Jump to content

RkFast

Community Member
  • Posts

    6,712
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RkFast

  1. Just last week I thought I was reading about the British campaign in Burma, but I got halfway through the book before I realized it was actually about Jerry Tarkanian and UNLV in the early '90s.

     

    NCAA basketball and World War 2 are just so damned similar.

    You missed the follow up I wrote, YOU IDIOT.....

    Dammit, none of you bit on the joke.

  2. Lets recap the last 24 hours....Obama wants to force banks to lend money for homes to those with poor credit....thinks Pelosi isn't driven by ideology......Also said in his speech that Newtown was committed with a "fully automatic weapon". Whatever little bit of respect I had for this man is just about all gone. http://twitchy.com/2013/04/04/shameless-liar-obama-says-newtown-shooter-used-a-fully-automatic-weapon/

  3. Call me nuts, Im concerned. Not "hide in my basement we area all going to die, invade the DPKR (or whatever)" concerned, mind you. But its NOT they cant carry out some pretty nasty stuff if they really wanted to. They DO have the capability. Im going to ASSUME the Pentagon, behind the scenes is on alert here. Right....RIGHT??????? TOM??!!!??? AHHHH!!! RUN!!!!!!

  4. Dammit, none of you bit on the joke. The coach is a tool. But he DID get punished for his actions by the school. Asking for MORE punishment now, especially if his actions have been clean since his initial punishment, is a silly phony folly. He did his time, paid the fine. And now he, AND his staff, is going to be punished AGAIN? Doesn't seem right to me. And lets not forget the disgruntled employee who released the tape. Hes walking a pretty fine line between whistleblower and extortionist.

  5. Calling them names and throwing balls! At a bunch of men over the age of 18 who are getting a free ride to school??!!?? Only a few generations ago, younger men than these were put on unpressured bombers and sent to fight a war, getting shot out of the sky over Bremen. But now a few names and a ball thrown at them is nationwide scandal? Oh, the horror!!!! God, we are getting soft. Grow a sack, f--ts.

  6. Oh, well please tell me which part is filled with factual inaccuracies (As if that isn’t an oxymoron if I ever heard one) and bigotry. Remember that bigotry is the holding of one’s view point in spite of facts to the contrary. You don’t get to make up the facts, but you’re welcome to try, Marc.

     

    I’ll head you off at the pass before you even begin to present your standard narrative.

     

    1. Because animals (what was it 1500 at last count) do the gay, it must be natural. Errrr, WRONG.

    2. Twins studies show that being gay is genetic.. Errrr… WRONG they show the reverse.

    3. Because I as a straight man am unable to change my adult sexuality, gays are equally unable. True, but I maintain that homosexuality is a manifestation of one’s environment that begins early in one’s life prior to the maturation of the prefrontal cortex. Look up what the PFC is and get back to me.

    4. Gay kids who are younger siblings of older male brothers have shown a correlation to adult homosexuality. True, there is some actual science there, however, with small samples and study structure, is way too early for any reliable statistically significant data sets to come out.

     

     

    The truth is, with no BS, no agenda, no ideology, that, no one really knows for sure what causes homosexuality, but as a matter of intellectual honesty without the agenda and as a matter of the scientific method, one cannot simply see an anomaly and place it on equal footing to the standard baseline. This is what you’re attempting to do with saying that homosexuality is no more a product of one’s environment or a choice any more than heterosexuality. It’s clever, but only because most people don’t understand the use of circular reasoning. The fact is that in almost all species that have ever come and gone on this planet, with a tiny few exceptions, procreate with the male and female gender coming together to produce offspring. Evolution seems to have found this method to be the most efficient way to mix genes, to provide the best possible chances at diversity for species to survive. What does it mean? It means that heterosexuality IS the baseline; we as a species don’t have a choice in our predispositions to heterosexuality.

     

    Don’t you find it strange that all of a sudden gays want to have their own children in growing numbers? Back in the 70’s having kids was taboo in gay culture. In the 70’s before they got a consistent unified message and agenda, (We’re normal and do not harm anyone, would like to be married, and have kids too) gays were all over the spectrum, but one thing remained consistent. Gays themselves did not “think” they were born that way. To think that was also taboo. No, they loved that it was their own choice to be gay, and that they were different. It was a huge part of their culture in fact. It wasn’t until after the 80’s AIDS scare that responsible gays began coalescing the message of homosexuality. They knew that (Although completely wrong of society) stigmatism towards homosexual men being blamed for AIDS was at its height, and they needed to clean themselves up as a community. Not all did, but most of them understood that safer sex was needed, they knew that forming a strong political lobby was important, and many of them popped up, and some stayed to this day and a lot of them just faded away, but they were able to lobby congress, however, early on and to this day, most of their successes have come from the judiciary where usurping the will of the people was way easier and a lot less costly than lobbying congress or the people directly.

     

    Look, the history of the gay culture in America is well documented on both sides of the aisle, and it’s not like you can’t find out for yourself what and exactly how homosexual rights have gained in the last 40 years. It’s all there! If you’re going to argue with me about what are facts and opinion, then please do, just please know that you’re entitled to an opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. If you think something is a fact, then please make sure that you say you think it is a fact, but you MUST be able to back it up, otherwise it’s an opinion.

     

    Clear?

     

    Tim-

    edited to remove incendiary language.

    Why should MM actually do some research on a subject or observe and cite his own experiences with homosexuals when he can just put his fingers in his ears and say "Im right and youre a bigot, nanny nanny poo poo?" Frankly I don't know whats right. I go from what Ive seen in my own life with friends and family who are gay. Some of their life experiences back up this post above. Some dont. Im not one to judge. Ill give you credit for at least trying to put some thought into it all. Thats a lot more than Marc and others do. As far as the original topic goes....nope...still don't care. However, it will be interesting to see if lets say this player really wears his sexuality on his sleeve, the media gives him **** the same way they did with Tim Tebow for wearing his faith on his. Anyone wanna take a bet on what happens there?

  7. I wonder if the player in question is as gay as this thread. I'm all for gay people being treated like everyone else, but this militant pro-gay steam some of you are spewing sounds more like the "look at me! Look at me! See how open minded I am!" grandstanding I'm used to seeing from pathetic tools dealing with white guilt who have to be even more outraged than the black guy to prove you're "one of the good one's." Someone in this thread even went so far as to denigrate as juvenile and ignorant the belief that gay sex is "icky". I got news for you tough guy: Butt sex IS "icky". Swimming around in someone else's **** is kind of gross - and that's true of heterosexual butt love too.

     

    The point is, can't we just agree that gay people shouldn't be ridiculed for their sexuality without being fags about it.

    Poast of the year.

  8. Good point.

     

    Driving on I-68 around Frostburg last weekend I saw a bumper sticker that said "Don't Renig in 2012." And to think that there are people who really believe that all disagreements with the President is entirely race-neutral.

     

    I tried to make eye contact with the driver. He glanced at me and quickly looked forward.

     

    What's the point of having such an offensive bumper sticker if you're not going to display it confidently?

    You don't understand why a guy driving didn't have the time to have a stare down with you? I think you think too much of yourself. But of yeah.....bumper stickers....Google Anti Bush ones. Then get back to me about being "offensive."

×
×
  • Create New...