Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The_Dude

Racism & Gay Rights: The Shield for Socialists

Recommended Posts

I've been saying it for a while, but since Trump was elected they really went into overdrive.

 

The current Democratic agenda is two-pronged: Racism and gay rights. 

 

Fighting racism and for gay rights is not something I have a problem with. However, I find the tactics democrats are using to be beyond loathsome. 

 

Gay rights: I was all for ending DOMA. It is NOT the governments place to say what is and what is not moral. It is not their place to make law on judeo-christian beliefs. I fully supported ending DOMA and thought once done so the fight was one. Boy was I wrong. They literally started making things up afterwards, like the horribly oppressed transvestites. Why? Because Democrats want everybody to believe that if they're not a democrat they're a bigot. That's why Kevin Hart is being attacked for not bending his knee and becoming an LGBTQ9erAAFNFLMNOP ally. They demand you bend the knee, accept their agenda, or they'll brand you a bigot and go after your money. That's what they always do -- they harass sponsors of Tucker Carlson, and Limbaugh in an effort to intimidate and silence. Gays represent about 3% of the population -- why do they represent so much of the Democrats agenda? Well, really they don't. They dems just talk about them a lot to spread intimidation and force their socialist agenda. The gays are just a weapon of theirs now. And I gotta say -- while I supported ending DOMA I also support letting gays know that theyre only 3% of the population and therefore aren't that important. I'm sorry I'm more concerned with the security of the nation, and the economy than I am the feelings of a pansexual.

 

Racism: Every white liberal is tripping over their own dick to get DNA tests in the hopes that they're in some way 1/1024th non-Caucasian. Why? They've established an accepted belief system that whites are responsible for all evils in the world, and that anything non-white is therefore more pure. So, every liberal is trying to find a way to identify as a victim. It's unbelievably shallow, and un-American. Further, the media is going crazy anytime they have a cell phone video of a white anything doing anything stupid. I mean seriously, how are high schoolers from Wisconsin worthy of front page news for "possibly" making a nazi salute? How's that "news?" It's not. A few days ago a 7-year old black girl was killed in Texas. Immediately liberal idiots were trying and hoping that it was a hate crime of sorts. In fact, the only thing I see in the news these days that labels a suspect as anything is when a person is white. Recently I read how a 14 year old girl in England was raped while shopping by a man with facial hair, dark skin, and curly hair. They wouldn't even say "middle eastern." 

 

This is absolutely ridiculous. This is "full retard." And what's disgusting is all the people who flock to it like a moth to flame. I fully believe that modern liberals would tell ISIS executioners that they're sorry for all their white privilege as their heads get severed. 

 

What's the main problem? The main problem is that Democrats are branding anybody who doesn't bend the knee to their ideology a bigot and a racist. Want to enforce borders? You're a racist. Have an issue with a 40 year old transvestite using the stall next to your 12 year old daughter? You're a bigot. They are literally bullying American's into blindly accepting and not questioning their politics because nobody wants to be called "bigot" or "racist." Then their masses are ignorantly supporting their socialist agendas. This has nothing to do with racism or gay rights -- they're just hiding their damn socialist agenda behind those fronts. And it's working. They're running the MOST successful fear campaign I've seen in my short life. And whats worse is its success and their socialist visions of the future. And we have a complicit media helping them transform the country into a horrible hell.

 

Winston said it best when he said: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

 

/rant
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's good to see you finally coming out of the closet.

:thumbsup:

  • Haha (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Foxx said:

it's good to see you finally coming out of the closet.

:thumbsup:

 

As the gung-ho oooh-rah intolerant ****head that he is, you knew he was in denial.

 

Hell, he's probably a closeted Muslim, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DC Tom said:

 

As the gung-ho oooh-rah intolerant ****head that he is, you knew he was in denial.

 

Hell, he's probably a closeted Muslim, too.

 

I ain’t a marine. 

 

We said “hoohah.” I tried to limit it because it’s gay.

 

Im sure the phrase was coined in peace time. Nothing is gayer than peace time army. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

As the gung-ho oooh-rah intolerant ****head that he is, you knew he was in denial.

 

Hell, he's probably a closeted Muslim, too.

Dude2.thumb.jpg.d1bfd269114c213bad94f3fecb02cd72.jpg

  • Haha (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

I've been saying it for a while, but since Trump was elected they really went into overdrive.

 

The current Democratic agenda is two-pronged: Racism and gay rights. 

 

Fighting racism and for gay rights is not something I have a problem with. However, I find the tactics democrats are using to be beyond loathsome. 

 

Gay rights: I was all for ending DOMA. It is NOT the governments place to say what is and what is not moral. It is not their place to make law on judeo-christian beliefs. I fully supported ending DOMA and thought once done so the fight was one. Boy was I wrong. They literally started making things up afterwards, like the horribly oppressed transvestites. Why? Because Democrats want everybody to believe that if they're not a democrat they're a bigot. That's why Kevin Hart is being attacked for not bending his knee and becoming an LGBTQ9erAAFNFLMNOP ally. They demand you bend the knee, accept their agenda, or they'll brand you a bigot and go after your money. That's what they always do -- they harass sponsors of Tucker Carlson, and Limbaugh in an effort to intimidate and silence. Gays represent about 3% of the population -- why do they represent so much of the Democrats agenda? Well, really they don't. They dems just talk about them a lot to spread intimidation and force their socialist agenda. The gays are just a weapon of theirs now. And I gotta say -- while I supported ending DOMA I also support letting gays know that theyre only 3% of the population and therefore aren't that important. I'm sorry I'm more concerned with the security of the nation, and the economy than I am the feelings of a pansexual.

 

Racism: Every white liberal is tripping over their own dick to get DNA tests in the hopes that they're in some way 1/1024th non-Caucasian. Why? They've established an accepted belief system that whites are responsible for all evils in the world, and that anything non-white is therefore more pure. So, every liberal is trying to find a way to identify as a victim. It's unbelievably shallow, and un-American. Further, the media is going crazy anytime they have a cell phone video of a white anything doing anything stupid. I mean seriously, how are high schoolers from Wisconsin worthy of front page news for "possibly" making a nazi salute? How's that "news?" It's not. A few days ago a 7-year old black girl was killed in Texas. Immediately liberal idiots were trying and hoping that it was a hate crime of sorts. In fact, the only thing I see in the news these days that labels a suspect as anything is when a person is white. Recently I read how a 14 year old girl in England was raped while shopping by a man with facial hair, dark skin, and curly hair. They wouldn't even say "middle eastern." 

 

This is absolutely ridiculous. This is "full retard." And what's disgusting is all the people who flock to it like a moth to flame. I fully believe that modern liberals would tell ISIS executioners that they're sorry for all their white privilege as their heads get severed. 

 

What's the main problem? The main problem is that Democrats are branding anybody who doesn't bend the knee to their ideology a bigot and a racist. Want to enforce borders? You're a racist. Have an issue with a 40 year old transvestite using the stall next to your 12 year old daughter? You're a bigot. They are literally bullying American's into blindly accepting and not questioning their politics because nobody wants to be called "bigot" or "racist." Then their masses are ignorantly supporting their socialist agendas. This has nothing to do with racism or gay rights -- they're just hiding their damn socialist agenda behind those fronts. And it's working. They're running the MOST successful fear campaign I've seen in my short life. And whats worse is its success and their socialist visions of the future. And we have a complicit media helping them transform the country into a horrible hell.

 

Winston said it best when he said: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

 

/rant
 

  You're going to have quite an uphill battle convincing anyone that gays account for 3 percent of the general population and in particular gays themselves.  Gays are concentrated in the university system among other places and when I was at Cornell many many years ago the question got asked.  The results were all over the place but nobody said anything less than 10 percent and a sizable portion estimated over 30 percent for the overall campus population.  The median was 15-20 percent in terms of responses.   From that point people tend to extrapolate to the general population.  I would say that quite a few gays keep their orientation a secret as much as possible today and would guess on that basis that the overall population who are gay is around 8-10 percent.  The same concentration that is seen in the university system is also seen in the Democratic Party so again the basis for overestimation is based on concentration.  I don't disagree with your opinion that some groups are trying to over-represent but the reason for that is when you are sitting in a room with people similar to yourself it is only natural to overestimate as pertaining to the general population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  You're going to have quite an uphill battle convincing anyone that gays account for 3 percent of the general population and in particular gays themselves.  Gays are concentrated in the university system among other places and when I was at Cornell many many years ago the question got asked.  The results were all over the place but nobody said anything less than 10 percent and a sizable portion estimated over 30 percent for the overall campus population.  The median was 15-20 percent in terms of responses.   From that point people tend to extrapolate to the general population.  I would say that quite a few gays keep their orientation a secret as much as possible today and would guess on that basis that the overall population who are gay is around 8-10 percent.  The same concentration that is seen in the university system is also seen in the Democratic Party so again the basis for overestimation is based on concentration.  I don't disagree with your opinion that some groups are trying to over-represent but the reason for that is when you are sitting in a room with people similar to yourself it is only natural to overestimate as pertaining to the general population.

 

1/5th of the population is *****? No way. 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/record-4-5-percent-u-s-adults-identify-lgbt-gallup-n877486

 

And the only reason it’s above 3 there is because liberals have everybody convinced they need to be a victim and so more are identifying as some sort of *****. 

 

Apparently we cant write qweer. 

Edited by The_Dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The_Dude said:

 

1/5th of the population is *****? No way. 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/record-4-5-percent-u-s-adults-identify-lgbt-gallup-n877486

 

And the only reason it’s above 3 there is because liberals have everybody convinced they need to be a victim and so more are identifying as some sort of *****. 

 

Apparently we cant write qweer. 

    The 15- 20 percent figure is for a college campus population.  Not the general population.  My estimate for the general population is 8-10 percent.  I've been many places over my life and see some movement under the surface in terms of gays.  Not everybody who is gay belongs to a political activism committee or marches in a big city parade.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

    The 15- 20 percent figure is for a college campus population.  Not the general population.  My estimate for the general population is 8-10 percent.  I've been many places over my life and see some movement under the surface in terms of gays.  Not everybody who is gay belongs to a political activism committee or marches in a big city parade.  

 

10%?! I’ve never seen anything higher than 5% ever. 

 

And of course not all gays are like that. Enough are that the stereotype has stuck though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tossing these 3 to 5 to 10 or 15% around, let me pose a serious question......

 

If this is really a genetic issue, and the LBGT made up say, 20% even of the population oh, perhaps 1000 years ago, why do we still have some today? Wouldn't they have breed themselves out of existence by now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

I ain’t a marine. 

\

 

I know.  You're not man enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Cinga said:

Tossing these 3 to 5 to 10 or 15% around, let me pose a serious question......

 

If this is really a genetic issue, and the LBGT made up say, 20% even of the population oh, perhaps 1000 years ago, why do we still have some today? Wouldn't they have breed themselves out of existence by now?

No, because the stigma attached do being gay throughout history has caused many people to stay in the closet and reproduce with the opposite sex.  Hell, they might overcompensate and have ten children instead of three.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

No, because the stigma attached do being gay throughout history has caused many people to stay in the closet and reproduce with the opposite sex.  Hell, they might overcompensate and have ten children instead of three.

I've heard that argument, but the gay and lesbian people I know, find relations with the opposite sex very repulsive. So I'm not buying it... But lets do this... 

 

Made up numbers, lets say 1 million LG 1000 years ago, and half of them still reproduce at an even rate of two for two. A single generation would then only leave 500 thousand but keep that going over 20 generations you have nothing left.

 

But I've even seen claims out there the numbers are increasing, not decreasing, so doesn't that make the claim of genetics bogus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

No, because the stigma attached do being gay throughout history has caused many people to stay in the closet and reproduce with the opposite sex.  Hell, they might overcompensate and have ten children instead of three.

  I know of a few instances where there is an understanding between husband and wife that the union is most important but the husband can play within reason.  What the wife does to protect against STD's or if she simply has no relations I don't know.  This sort of arrangement is most likely less common with younger people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Cinga said:

I've heard that argument, but the gay and lesbian people I know, find relations with the opposite sex very repulsive. So I'm not buying it... But lets do this... 

 

Made up numbers, lets say 1 million LG 1000 years ago, and half of them still reproduce at an even rate of two for two. A single generation would then only leave 500 thousand but keep that going over 20 generations you have nothing left.

 

But I've even seen claims out there the numbers are increasing, not decreasing, so doesn't that make the claim of genetics bogus?

  So much for the gay gene I guess.  Further, I believe that the gay gene is a copout for a number of gays probably because they think they are buying mercy with the dominant heterosexual group they face everyday if they say that they can't help it.  I think that for many pleasure is pleasure and perhaps as Seinfeld suggests perhaps they find more pleasure with somebody that knows the equipment best (because they themselves have the same equipment).  Maybe the gay gene does survive because of the desire to raise children and raise them in a traditional environment despite any predisposition towards being gay.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  So much for the gay gene I guess.  Further, I believe that the gay gene is a copout for a number of gays probably because they think they are buying mercy with the dominant heterosexual group they face everyday if they say that they can't help it.  I think that for many pleasure is pleasure and perhaps as Seinfeld suggests perhaps they find more pleasure with somebody that knows the equipment best (because they themselves have the same equipment).  Maybe the gay gene does survive because of the desire to raise children and raise them in a traditional environment despite any predisposition towards being gay.    

That is a huge assumption that is I doubt could be backed with any hard data.... In our LGBT community now, some try to child usually through artificial means which would cut the gene in half. Other commendably chose to adopt, but those adopted would not carry the gene.

Edited by Cinga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cinga said:

That is a huge assumption that is I doubt could be backed with any hard data.... In our LGBT community now, some try to child usually through artificial means which would cut the gene in half. Other commendably chose to adopt, but those adopted would carry the gene.

  Artificial insemination and adoption are two very recent means for gay couples to raise children but does not really describe what has gone on with the human race until the last generation or so.  Somebody I knew from my youth threw in the towel on his hetero marriage when he turned 50 but had three children with his wife before he quit his marriage.  This would have happened around fifteen years ago so when he got married during his 20's it still would have been during a time that gays would not have been accepted as having children outside of a heterosexual marriage.  The bottom line is while talking about older gays is probably unhip for many here they still count as part of the conversation as long as they are breathing.  Your LGBT community is but one example while there most likely are tens of millions of gay Americans out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Cinga said:

I've heard that argument, but the gay and lesbian people I know, find relations with the opposite sex very repulsive. So I'm not buying it... But lets do this... 

 

Made up numbers, lets say 1 million LG 1000 years ago, and half of them still reproduce at an even rate of two for two. A single generation would then only leave 500 thousand but keep that going over 20 generations you have nothing left.

 

But I've even seen claims out there the numbers are increasing, not decreasing, so doesn't that make the claim of genetics bogus?

Doesn't the fact they find the act repulsive suggest that it's likely genetic.  In some societies throughout history and even today, death or prison time were given if they found out you were a homosexual so there's a strong incentive to reproduce with the opposite sex so I am buying it.  If you take just America over the last 100 years, couples are having fewer children then they were in the 1900's.  As far as increasing numbers, less social stigma in coming out may explain at least one reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cinga said:

That is a huge assumption that is I doubt could be backed with any hard data.... In our LGBT community now, some try to child usually through artificial means which would cut the gene in half. Other commendably chose to adopt, but those adopted would not carry the gene.

 

That's not how genetics or psychology works.  :wacko:

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

Doesn't the fact they find the act repulsive suggest that it's likely genetic.

 

No. 

 

You're interpreting all of human history, prehistory, and anthropology through five centuries of Western European sociology.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...