Who are the real bigots?

[JakeStarkey]

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?

Or course it is, but windbag is a hypocrite.

For the idiots.

'bout time, hoserbag.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Or course it is, but windbag is a hypocrite.

For the idiots.

'bout time, hoserbag.

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

Or course it is, but windbag is a hypocrite.

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

Here's one quote

Here's the quotes in full, piker.

"The Slut Walk" - Where Women Try To Be Enticing and Repulsive At The Same Time


Post 3: “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. That is simply the way it is and will continue to be. Hint: don't act, dress, or speak like a slut.

Post 13: “Then they will bear the result of that behavior.” Condemnation is implied not assault.

Post 47: syrenn clearly understood what I meant in terms of condemnation. “Considering that our avis are our ‘clothes’ Are you saying my avi...... makes me a slut? And becasue of that, regardless on how i comport myself and speak...i do not deserve to be treated with respect?”

I still fully believe that a woman cannot expect a judgment free zone for how they dress. Yes, anyone can condemn their clothing choice. and have every right to do so. No, they should never be assaulted.

Anyone who believes that condemnation of clothing is somehow an invitation to assault has a screw loose.

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]

Or course it is, but windbag is a hypocrite.

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

Here's the quotes in full, piker.

"The Slut Walk" - Where Women Try To Be Enticing and Repulsive At The Same Time


Post 3: “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. That is simply the way it is and will continue to be. Hint: don't act, dress, or speak like a slut.

Post 13: “Then they will bear the result of that behavior.” Condemnation is implied not assault.

Post 47: syrenn clearly understood what I meant in terms of condemnation. “Considering that our avis are our ‘clothes’ Are you saying my avi...... makes me a slut? And becasue of that, regardless on how i comport myself and speak...i do not deserve to be treated with respect?”

I still fully believe that a woman cannot expect a judgment free zone for how they dress. Yes, anyone can condemn their clothing choice. and have every right to do so. No, they should never be assaulted.

Anyone who believes that condemnation of clothing is somehow an invitation to assault has a screw loose.

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

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]

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

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

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 put 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?

Don't say Quantum does not deliever when asked.

LOL I can and I did because he hasn't.

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.

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.

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.

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

I asked for all of the above and got NO response.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

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?

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

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]

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.

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.

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 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.

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]

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 put 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?

Don't say Quantum does not deliever when asked.

LOL I can and I did because he hasn't.

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.



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.



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

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

I asked for all of the above and got NO response.

Tis what tis, Dr. And note the disparity of who is supporting who on quantum's side. Interesting. Not surprising.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.



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



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



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:



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

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 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 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?




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

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

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

Logic is very much on my side.

not really. LOL your next comment shows that to be the case.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

You're my friend?

as much as you are mine. Does saying that mean that I am not a bigot?

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.

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.

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]

Or course it is, but windbag is a hypocrite.

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

Here's the quotes in full, piker.

"The Slut Walk" - Where Women Try To Be Enticing and Repulsive At The Same Time


Post 3: “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. That is simply the way it is and will continue to be. Hint: don't act, dress, or speak like a slut.

Post 13: “Then they will bear the result of that behavior.” Condemnation is implied not assault.

Post 47: syrenn clearly understood what I meant in terms of condemnation. “Considering that our avis are our ‘clothes’ Are you saying my avi...... makes me a slut? And becasue of that, regardless on how i comport myself and speak...i do not deserve to be treated with respect?”

I still fully believe that a woman cannot expect a judgment free zone for how they dress. Yes, anyone can condemn their clothing choice. and have every right to do so. No, they should never be assaulted.

Anyone who believes that condemnation of clothing is somehow an invitation to assault has a screw loose.

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.

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]

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 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 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?




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




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

Logic is very much on my side.

not really. LOL your next comment shows that to be the case.



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



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.



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.




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.



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




keep telling yourself that but I seriously doubt that efter getting exposed and dishonest cowardly hack that you were happy about it. LOL



as much as you are mine. Does saying that mean that I am not a bigot?



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.

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.

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

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]

Reb, you have failed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Reb, you have failed.

Jake got schooled

 

[koshergrl]

Jake's been schooled repeatedly.

That doesn't mean he's learned.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Or course it is, but windbag is a hypocrite.

For the idiots.

'bout time, hoserbag.

You challenged reb, not me. How did I find them if reb didn't post the links?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 put 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?

Don't say Quantum does not deliever when asked.

LOL I can and I did because he hasn't.

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.



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.



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

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

I asked for all of the above and got NO response.

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]

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.

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 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.

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.

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]