America's Homosexual General

[leouna]

The homosexual does not want peace

In 2002, I was in The Netherlands, and met a man from Afghanistan, who had experienced cruise missle attacks, going down his street in Kabul?

Why, He asked, did this happen?

America has a Magic Thighs General, Haji.

And Magic Thighs hates humans, and our idea of rights.

Make Peace, Not Hell

[Ca$hback]

Officers do tend to have fruit salad on their chest.

[leouna]

Originally Posted by Ca$hback

Officers do tend to have fruit salad on their chest.

Somebody wanted to make gays-and-lesbians culture, where human rights culture goes, on Interstate 25.

Now, if homosexuals want to attack states rights that way,

Why don't states rights people attack homosexual general with the same disrespect?

[Ca$hback]

Pull on one strand and the whole sweater unravels. State rights and gay/lesbian rights are part of the same side of the coin of freedom. You do not have the freedom to oppress the freedom of others nor do you have the right to decide, as an individual, what freedom for everyone should be. Some take it upon themselves to do so. That is why they replaced so many wombs with fish and lizards.

[leouna]

Originally Posted by Ca$hback

Pull on one strand and the whole sweater unravels. State rights and gay/lesbian rights are part of the same side of the coin of freedom.

Exactly.

And the answer to the question of understanding life, the universe, and everything (when Deep Thought says it) isn't 42 (unless you are Broomfondle or Magic Thighs). The real answer, the universal answer, and the transformitive revelation for most of us is: mostly.

Be ye mostly us or mostly them?

Originally Posted by Ca$hback

You do not have the freedom to oppress the freedom of others nor do you have the right to decide, as an individual, what freedom for everyone should be. Some take it upon themselves to do so. That is why they replaced so many wombs with fish and lizards.

That is why it is better to have states than to have communism, and a whole lot of French and Dutch people agreed.

Don't mess with Texas because you wanted to kick a Brit in the balls too much.

[Ca$hback]

Agreed.

[leouna]

Originally Posted by Ca$hback

Agreed.

Great,

You are almost American.

Now, just write an essay explaining ethics,

Regarding when it is improper to want to kick a Brit in the balls.

[Ca$hback]

I can't wright essays. I'm too bound to consider both sides. Kicking a brit in the balls would hardly solve the problem and only highlights the weakness it stems from. Anything that makes you more noticeable in the great ocean is a risk with no possibility of reward. The majority of those entities are predatory and extremely hostile.

[andy_amfad]

i've kicked more than one Brit in the balls in my time on this planet. Does that make me a good human?

[highlander]

Originally Posted by leouna

Great,

You are almost American.

Now, just write an essay explaining ethics,

Regarding when it is improper to want to kick a Brit in the balls.

Rita,your ramblings don't usually make much sense, and this is no exception. I don't know if you are trying to be clever by writing in riddles and I assume that "kicking Brits in the balls" is meant mataphorically and not literally.

The senate committee currently looking into the release of the Lockerbie bomber, al Megrahi , appear to be wanting to do a bit of Brit ballkicking , probably because there are mid term elections looming and the sense of injustice felt by many of the American electorate because al Megrahi has had the temerity to live longer than the three months he was given by the doctors in Scotland can be used to their advantage.

The senators and the American electorate are naive by European standards and seem unable to grasp the fact the the Scottish judicial system is totally seperate from the rest of the UK and it is normal practice to release terminally ill prisoners on compassionate grounds.

But then compassion is something somewhat lacking in the US judicial and prison system.

Interesting that the more religious a country is the less compassionate it is !!>

[leouna]

Originally Posted by highlander

Rita,your ramblings don't usually make much sense, and this is no exception. I don't know if you are trying to be clever by writing in riddles and I assume that "kicking Brits in the balls" is meant metaphorically and not literally.

Tell a Brit that homosexual men are the men who provide for homosexual women to have homosexual sex, and watch them try to call gay men "homosexuals". It all went down yesterday on Frostcloud and BBC Radio.

[Ca$hback]

Originally Posted by leouna

homosexual men are the men who provide for homosexual women to have homosexual sex, and watch them try to call gay men "homosexuals".

That's one of the greatest things I've ever heard in the politics forum.

[Ironlord]

Originally Posted by Ca$hback

Pull on one strand and the whole sweater unravels. State rights and gay/lesbian rights are part of the same side of the coin of freedom. You do not have the freedom to oppress the freedom of others nor do you have the right to decide, as an individual, what freedom for everyone should be. Some take it upon themselves to do so. That is why they replaced so many wombs with fish and lizards.

i agree, to a point. i agree i have no right to tell someone else what their freedom is, until they start taking freedoms from others. kind of why i want government to be small so some one else can not take freedoms.

[Ca$hback]

Originally Posted by Ironlord

i agree, to a point. i agree i have no right to tell someone else what their freedom is, until they start taking freedoms from others. kind of why i want government to be small so some one else can not take freedoms.

It's still the same problem that requires balance. Freedom can't step on freedom's toes. As more and more people fill up the world, your freedom walks on more and more eggshells. It becomes easier to offend someone because there's more people to offend so political correctness shouldn't be dismissed as whitewash out of misunderstood spite. It's meant to create a norm of acceptable behavior within a political entity to preserve peace. Some will feel "I was here first! Why should I have to cater to them.". Frankly, I think it's an absurd, crybaby argument, considering the sons of plunder. You will always have government, even if it's just a strongman telling people what to do. Less government is better until it becomes impotent. Right now the corporations use the government as a figurehead because of its impotency and simply decide whether their actions are moral or not, ignorant of those who they know would disagree with good reason. People have to understand that their rights will be eroded by many things, not the least of which is an increasing population, which in turn increases interdependancy. This requires people to develop a whole new paradigm shift about being considerate, the meaning of consideration and having less but being happier. There are no greater treasures than peace of mind and a full belly but people want status and one-upmanship at the cost of others. I don't think it should be their right. I think people have to come to an accord together and comprimise will leave many feeling cheated to various degrees. Instead we'll continue to make war and lose our consideration of the value of human life. Technology will alleviate a surprising amount of our concerns only to reveal the rust beneath the paint.

[Ironlord]

Originally Posted by Ca$hback

It's still the same problem that requires balance. Freedom can't step on freedom's toes. As more and more people fill up the world, your freedom walks on more and more eggshells. It becomes easier to offend someone because there's more people to offend so political correctness shouldn't be dismissed as whitewash out of misunderstood spite. It's meant to create a norm of acceptable behavior within a political entity to preserve peace. Some will feel "I was here first! Why should I have to cater to them.". Frankly, I think it's an absurd, crybaby argument, considering the sons of plunder. You will always have government, even if it's just a strongman telling people what to do. Less government is better until it becomes impotent. Right now the corporations use the government as a figurehead because of its impotency and simply decide whether their actions are moral or not, ignorant of those who they know would disagree with good reason. People have to understand that their rights will be eroded by many things, not the least of which is an increasing population, which in turn increases interdependancy. This requires people to develop a whole new paradigm shift about being considerate, the meaning of consideration and having less but being happier. There are no greater treasures than peace of mind and a full belly but people want status and one-upmanship at the cost of others. I don't think it should be their right. I think people have to come to an accord together and comprimise will leave many feeling cheated to various degrees. Instead we'll continue to make war and lose our consideration of the value of human life. Technology will alleviate a surprising amount of our concerns only to reveal the rust beneath the paint.

well compromise is okay when it is voluntarily given, otherwise it is oppression. we all need to work together in this day an age because we as humans lost many of our trades and skills to survive at a basic level.
i also see compromise as a weakness in some ways.
i also see the increase of population not as a movement of loss of freedom, but more of a challenge to the individual.
one should not be discouraged to strive by society saying it is wrong to work for ones life. i also see no wrong with status or what you call one-upmanship, because it does show character and depending how you do the one-upmanship, it can make a person grow.
then again i grew up understanding that help is okay, but it is a last resort type of thing.

now we are off topic of the homosexual topic oops.

to the topic, you are right, state rights and gay/lesbian rights are on the same coin.