Decision 2012
Quote: EvenBobI watch O'Reilly maybe 3 times a week, thats
it. I don't watch a lot of TV, I have a life.
I watch O'Reilly for laughs. The no spin zone lol. He then proceeds to spin everything. Whats also a hoot, all the printing on the show, This is TV, I can hear. If I want to read, I'll pick up a book.
Quote: terapinedLGBT history??????? You cant be brainwashed to be gay, you either are gay or not. Scientology brainwashes.
Never heard of LGBT history, please educate me :-)
Go to school in CA, you are forced to learn LGBT History!
But at least one gay activist admits to gay brainwashing. And if you haven't seen the 30 year push to say "gay is OK" in popular culture, then you haven't been watching.
Quote: AZDuffmanGo to school in CA, you are forced to learn LGBT History!
But at least one gay activist admits to gay brainwashing. And if you haven't seen the 30 year push to say "gay is OK" in popular culture, then you haven't been watching.
"revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books." From your link. Its not pro gay, its anti discrimination.
Gay brainwashing? OK, You listen to the nut cases. After you finish with this guy, go check out the flat earth people.
Quote: EvenBobI watch O'Reilly maybe 3 times a week, thats
it. I don't watch a lot of TV, I have a life.
11,000 posts, WoV is your life.
Quote: terapined
"revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books." From your link. Its not pro gay, its anti discrimination.
No, it is pro-gay. Why else would it require "contributions of gays in history" be taught? Why should the person's choice in sexual preference matter?
I wonder how your attitude would change if the word "gay" were replaced with "scientology?" Would it still be "anti-discriminatory?"
Quote:Gay brainwashing? OK, You listen to the nut cases. After you finish with this guy, go check out the flat earth people.
No thanks on the flat-earth people. They now call themselves "climate change activists" and I have heard their silliness for years.
And every one of those 11,000 posts is so horribly wrong.Quote: CS9411,000 posts, WoV is your life.
+1Quote: AZDuffmanNo, it is pro-gay. Why else would it require "contributions of gays in history" be taught? Why should the person's choice in sexual preference matter?
+1Quote: AZDuffmanNo thanks on the flat-earth people. They now call themselves "climate change activists" and I have heard their silliness for years.
You said everything I was thinking, AZ.
Quote: AZDuffmanBut at least one gay activist admits to gay brainwashing. And if you haven't seen the 30 year push to say "gay is OK" in popular culture, then you haven't been watching.
Boy, that there just screams "reliable source."
As for the actual "admission," well... yeah. You bang on about how no one is allowed to suggest a youth "might be straight," when they damn well are and they damn well do - what they're not allowed to do is try to convince that youth of that against their own insistence. This "indoctrination" you call "brainwashing" and your friend calls "pedophilia" (!) actually is nothing more than suggesting that same youth might be gay. If you're against that, fine (okay, not really fine, but have fun in your nice heterosexual bunker), but then don't turn around and pretend that it doesn't matter what historical figures and cultures were getting up to sexually when you're trying to control what the youth of today are. If you're not, well, it still matters, unless you're going to tell me no one significant is.
Quote: 24BingoBoy, that there just screams "reliable source."
It is a reliable source. The claim was that "one gay activist" wants to indoctrinate kids, and that's exactly what the article says. (And please don't use the lame argument that the two articles are "ethically dissimilar")
Quote: AZDuffman
That's like Fred Phelps being representative of the church. There are always kooks. There are even kooks working together. (on the Internet, you can find like minded people)
Quote: Beethoven9thIt is a reliable source. The claim was that "one gay activist" wants to indoctrinate kids, and that's exactly what the article says. (And please don't use the lame argument that the two articles are "smurfy")
"This homosexual advocate now admits what we’ve known for years. Homosexuals are pedophiles who abuse and rape children; which they must do to maintain their available pool of future sex partners."
Yeah, much as I hate to step outside the Beethoven9th List of Idiot-Approved Words, that's pretty goddamn dissimilar to what the article actually says.
Quote: 24BingoIf you're against that, fine (okay, not really fine, but have fun in your nice heterosexual bunker), but then don't turn around and pretend that it doesn't matter what historical figures and cultures were getting up to sexually when you're trying to control what the youth of today are. If you're not, well, it still matters, unless you're going to tell me no one significant is.
The point is that history is supposed to be taught for what happened and what was accomplished, you are not supposed to check into a person's choice of partner and make *that* the point of what happened. What you effectively have in CA is that we now must examine say the Civil War but the lesson plan must look for gay actors to bring up, and such actors may only be brought up in a positive light. Does that make any sense?
And if you still think they are not trying to recruit, it is also illegal in CA to get counseling for your child to show them they are not gay. That's right! If a gay hits on or molests your child, or if he is just confused because of the homophile popular culture you are not allowed to get your own kid counseling to show he is really straight!
So then schools shouldn't teach about Martin Luther King, Jr. because of his skin color choice.Quote: AZDuffmanThe point is that history is supposed to be taught for what happened and what was accomplished, you are not supposed to check into a person's choice of partner and make *that* the point of what happened.
Quote: s2dbakerSo then schools shouldn't teach about Martin Luther King, Jr. because of his skin color choice.
I've never heard of people choosing their skin color like the choose who they lie down with.
And I fail to see how skin color or partner choice should affect if we should teach about that person in history.
You know that the history taught in schools is incredibly biased, right? That's why stories about say, females, in history is important to females. Laura Secord's role in the war of 1812 is an important lesson. When a female sits through history classes and hears stories about great men in history, she might feel belittled because 1/2 of the human species is excluded from making history. It's important to hear Madame Curie's contribution to science and Gandhi's contribution to politics.
It's important to have some teaching on the contribution of minority groups to history, science, and society overall. Let's face it. We're taught that almost all contributions to society were by white straight males. That's why it's important to include contributions by minority groups and women - it empowers them and includes them in society, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's not like the entire high school history classes are focusing on gays - it's a small unit in the overall class.
And while it might be true that most historical contributions were completed by white straight males, pointing out the exceptions empowers those who feel left out.
I know, it's subtle and might be hard to comprehend. It's going to be okay.
Quote: boymimbo
Let's face it. We're taught that almost all contributions to society were by white straight males..
I have to tell you, I have no idea the sexual preference of many of the historical figures that I learned about. I don't know if Peter Stuyvesant liked men or women. I don't know if Marie Curie was a lesbian. I don't know what gender Neil Armstrong liked to sleep with. There is a reason I don't know these things. It's because it is not relevant to their contributions. I DON'T want children taught this way....
"George Washington was the first leader of our country. He was straight." "John Adams was the second president. He was bisexual" There are actually very few situations where sexual preference may actually matter and need to be mentioned.
Quote: 24BingoYeah, much as I hate to step outside the Beethoven9th List of Idiot-Approved Words, that's pretty goddamn dissimilar to what the article actually says.
Good lord, I knew it would happen sooner or later. Bingo's ED argument has reared its ugly head again.
Remember, folks, in Bingo's world there is no liberal bias. Just ethical dissimilarities.
Below quoted from his Monday radio broadcast about a listener talking about foxnews
"You need to stop watching these people, because they're not going to change, Your blood pressure is going to suffer if you keep watching these people. I mean, they're designed to get you ticked off. They're designed to make you question your sanity. You're going to watch these people [and] you're going to say, 'how in the world can we have such idiotic people?'
I agree Rush.
Quote: boymimboAnd while it might be true that most historical contributions were completed by white straight males, pointing out the exceptions empowers those who feel left out.
That's one very nice thing about "The History of Rome" podcasts. Mike Duncan points out that one of the Five Good Emperors, Hadrian, was gay. And that likely all the tribulations faced by the Julio-Claudian dynasty were Livia's doing :P
BTW, you do know the election was over some months ago?
Oh, and in Robin's(*) follow-up podcasts "The History of Byzantium," he does not shy away of giving credit to Theodora for some crucial points in Justinian's long reign. For instance she convinced Justinian and his court not to give up the throne during the Nika Revolt.
(*) Sorry, Robin, I forget your last name.
Quote: Beethoven9thGood lord, I knew it would happen sooner or later. Bingo's ED argument has reared its ugly head again.
Remember, folks, in Bingo's world there is no liberal bias. Just ethical dissimilarities.
You know what? I'm just going to say what's obvious to everyone else in this thread: you're trolling. Your posts at this point, the majority of those since you became obsessed with the phrase "ethically dissimilar" and nearly all to me strictly after your quip about Occam's Razor, have been intended not to make a point of any kind, since the only point that could be made would be "I'm proud not to know what 'ethical' or 'dissimilar' means (or at the very least proud not to have them as part of my active vocabulary like some liberal snahb), and proud not to acknowledge that any two things can be different when it's inconvenient to me that they should be," but purely to provoke a response. I've been taking the bait because I've been afraid to say this, and with everywhere I posted finding a post following that I knew when I opened it up would be a grunt of "so you're saying X is smurfy to Y?" I couldn't just drop it. But at this point it's got to stop: you're clearly just trolling.
And yes, I do think that tying a dog to the roof of a car is ethically dissimilar to not giving help not requested to a half-brother you've never met, with the former being worse, and that trying to instill in kids that it's okay when they're older to have sex with their own gender if they so desire is ethically dissimilar to being "pedophiles who abuse and rape children."
Quote: 24BingoAnd yes, I do think that tying a dog to the roof of a car is ethically dissimilar to not giving help not requested to a half-brother you've never met
How is this any different from what I stated earlier? As I said before, these 2 events didn't receive equal media coverage, BUT you don't believe that there is media bias here. Only an ethical dissimilarity, am I right???
Quote: terapinedFinally Rush gets it right and I totally agree with Rush on this point about foxnews.
.
LOL! http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/07/09/i_did_not_tell_anyone_to_stop_watching_fox
Quote: EvenBobLOL! http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/07/09/i_did_not_tell_anyone_to_stop_watching_fox
Bob, you know better than to confuse terapined with facts.
Quote: timberjimBob, you know better than to confuse terapined with facts.
I know. He reads a headline on Daily Kos and posts
it on 11 forums. It must be true, Kos never lies.
"You need to stop watching these people, because they're not going to change, Your blood pressure is going to suffer if you keep watching these people. I mean, they're designed to get you ticked off. They're designed to make you question your sanity. You're going to watch these people [and] you're going to say, 'how in the world can we have such idiotic people?'
Of course he's backtracking but the quote remains accurate. Sorry guys, facts are facts.
Here's another recent Rush quote on immigration and Fox.
"Now I told the people at Fox that I wanted to talk about this today three or four times and they wouldn't do it, They were not interested in bringing this subject up. I wanted to talk about this in relationship to the current state of the Republican party and they wouldn't do it."
All quotes are accurate. Sorry righties, facts are facts.
Foxnews, they only report what their owners want reported. If the Fox owner orders fox not to report on the UK phoning hacking scandal, they wont report it and they didn't.
Clinton 2016, its a lock lol
Quote: terapined
Clinton 2016, its a lock lol
This is Hillary in Ap. Imagine her in 3 years at 70.
Imagine seeing this every day. Imagine the people
that don't like old witches.
So here is Evenbob's logic, If you are a democrat, 70 is too old. If you are a republican, 70 is not too old.
Whos's gonna beat Clinton? huh huh Lets have a name. Hmm, cant name anybody can you. lol
Clinton 2016 its a lock. Probably cant even get odds on this one its such a lock.
"Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is THE BEST"
Frank Zappa
Quote: terapinedClinton 2016 its a lock. Probably cant even get odds on this one its such a lock.
No offense, but I'll believe that when the 2008 presidential race is between Clinton and Giuliani :P
Quote: terapinedRonald Reagan was 70 when he took the oath.
But Reagan looked statesman like, Hillary looks like a
witch. Seriously, she looks awful. And getting worse.
Maybe you think a witch can get elected president.
We elected an empty suit with Obama, now a witch?
I don't think so.
Quote: EvenBobBut Reagan looked statesman like, Hillary looks like a
witch. Seriously, she looks awful. And getting worse.
Maybe you think a witch can get elected president.
We elected an empty suit with Obama, now a witch?
I don't think so.
Save your time, liberals thought Janet Reno was hot.
Quote: EvenBobBut Reagan looked statesman like, Hillary looks like a
witch. Seriously, she looks awful. And getting worse.
Maybe you think a witch can get elected president.
We elected an empty suit with Obama, now a witch?
I don't think so.
Who's gonna beat Clinton? Still waiting. Cant answer can you? lol
Typical evenbob, he evaluates candidates on looks. lol.
"Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is THE BEST"
Frank Zappa
Quote: terapinedWho's gonna beat Clinton? Still waiting. Cant answer can you? lol
When was the last time I heard that? Oh yeah, 2007!
I can't wait for her at the debate, "Well, when the 3:00 AM call comes in I will tell them to blame a YouTube video and go back to sleep!"
Quote: AZDuffmanWhen was the last time I heard that? Oh yeah, 2007!
I can't wait for her at the debate, "Well, when the 3:00 AM call comes in I will tell them to blame a YouTube video and go back to sleep!"
The question is still out there, Who's gonna beat Clinton?
We are all gamblers here. Put aside all your politics and simply view decision 2016 as odds. 5 to 1? Hmm, seriously, even at those odds Clinton might look like easy money. What do the gamblers think? Be honest, this is not a political question, its a gambling question. This was actually the intention of this thread at the beginning, odds.
Odds? Candidate to beat Clinton???
"Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is THE BEST"
Frank Zappa
Quote: EvenBobBut Reagan looked statesman like, Hillary looks like a
witch. Seriously, she looks awful. And getting worse.
Maybe you think a witch can get elected president.
We elected an empty suit with Obama, now a witch?
I don't think so.
By 2016, it'll take a witch to dig us out.
Quote: terapinedThe question is still out there, Who's gonna beat Clinton?
We are all gamblers here. Put aside all your politics and simply view decision 2016 as odds. 5 to 1? Hmm, seriously, even at those odds Clinton might look like easy money. What do the gamblers think?
I'll lay it, my $100 v. your $20, death counts.
This thread has been hijacked for a long time. I admit that I myself participated in the flame wars, but its all in good fun. But lets get back to gambling. Odds 2016? There has been a lot of back and forth about who's right and who's wrong based on who's left or right. But odds, no BS there. This is a Vegas board, we gamble. We take calculated risks based on odds. How many are willing to take Mission146's action. In my eyes, its an easy 20, maybe too easy.
Beethoven9th? AZduffman? Evenbob? I don't expect you guys to take the action (I'm a gambler and my honest advice is don't take the action) but am curious in what you guys think the odds are for 2016. Be honest, its not politics per se, its a gambling question.
Thread is now back on course.
Quote: Mission146I'll lay it, my $100 v. your $20, death counts.
A young gal like Hillary? She's in her witchy prime.
Dang I'd like to date that.. Who wouldn't...
Quote: EvenBobA young gal like Hillary? She's in her witchy prime.
Dang I'd like to date that.. Who wouldn't...
Odds please?
What's your opinion on the action?
This is a Vegas gambling board.
Quote: terapinedOdds please?
For an election 3.4 years away? There's nothing
to base odds on.
Going by EvenBob's amazing track record of being always wrong, I believe that Hillary is a lock for President if she chooses to run.Quote: EvenBobBut Reagan looked statesman like, Hillary looks like a
witch. Seriously, she looks awful. And getting worse.
Maybe you think a witch can get elected president.
We elected an empty suit with Obama, now a witch?
I don't think so.
Quote: 24BingoThe way things have been going, it may be that the party of the next president does not yet exist.
So a new party is going to emerge (and become victorious) within the next 3 years?!? That's just silly talk.
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: 24BingoThe way things have been going, it may be that the party of the next president does not yet exist.
So a new party is going to emerge (and become victorious) within the next 3 years?!? That's just silly talk.
That was a bit of an exaggeration. But it's not unprecedented for a party that didn't exist in the previous election cycle to make a serious showing.
I determine odds Clinton next President 5 to 1.
Mission146 agrees and has actually put out an offer for action.
24bingo 1 to 1 or less
evenbob not enough info for him to determine odds,
Beethoven9th???
AZDuffman????
Here are some more odds, 10 to 1 next president is a Democrat.
These are odds questions, not political questions.
How about Rubio? 1 to 250, never make it out of the Primaries
Rand Paul. This guy intrigues me, The Repub field is wide wide open, this guy may make it, still long odds 1 in 200
Ted Cruz 1 to 1000
Sara Palin 1 in a million
Long odds on repubs just because its a wide open field, have to survive tea party primaries which turn candidates far right so difficult to attract independents that are crucial to get elected.
Quote: terapinedVegas board about gambling, trying to keep the thread on odds of presidential election, the original intention of the thread.
I determine odds Clinton next President 5 to 1.
Mission146 agrees and has actually put out an offer for action.
You can be sure that I don't agree because I put out an offer for action.
Quote: terapinedLong odds on repubs just because its a wide open field, have to survive tea party primaries which turn candidates far right...
Yeah, John McCain and Mitt Romney were just soooooooooo far right. *eyeroll*
