Dont talk about self hating gays

[Ban my account ffs!]

True federalist will report and infract you for your post being inappropriate.

I called denny hastert a self hating gay who has done harm to boys and other gays...that is apparently inappropriate.

I'd challenge his arrogant, heterosexual perspective.

In fact, I'd call it subtle homophobia.

[bgwah]

It's a sensitive subject for him, for obvious reasons.

[Ban my account ffs!]

In fact when I see how he edited it, his homophobia shines through.

What is wrong with you mods?

Original post

Quote from: snowguy716 on May 29, 2015, 01:31:54 pm
Quote from: SMilo on May 29, 2015, 01:16:18 pm
I'm still confused as to why he's being indicted for giving in to blackmail. Lying to federal officials?

(Mine starts here)
Just another self hating gay who has used his power to do real harm to boys and other gays.  He needs to be dragged out of the closet.

Identify the blackmailer too.  He got his just compensation in full. 


Edited to this:

I'm still confused as to why he's being indicted for giving in to blackmail. Lying to federal officials?

He used his power to do real harm to boys.

Identify the blackmailer too.  He got his just compensation in full. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anti-pro-heterosexual rhetoric!

[Torie]

I don't know what was in Ernest's mind, but perhaps he thought your statement that Hastert was a self hating gay was problematical as an assertion of fact. Myself, I think the context is clear that it is but your opinion, rather than an assertion of fact, but that is just me.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I don't know what was in Ernest's mind, but perhaps he thought your statement that Hastert was a self hating gay was problematical as an assertion of fact. Myself, I think the context is clear that it is but your opinion, rather than an assertion of fact, but that is just me.

This is an internet forum, Torie.  There is no difference.  Though the evidence would point to, at the very least, that Hastert is bisexual.  And that, as a congressman, voted very consistently against gay rights.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Talk of Hastert's putative sexuality were part of what was making that thread into a mess, and so it all got tossed.  Most posts that were infracted got my usual 5 points per infraction.  You got only 1 point because I viewed your offense as incidental and probably influenced by the mess that was there when you posted.

(The pre point system treated all infracted posts the same, and 20 5 point posts had the same result as 20 posts under the old system, hence why I treat 5 points as the default.)

[Torie]

I don't know what was in Ernest's mind, but perhaps he thought your statement that Hastert was a self hating gay was problematical as an assertion of fact. Myself, I think the context is clear that it is but your opinion, rather than an assertion of fact, but that is just me.

This is an internet forum, Torie.  There is no difference.  Though the evidence would point to, at the very least, that Hastert is bisexual.  And that, as a congressman, voted very consistently against gay rights.

Maybe not, unless defamation is involved, but that does not obtain here (he's a public figure, and calling someone gay these days is arguably not defamatory, although that leaves the "self hating" bit). Do the terms of use proscribe making false statements? I'm not sure. And then there is the whole thing about what gay means, and whether it is co-extensive with having gay sex at some point.

[Torie]

Talk of Hastert's putative sexuality were part of what was making that thread into a mess, and so it all got tossed.  Most posts that were infracted got my usual 5 points per infraction.  You got only 1 point because I viewed your offense as incidental and probably influenced by the mess that was there when you posted.

(The pre point system treated all infracted posts the same, and 20 5 point posts had the same result as 20 posts under the old system, hence why I treat 5 points as the default.)

It is rather difficult to avoid chatting about Hastert's sexuality, when the hush money was paid due to his alleged sex acts, presumably criminal ones. The thread got derailed because it then morphed into a discussion about the alleged abusive nature of the so called gay agenda, and the criticism of the same, and so on, which was not germane to Hastert.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Goodness gracious.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It is rather difficult to avoid chatting about Hastert's sexuality, when the hush money was paid due to his alleged sex acts, presumably criminal ones. The thread got derailed because it then morphed into a discussion about the alleged abusive nature of the so called gay agenda, and the criticism of the same, and so on, which was not germane to Hastert.

Agreed, it is difficult.  Were it not for the morass of more problematic posts, I wouldn't have bothered with that particular post, but I took a dim view of anything potentially restarting the morass. I didn't want to have to clean the thread up a second time.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'd buy it if you hadn't infracted me 8 points for the same thing a week ago.

The pattern seems to be that you think advocating outing gays who say things or perform actions that hurt other gays or the gay community is inappropriate.

And I would say that is not your right as a heterosexual anymore than it is my right to infract women who criticize other women for saying things and do things that set back the cause for female equality.

[retromike22]

So we can't talk about Aaron Schock anymore?

[Torie]

So we can't talk about Aaron Schock anymore?

Just put it in "Off Topic" and you are good to go, particularly if you post pics! 

[Torie]

I'd buy it if you hadn't infracted me 8 points for the same thing a week ago.

The pattern seems to be that you think advocating outing gays who say things or perform actions that hurt other gays or the gay community is inappropriate.

And I would say that is not your right as a heterosexual anymore than it is my right to infract women who criticize other women for saying things and do things that set back the cause for female equality.

Maybe put up a thread about the evils of closeted gays voting "wrong," so un-closet them. You and I are not on the same page on that one at all actually. Anyway, if you do that, you should be safe from being punished because your thoughts on the matter are off topic to the thread. Myself, I really don't mind if threads wander all over the place, but that is just my subjective view of things.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd buy it if you hadn't infracted me 8 points for the same thing a week ago.

The three most recent infractions on you before this one were assigned by other moderators, so it's hardly me alone who finds you excessively abrasive. As for that eight point violation, that wasn't for thinking closeted politicians should be evicted.  That was for a personal attack on another poster combined with advocating he be made to leave the closet by physical means rather than simply opening the door to reveal what he might be already doing.

Myself, I really don't mind if threads wander all over the place, but that is just my subjective view of things.

I don't particularly mind wandering either unless it's causing a disruption, in which case I tend to go after both sides of those doing the wandering.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Good God... You are something else.

I said CCSF needed a DRAG ...QUEEN... to DRAG his princess (edit:  butt) out of the closet.  That was worth eight points because...i advocated a drag queen opening the door and dragging him out as opposed to just looking at the closet?  Wow.

I had assumed CCSF reported it.  But he didnt.  You did.

He can tell me my sexuality is immoral and ruining America ad infinitum...but I can't say that?  Homophobic Ernest at it again.

The one before that was Torie locking my thread about Native Americans on the ground that I broke his board rule on posting in a general way about an ethnicity.

The one before that was a real mystery...

The thread was about a Texas politician who asked Muslims to pledge allegiance on Muslim Capitol day.  The OP suggested all Texans are "truly insane".

Badgate responded "you mean Texas Republican" as to differentiate the Democrats from the blanket condemnation above.

I responded to Badgate's differentiation with:

You might only do the housework but you still live on the farm...so you're gonna stink a little bit in the presence of refined company

Meaning...you might not be guilty of shoveling manure and building up a stink as a Democrat in Texas...but you will still smell like farm to people who mean to rub in your face that you still live on the farm.


Again...you people are amazing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you don't like playing on chaperoned playground and being treated like an unruly little boy when the chaperones think you crossed the line, then head over to AAD where you don't have to worry about people trying to maintain some semblance of civility, tho not always succeeding.  As I've said before (tho not in this thread), I try not to worry about people calling ideas idiotic, but I do worry about people calling other people idiots, even if they be idiots.  If you don't like someone attacking a position you hold, either point out the flaws in their logic (assuming their thought can even be categorized as logical), attack their own position, or ignore them. Making personal attacks, or trying to egg people into making personal attacks, is not something that is part of a civil discourse.

[Ban my account ffs!]

So...your mature response is "too bad, so sad, you unruly little boy"?

And then you accuse me of egging people into making personal attacks?

Okie dokie.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, you usually end up being the one egged into attacking from what I've seen.

[Adam Griffin]

If you don't like playing on chaperoned playground and being treated like an unruly little boy when the chaperones think you crossed the line, then head over to AAD where you don't have to worry about people trying to maintain some semblance of civility, tho not always succeeding. 

Really?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

So no more threads about Lindsey Graham?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It's a sensitive subject for him, for obvious reasons.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So no more threads about Lindsey Graham?

Actually, I think his problem likely is that he loves himself too much to form other attachments.