Racist New Hampshire man, Ryan J. Murdough, uses hate to get elected to State House seat

By Michael Sheridan (http://www.nydailynews.com/authors/Michael%20Sheridan)
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, July 14th 2010, 8:08 AM


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/07/14/2010-07-14_racist_new_hampshire_man_ryan_j_murdough_uses_h ate_to_run_for_state_office.html#ixzz0tfXDfAhC


http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/07/15/alg_neonazi_illinois.jpg
Olson/Getty
A New Hampshire man (not pictured) is hoping to use racism and the support of a hate group to get elected as a Republican.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/07/14/2010-07-14_racist_new_hampshire_man_ryan_j_murdough_uses_h ate_to_run_for_state_office.html#ixzz0tfXSWIwy


New Hampshire (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/New+Hampshire) man is hoping racist hatred will help get him elected to state office.
Ryan J. Murdough (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Ryan+Murdough), a 30-year-old who says he works with children with special needs at a youth center, is running for a seat on the State House in New Hampshire's 8th District.

And he's doing it as a Republican.

The self-professed "racist" is also supported by the American Third Position, a hate-spewing organization designed to "represent the political interests of White Americans, because no one else will."
"For far too long white Americans have been told that diversity is something beneficial to their existence," Murdough wrote in a letter to the Concord Monitor (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/we-must-preserve-our-racial-identity).

"New Hampshire residents must seek to preserve their racial identity if we want future generations to have to possibility to live in such a great state," he wrote.
The Republican party in New Hampshire has made all efforts to distance itself from Murdough.
"Mr. Murdough is a despicable racist," party spokesman Ryan Williams (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Ryan+Williams) told the Union Leader (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+DiStaso's+Granite+Statu s:+State+GOP+rejects+Ashland+NH+House+candidate+as +'despicable+racist'&articleId=6fb730a1-de0f-4f2e-9be6-9609498f1e2d). "His racist views are abhorrent and he is not welcome in the New Hampshire Republican Party (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/New+Hampshire+Republican+State+Committee)."

Murdough has said he picked the GOP (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/U.S.+Republican+Party) not because he considered himself a party member, but simply because it was the easiest way to get onto the ballot. It costs only a few dollars, while filing as an independent would require 150 signatures.

American Third Position, or A3P, has begun a fund-raising effort to finance Murdough's political endeavor, and the father of two has been an outspoken supporter of the group.

The A3P is run by several unapologetic racists, including Kevin B. MacDonald (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Kevin+Macdonald), a professor whose theories range from claiming Jewish people are genetically designed for greed, and African Americans and Hispanics are intellectually inferior to whites.

Another leader, Dr. Tom Sunic (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Tom+Sunic), has written essays critical of liberals and defends Nazi ideals.
James Edwards (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/James+Edwards), another "director" of A3P, hosts a "pro-white" radio show which boasts it aims to "revive the White birthrate" and promotes "cultural conservative" ideals, which according to his website include hatred for feminism, homosexuality and the government.
The A3P claims it has already raised $1,340 in its goal to hit $2,500 by July 17 for Murdough's campaign.
The wanna-be state representative has said very little about what he hopes to accomplish as a politican, but has been very open about what he thinks.
"I don't want to force out all non-Whites," he wrote as a commentor on the Concord Monitor (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Monitor+Publishing+Company)'s website. "The American Third Position simply would offer immigrants a financial contribution IF they wanted to leave."

In another posting, Murdough wrote: "I think it makes perfect sense to pull over Hispanics in order to deport illegals. On the southern border the illegals are not light skinned Dutchmen. They are dark skinned hispanics, so why should we not target the people most likely to be an illegal immigrant?"

"Did you realize that the United States (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/United+States) was intended to be a homeland for White/European people?" he wrote in May.

Other professed "pro-white" wanna-be candidates have used hate to try and get elected to state and federal offices. A Missouri (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Missouri) man in March has used racist radio ads to run for the United States Senate (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/U.S.+Senate), while a former Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Ku+Klux+Klan) in Indiana (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Indiana) posted hateful ads to run for the House of Representatives (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/U.S.+House+of+Representatives)

__________________________________________________ ______________

Somehow these guys never run as Democrats.
They say they're conservatives trying to keep this country great.

Conservatives are treated with suspicion because this is where conservative extremism leads to.



and promotes "cultural conservative" ideals, which according to his website include hatred for feminism, homosexuality and the government.



They even call themselves conservatives, and are trying to keep the country from growing and evolving.

Seems anyone can run as a Republican.
This may be taking inclusion a bit far. :eek:

Now get off my lawn! :D

I dont think he has chance,didnt NH vote for hope and change?

The Republican party in New Hampshire has made all efforts to distance itself from Murdough.
"Mr. Murdough is a despicable racist," party spokesman Ryan Williams (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Ryan+Williams) told the Union Leader (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+DiStaso's+Granite+Statu s:+State+GOP+rejects+Ashland+NH+House+candidate+as +'despicable+racist'&articleId=6fb730a1-de0f-4f2e-9be6-9609498f1e2d). "His racist views are abhorrent and he is not welcome in the New Hampshire Republican Party (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/New+Hampshire+Republican+State+Committee)."That's all that matters. So, do you assert that he speaks for the entire Republican Party?

The rest of your post is worthless.

Somehow these guys never run as Democrats.

Robert KKK Byrd? Bull Connor? J. William Fulbright? George Wallace? :rolleyes:

That's all that matters. So, do you assert that he speaks for the entire Republican Party?

The rest of your post is worthless.



Robert KKK Byrd? :rolleyes:

Touche!
But it seems the new extremists try to attach themselves to the Republicans and call themselves "moral conservatives"

He doesn't speak for the entire republican party but he says things that are IMO there deep in the souls of extremists who identify themselves as conservatives.

Touche!
But it seems the new extremists try to attach themselves to the Republicans and call themselves "moral conservatives"
The 'new extremists?' What does that mean? Examples? This is one guy, but you're citing multiple cases?

'Moral conservatives?' What does that mean? Examples?

What are you doing, inventing new terms so you can fit conservatives into the template of racism that you want to perpetuate?

Even if this guy is truly a Republican, you've already backed off your original implication that the Republican party is racist because this guy is racist. That was your original intent, wasn't it?

So, are you saying that I'm a racist because this guy is a racist? Is this guilt by very, very loose association now? Next you'll say that Republicans are racist because they are humans, and this guy is human, and can't we see the correlation? :rolleyes:

Seriously, you're not good at this.

He doesn't speak for the entire republican party but he says things that are IMO there deep in the souls of extremists who identify themselves as conservatives.And you're basing this opinion on what factual evidence? You mean things that you want to be down deep in the souls of conservatives?

You really are stretching now - taking wild guesses at what people think deep down just so you can smear conservatives as racist?

Wonder how this would play in court -

"No, your honor, I have no evidence, and he's never acted like a racist, never said or done anything that would indicate it...but...I'll bet deep down he is, because it is helpful to my case!"

Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf? Keep pushing this 'racist' canard, and eventually nobody will ever take you lefties seriously.

This guy is a joke, does he think he has a chance in hell, Alvin Green has a better chance at winning in South Carolina!

So a Democrat paints a swastika on the back of his bald head and runs for office as a Republican? OK, I got it.

A New Hampshire man (not pictured) is hoping to use racism and the support of a hate group to get elected as a Republican.

I didn't even notice the caption at first.

So, the picture isn't even the guy being talked about?

The article would have you believe that the picture is of the candidate. The caption is very small.

So a Democrat paints a swastika on the back of his bald head and runs for office as a Republican? OK, I got it.

i've been to his outdoor bbq's

The 'new extremists?' What does that mean? Examples? This is one guy, but you're citing multiple cases?

'Moral conservatives?' What does that mean? Examples?

What are you doing, inventing new terms so you can fit conservatives into the template of racism that you want to perpetuate?

Even if this guy is truly a Republican, you've already backed off your original implication that the Republican party is racist because this guy is racist. That was your original intent, wasn't it?

So, are you saying that I'm a racist because this guy is a racist? Is this guilt by very, very loose association now? Next you'll say that Republicans are racist because they are humans, and this guy is human, and can't we see the correlation? :rolleyes:

Seriously, you're not good at this.

And you're basing this opinion on what factual evidence? You mean things that you want to be down deep in the souls of conservatives?

You really are stretching now - taking wild guesses at what people think deep down just so you can smear conservatives as racist?

Wonder how this would play in court -

"No, your honor, I have no evidence, and he's never acted like a racist, never said or done anything that would indicate it...but...I'll bet deep down he is, because it is helpful to my case!"

Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf? Keep pushing this 'racist' canard, and eventually nobody will ever take you lefties seriously.

Calm down.
It's so easy to get you going.
I'm not insinuating anything other than saying these guys seem attracted to the hapless :p republican party.
You seem to bubble over with your conclusions.
I didn't bring up guilt by association.
I don't know what a moral conservative is.
I misspoke and I apologize.
I was a little hasty and meant to say "cultural conservative" as this is how they describe themselves.

Another leader, Dr. Tom Sunic (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Tom+Sunic), has written essays critical of liberals and defends Nazi ideals.
James Edwards (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/James+Edwards), another "director" of A3P, hosts a "pro-white" radio show which boasts it aims to "revive the White birthrate" and promotes "cultural conservative" ideals, which according to his website include hatred for feminism, homosexuality and the government.

These are their own self descriptive words.

Well they don't call themselves liberals but conservatives are trying to label liberals as nazis and communists.

So it's interesting that the racists say "No we're not liberals, we're conservatives"

I also prefaced this as my opinion.
Primarily my dislike is for busybody people who want to legislate morality which I find more offensive than the ones merely trying to steal more from my wallet :shifty::eek: although I'm not much fond of them either.

And by new extremists I meant the current KKK types surfacing.
Byrd and Wallace were your father's extremists hence old extremists.

From here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403698.html):
The third version of liberal condescension points to something more sinister. In his 2008 book, "Nixonland," progressive writer Rick Perlstein argued that Richard Nixon created an enduring Republican strategy of mobilizing the ethnic and other resentments of some Americans against others. Similarly, in their 1992 book, "Chain Reaction," Thomas Byrne Edsall and Mary D. Edsall argued that Nixon and Reagan talked up crime control, low taxes and welfare reform to cloak racial animus and help make it mainstream. It is now an article of faith among many liberals that Republicans win elections because they tap into white prejudice against blacks and immigrants [Southern Strategy].

Race doubtless played a significant role in the shift of Deep South whites to the Republican Party during and after the 1960s. But the liberal narrative has gone essentially unchanged since then -- recall former president Carter's recent assertion that opposition to Obama reflects racism -- even though survey research has shown a dramatic decline in prejudiced attitudes among white Americans in the intervening decades. Moreover, the candidates and agendas of both parties demonstrate an unfortunate willingness to play on prejudices, whether based on race, region, class, income, or other factors.

I didn't even notice the caption at first.

So, the picture isn't even the guy being talked about?

The article would have you believe that the picture is of the candidate. The caption is very small.

I included the disclaimer but I can see the media loves throwing this swastika stuff out to sell copy and so they can shed crocodile tears over how horrible HORRIBLE!:eek: it is while secretly giggling about it.

Don't you take your media with a grain of salt?

From here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403698.html):
The third version of liberal condescension points to something more sinister. In his 2008 book, "Nixonland," progressive writer Rick Perlstein argued that Richard Nixon created an enduring Republican strategy of mobilizing the ethnic and other resentments of some Americans against others. Similarly, in their 1992 book, "Chain Reaction," Thomas Byrne Edsall and Mary D. Edsall argued that Nixon and Reagan talked up crime control, low taxes and welfare reform to cloak racial animus and help make it mainstream. It is now an article of faith among many liberals that Republicans win elections because they tap into white prejudice against blacks and immigrants [Southern Strategy].

Race doubtless played a significant role in the shift of Deep South whites to the Republican Party during and after the 1960s. But the liberal narrative has gone essentially unchanged since then -- recall former president Carter's recent assertion that opposition to Obama reflects racism -- even though survey research has shown a dramatic decline in prejudiced attitudes among white Americans in the intervening decades. Moreover, the candidates and agendas of both parties demonstrate an unfortunate willingness to play on prejudices, whether based on race, region, class, income, or other factors.


So it's how you play the game?
Or is it how you tell the joke.

So it's how you play the game?
Or is it how you tell the joke.

???

I included the disclaimer but I can see the media loves throwing this swastika stuff out to sell copy and so they can shed crocodile tears over how horrible HORRIBLE!:eek: it is while secretly giggling about it.

Don't you take your media with a grain of salt?You obviously don't.

You swallow their innuendo and pap without even blinking:

Somehow these guys never run as Democrats.
They say they're conservatives trying to keep this country great.

Conservatives are treated with suspicion because this is where conservative extremism leads to.So, really you are saying that Nazi racists are really just ultra right wingers.

Was that the point of your post?

???



Moreover, the candidates and agendas of both parties demonstrate an unfortunate willingness to play on prejudices, whether based on race, region, class, income, or other factors.


You said they both play games.

By joke I meant the joke is on the voters.

How you tell the "joke" that cons the voters

You obviously don't.

You swallow their innuendo and pap without even blinking:

So, really you are saying that Nazi racists are really just ultra right wingers.

Was that the point of your post?

The republicans are calling the liberals nazis but the nazis identify with and call themselves conservatives.

I haven't seen any current nazis calling themselves democrats.

"No we're not liberals, we're conservatives!"

So this just points out the irony here.

But it seems the new extremists try to attach themselves to the Republicans and call themselves "moral conservatives"

To quote your article:
Murdough has said he picked the GOP not because he considered himself a party member, but simply because it was the easiest way to get onto the ballot. It costs only a few dollars, while filing as an independent would require 150 signatures.

To quote your article:
Murdough has said he picked the GOP not because he considered himself a party member, but simply because it was the easiest way to get onto the ballot. It costs only a few dollars, while filing as an independent would require 150 signatures.


It seems the republicans make it too easy to run as one.
So this is what you get.

It seems the republicans make it too easy to run as one.
So this is what you get.So, your entire argument/post finally boils down to the Republicans having lax restrictions on getting on the ballot.

CONGRATULATIONS.:rolleyes:

So, your entire argument/post finally boils down to the Republicans having lax restrictions on getting on the ballot.

CONGRATULATIONS.:rolleyes:

Misdirection, what he was trying to say is that those people claim they are conservative, and extremists like this do spawn an awful lot of hatred for "normal" conservatives. This is like identifying Christianity with Hitler just because he claimed to be a christian. Though, there is some wonder in the fact that these types of extremists always claim to be conservative. Republican or not is not really what the issue should be when analyzing this.

Anyways, congratulations on not being able to interpret what was said in this thread.:rolleyes: If you weren't so quick to be dismissive and confrontational, you would have realized that.... but then again, that has never been your strong suit, you just accuse anyone who doesn't share your anger and knee-jerk reactions of it.


Seriously though, go back and re-read it.

Misdirection, what he was trying to say is that those people claim they are conservative, and extremists like this do spawn an awful lot of hatred for "normal" conservatives. This is like identifying Christianity with Hitler just because he claimed to be a christian. Though, there is some wonder in the fact that these types of extremists always claim to be conservative. Republican or not is not really what the issue should be when analyzing this.

Where did he claim to be conservative? He said the only reason he went for the GOP ticket is because it was easy to get on the ballot. A good analogy is how hostile ankle-biting morons like you manage to get an account on this forum regardless of their intellectual qualifications or disposition.

Oh, and by the way, genius, 'GOP' does not automatically equal 'conservative.'

Maybe you should read the OP before knee-jerk reacting - saves you the embarrassment of looking more ignorant than you already do.

http://www.owned.lv/images/x3x6eabcc90001e27fc371e300148b5defc.jpg

So, your entire argument/post finally boils down to the Republicans having lax restrictions on getting on the ballot.

CONGRATULATIONS.:rolleyes:

The world works on rules.
You don't think it's embarassing (for republicans) this guy can run as a Republican.

Some of his positions are conservative and not as extreme as his racism.
He could almost be described as an extreme racist conservative.

And because of lax rules how about this amusing candidate?

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=65590


You said you were a libertarian but rush to defend conservatives.

Where did he claim to be conservative? He said the only reason he went for the GOP ticket is because it was easy to get on the ballot. A good analogy is how hostile ankle-biting morons like you manage to get an account on this forum regardless of their intellectual qualifications or disposition.

Oh, and by the way, genius, 'GOP' does not automatically equal 'conservative.'

Maybe you should read the OP before knee-jerk reacting - saves you the embarrassment of looking more ignorant than you already do.

http://www.owned.lv/images/x3x6eabcc90001e27fc371e300148b5defc.jpg

The nazis call themselves "cultural conservatives"

The nazis call themselves "cultural conservatives"Here's what the article says -

James Edwards, another "director" of A3P, hosts a "pro-white" radio show which boasts it aims to "revive the White birthrate" and promotes "cultural conservative" ideals, which according to his website include hatred for feminism, homosexuality and the government.

The article says A3P supports Murdough, but it doesn't say that Murdough calls himself a conservative - nor does it say that Edwards calls himself a conservative - only that he promotes certain ideals. Promoting something isn't the same as identifying yourself with it. Example - Republicans who vote for Obamacare. So-called "blue dog" Democrats.

Look, you get an 'A' for effort here, but you're not successful in painting conservatives as racists. I'm not a racist. I don't believe that the United States was intended only for European whites.

...let's identify the thread for what it is.

04SCTLS is just busting balls.
Once he "begrudgingly" agrees to any one point, he's smilingly make up another silly reason to keep the thread going and poke with a stick. There's no resolution because he doesnt give a crap, he just wants to get a reaction.

And I don't think there's any interest in discussing the concepts and differences of classical liberalism, socialism, German Nazism, and American Nazism.

But to take this in a serious direction.
And this isn't something I'm accusing 04SCTLS of, I don't think he gives a crap.

But the continued effort to link Republicans/conservatives/libertarians/tea party groups with racism, despite there is no systemic racism to speak of.

This story was published in the NY Daily News, the paper owned by Mort Zuckerman. It has a very hard left-wing slant to it.

But there's clearly a political campaign taking place by the left to paint all of their opposition as "racist." Look at how they are treating Arizona. Look at the way they misrepresent the Tea Parties, despite the fact some of the most popular speakers are black.

The NAACP denounces the "racist" elements this week. And even ridiculous stories like this where I guy simply avoids having to get a petition signed, so he pays to enter the Republican primary.

And the dumbest thing I keep hearing is from conservative people saying, "Well, if the NAACP is condemning the tea parties, why didn't they condemn the black panthers?"

Who ever asks this has just fallen into the trap.
They have just, unknowingly, established a moral equivalence between the two groups while NONE exists.

There's a concerted effort being made to divide this country. Race is one of the dividing lines being exploited. It's really an evil thing to do. This isn't a racist country. We aren't racist people. And the consequences, be they unintentional or not, of dividing the country along those lines are serious.

Look, you get an 'A' for effort here, but you're not successful in painting conservatives as racists. I'm not a racist. I don't believe that the United States was intended only for European whites.

Coming from you I'll consider that a compliment.

You have it backwards though.
I'm not painting conservatives as racists just pointing out that nazis and racists identify themselves as conservatives, which is a huge distinction.

And like I said before it's ironic painting Obama with nazis when the nazis profess to being some kind of conservatives (in their minds)

Coming from you I'll consider that a compliment.

You have it backwards though.
I'm not painting conservatives as racists just pointing out that nazis and racists identify themselves as conservatives, which is a huge distinction.

And like I said before it's ironic painting Obama with nazis when the nazis profess to being some kind of conservatives (in their minds)
That's because they're ignorant. They take only the racist features of the Nazi party and forsake the National Socialist parts.

I'll give you another analogy: Lucifer tried quoting scripture to Jesus once, and Jesus told him to get out of His way. Lucifer will still burn in hell.

Also, as Bryan pointed out, it's very possible that this is a Democrat posing as a Republican in order to smear conservatives. I'd give it at least a 50% chance of likelihood given the LaRouches showing up at Tea Party rallies.

04SCTLS is just busting balls.
Once he "begrudgingly" agrees to any one point, he's smilingly make up another silly reason to keep the thread going and poke with a stick. There's no resolution because he doesnt give a crap, he just wants to get a reaction.



I haven't seen you post anything provocative and interesting to talk about recently.

I try to keep things lively.

I haven't seen you post anything provocative and interesting to talk about recently.

I try to keep things lively.I see your point, but your provocative posts tend to be slanted left. If you're just trying to 'keep things lively,' then I expect a little intellectual honesty in return. If you're just 'effing' with people, expect to get smacked around for it a little. ;)

Contention has its limits. I've been spending more time at the car forum lately just because it's more friendly.

I see your point, but your provocative posts tend to be slanted left. If you're just trying to 'keep things lively,' then I expect a little intellectual honesty in return. If you're just 'effing' with people, expect to get smacked around for it a little. ;)

Contention has its limits. I've been spending more time at the car forum lately just because it's more friendly.

Well you shag and Cal are slanted right so I have to approach this slanted left if I want a lively discussion.

It would be pretty dull if we just patted ourselves on the back and said "here here"

This way I can see you and shag giving off some steam :p:D

Well you shag and Cal are slanted right so I have to approach this slanted left if I want a lively discussion.

It would be pretty dull if we just patted ourselves on the back and said "here here"

This way I can see you and shag giving off some steam :p:D
You can play devil's advocate without being intellectually dishonest or abnormally annoying. If your only purpose in posting is to manipulate others then you'll find yourself ignored or smacked around a lot. Just don't cry 'foul' when that happens.

You can play devil's advocate without being intellectually dishonest or abnormally annoying. If your only purpose in posting is to manipulate others then you'll find yourself ignored or smacked around a lot. Just don't cry 'foul' when that happens.

I post stuff I find interesting/amusing/provocative

There's an element of sport here.

I've been jousting with you guys for over 3 years now and expect to get smacked around.

Shag is more unflappable and pedantic (my eyes can glaze over although he's started highlighting) you're more reactive and a little more spirited and opinionated (if provoked :p)
I'm thick skinned and will not be crying foul whatever you may say even down to calling me names :D

In fact I can enjoy a clever putdown if you come up with one :)

I post stuff I find interesting/amusing/provocative

So your goal is to provoke. Good to know...

So your goal is to provoke. Good to know...


Sometimes I like to provoke but not as an overiding goal.

This is a forum for fun where clever men carry on interesting conversations.

It can be like playing chess.

I used to beat old men when I was 12.

What do you get out of this place.

Here's what the article says -

The article says A3P supports Murdough, but it doesn't say that Murdough calls himself a conservative - nor does it say that Edwards calls himself a conservative - only that he promotes certain ideals. Promoting something isn't the same as identifying yourself with it. Example - Republicans who vote for Obamacare. So-called "blue dog" Democrats.

Look, you get an 'A' for effort here, but you're not successful in painting conservatives as racists. I'm not a racist. I don't believe that the United States was intended only for European whites.

So are you saying that because you are not racist, there must be no racist conservatives? You are missing the point here, as I tried to point out to you already. People who claim an ideal give others with a similar sounding ideal a bad name. Much like socialists who claim to be liberal democrats. It just breeds confusion and creates a situation where people become irrational in their judgment.

None of the racists call themselves democrats.

Environental and animal extremists on the other hand
would never call themselves conservatives.

The Republicans should at least tighten up their rules to avoid these
hapless confusing situations from developing in the first place.

None of the racists call themselves democrats.

Environental and animal extremists on the other hand
would never call themselves conservatives.

The Republicans should at least tighten up their rules to avoid these
hapless confusing situations from developing in the first place.None? Are you sure about that? Ever hear of Robert KKK Byrd?

You keep stepping into that bear trap despite knowing it's there. ;)

Let me introduce a new premise and thus a new possibility, ok?

1. Media/leftists wish to discredit conservatives
2. Media/leftists introduce racist accusation to smear conservatives
3. True racist nazis hear that conservatives are racist
4. Racist nazis think they have found a common ally given media reports and leftist attacks, and join up with conservatives
5. Result: Media/leftists prophecy is fulfilled thanks to speculation on their part.

It's just like the premise brought up by Martin Bishop in Sneakers:

Cosmo: Posit: People think a bank might be financially shaky.
Martin Bishop: Consequence: People start to withdraw their money.
Cosmo: Result: Pretty soon it is financially shaky.
Martin Bishop: Conclusion: You can make banks fail.

None? Are you sure about that? Ever hear of Robert KKK Byrd?

You keep stepping into that bear trap despite knowing it's there. ;)

Let me introduce a new premise and thus a new possibility, ok?

1. Media/leftists wish to discredit conservatives
2. Media/leftists introduce racist accusation to smear conservatives
3. True racist nazis hear that conservatives are racist
4. Racist nazis think they have found a common ally given media reports and leftist attacks, and join up with conservatives
5. Result: Media/leftists prophecy is fulfilled thanks to speculation on their part.

It's just like the premise brought up by Martin Bishop in Sneakers:

Byrd is dead along with Thurmon.
They're in the past.
We discussed this earlier when I said Touche!
I was refering to the current racists like I said earlier.
The nazi racists share some of the benign views of conservatives
and not so much the democrats.

You're theory is conspirational and you are a proud conspiracist.

It still would be good to have better rules about who can run as a republican :rolleyes:

Got news for ya - no political party does more to keep the black man down than the Democrat party. Keep them poor, urbanized, fatherless, and dependent on government, and yet convince them that the Democrat party is the only party that cares. It's the worst subjugation of a race since slavery.

Got news for ya - no political party does more to keep the black man down than the Democrat party. Keep them poor, urbanized, fatherless, and dependent on government, and yet convince them that the Democrat party is the only party that cares. It's the worst subjugation of a race since slavery.

This may well be but then it is certainly more clever and effective than the overt racism of the current extremists.

And despite your contention I don't see any great exodus of African Americans moving back to Africa for a better less racist life.

The nazi racists share some of the benign views of conservatives

Such as...

Such as...

Opposition to gay marraige would fall under cultural conservatism as they refer to themselves.

Opposition to gay marraige would fall under cultural conservatism as they refer to themselves.

Most of the country opposes gay marriage. That is like arguing that the Nazi are against monarchies and so are conservatives so they are similar.

Do you have an specific examples that rise beyond transparent attempts at cherry picking?

Most of the country opposes gay marriage.

Not true. If you can dig up one unbiased poll that says otherwise, I would be shocked and amazed.

Not true. If you can dig up one unbiased poll that says otherwise, I would be shocked and amazed.

The actual voting serves as the best polling. Look at the referendums across the country concerning gay marriage.

The actual voting serves as the best polling. Look at the referendums across the country concerning gay marriage.

Ok, why don't you go ahead and see what you can really pull up in recent years where gay marriage was put to a vote?

Honestly, it appears to me there are equal margins for and against it in this country, and there is a majority that is indifferent.

Ok, why don't you go ahead and see what you can really pull up in recent years where gay marriage was put to a vote?

Nope. Instead of just picking at others maybe you could put a little initiative in understanding opposing points of view. It isn't like that information is at all hard to find. Heck, coverage of the vote and political fallout from it in California has been rather consistently in the news.

It is not my job to cure your ignorance. However, any claim you make to the intellectual high ground is invalid when you are utterly ignorant of the points of view you are attempting to rebut and are unwilling to put any effort into understanding them.

This may well be but then it is certainly more clever and effective than the overt racism of the current extremists.
Oh, well I'm glad you found a way to praise it.

By the way, how about Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's mentor for 20 years? How about Van Jones, who was appointed by Obama to be one of his Czars?

How about these notables:

Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis."

-Senator Hillary Clinton

Some junior high n*gger kicked Steve's ass while he was trying to help his brothers out; junior high or sophomore in high school. Whatever it was, Steve had the n*gger down. However it was, it was Steve's fault. He had the n*gger down, he let him up. The n*gger blindsided him."

-- Roger Clinton, the President's brother on audiotape

"You'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva."
-- Fritz Hollings (D, S.C.)

"Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey's cars?"

-- Left-wing radio host Neil Rogers

Blacks and Hispanics are "too busy eating watermelons and tacos" to learn how to read and write." -- Mike Wallace, CBS News

"You f*cking Jew b@stard." -- Hillary Clinton

"The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He rose Germany up from the ashes." -- Louis Farrakhan (1984) who campaigned for congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in 2002

'Hymies.' 'Hymietown.' -- Jesse Jackson's description of New York City while on the 1984 presidential campaign trail.

"Jews — that's J-E-W-S." -- Democratic state representative Bill McKinney on why his daughter Cynthia lost in 2002

(I) "will not let the white boys win in this election."
-- Donna Brazile, Al Gore's Campaign Manager on the 2000 election

"The old white boys got taken fair and square." -- San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown after winning an election

The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the lake of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years." -- Louis Farrakhan

"We have lost to the white racist press and to the racist reactionary Jewish misleaders." -- Former Rep. Gus Savage (D-Illinois) after his defeat 1992

"White folks was in caves while we was building empires... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it." -- Rev. Al Sharpton in a 1994 speech at Kean College, NJ

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking." --Joe Biden

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." --Joe Biden on Barack Obama

Opposition to gay marraige would fall under cultural conservatism as they refer to themselves.Obama opposes gay marriage.

Nope. Instead of just picking at others maybe you could put a little initiative in understanding opposing points of view. It isn't like that information is at all hard to find. Heck, coverage of the vote and political fallout from it in California has been rather consistently in the news.

It is not my job to cure your ignorance. However, any claim you make to the intellectual high ground is invalid when you are utterly ignorant of the points of view you are attempting to rebut and are unwilling to put any effort into understanding them.He's just trying to make busywork to annoy you. The guy doesn't have an honest, inquisitive bone in his body. He's only here to harass.

Watch - he'll find a way to dismiss my link (http://tinyurl.com/353zbce), and that will prove my point. He won't bother to read the results.

Most of the country opposes gay marriage. That is like arguing that the Nazi are against monarchies and so are conservatives so they are similar.

Do you have an specific examples that rise beyond transparent attempts at cherry picking?


promotes "cultural conservative" ideals, which according to his website include hatred for feminism, homosexuality and the government


if you substitute dislike for hatred it becomes more benign.

He's just trying to make busywork to annoy you. The guy doesn't have an honest, inquisitive bone in his body. He's only here to harass.

Watch - he'll find a way to dismiss my link (http://tinyurl.com/353zbce), and that will prove my point. He won't bother to read the results.

No, I know how it has gone in the few states that have voted on it. But how does that mean that the majority of people are against it? The reason I asked him about anything recent, is because this is not something that comes to a vote often, and it doesn't come to a vote in many places.

No, I know how it has gone in the few states that have voted on it. But how does that mean that the majority of people are against it? The reason I asked him about anything recent, is because this is not something that comes to a vote often, and it doesn't come to a vote in many places.It's a hell of a lot more evidence than you've posted to the contrary, yet you continue to move the goalposts and demand more busywork. Tell me, do you ever look anything up on your own, or do you come here to be spoon fed just so you can spit out the spoon and scream and throw more tantrums?

Here, take a look at this poll (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/04/samesex.marriage.poll/index.html). I'm sure you'll tell me that a poll taken last year is too old or something (move the goalposts). :rolleyes:

It's a hell of a lot more evidence than you've posted to the contrary, yet you continue to move the goalposts and demand more busywork. Tell me, do you ever look anything up on your own, or do you come here to be spoon fed just so you can spit out the spoon and scream and throw more tantrums?

Here, take a look at this poll (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/04/samesex.marriage.poll/index.html). I'm sure you'll tell me that a poll taken last year is too old or something (move the goalposts). :rolleyes:

Wow, was that so hard to find a fact to back up a statement?

Honestly, I am surprised by that poll and will admit my error. Most things I have ever seen on the matter suggested otherwise, but guess I was wrong. Guess now we have to wait a couple years for some of the older bigots to die off so that there will be a majority of people who are for gay marriage.

Looks like that is one for your team. Congratulations. You have managed to be right about something one time. You deserve every bit of celebration.

Wow, was that so hard to find a fact to back up a statement?

Honestly, I am surprised by that poll and will admit my error. Most things I have ever seen on the matter suggested otherwise, but guess I was wrong. Guess now we have to wait a couple years for some of the older bigots to die off so that there will be a majority of people who are for gay marriage.

Looks like that is one for your team. Congratulations. You have managed to be right about something one time. You deserve every bit of celebration.Your sarcasm undercuts your sincerity. Honestly, we've discussed gay marriage ad infinitum on this forum, a long time ago. It's tiresome to dredge up old stuff just to satisfy your demands. It would be just as easy for you to look it up rather than have to admit error.

Your sarcasm undercuts your sincerity. Honestly, we've discussed gay marriage ad infinitum on this forum, a long time ago. It's tiresome to dredge up old stuff just to satisfy your demands. It would be just as easy for you to look it up rather than have to admit error.

Your discussions are often clouded by your acceptance of inaccurate information and personal views, just as my earlier statement was. Just agreeing with you because you say it is so would be foolish.

if you substitute dislike for hatred it becomes more benign.

So you are assuming conservatives dislike (or, in more extreme cases, hate) gays?

...I haven't seen any current nazis calling themselves democrats...


Even Nazis don't want to be thought to be democrats;)

KS

Even Nazis don't want to be thought to be democrats;)

KS

pwned

Even Nazis don't want to be thought to be democrats;)

KS
Agree with FIND - thread winner.

Brevity is the soul of wit, and you have captured it.

Well done.

So you are assuming conservatives dislike (or, in more extreme cases, hate) gays?

it says homosexuality which is a distinction from homosexual ie hate the sin love the sinner, but I don't think these guys are the love the sinner type.

So yes I would say that conservatives are likely to dislike homosexuality as a lifestyle but don't dislike or at least tolerate homosexuals personally.

Even Nazis don't want to be thought to be democrats;)

KS

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

So yes I would say that conservatives are likely to dislike homosexuality as a lifestyle but don't dislike or at least tolerate homosexuals personally.

That is a pretty big assumption that has very little to do with policy positions. A rather weak argument to base your conclusion of a similarity between Nazi and conservatives on.

You don't see it as even a possibility that conservatives are against gay marriage for reasons other then hate of gays? Especially after all the discussion on the topic in this forum?

You see opposition to gay marriage as synonymous with homophobia?

So yes I would say that conservatives are likely to dislike homosexuality as a lifestyle but don't dislike or at least tolerate homosexuals personally.
Do you think that Obama opposes gay marriage because he dislikes homosexuality?

That is a pretty big assumption that has very little to do with policy positions. A rather weak argument to base your conclusion of a similarity between Nazi and conservatives on.

You don't see it as even a possibility that conservatives are against gay marriage for reasons other then hate of gays? Especially after all the discussion on the topic in this forum?

You see opposition to gay marriage as synonymous with homophobia?

Even though homosexuality appears in nature and continues in humanity even without the capability to reproduce, conservatives consider it unnatural.

Natural selection has spared the homosexual from the usual rules.

We're not discussing the reasons for opposition only the similarity of views.

Myself personally I think being gay is probably hard enough in this culture and it is not a desire one chooses easily.

People don't want their children enticed into homosexuality even though it is something one is mostly born with.

Gay preachers become self loathing.

Better to not advertize to prevent the borderline young people from outing themselves.

It is much harder to succeed in life as a homosexual other than perhaps in the arts and hollywood.

This is all perfectly understandable for practical reasons.

My arguments may be weak in your eyes but not to the point where you can just dismiss them.

Do you think that Obama opposes gay marriage because he dislikes homosexuality?


He's just following the polls.
These people for gay marraige don't threaten him in any way.

Even though homosexuality appears in nature and continues in humanity even without the capability to reproduce, conservatives consider it unnatural.

Do you really want to have an intelligent conversation about homosexuality and homosexual behavior?

Typical atheist behavior is to think that morality is universal or self-taught and that the lifestyles and culture we share would be possible without the judeo-christian belief system that it was founded on.

The reality is, that's simply not true.

When you go to other parts of the world, parts that don't embrace the same principles, Judeo-Christian values, the societies are vastly different. And that includes the issue of homosexuality.

If you go to the middle, or even ancient Greece, gay sex is rampant. Teachers screwing students. Masters screwing apprentices. Buttsecks has been a huge problem within the ranks of the Iraqi and Afghan security forces.

The same goes for ancient Greece. And the same goes for any society that puts physical gratification in place before any moral/social order as we understand it.

What does that mean?
Are all of those men with wives and families "born" gay, or do they just engage in behavior with other men for creepy pleasure?

Even though homosexuality appears in nature and continues in humanity even without the capability to reproduce, conservatives consider it unnatural.

Natural selection has spared the homosexual from the usual rules.

It is not as "cut and dry" as you make it out to be. But that is a whole other can of worms and if you are actually interested in opposing views on this, they have been stated often enough in earlier thread. Some of the longer threads on this forum, I might add.

My arguments may be weak in your eyes but not to the point where you can just dismiss them.

You argue that Nazi and conservatives are similar in there views on this yet ignore the rationale for the view on this; choosing to make gross generalizations instead.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose gay marriage that have nothing to do with homophobia and they have been stated numerous times on this forum.

The Nazi have a history of a ideological core of aggressive identity politics; racism. That is NOT true for conservatives, however that is a false narrative that has been drawn by liberal academics for longer then I have been alive. If you don't believe me, look up "Southern Strategy (http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.928/article_detail.asp)". This was also talked about in the opening article of this thread (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=66822):The third version of liberal condescension points to something more sinister. In his 2008 book, "Nixonland," progressive writer Rick Perlstein argued that Richard Nixon created an enduring Republican strategy of mobilizing the ethnic and other resentments of some Americans against others. Similarly, in their 1992 book, "Chain Reaction," Thomas Byrne Edsall and Mary D. Edsall argued that Nixon and Reagan talked up crime control, low taxes and welfare reform to cloak racial animus and help make it mainstream. It is now an article of faith among many liberals that Republicans win elections because they tap into white prejudice against blacks and immigrants [Southern Strategy].

Race doubtless played a significant role in the shift of Deep South whites to the Republican Party during and after the 1960s. But the liberal narrative has gone essentially unchanged since then -- recall former president Carter's recent assertion that opposition to Obama reflects racism -- even though survey research has shown a dramatic decline in prejudiced attitudes among white Americans in the intervening decades. Moreover, the candidates and agendas of both parties demonstrate an unfortunate willingness to play on prejudices, whether based on race, region, class, income, or other factors.

In connecting Nazi with conservatism, what points do you raise that are not essentially rooted in ignorant stereotypes of conservatives and an ignorance of the rationale for opposition to Gay marriage of the Nazi and conservatives respectively?

Do you really want to have an intelligent conversation about homosexuality and homosexual behavior?

Typical atheist behavior is to think that morality is universal or self-taught and that the lifestyles and culture we share would be possible without the judeo-christian belief system that it was founded on.

The reality is, that's simply not true.

When you go to other parts of the world, parts that don't embrace the same principles, Judeo-Christian values, the societies are vastly different. And that includes the issue of homosexuality.

If you go to the middle, or even ancient Greece, gay sex is rampant. Teachers screwing students. Masters screwing apprentices. Buttsecks has been a huge problem within the ranks of the Iraqi and Afghan security forces.

The same goes for ancient Greece. And the same goes for any society that puts physical gratification in place before any moral/social order as we understand it.

What does that mean?
Are all of those men with wives and families "born" gay, or do they just engage in behavior with other men for creepy pleasure?


Thanks for your rambling non sequeters.

Who said homosexuals were athiests?

We're not in the 15th century or Greek times.

How are societies without Judeo Christian values vastly different?

Homosexuality is a born with physical disposition that transcends any moralizing or philosophy.

You seem to infer that homosexuality causes the breakup of society
even though it has been around forever.

Islam is not fond of homosexuality but it seems that straight men will engage in sex with other men IMO due to the unnatural religious restrictions placed on fraternizing with the opposite sex and the need for some release in battle.

It is just so much easier to get some quick relief from other like sex starved men.

People don't want their children enticed into homosexuality even though it is something one is mostly born with.

Have you even looked at the research and evidence surrounding the whole "gay gene" argument? Or are you simply accepting it on faith?

If you actually look at the evidence, it is not as clear as you make it out to be. A lot of the "evidence" is interpreted through extremely loosely defined definitions of "Gay" and/or makes huge logical leaps in it's interpretation.

that argument may fit in with your worldview and understanding of social causation, but that doesn't make it right.

The fact is that there is very little evidence that logically supports the idea being gay is "natural". If you want to know more about that, do some research on this forum.

In connecting Nazi with conservatism, what points do you raise that are not essentially rooted in ignorant stereotypes of conservatives and an ignorance of the rationale for opposition to Gay marriage of the Nazi and conservatives respectively?


I don't raise any points other than the ones so far.
I'm not writing a paper or thesis here and these are your opinions that my examples are ignorant stereotypes.


The difference in rationale for opposition to gay marraige by nazis and conservatives is irellevant to the conclusion that both are opposed to it,
however it is something that could be discussed in another thread.
I don't want to get bogged down with that here.

Homosexuality is a born with physical disposition that transcends any moralizing or philosophy.

Again, there is little evidence to logically back that claim up. You are accepting it on faith.

Go read through this thread (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=42900). There is a lot of information and a lot of argument that you are clearly unaware of. Start around post #27.

Have you even looked at the research and evidence surrounding the whole "gay gene" argument? Or are you simply accepting it on faith?

If you actually look at the evidence, it is not as clear as you make it out to be. A lot of the "evidence" is interpreted through extremely loosely defined definitions of "Gay" and/or makes huge logical leaps in it's interpretation.

that argument may fit in with your worldview and understanding of social causation, but that doesn't make it right.

The fact is that there is very little evidence that logically supports the idea being gay is "natural". If you want to know more about that, do some research on this forum.


So explain gay animals to me with something more than the lower creatures we're not animals argument.

Again, there is little evidence to logically back that claim up. You are accepting it on faith.

Go read through this thread (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=42900). There is a lot of information and a lot of argument that you are clearly unaware of. Start around post #27.

Even if homosexuality is incidental in the animal kindom it is still of nature and therefore "natural"

I stick by my argument that being a homosexual is a hard life and no one having the choice would make it beyond a drunken experiment in college or something.

Your arguments in that thread are still based on opinion and dismissal.

The difference in rationale for opposition to gay marraige by nazis and conservatives is irellevant to the conclusion that both are opposed to it

the fact that both are opposed to it does not, by itself support your conclusion that, "The nazi racists share some of the benign views of conservatives."

To share the same views, they have to have the same (or similar) rationales. Otherwise it is simply coincidence that they have the same policy position. Ignoring the reasons for something is a very effective method of misleading and of self-deception.

The fact that the rationale is not the same blows your argument to hell. The fact that you are intentionally trying to ignore it shows you are not approaching this objectively.

Also, simply focusing only on holding a position in general is very misleading. Both conservatives and liberals want generally similar ends; reduce the deficit, help the poor, reduce evil in society, protect our national interests, etc. It you looked at it like that, you would have to reach the conclusion that the viewpoints are similar. However, differences in how those goals are prioritized and the different approaches dictated by the different understandings of social causation mean that the viewpoints are inextricably opposed.

If you are simply trying to be provocative, you are succeeding. If you are actually trying to encourage productive dialog, you are failing miserably.

As a personal anecdote

When we were in grade school before puberty there was a guy in class who enjoyed playing with the girls at recess and did not get involved with sports.

There was no pressure on him of any kind that I'm aware of but surprise surprise by grade 8 it was obvious in his mannerisms and associations that he was gay.

I just don't buy your social forces argument.
I'll stick with my contention that no one would choose to be gay if given the choice.

Even if homosexuality is incidental in the animal kindom it is still of nature and therefore "natural"

Just because "homosexual incidents" occur in nature does not mean that homosexuality (being attracted to someone of the same sex) is a natural phenomenon. This has already been covered in that thread that you refuse to read. In many cases, it is an issue of showing dominance, or some other motivation and not a case of sexual attraction. The best you can say is that homosexuality in nature is uncertain.

As a personal anecdote

When we were in grade school before puberty there was a guy in class who enjoyed playing with the girls at recess and did not get involved with sports.

There was no pressure on him of any kind that I'm aware of but surprise surprise by grade 8 it was obvious in his mannerisms and associations that he was gay.

I had a similar kid in class with me in elementary school. However, as you alluded to in your example, there are plenty of things that we were unaware of. That example doesn't constitute proof of anything.

I'll stick with my contention that no one would choose to be gay if given the choice.

Maybe a reasonable person in your view would not consciously make that decision. But that leaves open a lot of other ways besides a genetic predisposition for someone being homosexual.

I really don't want to open up that can of worms again. Go read through that thread. Most all these arguments you are giving have been covered in great detail in that thread.

Just because "homosexual incidents" occur in nature does not mean that homosexuality (being attracted to someone of the same sex) is a natural phenomenon. This has already been covered in that thread that you refuse to read. In many cases, it is an issue of showing dominance, or some other motivation and not a case of sexual attraction. The best you can say is that homosexuality in nature is uncertain.


No the best I can say is that homosexuality occurs in nature and that is a fact that is not in dispute.

You can use sophistry to rationalize it away as dominance and agression
but even you have said that theory is uncertain.

I did not refuse to read the thread you linked to but that doesn't mean that it is the final word on any of this.

I really don't want to open up that can of worms again. Go read through that thread. Most all these arguments you are giving have been covered in great detail in that thread.


I don't want to get into a bog fest with you either so lets just agree that we disagree on this point.

You can use sophistry to rationalize it away as dominance and agression
but even you have said that theory is uncertain.

Using critical thought is not sophistry.

Educate yourself on this issue.

I did not refuse to read the thread you linked to but that doesn't mean that it is the final word on any of this.

I never said or implied that it was. However, you have an exceedingly ignorant and one-sided understanding on this issue and need to educate yourself on opposing views. That thread is the quickest way to do that.

Using critical thought is not sophistry.

Educate yourself on this issue.



I never said or implied that it was. However, you have an exceedingly ignorant and one-sided understanding on this issue and need to educate yourself on opposing views. That thread is the quickest way to do that.


I'll believe my own eyes and life experience sooner than your explanations.

Things that happen in nature are not natural?

To you it depends on your own definition of natural, adding the caveat that it is not sexual therefore not natural.???

Look we're carrying on a conversation here and now.
It is you who are being rude and presumptuous.
I'm not writing in that thread but this one.

It occurs in nature, but it's societal and not natural is your whole argument.

Let's just agree that we disagree and it is neither ignorant nor dismissive for there to be a difference of opinion that goes to the heart of the matter of if one is born with a predisposition to be homosexual or that it is societal forces at work or both.

I don't want to get into a bog fest with you either so lets just agree that we disagree on this point.Sorry I'm late to this, but I do have an additional question - do you include pedophilia in your generalization?

I'll believe my own eyes and life experience sooner than your explanations.

You cannot logically draw the truths you are drawing only from your own life experience. Your own personal experience is at best anecdotal.

Things that happen in nature are not natural?

After a point almost everything occurs in nature. That doesn't mean that the causes are natural in any but the most self-serving, broadest sense of the term.

It occurs in nature, but it's societal and not natural is your whole argument.

I am not saying what the causes are, only that there are plenty of possibilities that you have clearly not logically and empirically discounted.

Even if the cause is "societal" it can still be "natural" as well. However, the "natural" argument for homosexuality, is very specific; a genetic/biological predisposition toward attraction to same sex. That has not been proven empirically.

Have you even looked at the research and evidence surrounding the whole "gay gene" argument? Or are you simply accepting it on faith?

then, i suppose you dismiss this.

Scans see 'gay brain differences'

The brains of gay men and women look like those found in heterosexual people of the opposite sex, research suggests.

The Swedish study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, compared the size of the brain's halves in 90 adults.

Gay men and heterosexual women had halves of a similar size, while the right side was bigger in lesbian women and heterosexual men.

A UK scientist said this was evidence sexual orientation was set in the womb.

Scientists have noticed for some time that homosexual people of both sexes have differences in certain cognitive abilities, suggesting there may be subtle differences in their brain structure.

This is the first time, however, that scientists have used brain scanners to try to look for the source of those differences.

A group of 90 healthy gay and heterosexual adults, men and women, were scanned by the Karolinska Institute scientists to measure the volume of both sides, or hemispheres, of their brain.

When these results were collected, it was found that lesbians and heterosexual men shared a particular "asymmetry" in their hemisphere size, while heterosexual women and gay men had no difference between the size of the different halves of their brain.

In other words, structurally, at least, the brains of gay men were more like heterosexual women, and gay women more like heterosexual men.

A further experiment found that in one particular area of the brain, the amygdala, there were other significant differences.

In heterosexual men and gay women, there were more nerve "connections" in the right side of the amygdala, compared with the left.

The reverse, with more neural connections in the left amygdala, was the case in homosexual men and heterosexual women.

The Karolinska team said that these differences could not be mainly explained by "learned" effects, but needed another mechanism to set them, either before or after birth.

'Fight, flight or mate'

Dr Qazi Rahman, a lecturer in cognitive biology at Queen Mary, University of London, said that he believed that these brain differences were laid down early in foetal development.

"As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay," he said.

The amygdala, he said, was important because of its role in "orientating", or directing, the rest of the brain in response to an emotional stimulus - be it during the "fight or flight" response, or the presence of a potential mate.

"In other words, the brain network which determines what sexual orientation actually 'orients' towards is similar between gay men and straight women, and between gay women and straight men.

"This makes sense given that gay men have a sexual preference which is like that of women in general, that is, preferring men, and vice versa for lesbian women."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

How are societies without Judeo Christian values vastly different?
They have a different moral and value system.
Those things things that we take for granted are not universal.

Homosexuality is a born with physical disposition that transcends any moralizing or philosophy.
It is.
And, despite you're charge that I was rambling, I was demonstrating that people who engage in homosexual activities outside of our culture aren't necessarily "predisposed" to a homosexual lifestyle, as we would define it. There are cultural forces that condone the action in a pursuit of pleasure, or status, such as in the middle east.

You seem to infer that homosexuality causes the breakup of society
even though it has been around forever.
I didn't infer any such thing, nor have I considered that.
I didn't even venture into that direction. That would appear to be a conclusion you've drawn independent of me.

It is just so much easier to get some quick relief from other like sex starved men.
Which now brings us back to the same page.
These men aren't acting on a physical predisposition to become drama majors or decorate apartments, so while some people are, ALL homosexual activity isn't necessarily biologically predisposed. It can be purely hedonistic.

I think we agree on that point.

then, i suppose you dismiss this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stmAbsolutely - it's a flawed study. It uses the flawed logic of 'correlation = causation' - and thus fails to take into account other factors that might have contributed to the differences. Rahman clearly is fitting the results of the study into his predisposed worldview, which is something a scientist should never do, but so many of them (such as evolutionary or global warming 'scientists') do.

Link (http://www.narth.com/docs/080307Abbott_NARTH_article.pdf)
Homosexuality is not hardwired (http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html)
Gay gene study debunked
(http://www.narth.com/docs/anthropologist.html)
The animal homosexuality myth
(http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html)
There Is No "Homosexual Instinct" In Animals

Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.
"Linkage and association do not mean causation" (http://www.narth.com/docs/bornway.html)

Dozens more links to studies and evidence (http://www.narth.com/docs/bornway.html)

Absolutely - it's a flawed study. It uses the flawed logic of 'correlation = causation' - and thus fails to take into account other factors that might have contributed to the differences. Rahman clearly is fitting the results of the study into his predisposed worldview, which is something a scientist should never do, but so many of them

couldn't find any less biased links?
NARTH?
and nothing you have posted disputes the brain size difference.
just the genetic factor.

then, i suppose you dismiss this.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

Yes, I would tend to, on several grounds.

First, the study was done on adults. Inferring that a physicality found in adults means that it was an anomaly existing in the infant is a fatal flaw to the argument.

Second, his use of 'orientate' in the quotation makes it clear that his grasp of English is either poor or that he is displaying an affectation in an attempt to make his maunderings seem more important.

Use of this citing---C-/D+.

KS

Second, his use of 'orientate' in the quotation makes it clear that his grasp of English is either poor or that he is displaying an affectation in an attempt to make his maunderings seem more important.

did you actually read it or skim it?
i think your grasp of english is poor.
nowhere is the word ORIENTATE used.
there are a few derivatives, but if you read it , you would have used them, instead of the wrong one.

did you actually read it or skim it?
i think your grasp of english is poor.
nowhere is the word ORIENTATE used.
there are a few derivatives, but if you read it , you would have used them, instead of the wrong one.

"...amygdala, he said, was important because of its role in "orientating", or directing, the rest of the brain in response to..."

Let's make that a D-

To quote an earlier part of the thread, you've been---'pwned'.

KS

...amygdala, he said, was important because of its role in "orientating", or directing, the rest of the brain in response to...

this is not what you stated first.

so, how would the use of this word elude to a bad grasp of english?

this is not what you stated first.

so, how would the use of this word elude to a bad grasp of english?

That IS what I stated first. The word he should have used is 'orienting'. The addition of the extra 'at' is poor usage and really means something else. It is often misused in the fashion shown here to sound more learned. It absolutely shows the opposite.

And the word you were reaching for is actually 'allude'. 'Elude' really means 'to escape the grasp of'. But the proper spelling eluded you.:rolleyes:

And all of this back-and-forth only leads away from the basic message of the thread.

As I said before, you're pwned.

If I wanted to be brutal, I'd probably say that you'd be better off if you don't F U C K with me! So I won't say it.

KS

And the word you were reaching for is actually 'allude'. 'Elude' really means 'to escape the grasp of'. But the proper spelling eluded you.
correct.

there is nothing wrong in the use of orientating.


orienting adj.
Positioning with respect to a reference system or determining one’s bearings physically or intellectually: “an orienting program for new employees”; Synonyms: orientating.

i think your just being petty.

but i'll give ya a D for the first part.

couldn't find any less biased links?
NARTH?
and nothing you have posted disputes the brain size difference.
just the genetic factor.The brain size difference is correlation = causation. Your link is nothing but a scientist using flawed logic. Look who's being dismissive now - can't argue the merits of the science, so you yell bias.

correct.

there is nothing wrong in the use of orientating.


orienting adj.
Positioning with respect to a reference system or determining one’s bearings physically or intellectually: “an orienting program for new employees”; Synonyms: orientating.

i think your just being petty.

but i'll give ya a D for the first part.

Your quote probably comes from one of the excuses for dictionaries that is at least partly responsible for the bastardization of the language that we've come to have to live with. 'Orientating' is not a synonym for 'orienting'. It's a misspelling created to try to sound learned. There are even dictionaries that suggest 'imply' and 'infer' are interchangeable. And that's an example of illiteracy.

The word you reached for, above, and missed, was probably 'you're', a contraction for 'you are'. 'Your' implies ownership and there is no ownership in the sentence as you offered it. The use of 'your' instead is a sign of your own lack of erudition. It approaches illiteracy but doesn't get quite that far. You're close to an 'F' because of the continued errors in your writings. And that's a double 'F' for both construction and content. Please don't make it worse! :D

KS

The word you reached for, above, and missed, was probably 'you're', a contraction for 'you are'.
ya, sometimes i miss that when i'm in a rush, but most times catch it.
although if you catch it, i sometimes spell their thier.

but i at least know the difference between weather and whether.:headbang:

Your quote probably comes from one of the excuses for dictionaries that is at least partly responsible for the bastardization of the language that we've come to have to live with.

don't know. concise oxford english dictionary and ultralingua7 are the 2 on my computer.

ya, sometimes i miss that when i'm in a rush, but most times catch it.
although if you catch it, i sometimes spell their thier.

but i at least know the difference between weather and whether.:headbang:



don't know. concise oxford english dictionary and ultralingua7 are the 2 on my computer.Dictionaries come in book form also. Check under that thick coat of dust on your bookcase. :rolleyes:

Dictionaries come in book form also. Check under that thick coat of dust on your bookcase.
none there.

You're welcome to come to my house, by appointment, and use one of the half-a-dozen I own!

KS

You're welcome to come to my house, by appointment, and use one of the half-a-dozen I own!

KS

That's nice.
He'll use them as a booster seat.

That's nice.
He'll use them as a booster seat.
:lol:

You're welcome to come to my house, by appointment, and use one of the half-a-dozen I own!

thanks. but ultralingua's actually nice. it has many english to? conversions as well.(even klingon, for trekkies i guess)

http://www.ultralingua.com/products