Skip to comments.
Pride Before The Fall (Horowitz Sticks it to the Fundies!)
FrontPage Magazine ^
| 5/20/03
| David Horowitz
Posted on 05/20/2003 8:14:33 AM PDT by theoverseer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580, 581-600, 601-620 ... 661-677 next last
To: scripter
If you're going to keep accusing me of being evasive, at least don't be a hypocrite and evade yourself.
Answer my question - Why are you berating me as if I said I supported Glsen's presence in the schools?
581
posted on
05/21/2003 8:43:54 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: nmh
Bizarre.
"No personal attacks", - "Take it to the backroom", -- "Keep it to private replies", -- are all parts of the requests made by JR & the mods. -- You have violated them all by initiating an attack on me on this thread.
I am not 'gay', and detest their lifestyle. I also detest the 'lifestyle' of those who feel compelled to bash them.
They bash our constitutional rights in their misplaced fanticisms.
582
posted on
05/21/2003 8:46:08 AM PDT
by
tpaine
(Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.,)
To: theoverseer
To this Gary Bauer retorted, "That cant be true because you surely would not meet with the leaders of the Ku Klux Klan." Nice analogy Gary. Way to love thy neighbor. ... The real issue here is tolerance of differences in a pluralistic society. Tolerance is different from approval, but it is also different from stigmatizing and shunning those with whom we disagree.Horowitz, it appears, thinks Racicot should meet with the KKK and that these stupid racists shouldn't be stigmatized and shunned. Do I have that right?
To: tdadams
I'm not going to go around in this circle with you forever. You're going to insist that you've won this debate, but most sensible people can see that no answer will suffice for you. Most sensible people would do a quick internet search to see who is being reasonable.
You keep saying I've given you nothing more than "I feel it's propaganda" and that's a bold faced lie. I gave very valid, legitimate, and reasonable explanations of why this woman's summary is suspect in post #551. You can choose to reject those explanations, but if you insist that I've offered nothing more than my feelings, you're simply a liar. That's the last I'm saying on this particular matter.
Here's what you said in 551:
When the summary is done by someone with an obviously extreme prejudice against gays, and her summary is sparse on full quotes, and she rewords the points in very loaded terms, I'm well within my right to look at her "facts" a bit askance.
Then simply run an internet search and see what others are saying. Once the book arrives I'll scan any page you want. Is there anything in particular you would like to see?
I really don't give a flip about what you find on the internet. There are as many opinions, studies, and theories on the internet as there are people on this earth. I can link you to people who believe the earth is flat, aliens walk among us, and Elvis is sharing an apartment in Atlantic City with Jimmy Hoffa.
Some of that is just misdirection. You have the opportunity to find what others have said about the book, no matter what their position on the matter, but you won't do that.
I have no respect for someone who can't articulate a single argument in favor of their point of view but only insists that others "do an internet search". Only when you can make a rational, reasoned, well-stated argument of your own will I give a speck of credence to what you say.
As I previously said, I've made statements and supported them with links. You haven't supported a single statement you made.
To: scripter
Um, how bout supporting the constitutional rights of a private life, liberty under the rule of law, and private property?
Why do you want to snoop in your neighbors bedroom with sodomy 'laws'?
585
posted on
05/21/2003 8:53:47 AM PDT
by
tpaine
(Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.,)
To: tdadams
Answer my question - Why are you berating me as if I said I supported Glsen's presence in the schools? I'm not berating you, I'm simply asking you if you deny the existence of a homosexual agenda, an agenda GLSEN is pushing. Do you support GLSEN's presence in the schools? Are you against GLSEN in the schools?
Do you deny the existence of a homosexual agenda?
To: tpaine
Um, how bout supporting the constitutional rights of a private life, liberty under the rule of law, and private property? Why do you want to snoop in your neighbors bedroom with sodomy 'laws'? That's misdirection. The topic is the homosexual agenda and why we should be concerned about it.
To: theoverseer
I have this to say to Paul: A delegation to the chairman of the RNC to demand that he have no dialogue with the members of an organization for human rights is itself intolerant, and serves neither your ends nor ours. Huh? The HRC is a "human rights" organization? What on earth is David smoking here? Why not just make the simple point that it may be stupid to withdraw support for Bush in 2004 over single issues, but he is on thin ice lecturing these men on Christian theology, and seeing radical homosexual groups as somehow groups of "tolerance".
To: scripter
You have the opportunity to find what others have said about the book, no matter what their position on the matter And what, exactly, would be the point of that? Would I expect to find any comments that are any less subjective and biased than yours? Quit beating a dead horse.
589
posted on
05/21/2003 8:59:24 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: tdadams
And what, exactly, would be the point of that? Would I expect to find any comments that are any less subjective and biased than yours? Quit beating a dead horse. If so many folks have misrepresented the book, finding something to support your position should be easy, thus the internet search. I don't know what you'd expect to find, but you won't even try.
To: scripter
Although I've already answered your questions (are you going to keep asking until I change my answer?), you still haven't answered my questions.
Do you deny that you're categorizing all homosexuals as members of a radical agenda, when you know this isn't true, simply because you detest homosexuals and you want to deny them their basic rights and dignities as a human being?
Why is such emotional irrationality and misapplied logic acceptable to you when conservatives attack gay people but not when liberals attack gun rights?
Please answer me. I'm really curious, because it seems you're being extremely inconsistent.
591
posted on
05/21/2003 9:04:54 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: tdadams
Although I've already answered your questions (are you going to keep asking until I change my answer?), you still haven't answered my questions. In what post did you answer my question: Do you deny the exist of a homosexual agenda? A simple yes or no is really all I'm looking for, but feel free to answer either way with an explanation.
We can move on to your questions without the misdirection and obfuscation when you answer mine.
audio of what homosexuals want to do to your children.
THE SEGMENTS TIME
Introducing the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (4:15)
Helping to Put Children into Sexual Exploratory Mode (3:54)
Gay Straight Alliance, Coming to a School Near You (2:25)
What Your Child Can Do On An All Out Sex Date (4:40)
Teaching Children to Try Lesbianism (3:37)
Children Learn About 'Fisting' and More (5:35)
Don't Knock Homosexuality Until You've Tried It (8:01)
http://www.stevekaneshow.com/glstapes.htm
To: scripter
OK, let me try to explain it to you in terms you'll hopefully understand (altought I have my doubt). Maybe you're new to the internet. Maybe you're still enamoured with the wonder of it all.
I'm not. I know the internet. The good, the bad, and the ugly. I already know what I'll find if I indulge your pointless excercise in searching for comments on this book.
I can look on the internet and find opinions saying Hitler was the noblest human to ever live. I can find opinions saying Mickey Mouse is satanic. Do you really want to base the validity of your assertions on whatever random opinions you can find on the internet? It's utterly stupid of you to keep insisting on this. Like I said, quit beating a dead horse. You're becoming an extreme bore.
594
posted on
05/21/2003 9:13:01 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: scripter
Um, how bout supporting the constitutional rights of a private life, liberty under the rule of law, and private property? Why do you want to snoop in your neighbors bedroom with sodomy 'laws'?
That's misdirection. The topic is the homosexual agenda and why we should be concerned about it.
Are you denying that much of this thread has been about hysterical rants about 'sodomy'? -- But in any case:
Um, how bout supporting the constitutional rights of a private life, liberty under the rule of law, and private property?
Why do you want to make 'laws' concerning the 'homo agenda'? We can counter their BS without involving government.
595
posted on
05/21/2003 9:13:46 AM PDT
by
tpaine
(Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.,)
To: scripter
online copy of the pink swastika.
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/pinkswastika.hold/book.html it explains the affinity homosexuals have for the boyscouts and goes into the abusive politics of deception.
Some of them are being used on this thread.
This is not a conservative or a libertarian issue, this is a good vs evil issue.
To: tpaine
That's just more misdirection.
To: scripter
Whether it was to you or to someone else, I've answered this question on this thread. There are some politically motivated homosexuals who have a political agenda they wish to see implemented.
That doesn't at all implicate all other homosexuals, undoubtedly the majority, who simply wish to live their lives in peace free from the harrassment, capricousness, and vituperation of people like you.
Now, your turn.
598
posted on
05/21/2003 9:17:28 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: longtermmemmory
from the pink swastika on the origins of Nazi's
* * * * *** ** *
At the door of the Bratwurstgloeckl, a tavern frequented by homosexual roughnecks and bully-boys, Roehm turned in and joined the handful of sexual deviants and occultists who were celebrating the success of a new campaign of terror. Their organization, once known as the German Worker's Party, was now called the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, The National Socialist German Worker's Party -- the Nazis.
Yes, the Nazis met in a ``gay'' bar.
It was no coincidence that homosexuals were among those who founded the Nazi Party. In fact, the party grew out of a number of groups in Germany which were centers of homosexual activity and activism. Many of the characteristic rituals, symbols, activities and philosophies we associate with Nazism came from these organizations or from contemporary homosexuals. The extended-arm ``Sieg Heil'' salute, for example, was a ritual of the Wandervoegel (``Wandering Birds'' or ``Rovers''), a male youth society which became the German equivalent of the Boy Scouts. The Wandervoegel was started in the late 1800's by a group of homosexual teenagers. Its first adult leader, Karl Fischer, called himself ``der Fuehrer'' (``the Leader'') (Koch:25f). Hans Blueher, a homosexual Nazi philosopher and important early member of the Wandervoegel, incited a sensation in 1912 with publication of The German Wandervoegel Movement as an Erotic Phenomenon, which told how the movement had become one in which young boys could be introduced into the homosexual lifestyle (Rector:39f). The Wandervoegel and other youth organizations were later merged into the Hitler Youth (which itself became known among the populace as the ``Homo Youth'' because of rampant homosexuality. - Rector:52).
Many of the Nazi emblems, such as the swastika, the double lightning bolt ``SS'' symbol, and even the inverted triangle symbol used to identify classes of prisoners in the concentration camps, originated among homosexual occultists in Germany (some, such as the swastika, are actually quite ancient symbols which were merely revived by these homosexual groups). In 1907, Jorg Lanz Von Liebenfels, a former Cistercian monk whom the church excommunicated because of his homosexual activities (Sklar:19), flew the swastika flag above his castle in Austria (Goodrick-Clarke:109). After his expulsion from the church Lanz founded the Ordo Novi Templi (``Order of the New Temple'') which merged occultism with violent anti-Semitism. A 1958 study of Lanz, Der Mann der Hitler die Ideen gab (``The Man Who Gave Hitler His Ideas''), by Austrian psychologist Wilhelm Daim, called Lanz the true ``father'' of National Socialism.
** * * **** **
gaystapo?
To: tdadams
Maybe you're new to the internet. Maybe not. Just maybe I've been on longer than most: since 1988. And you? So of course I know what you'll find, but you won't even try. If there's so many opinions out there, perhaps you can find one that supports your position.
You're not becoming anything. Your arguments are the typical arguments we see everytime, and always without supporting evidence.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580, 581-600, 601-620 ... 661-677 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson