Posted on 02/09/2002 9:54:09 AM PST by Incorrigible
SEPTEMBER 11
A Plague of Hate Sites
Until recently, one of the biggest Internet-related worries for companies was employees who surfed the Web for cybersmut. Now, there's another concern: hate sites. The number of these venomous domains--which in the past featured gay-bashing, neo-Nazism, and misogynist rants--has doubled since September 11, to about 2,000, according to Websense, a San Diego software-monitoring company.
Growth is mainly due to a new niche: anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sites. Among them is crisis2001.com. Rich in racial epithets, it calls Islam "the scourge of the earth" and rallies to "nuke" them all. Another, you-got-mail.com, talks about "Satan's Muslims" and says it's "time to lock up the mosques and kick those dirty Muslims out." Others, such as nuke-kabul.com, are anti-Afghanistan and anti-Osama bin Laden in nature.
Employment lawyers say it's important for companies to remind workers of policies that bar viewing hate sites in the workplace. Warns Jennifer Kearns, a partner in San Francisco law firm Brobeck Phleger & Harrison: "Otherwise, you're kind of a sitting duck for a hostile- workplace suit."
By Michelle Conlin
Not for commercial use. For educational and discussion purposes only.
Did Rodney King coin that saying during an interview by the press upon being asked his views on the South Central L.A. riots, or did he inadvertently plagarise Lithgow"s writers?
Just curious about its origin!
You didn't get the joke, voyager. King used the phrase about the riots, but without the 'not'. Lithgow's writers inserted the 'not' into the quote, making it satirical, and revealing of the character of the individual played by Lithgow.
I know for a fact that in retrospect, if one completely broke down and cried, they sneered, only, didnt hate. Oh yes, they had toadies aplenty. I hope Freepers will bear with me here.
I heard fifty years later, of an engineer fellow, from my own old area in England, took a trip back to the old district. (Northwood, Middlesex). He could only get a drink in a private men's club. He was invited in without a membership. A man took kindly to him and insisted on buying this expatriate returnee drinks.
I grilled him for more- the man was the brother of ye olde school bully boy. This he(engineer) said: " Was a bad family, members in and out of jail, bad reputation etc". He mentioned that the man was a really inebriated, but nice guy now.
No, I think that the quintessential school bully is a separate entity. I have logged into hate sites though- The true way is the educated and diplomatic conservative rebuttal etc to promote the cause best- nevertheless let all fire away. P.S. Got bullied myself and did hit back- here and there. Cheers.
I am offended every time I look at my check stub, and see the taxes I pay.
I have a right to not be offended?!?!?!
(...ROFLMAO......)
Will that cure him of his refusal
to be a reactive homohater?
BusinessWeak is the only liberal rag I subscribe to. The business coverage is good but the opinion pieces are a joke. The average income of a BusinessWeek reader is over $100,000. If any of their readers subscribed to the mushy headed thinking in the opinion columns (and I don't just mean the last page) then they wouldn't be making over $100,000 for very long.
I've heard Forbes is better but since I don't watch TV much and refuse to read the NY Times, I need to get some info from the other camp direct from the source at times.
Did Rodney King coin that saying...?
Gotta nail this down. What was the time frame of his statement?
You term it into a family, what family are you talking about? I am at a loss. You are distorting what I am saying, but it is well known that liberal progressism has far deeper hatred of the past generations than conservatives have caution about the modern state of the "family". Despise about the past state of the "happy family" is to expected hence.
What else does progressism or despise for the past means after all? But another warfare between the class of the past and the class of today, claiming the throne of righteousness and love... what a joke, claiming love when the whole platform is progressist negation to hatred of tradition.
On those terms, yes indeed, we may have been a happier family. We never needed liberals to have the development of free people in America... until liberals impersonified an America worse than North Vietnam, China or the Soviet Union, not!.
I'm fairly resolute myself and I don't hate homos...I just prefer they keep their agenda outta my face. My widowed mom is a "fag hag" so I can't say I live in a bubble with respect to homosexuality.
My thought exactly--when I'm at work I have to do my job, which does not include surfing the web for hate sites or anything else.
Homosexuality is an abomination. It is one of the most perverse and sick sins. At the founding of our nation, in ever single state, Sodomy was a CAPITAL OFFENSE!
Homosexuality is judged after extensive and painstaking work to be a variation of normal human sexuality, with gays and lesbians being well balanced and contributing members of society.
This is totally wrong, it is a lie, and you know it. Here are just of the few myths of sodomites:
Myth 1: Homosexuals are born that way. Gay rights activists support the idea that homosexuality is part of an individuals genetic code; therefore, they are born gay. This simply is not true. No study has shown conclusively that homosexual tendencies are in the genetic code. A popular study quoted by homosexuals is the study conducted by Dr. Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute. This study has since been found to have many flaws, such as there was no heterosexual control group, the sample studied was extremely small, the large number of exceptions found, and the researcher's bias. Even if homosexuality was shown to be predisposed by one’s genetic code, it would not excuse the behavior. Alcoholism had been proven to be predisposed by one’s genetic code but this does not excuse drunkenness. Many psychiatrist site environmental causes of homosexuality. Dr. Paul Cameron of the Institute for Scientific Investigation of Sexuality sites four basic categories of homosexual causes: homosexual experience, especially in childhood by an adult; family abnormality, such as an absent father; unusual sexual experience, such as early exposure to pornography or child molestation; or cultural influence, such as acceptance of homosexuality as a desirable lifestyle or pro-homosexual education.
Myth 2: Homosexuals cannot change their behavior. They hold that homosexuality is so much a part of their identity that they lack the ability to change. The fact is many homosexuals desire to change and leave homosexuality. Dr. Joseph Nicolosi has founded an organization called the National Association for Psychoanalytic Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, which includes about 700 psychiatrist. He treats homosexuals who desire to leave their lifestyle. In the last fifteen years, he has counseled more than 400 gay men using a technique known as reparative therapy. Nicolosi reports that about one-third of his patients experience no change, another third experience "significant improvement," and the final third are "cured." Most of those who experience no change, he claims, are people who did not want to be in therapy in the first place.
Myth 3: About 10% of the U.S. population are homosexuals. This statistic is based on a study conducted in 1948 by Dr. Alfred Kinsey. Kinsey's numbers are sited by numerous pro-homosexuals and even used by a sex education program called Project 10. Kinsey reported that 10% of white males between the ages of 15 and 65 have been more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years at some point in there lifetime. Most researchers now say that these numbers are greatly inflated. Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel have written a book showing the fallacy of the Kinsey study entitled Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud. They point out that Kinley’s study group was made up of 20%-25% people with prison experience and 5% male prostitutes. This is by no stretch of the imagination an accurate cross sample. In addition, many of the interviewees, from which data was gathered were biased. Most recent studies have the homosexual population between 1%-3% of the U.S. population.
Myth 4: Homosexuals are an oppressed minority who need special protection. Many homosexuals seek the same protection given to citizens based on race, gender, or handicap. However, they have no basis to make this claim. They are not a disadvantaged group. The average income of homosexuals is $55,430, over $20,000 higher than the general population. More than three times as many homosexuals are college graduates compared to the general population. (Friedman. "Homosexuals Steal National Interest at the Expense of Black America.") These are far from the characteristics of a disadvantaged group. Many homosexuals claim that they need protection from the various hate crime that they suffer. The fact is that laws currently exist that deal with assault. Protection for hate crime is really just a screen to advance their agenda.
Their sexuality doesn't warp their worth as citizens; nor do they "recruit."
Yes they do recruit. Why do you think the big push for sodomite education in public schools legitimitizing that immoral behavior? WHY? How about this for not recruiting?
This is a reprint of "Gay Revolutionary." Reprinted from The Congressional Record. First printed in Gay Community News, February 15-21 1987
"We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.
Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.
All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.
If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.
We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.
Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.
We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.
There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled. We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.
The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence--will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.
All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.
The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.
We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.
We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.
Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks."
Not recruiting? HUH? Are you out of your mind??????????
What?
What?
WHAT?
WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?????????
BTW: Just don't you try to say that the Constitution Protects Sodomite behavior, let's take a look at this United States Supreme Court Case.
BOWERS v. HARDWICK, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) 478 U.S. 186 BOWERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GEORGIA v. HARDWICK ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 85-140.
Argued March 31, 1986 Decided June 30, 1986
After being charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom of his home, respondent Hardwick (respondent) brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute insofar as it criminalized consensual sodomy. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the Georgia statute violated respondent's fundamental rights.
Held: The Georgia statute is constitutional. Pp. 190-196.
(a) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Pp. 190-191.
(b) Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious. Pp. 191-194.
(c) There should be great resistance to expand the reach of the Due Process Clauses to cover new fundamental rights. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily would take upon itself further authority to govern the country without constitutional authority. The claimed right in this case falls far short of overcoming this resistance. Pp. 194-195.
(d) The fact that homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home does not affect the result. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, distinguished. Pp. 195-196.
(e) Sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an inadequate rationale to support the laws. P. 196. 760 F.2d 1202, reversed. [478 U.S. 186, 187]
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BURGER, C. J., post, p. 196, and POWELL, J., post, p. 197, filed concurring opinions. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 199. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 214.
Michael E. Hobbs, Senior Assistant Attorney General of Georgia, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, pro se, Marion O. Gordon, First Assistant Attorney General, and Daryl A. Robinson, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Laurence H. Tribe argued the cause for respondent Hardwick. With him on the brief were Kathleen M. Sullivan and Kathleen L. Wilde.*
The evidence is clear. Sodomy is not a protected right. Sodomy is immoral behavior. We need to return to the laws that existed at the founding of our nation. SODOMY SHOULD BE A CAPITAL OFFENSE!!
I am offended on behalf of Mr. Franklin, and myself. Expect a process server soon, sir - and I will see you in court.
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.