you holding up three posts of me being "rude to conservatives" doesn't make me a bigot either. 

I'm still wating on you to show that 100% of my posts are hate filled. Why haven't you done it? after all that is your standard is it not??


----------



## BDBoop (May 16, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Oh, look; for I have found a voice of reason amidst all the dross.

Wut up, home skillet?


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



You were rude to and hateful of all conservatives in those posts.  Do you not realize, well, maybe your less than third grade comprehension may not, that being hateful is in fact rude?  Yes, you were rude to them in those posts as I stated.  You were hateful of them... here's a clue, being hateful makes you rude you dumb son of a bitch.

Your friend,

Immie


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 16, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I don't have to prove you wrong when you have done so on your own. I don't have to prove my innocence. You made the accusation and ahve failed to prove it. that is on you not me. 

You required me to go to further measures to prove you are a bigot. Didn't you say that to prove you are a bigot that I would have to prove that 100% of your posts are nothing but hate and yuet you haven't done that were I am concerned so according to your own standards I am not a bigot. thanks.

The post that you commented on about kshergrl was postive but then you later tried to argue that it didn't count. LOL There is one and i have had several over the last few days. lol


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



You're right being rude in three posts doesn't make you a bigot.

Neither does being hateful in three posts.

Your problem is that it is not just three posts.  It is every single post you have ever made on this site.  I'm not going to quote 6000 posts.  I have provided the sample and given you plenty of opportunity to prove me wrong by just posting one single polite to a conservative post.  Obviously since you refuse to do so, you can't do so.

By your own definition, that qualifies you as a dumb son of a bitch; an asshole and a bigot.

Sorry, I tried to help you the other day with a link to the 12-step method.  The fact that you are unwilling to admit that you are addicted to your hatred is a problem that you need to deal with.  

Your friend,

Immie


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 16, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I don't have to prove your allegation false. the burdern is on you and you have failed miserably. LOL


here is one of the psots you claim as proof of being "rude" lol



drsmith1072 said:


> Actually when I was stationed at HAAF in Savannah, GA I met Jack Kingston a few times. I liked him as a person and voted for him despite the fact that we disagreed politically on more than a few things. So what was that you were saying??
> 
> BTW I probably watch more foxnews than I do of msnbc. Especially that dishonest hack beck with all of his rants and rails as he tries to hold obama accountable for something someone else said or did. Like his recent rant about the justice department being in court over reading e-mails which is derived from the pattriot act. However, beck doesn't tell you where it comes from because then you and he couldn't blame obama for it.



How is calling glenn beck a dishoenst hack when it is true considered being rude or hateful? 

This is typical of what you argue to be "rude" which you claim is proof ot my bigotry. LOL


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



I'm being a bully, Boop.  I'm guilty as charged.  But, it is nothing that this S.O.B. does not fully deserve.

Immie


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 16, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



LOL notice the shift in immies argument now that I have shown he lied about equating being "rude" to being a "bigot" and now he is trying to insult me in a desperate attempt to cover his lies. Oh and I love the spin about "being hateful makes you ruide" but that is not what your original argument was about and your own words show that to be the case.

You lied and it has been proven. LOL

oh and again



drsmith1072 said:


> Actually when I was stationed at HAAF in Savannah, GA I met Jack Kingston a few times. I liked him as a person and voted for him despite the fact that we disagreed politically on more than a few things. So what was that you were saying??
> 
> BTW I probably watch more foxnews than I do of msnbc. Especially that dishonest hack beck with all of his rants and rails as he tries to hold obama accountable for something someone else said or did. Like his recent rant about the justice department being in court over reading e-mails which is derived from the pattriot act. However, beck doesn't tell you where it comes from because then you and he couldn't blame obama for it.



how is calling beck a dishoenst hack when he is one "rude" or hateful? You have called me far worse and continue to do so does that make you a bigot? LOL


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

Vast LWC said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Not human nature If it was part of human nature humans would be asexual.
> ...



ASK jake since he brought it up. Or here's a suggestion since you seem to have a hard time understanding what I write. Place me on ignore because I am not going to explain to you anymore what I meant or said.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Everybody is a bigot if not they are a person without any emotions and care for nothing Some psychopath killers are not bigots. Such as Jeffery Dalmar


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 16, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




thank you for admitting that you are wrong. LOL 



Immanuel said:


> Your problem is that it is not just three posts.  It is every single post you have ever made on this site.  *I'm not going to quote 6000 posts.*  I have provided the sample and given you plenty of opportunity to prove me wrong by just posting one single polite to a conservative post.  Obviously since you refuse to do so, you can't do so.
> 
> By your own definition, that qualifies you as a dumb son of a bitch; an asshole and a bigot.
> 
> ...



So in other words you make an accusation and then refuse to prove it based on your own standard of 100% of my posts? Saying it over and over does not make it so either. Your sample is not proof of the content of the other 6000 posts even a hack as dishonest as you should admit that. 

Fact is that you argued that being rude makes me a bigot and the lied and tried to claim that you never made such an argument. 

I posted your own words that show you to be a LIAR. LOL 



Immanuel said:


> Never once did I say that being rude made you a bigot.



and 



Immanuel said:


> Holding up three posts out of nearly 6000 doesn't make you a pillar of impartiality, especially when all three of them were, in fact, *rude to conservatives*, The Rabbi and Willow, and the third was a slam on Glenn Beck.  You must be a very proud bigot.


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Fine, you go with that.

It has been proven beyond a shadow (as opposed to a reasonable) of a doubt that you are in fact a bigotted asshole.  Whenever you decide to give up crying that you are not, in fact, a bigotted asshole, we can end this discussion.  In the meantime, if you keep whining that you are not in fact a bigotted asshole, I will continue to present the fact that you can not come up with one single post that is not hateful towards conservatives.

Do you realize that there was a time that even the great bigotted hater, TM, was polite to conservatives?  There was a time, in fact, that she and I were friends.  It was probably arould the time that you voted for Jack Kingston, but then she too evolved in the same manner that you have and is even more biased and hatefilled against conservatives than you are.

You go with the "I'm not a bigot because I voted for Jack Kingston", defense.  While you do, I'm going to stick with the offer to you to show us one single post that is not hatefilled against conservatives.  

By the way, for the record, I won't accept one that you make after this conversation got you so heated.  I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way.  The post must be before that, in other words, you can't post to Vast LWC today and call him a good person simply to get your ass off the hook.

Keep up the good work you dumb son of a bitch.  

This has been so much fun and the fact that you keep adding fuel to the fire only makes it that much more fun.   

Your friend,

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



I've proven my case.

You can't disprove it... case closed.  Sorry, that is just the way things work in this world.  

Your unsubstantiated denials can't change that.  Would you like to substantiate your denials?

Your friend,

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



In the same manner that calling you a bigotted asshole when you are one.  You are a bigotted asshole.  Obviously you think (and I wouldn't disagree) that Beck is one, but you make yourself out to be a hypocrite as well when you call Beck a dishonest hack and you won't call yourself one as well.

In answer to your question, no, it doesn't make me a bigotted asshole, maybe a bully, but not a bigotted asshole, because I only do it to you and people such as yourself who display hatred of other people simply because of their creed, race, sexual preference, political ideology etc. 

Maybe you can make the case that I am bigotted against bigotted assholes?  I can go along with that.  I have to say, that doesn't bother me one bit.  Go for it.  BTW, I've already admitted to being bigotted several times including right before this discussion began and now three or four times during this discussion.  You could make a damned good case too that I am an asshole based with how I have treated you over the last four days, but you know what?  I don't give a shit.  You're an asshole and you deserve every bit you take.

Your friend,

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



You are one dumb son of a bitch.

Look up the study of Statistics.

Immie


----------



## BDBoop (May 16, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



If you are, *you know you best* you are at least performing said duties from the perspective of a man of honor.

It's fun to watch, but I do grow weary of having to hit page down four times to make it through one post.


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Hey!  Don't blame me for that last part.

He is the one that in each of his posts for so long had to quote me and then say something stupid like, "I'm not a bigot because I once voted for Jack Kingston", or "You have put words in my mouth...", I mean have you noticed that he has made those statements like ten times in each post for quite some time?  It has gotten to the point that I only read the very last part of his posts because the rest of his whining is really wasted typing.

Immie


----------



## BDBoop (May 16, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I have noticed, yes. Would that he could compact it down a bit.


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Would that he were just smart enough to admit the facts and give up.

It has been stated by many of us that we are all bigots.  Although, some have learned to control it while some are addicted to proving their bigottry day in and day out.

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 16, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



By your definition cities, being part of nature, are natural. 

By the way, by supporting incest laws you support religious tyranny. There is no real scientific ground for most incest laws, especially when we have access to technology that allows genetic screening of people who want to get married to be sure they will not reinforce a regressive trait.
​


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 16, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Yes, I am typically denying that you actually answered my question. Here are the two posts you assert answer my question.







Actually, what I clearly said is that being utterly intolerant of any different creed, belief, or opinion makes you a bigot. Dismissing absurd beliefs like, as an example, that the Moon is made of green cheese, doesn't make you a bigot. 

I do think that people who dismiss everyone who disagrees with their position on a subject are intolerant, but that is not bigotry. What you do is, however, bigotry.








Actually, the definition I cited says utterly intolerant, with utterly being the key word. Utterly, for those challenged in understanding English, means completely, absolutely, and/or entirely. While there are bigots who vote against same sex marriage, that does not mean you are not a bigot simply because you support it.

Like I said before, setting up a straw man and beating the crap out of it is not answering a question. In fact, when other people do it, you call it lying. strange how it is not lying when you do it.


​


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 16, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



The content was an insult, I responded to it. 
​


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 16, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Where, exactly, did I say that?
​


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 16, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Believe whatever you want. You can believe that Martians secretly run the Earth through mind control. You can believe that Oswald was a patsy and that Kennedy was actually killed by a CIA hit team. You can even believe that Jones was talking about my comments. Just don't expect me to think your wacky conspiracies are worth serious consideration. 

From the OP link.



> After last nights vote, I heard a disturbingly large number of my  friends, national commentators, and others *suggesting that this vote  just proves that North Carolinians (or at least a giant percentage of  us) are bigoted, homophobic, backwards people who are so filled with  hate that we oppose equality for certain groups just because we can.
> *
> *
> *
> *And see, thats just not the case. *Yes, I voted against the  amendment, as did many of my friends and hundreds of thousands of other  NC residents. But I also know people who voted for it, and I know that  they are not simply bigoted, homophobic, backwards people. Its way more  complicated than that.



All I am doing is pointing out that idiots who dismiss everyone as a bigot simply because they disagree with them are wrong. I am agreeing with a gay man who is saying the exact same thing. Your problem is not that I am a bigot, or that I am trying to stifle dissent, your problem is that is what you are doing, and I am calling you on it.
​


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 16, 2012)

drsmith1072 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



No, it is me pointing out that dismissing _everyone_ who disagrees with you as a bigot is intolerant. Clinging to that intolerance after someone points it out to you makes you a bigot.

Notice who it is always what you do that makes you what you are, not what I do that does it?
​


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 16, 2012)

Vast LWC said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > I would agree with almost all of this.
> ...



Does that mean you read every word of every ballot initiative you vote on, and consult a lawyer you trust completely so you can understand all the possible implications of the language of said initiative? Or do you, like most people who are not lawyers, simply scan the initiative and jump to a conclusion before you vote.
​


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 16, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Use the space bar, it is a lot more convenient.
​


----------



## LilOlLady (May 16, 2012)

Everyone has a little of bigotry and racism in them toward something.If they say they don't they are lying.


----------



## LilOlLady (May 16, 2012)

None of the gays in my life gives a damn about marriage and say they would not marry if it was legal. I do belive they should have the same rights as a common law marriage. Civil Union do not give property and social security benefits,etc. Rights are limited. Am I right?
One do not have to be in a marriage to make out a will.
I do not belive any government, federal or state has the right to give gays to right to marry.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> Everyone has a little of bigotry and racism in them toward something.If they say they don't they are lying.


But when they allow their bigotry to deny someone rights as a citizen they are acting in both an unconstitutional and unAmerican manner.


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> Everyone has a little of bigotry and racism in them toward something.If they say they don't they are lying.



That's been said by several.  Some can't comprehend that fact.

However, I would say that there is a difference between being a bigot and being a bigotted asshole.  I can attest that I am bigotted against people who display hatred of other people simply because of who those other people are or what they believe.  I'm a bigot against assholes.  So sue me.

I do have other prejudices.  I simply learned that they were my problem and not problems of the victims of my prejudice.  For instance, I can't stand people that drive significantly slower than the posted speed limit and especially those who won't pull over to the right when they are in the fast lane and there are faster cars behind them.  Or people that think that sign they passed that said "lane ends 1500 feet" back 2000 feet behind them, doesn't apply to them and they can force their way in causing everyone behind them to slam on the brakes to let them in.  Yeah, I have my prejudices.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (May 16, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> None of the gays in my life gives a damn about marriage and say they would not marry if it was legal. I do belive they should have the same rights as a common law marriage. *Civil Union do not give property and social security benefits,etc. Rights are limited. Am I right?*
> One do not have to be in a marriage to make out a will.
> I do not belive any government, federal or state has the right to give gays to right to marry.



Since to my knowledge no civil union laws have been passed to date.  I think you are wrong.

My view of the civil union is that they would have all the rights and privileges that today's marriages have.

I also think the state should only sanction "civil unions" and get out of the marriage business completely.  Civil Union = government, marriage = rite of the church.

Oh and by the way, since I understand that several denominations do in fact welcome homosexuals into their congregations and are willing to not only call them to the ministry but also to marry gay couples, I believe they have that right.

Immie


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> Everyone has a little of bigotry and racism in them toward something.If they say they don't they are lying.



Bigotry yes but not all people care what a persons race is. I judge people how they live their life not how they look because of their skin color.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2012)

Vast LWC said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Not human nature If it was part of human nature humans would be asexual.
> ...



Consider the source.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



To illiterate people common sense doesn't make sense. I guess he doesn't understand what asexual means


----------



## koshergrl (May 16, 2012)

Incest is illegal because it presents unacceptable risks to children. People cannot marry their siblings because we as a society recognize that would be operating outside the accepted, ideal child rearing construct.


----------

