drinkTHEkoolaid Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Silly response.....the use of the word conspiracy, when none is claimed. The observation that the media identifies Republicans in critical stories, and not democrats is very well documented throughout the net, there are sites dedicated to just that. and with the (again well-documented) liberal makeup of the media....................it is not even particuarly suprising...............nothing "conspiratorial" about it. but cliches are always easier for the left's responses on message boards than actual constructive commentary. . The same applies to ethnicity/sexual orientation/religion when reporting hate crimes. The media will absolutly mention anytime a minority (black / homosexual / muslim etc..) is a victim of a perceived hate crime from the hands of white folk, but when the shoe is on the other foot and white people are victims of hate crimes from other races/religions/orientations that aspect is not reported and there is no national outrage. infer what you will
Rob's House Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) here at PPP, i have found sexual allusion (most often homosexual) to be greatly biased towards conservative posters. maybe we should commission a study to analyze the question or is my direct observation and impression enough? Interesting take. Interesting because the allusion to oral sex performed upon Obama by those hardcore media watchdogs (figuratively speaking of course) is really no different than saying they kissed his ass, it's just a stronger statement which I think is more reflective of the treatment he received. And it wasn't the reluctant wife doing her marital duty kind of head, but that eager, enthusiastic school girl anxious to please the emotionally unavailable star athlete two years older than her kind of head. It's interesting that you found it an allusion to homosexuality, because he was interviewed by women as well, which leads me to think you inserted yourself into the scenario (kind of like a daydream) playing the part of the eager reporter. Maybe we've tapped into some repressed man love that you've pushed way down and that the sight of Obama evokes from the dark recesses of your naughty liberal mind. Also, Dude, your insinuation would make more sense if I was a bible thumping, gay hating, "social" conservative, preaching against the evils of fornication, but sadly for you, I just don't fit that bill. IIRC you're the one clinging to your gun and your bible. Oh, and don't forget to wipe your chin. Edited February 9, 2012 by Rob's House
Picnic Table F'er Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Fox News has a lot of Liberal bias.
Rob's House Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Fox News has a lot of Liberal bias. good one
Jauronimo Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 good one Clearly that joke was way over your head, else you'd literally be punching yourself in groin right now trying to contain the laughter. Lets be thankful that Nazi's didn't get their hands on Picnic F'er. He's the second coming of Ernest Scribbler.
Nanker Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 To diverge back on a subtopic for a while... lucky Canadians. Now they don't have to wait 18 months for an appointment to get a hip replacement. Things are going so swimmingly for them, they can come to the inferior US medical system and have their surgery more quickly - albeit more costly than their "free" and superior medical care at home. Once Obama finishes making over the US medical industry and adopts the "no one jumps the line" protocol, perhaps our northern neighbors will have to go elsewhere to circumnavigate the rules inherent in their healthcare system.
birdog1960 Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Interesting take. Interesting because the allusion to oral sex performed upon Obama by those hardcore media watchdogs (figuratively speaking of course) is really no different than saying they kissed his ass, it's just a stronger statement which I think is more reflective of the treatment he received. And it wasn't the reluctant wife doing her marital duty kind of head, but that eager, enthusiastic school girl anxious to please the emotionally unavailable star athlete two years older than her kind of head. It's interesting that you found it an allusion to homosexuality, because he was interviewed by women as well, which leads me to think you inserted yourself into the scenario (kind of like a daydream) playing the part of the eager reporter. Maybe we've tapped into some repressed man love that you've pushed way down and that the sight of Obama evokes from the dark recesses of your naughty liberal mind. Also, Dude, your insinuation would make more sense if I was a bible thumping, gay hating, "social" conservative, preaching against the evils of fornication, but sadly for you, I just don't fit that bill. IIRC you're the one clinging to your gun and your bible. Oh, and don't forget to wipe your chin. i anticipated this response (you're so predictable) and therefore noted it was "most often homosexual". i don't think one can read some of the recent posts on the romney thread and not conclude they allude to homosexuality. nevetheless, i'm quite certain of my sexual orientation. i was just expressing concern for the posters who may not be. i'm certain confusion in this area can be traumatic. To diverge back on a subtopic for a while... lucky Canadians. Now they don't have to wait 18 months for an appointment to get a hip replacement. Things are going so swimmingly for them, they can come to the inferior US medical system and have their surgery more quickly - albeit more costly than their "free" and superior medical care at home. Once Obama finishes making over the US medical industry and adopts the "no one jumps the line" protocol, perhaps our northern neighbors will have to go elsewhere to circumnavigate the rules inherent in their healthcare system. could it be that the canadian politician made an uninformed decision? has he checked outcomes data for the us vs canada for valve replacement surgery? have you? when i get time, i will. i nsuspect perception doesn't equate to reality in this instance but it would probably make sense to find out before indicting the canadian system as inferior based on one mans actions.
Jauronimo Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 i anticipated this response (you're so predictable) and therefore noted it was "most often homosexual". i don't think one can read some of the recent posts on the romney thread and not conclude they allude to homosexuality. nevetheless, i'm quite certain of my sexual orientation. i was just expressing concern for the posters who may not be. i'm certain confusion in this area can be traumatic. could it be that the canadian politician made an uninformed decision? has he checked outcomes data for the us vs canada for valve replacement surgery? have you? when i get time, i will. i nsuspect perception doesn't equate to reality in this instance but it would probably make sense to find out before indicting the canadian system as inferior based on one mans actions. Fine, I'll bite. So when did you know that you're gay?
birdog1960 Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Fine, I'll bite. So when did you know that you're gay? you've consistently looked at events and information in the political arena and come to the wrong conclusions. why should anyone expect that trend to change?
Jauronimo Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 you've consistently looked at events and information in the political arena and come to the wrong conclusions. why should anyone expect that trend to change? Care to back that up?
birdog1960 Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Care to back that up? i'll be sure to point it out next time we debate an issue.
Jauronimo Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 i'll be sure to point it out next time we debate an issue. Of course you will. Just like you did today.
DC Tom Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 you've consistently looked at events and information in the political arena and come to the wrong conclusions. why should anyone expect that trend to change? Saucepan, cauldron, ebony.
Rob's House Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 i anticipated this response (you're so predictable) and therefore noted it was "most often homosexual". i don't think one can read some of the recent posts on the romney thread and not conclude they allude to homosexuality. nevetheless, i'm quite certain of my sexual orientation. i was just expressing concern for the posters who may not be. i'm certain confusion in this area can be traumatic. It's not our fault Santorum wears a !@#$ing sweater vest.
LeviF Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) It's not our fault Santorum wears a !@#$ing sweater vest. I think a lot more people are now, considering that Santorum got about $1M in donations yesterday. https://www.ricksantorum.com/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=38 Don't let sleeves slow you down - donate today! Edited February 9, 2012 by LeviF91
OCinBuffalo Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 That observation is obviously anecdotal but I think we should get to the bottom of this. I will start the poll. Do you think homosexuality is normal and/or good? I think it simply...is, and that's really all there is to it. There is no denying it exists and that's what I find so troubling about both the liberal and conservative approach to it: neither seems able to process that simple reality. Liberals are demanding that we not only accept it, but treat it as something much greater than it is: a worthwhile lifestyle. Why do I have to accept it? Why can't I simply acknowledge it as a lifestyle that some people feel compelled to live? I feel being tolerant of it is being fair. I don't see any value in going out of my way to harass somebody about their life choices or beliefs. I've got much better things to do. Liberals apparently don't. It seems that unless we all fully accept behavior that we have nothing in common with, and some of us don't agree with, the liberals will never leave us alone. Why can't they simply accept our tolerance, and leave it at that? Answer: because as typical liberals, they not only foolishly think they know better than us, which is hardly ever the case, they are also incapable of minding their own business, and bound and determined to try to solve 1 problem by creating 5 others, and calling everyone who correctly sees the 5 problems they are creating....a bigot. Conservatives are demanding that we not only see it is undesirable, but treat is as something much greater: a threat to our existence. Sorry, but most of the gay guys I know do not pose any sort of threat to my existence. The only threat they pose is making me laugh at their sissiness(one past client in particular) at inappropriate times. It's a challenge I believe I can overcome, ergo no threats here. The notion that we should treat all gays the same is absolutely contrary to conservative values. It directly contradicts both "individual liberty" AND "personal responsibility". We are going to have idiot gay people do idiot things, but we should not restrict all of them as a result, and we should absolutely hold them accountable personally, not blame their behavior the group to which they belong. That's liberal thinking. So why do conservatives contradict themselves, and why can't they simply accept our tolerance, and leave it at that? Answer: because as typical conservatives, they think they are the only ones capable of foresight and it's accurate here, which is only the case about half the time. But, instead of minding their own business, and focusing on the real threats that liberals are too dumb/naive to perceive, which is what conservatives are supposed to be doing, they are creating a non-problem and proposing non-solutions to it that will only end up causing unnecessary pain/annoyance and add 0 value. When you all get up tomorrow, gay people will exist. Same thing this weekend. It won't change, deal with it, and leave these people alone. But, at the same time, when most of us get up tomorrow, calling us all bigots because we don't accept the gay lifestyle, is only going to get you a beating: intellectually, electorally, and perhaps physically if you dare say it our faces. I just saw that last weekend. Somebody forgot their internet muscles aren't real. Oops.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 I think it simply...is, and that's really all there is to it. There is no denying it exists and that's what I find so troubling about both the liberal and conservative approach to it: neither seems able to process that simple reality. Liberals are demanding that we not only accept it, but treat it as something much greater than it is: a worthwhile lifestyle. Why do I have to accept it? Why can't I simply acknowledge it as a lifestyle that some people feel compelled to live? I feel being tolerant of it is being fair. I don't see any value in going out of my way to harass somebody about their life choices or beliefs. I've got much better things to do. Liberals apparently don't. It seems that unless we all fully accept behavior that we have nothing in common with, and some of us don't agree with, the liberals will never leave us alone. Why can't they simply accept our tolerance, and leave it at that? Answer: because as typical liberals, they not only foolishly think they know better than us, which is hardly ever the case, they are also incapable of minding their own business, and bound and determined to try to solve 1 problem by creating 5 others, and calling everyone who correctly sees the 5 problems they are creating....a bigot. Conservatives are demanding that we not only see it is undesirable, but treat is as something much greater: a threat to our existence. Sorry, but most of the gay guys I know do not pose any sort of threat to my existence. The only threat they pose is making me laugh at their sissiness(one past client in particular) at inappropriate times. It's a challenge I believe I can overcome, ergo no threats here. The notion that we should treat all gays the same is absolutely contrary to conservative values. It directly contradicts both "individual liberty" AND "personal responsibility". We are going to have idiot gay people do idiot things, but we should not restrict all of them as a result, and we should absolutely hold them accountable personally, not blame their behavior the group to which they belong. That's liberal thinking. So why do conservatives contradict themselves, and why can't they simply accept our tolerance, and leave it at that? Answer: because as typical conservatives, they think they are the only ones capable of foresight and it's accurate here, which is only the case about half the time. But, instead of minding their own business, and focusing on the real threats that liberals are too dumb/naive to perceive, which is what conservatives are supposed to be doing, they are creating a non-problem and proposing non-solutions to it that will only end up causing unnecessary pain/annoyance and add 0 value. When you all get up tomorrow, gay people will exist. Same thing this weekend. It won't change, deal with it, and leave these people alone. But, at the same time, when most of us get up tomorrow, calling us all bigots because we don't accept the gay lifestyle, is only going to get you a beating: intellectually, electorally, and perhaps physically if you dare say it our faces. I just saw that last weekend. Somebody forgot their internet muscles aren't real. Oops. I bet you are sexy. Doing anything Saturday? Let's go out
Nanker Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 could it be that the canadian politician made an uninformed decision? has he checked outcomes data for the us vs canada for valve replacement surgery? have you? when i get time, i will. i nsuspect perception doesn't equate to reality in this instance but it would probably make sense to find out before indicting the canadian system as inferior based on one mans actions. Au contraire. Why, the Canadian model is far superior to that on display in the US of A by all accounts. All we offer here is freedom of choice - to seek a specialist of our choosing by using our ill gotten dollars to force our way to the head of the line. I did it for my TJR of my right shoulder. Had the nice Giants team physician do the amputation, reaming, cementing and closing. Tout suite! That's exactly what many Canadians choose to do - as the article I quoted explained. All I'm saying is as the American model gets forced into something more akin to the Canadian model, where are those people like Mezza who don't want to wait six months to have a specialist look at their tumor go for help? The lines will be longer here in the states than they will be in Canada, I'm guessing. Maybe we'll start to see an influx of Americans traveling across the border to have their bypass and hip replacement surgeries because the lines are shorter there. But where will the Canadians go then to hop the line?
IDBillzFan Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 I think a lot more people are now, considering that Santorum got about $1M in donations yesterday. https://www.ricksantorum.com/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=38 That's funny. You know what else is funny? That JA sees a man in a sweater vest and is sure he begs for rooster in his ass, but he sees a president selling purses lipstick and purses and is sure he's going to win in a landslide.
LeviF Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 That's funny. You know what else is funny? That JA sees a man in a sweater vest and is sure he begs for rooster in his ass, but he sees a president selling purses lipstick and purses and is sure he's going to win in a landslide. He must be selling a lot of purses. And come on, JA, I wear a sweater vest and I don't beg for rooster in my ass. Hell, even if I were gay I'd hardly need to beg.
Recommended Posts