Another Whackjob Liberal Shoots Guard

[JohnStOnge]

Uh...no, numb-nuts. The FRC is listed as a hate group by the SPLC, not because of their agenda, but because they lie to achieve it.

There is a difference between expressing opinion and lying. What "lie" do you think the FRC told? What do you think is a "lie" rather than an opinion? Seriously. When you answer you're going to find that the FRC did not engage in any "known falsehoods" as the SPLC says it did. So give me one of the "known falsehoods" so we can discuss it.

[SeattleGriz]

The FRC is a hate group. They suck.

No excuse for this guy's actions, though.

What a small minded person you are. Despicable.

[Tod]

The FRC is a hate group. They suck.

No excuse for this guy's actions, though.

What a small minded person you are. Despicable.

Waaaaaaaaay more broad-minded than you. Obviously. Try again.

[Tod]

Uh...no, numb-nuts. The FRC is listed as a hate group by the SPLC, not because of their agenda, but because they lie to achieve it.

There is a difference between expressing opinion and lying. What "lie" do you think the FRC told? What do you think is a "lie" rather than an opinion? Seriously. When you answer you're going to find that the FRC did not engage in any "known falsehoods" as the SPLC says it did. So give me one of the "known falsehoods" so we can discuss it.

Well, I'm on my I-phone. Since you know about the "known falsehoods", why don't you just lay them out here and we can still discuss them?

If it gets going well, I'll break down and find a computer to use (so much easier than a smart phone).

[SeattleGriz]

There is a difference between expressing opinion and lying. What "lie" do you think the FRC told? What do you think is a "lie" rather than an opinion? Seriously. When you answer you're going to find that the FRC did not engage in any "known falsehoods" as the SPLC says it did. So give me one of the "known falsehoods" so we can discuss it.

Well, I'm on my I-phone. Since you know about the "known falsehoods", why don't you just lay them out here and we can still discuss them?

If it gets going well, I'll break down and find a computer to use (so much easier than a smart phone).

Well I'll be. Fucking bums with I-phones. What will they come up with next?! Did Obama buy that for you?

[ODUsmitty]

"Hate Group" because they disagree with your beliefs, Toad? Your personal moral and ethical imperitive does not create a legal mandate for me. You libs too often confuse ethics and government-mandated behavior. Most likely because you are Godless and rely on government to fill that spiritual void.

Liberals are the most open-mined of folks, as long as you agree with them.

[Tod]

Still waiting for a reasonable answer...

[Tod]

"Hate Group" because they disagree with your beliefs, Toad? Your personal moral and ethical imperitive does not create a legal mandate for me. You libs too often confuse ethics and government-mandated behavior. Most likely because you are Godless and rely on government to fill that spiritual void.

Liberals are the most open-mined of folks, as long as you agree with them.

SPLC, you illiterate moron.

I am godless, BTW. So are you, you're just too stupid to realize it.

[CID1990]

SPLC in its own explanation on its web page states that groups are listed for reasons extending all the way down to publishing literature that is discriminatory towards others based on a number of factors, sexual orientation included.

It is pretty obvious that SPLC and others have a much broader definition of "hate" than most people.

I would probably list FRC as a " dislike group", rather than a "hate group", but then we don't have one of those lists, do we?

[ODUsmitty]

"Hate Group" because they disagree with your beliefs, Toad? Your personal moral and ethical imperitive does not create a legal mandate for me. You libs too often confuse ethics and government-mandated behavior. Most likely because you are Godless and rely on government to fill that spiritual void.

Liberals are the most open-mined of folks, as long as you agree with them.

SPLC, you illiterate moron.

I am godless, BTW. So are you, you're just too stupid to realize it.

SPLC, NBPP, ACORN, etc.

Just a bunch letters used to represent left-wing ideologues wanting to take my hard-earned money and give it to people that have failed in life. Suck on that, Toad.

[Grizalltheway]

"Hate Group" because they disagree with your beliefs, Toad? Your personal moral and ethical imperitive does not create a legal mandate for me. You libs too often confuse ethics and government-mandated behavior. Most likely because you are Godless and rely on government to fill that spiritual void.

Liberals are the most open-mined of folks, as long as you agree with them.

GMAFB. Jesus would slap the shit out of you for your rhetoric towards the poor and downtrodden.

[SuperHornet]

I'm so sick of people spewing DNC talking points, even as they accuse conservatives of same.



FWIW, if you believe that the FRC and Chick-fil-A are "hate groups," then you better be honest enough to include the freaking Dixie Chicks in that category as well. Sheesh!

[Tod]

SPLC, you illiterate moron.

I am godless, BTW. So are you, you're just too stupid to realize it.

SPLC, NBPP, ACORN, etc.

Just a bunch letters used to represent left-wing ideologues wanting to take my hard-earned money and give it to people that have failed in life. Suck on that, Toad.

I haven't been called toad since grade school. How old are you?

[Tod]

I'm so sick of people spewing DNC talking points, even as they accuse conservatives of same.



FWIW, if you believe that the FRC and Chick-fil-A are "hate groups," then you better be honest enough to include the freaking Dixie Chicks in that category as well. Sheesh!

Again, I said nothing about Chick-fil-A. If you're going to count the Dixie Chicks as haters, then you better be honest and count Ted Nugent, right?

[Gil Dobie]

I'm so sick of people spewing DNC talking points, even as they accuse conservatives of same.



FWIW, if you believe that the FRC and Chick-fil-A are "hate groups," then you better be honest enough to include the freaking Dixie Chicks in that category as well. Sheesh!

Again, I said nothing about Chick-fil-A. If you're going to count the Dixie Chicks as haters, then you better be honest and count Ted Nugent, right?

The Great White Buffalo does sound like a very hateful song

[Tod]

Again, I said nothing about Chick-fil-A. If you're going to count the Dixie Chicks as haters, then you better be honest and count Ted Nugent, right?

The Great White Buffalo does sound like a very hateful song

Swing and a miss, Gil.

[Gil Dobie]

The Great White Buffalo does sound like a very hateful song

Swing and a miss, Gil.

How old are you

[JohnStOnge]

Well, I'm on my I-phone. Since you know about the "known falsehoods", why don't you just lay them out here and we can still discuss them?

If it gets going well, I'll break down and find a computer to use (so much easier than a smart phone).

I think it was reasonable to as you to give examples of FRS lies since my post was in response to one of yours saying that the FRC was designated as a hate group due to lying in pursuit of its agenca. I did a Google search and didn't get any specifics at the time. Just a general reference to "known falsehoods." Today I was able to find the following from the article at http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2012/08/28178/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :

Here is what SPLC said about FRC at the time they were designated a hate group:

"Headed today by former Louisiana State Rep. Tony Perkins, the FRC has been a font of anti-gay propaganda throughout its history. It relies on the work of Robert Knight, who also worked at Concerned Women for America but now is at Coral Ridge Ministries, along with that of FRC senior research fellows Tim Dailey (hired in 1999) and Peter Sprigg (2001). Both Dailey and Sprigg have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia: Sprigg has written that most men who engage in same-sex child molestation “identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual,” and Dailey and Sprigg devoted an entire chapter of their 2004 book Getting It Straight to similar material. The men claimed that “homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses” and similarly asserted that “homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys.”

While it is possible that such things as linking homosexual males to pedophilia could be a lie it doesn't have to be. It could be an honest conclusion based on ones' interpretation of the data. Saying they reached conclusions that are inconsistent with mainstream psychiatry and psychology would be a fair way to put it. Assuming they are lying is not.

I know I in the past have disagreed with the way mainstream psychology and psychiatry classify things. For instance: My bet would be that mainstream psychiatry and psychology would not say that what Jerry Sandusky did has a homosexual component. They'd say it is strictly as pedophilia. I don't buy it. I think that in addition to having a fetish for very young individuals Sandusky clearly displayed a gender preference during such activity. And it was a preference for his own gender.

I once saw media reports on a paper purporting to show that most men who molest young boys are heterosexuals. The basis for saying that was perceptions by people who were familiar with them and the personas they presented in the open. Sandusky, for example, would have been classified as a heterosexual because he's married with children, etc., and most people who knew him didn't know about his sexual attraction to young boys until the end.

I just Googled the issue and actually found a SPLC narrative including discussion of that issue and the view of mainstream psychiatry and psychology. You can see it at http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... r/10-myths" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Myth #1).

But I don't buy it. To me it is self-evident that there is a homosexual component to that kind of behavior. It is, objectively, a homosexual act as it is having sex with a member of one's own sex. Whether or not someone engages in heterosexuality in their adult relationships has no impact on that.

I wrote all that just to provide an example. It would be correct to say that my view on that is inconsistent with what's accepted among majorities...probably overwhelming majorities... in the fields of psychiatry and psychology. But it is not a lie. It is the truth as I see it. And I think that the same situation prevails with the family research council.

The SPLC has gone over the top with its identification of Christian groups that oppose the "normalization of homosexuality" as "hate groups." It's ridiculous.

[JohnStOnge]

Still waiting for a reasonable answer...

I tried looking back over the thread to see what question you're waiting for a reasonable answer to and wasn't able to identify it. Forgive me but there's a lot to read. If you will quote this post and repeat the question I'll see if I can provide one.

[Tod]

Well, I'm on my I-phone. Since you know about the "known falsehoods", why don't you just lay them out here and we can still discuss them?

If it gets going well, I'll break down and find a computer to use (so much easier than a smart phone).

I think it was reasonable to as you to give examples of FRS lies since my post was in response to one of yours saying that the FRC was designated as a hate group due to lying in pursuit of its agenca. I did a Google search and didn't get any specifics at the time. Just a general reference to "known falsehoods." Today I was able to find the following from the article at http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2012/08/28178/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :

Here is what SPLC said about FRC at the time they were designated a hate group:

"Headed today by former Louisiana State Rep. Tony Perkins, the FRC has been a font of anti-gay propaganda throughout its history. It relies on the work of Robert Knight, who also worked at Concerned Women for America but now is at Coral Ridge Ministries, along with that of FRC senior research fellows Tim Dailey (hired in 1999) and Peter Sprigg (2001). Both Dailey and Sprigg have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia: Sprigg has written that most men who engage in same-sex child molestation “identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual,” and Dailey and Sprigg devoted an entire chapter of their 2004 book Getting It Straight to similar material. The men claimed that “homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses” and similarly asserted that “homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys.”

While it is possible that such things as linking homosexual males to pedophilia could be a lie it doesn't have to be. It could be an honest conclusion based on ones' interpretation of the data. Saying they reached conclusions that are inconsistent with mainstream psychiatry and psychology would be a fair way to put it. Assuming they are lying is not.

I know I in the past have disagreed with the way mainstream psychology and psychiatry classify things. For instance: My bet would be that mainstream psychiatry and psychology would not say that what Jerry Sandusky did has a homosexual component. They'd say it is strictly as pedophilia. I don't buy it. I think that in addition to having a fetish for very young individuals Sandusky clearly displayed a gender preference during such activity. And it was a preference for his own gender.

I once saw media reports on a paper purporting to show that most men who molest young boys are heterosexuals. The basis for saying that was perceptions by people who were familiar with them and the personas they presented in the open. Sandusky, for example, would have been classified as a heterosexual because he's married with children, etc., and most people who knew him didn't know about his sexual attraction to young boys until the end.

I just Googled the issue and actually found a SPLC narrative including discussion of that issue and the view of mainstream psychiatry and psychology. You can see it at http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... r/10-myths" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Myth #1).

But I don't buy it. To me it is self-evident that there is a homosexual component to that kind of behavior. It is, objectively, a homosexual act as it is having sex with a member of one's own sex. Whether or not someone engages in heterosexuality in their adult relationships has no impact on that.

I wrote all that just to provide an example. It would be correct to say that my view on that is inconsistent with what's accepted among majorities...probably overwhelming majorities... in the fields of psychiatry and psychology. But it is not a lie. It is the truth as I see it. And I think that the same situation prevails with the family research council.

The SPLC has gone over the top with its identification of Christian groups that oppose the "normalization of homosexuality" as "hate groups." It's ridiculous.

So you "don't buy that" in the same way that you "don't buy" the sciences of climate change and evolution. Is this correct?

It's convenient, I imagine, to be able to just write off the best information we have in order to stick with an agenda, huh?

You probably still believe that tax cuts for the rich will result in economic prosperity for the rest of us (but that's another topic).

[Tod]

Swing and a miss, Gil.

How old are you

Old enough to know that song lyrics had nothing to do with either the Dixie Chicks' or Ted Nugent's controversies.

Also, 47 on Monday.

[SeattleGriz]

I think it was reasonable to as you to give examples of FRS lies since my post was in response to one of yours saying that the FRC was designated as a hate group due to lying in pursuit of its agenca. I did a Google search and didn't get any specifics at the time. Just a general reference to "known falsehoods." Today I was able to find the following from the article at http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2012/08/28178/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :



While it is possible that such things as linking homosexual males to pedophilia could be a lie it doesn't have to be. It could be an honest conclusion based on ones' interpretation of the data. Saying they reached conclusions that are inconsistent with mainstream psychiatry and psychology would be a fair way to put it. Assuming they are lying is not.

I know I in the past have disagreed with the way mainstream psychology and psychiatry classify things. For instance: My bet would be that mainstream psychiatry and psychology would not say that what Jerry Sandusky did has a homosexual component. They'd say it is strictly as pedophilia. I don't buy it. I think that in addition to having a fetish for very young individuals Sandusky clearly displayed a gender preference during such activity. And it was a preference for his own gender.

I once saw media reports on a paper purporting to show that most men who molest young boys are heterosexuals. The basis for saying that was perceptions by people who were familiar with them and the personas they presented in the open. Sandusky, for example, would have been classified as a heterosexual because he's married with children, etc., and most people who knew him didn't know about his sexual attraction to young boys until the end.

I just Googled the issue and actually found a SPLC narrative including discussion of that issue and the view of mainstream psychiatry and psychology. You can see it at http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... r/10-myths" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Myth #1).

But I don't buy it. To me it is self-evident that there is a homosexual component to that kind of behavior. It is, objectively, a homosexual act as it is having sex with a member of one's own sex. Whether or not someone engages in heterosexuality in their adult relationships has no impact on that.

I wrote all that just to provide an example. It would be correct to say that my view on that is inconsistent with what's accepted among majorities...probably overwhelming majorities... in the fields of psychiatry and psychology. But it is not a lie. It is the truth as I see it. And I think that the same situation prevails with the family research council.

The SPLC has gone over the top with its identification of Christian groups that oppose the "normalization of homosexuality" as "hate groups." It's ridiculous.

So you "don't buy that" in the same way that you "don't buy" the sciences of climate change and evolution. Is this correct?

It's convenient, I imagine, to be able to just write off the best information we have in order to stick with an agenda, huh?

You probably still believe that tax cuts for the rich will result in economic prosperity for the rest of us (but that's another topic).

Damn dude. Don't show your hand so soon. Where in this thread did St Onge say he didn't believe in evolution? Seems you are hedging your bets and prognosticating people's response.

Why does that not surprise me? Nice try and a total fail. Go back to Liberal cry baby school and try again.

PATHETIC!

By the way, I understand the NCSE is looking for a yes man. You sound like you would fit the bill nicely.

[Tod]

So you "don't buy that" in the same way that you "don't buy" the sciences of climate change and evolution. Is this correct?

It's convenient, I imagine, to be able to just write off the best information we have in order to stick with an agenda, huh?

You probably still believe that tax cuts for the rich will result in economic prosperity for the rest of us (but that's another topic).

Damn dude. Don't show your hand so soon. Where in this thread did St Onge say he didn't believe in evolution? Seems you are hedging your bets and prognosticating people's response.

Why does that not surprise me? Nice try and a total fail. Go back to Liberal cry baby school and try again.

PATHETIC!

By the way, I understand the NCSE is looking for a yes man. You sound like you would fit the bill nicely.

Why would I have to limit myself to what Jon has said in this particular thread? Do you have the memory of a fish or something?

I don't even know what NCSE is, and I'll bet they are not looking to hire a "yes man" anyway.

You just made that up, you clever bastard!

[YoUDeeMan]

I'd have to agree with JSO that Sandusky had a little homo buried deep in him. Otherwise, he would have been molesting little girls as well. And forget the marriage farce...I know several homos who were married, had kids, and suddenly decided they were better off being gay. Bunch of losers.

Speaking of losers...Tod is a helpless human being who hates successful people and wants everyone else to take care of him and his 50-cents an hour raise family members.

As if it is our fault and responsibility to take care of the results from his bad parenting.

[Tod]

I'd have to agree with JSO that Sandusky had a little homo buried deep in him. Otherwise, he would have been molesting little girls as well. And forget the marriage farce...I know several homos who were married, had kids, and suddenly decided they were better off being gay. Bunch of losers.

Speaking of losers...Tod is a helpless human being who hates successful people and wants everyone else to take care of him and his 50-cents an hour raise family members.

As if it is our fault and responsibility to take care of the results from his bad parenting.

Attacking me and my family on a personal level again. Classy.