Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I also see that you didn't comment on how major homosexual
organizations are supporting two bit thug (Saint) Michael Brown.

Care to comment?

What is to comment on?

Are you surprised that open gangs of pedophile thugs
are showing their loyalty and support to secret pedophile gangs
at the very top of the pyramid?

Don't drop the soap in the police locker room.

You might find out why every cop is issued a nightstick.

One of the perks of your job as enforcer for the uber-rich homo murderers.

I also see you didn't comment on this:



(1) The rich queers who run the government are not 'morally confused':

they are hardcore committed professional criminals who are
conscious members of the largest criminal gang in the world.
...

(9) The last remaining REAL cops either retired or quit.

Care to comment?

Yes, I would.

Hopefully Canadian law enforcement personnel have removed any firearms from your home until you've been cleared by a reputable psychiatrist showing that you're not a harm to others or yourself.

 

[GFR7]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
There is no "due process of law"
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...Process+of+Law

when a police officer or any citizen is defending his life from what they (or any common sense thinking person) believe is a threat of imminent death.

Are you not aware of that?



Obviously you still don't understand that it's impossible for a police officer to give a person due process of the law when he's defending his life.

Other than the typical public restroom arrests that is a big part of the homosexual culture, have you had any experience with anyone in law enforcement?



The "eyewitness" (Dorian Johnson) was a co-perpetrator in the strong armed robbery that (Saint) Michael Brown committed minutes before being shot. Hardly a reputable eye witness.



Enough with your patronizing comments, they're sickening.

Right, even though they're sincere. If I say I feel sorry for him, I feel sorry for him. Do not, I repeat, do not tell me what I may or may not say - YOU see me as patronizing because it is what you are. I am not, and you are a liar bearing false witness.

 

[Nazaroo]

This guy makes an even better and more detailed,
even handed analysis of this incident and ongoing problem:

More on Michael Brown

 

[Nazaroo]

Is this you working undercover in a homosexual BDSM club?

I hope you have insurance.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Is 13 a mature enough age to contract a deadly incurable sexually transmitted disease Al?

In some states over in your neck of the woods - aka America (or in your case loonyville) it's legal for one of such an age to be married - and lest we forget that bastion of virtue Phil "get em' when they're 15/16" Robertson as well. Over here having intercourse or any sort of sexual contact with a 13-15 year old is counted as child molesting, so why aren't you up in arms over the lax laws you have over there, and why can't you condemn that cretin Robertson's remarks in regards to teenage girls?

:think:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

This guy makes an even better and more detailed,
even handed analysis of this incident and ongoing problem:

Spoiler

More on Michael Brown

I only had time to view the first 12+ minutes (where the 6'4" 300 lb. "gentle giant" glorified drugs and violence in videos). I'll finish watching the video later tonight.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Nazaroo]

Over here having intercourse or any sort of sexual contact with a 13-15 year old is counted as child molesting, so why aren't you up in arms over the lax laws you have over there, and why can't you condemn that cretin Robertson's remarks in regards to teenage girls?

:think:

For the same reason he doesn't hand in his badge and quit.

He won't let go of the self-delusion that police are the good guys.

Even when facts like homosexual police chiefs and accepting protection
money for gay parades is being waved in his face.

Something that undoubtedly went on in ancient Sodom.

 

[Nazaroo]

I only had time to view the first 12+ minutes (where the 6'4" 300 lb. "gentle giant" glorified drugs and violence in videos). I'll finish watching the video later tonight.

Thanks for sharing.

This guy is spot on, and regarding his position on police,
he's aware of the problems but is still committed to supporting police,
given he is a wealthy white Canadian in a gated community.

Law enforcement in Canada loves this guy.

Some of his theories however are far too leftist for you.

 

[Nazaroo]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...t-harman-and-jack-dromey-will-have-to-resign/

I still can’t quite believe it. But here’s the evidence in black and white. In 1976, the NCCL put out a press release proposing that the age of consent be lowered to 14 “with special provisions for situations where the partners are close in age, or where consent of a child over ten can be proved”. So let me get this straight. If the NCCL had had its way, a paedophile could induce a 10-year-old child to have sex with him and, provided he could "prove" he or she had consented, that child's parents would have no legal redress? As a father of a 10-year-old girl, that fills me with horror. Even if the NCCL had no links with the Paedophile Information Exchange, (PIE), that would have been morally repugnant. The very idea that a 10-year-old is in a position to "consent" is absurd – blatantly and transparently absurd. But it's worse, far worse than that, because we now know that the NCCL was taking this line, at least in part, at the behest of a group of notorious paedophiles. In 1975, Patricia Hewitt, the general secretary of the NCCL, wrote to the chairman of PIE to thank him for a letter he had written her arguing that the age of consent should be lowered. "We have found your evidence… most helpful and I think it has certainly been taken into account by the people preparing our evidence," she wrote. Sure enough, the following year, the NCCL began lobbying Parliament to have the age of consent lowered to 10. Not only was Patricia Hewitt the general secretary at that time, but Jack Dromey was on the executive committee and he was at the meeting where it was agreed that the NCCL would take this line. In a statement issued yesterday, Dromey, who is Labour's shadow policing minister, said he was "a lifelong opponent of evil men who abuse children". If that's true, why did he approve the NCCL's decision to lobby for the age of consent to be lowered to 10? Didn't it occur to him that a change in the law along those lines would leave children more vulnerable to abuse by evil men – men in the group "affiliated" to the NCCL and who had been asking the NCCL to take this line? Incredibly, he still hasn't apologised for helping to run an organisation that was linked to a group of paedophiles and nor has his wife, Harriet Harman, the NCCL's legal officer from 1978 to 1982. Instead, they both continue to attack the Daily Mail. More on the NCCL scandal • Hewitt apology blows Harman’s defence out of the water • This scandal is a disaster of Labour's own making • Harriet Harman owes the British public a full explanation Harman and Dromey's handling of this scandal has been an object lesson in how not to do it. If Harman had taken the opportunity to apologise when she was interviewed on Newsnight on Monday, this story would have gone away by now. Instead, the nation woke up to this headline on the front page of The Sun this morning: For the Labour Party, that's an unmitigated disaster. Ed Miliband has to take his share of the blame for this because he decided to back Harman's disastrous decision not to apologise and blame the messenger instead. But it's Labour's deputy leader who is most culpable for this disaster – not merely for the numerous mistakes she made while helping to run the NCCL, some of which I listed in my Spectator column this week – but for compounding those errors by refusing to acknowledge they were mistakes. How could she be so idiotic? As I said in the Spectator, is it because she has a moral blind spot and cannot see the full horror of the group the NCCL was linked with? Maybe some part of her won’t allow her to see it because she knows her conscience wouldn’t be able to cope. An alternative explanation is that she is simply too arrogant. This 1998 interview with Harman by Lynn Barber in The Observer is instructive in this regard. Here's the most telltale paragraph: She knows she has a problem with interviews. She thinks it is because she is 'prickly' but a better epithet might be snotty. She can't really see why anyone has the right to ask, let alone know, any more than she chooses to tell them. ​ It's Harriet Harman's snottiness – her refusal to acknowledge that she owes the public an explanation about the NCCL's links with PIE – that has plunged her party into this full-blown PR disaster. No doubt there are more revelations to come, not just in tomorrow's papers but in the Sundays as well. At this point, I don't see what Harman – and Jack Dromey – can do to stop this tide of stories linking the Labour Party to paedophiles other than to resign. Will they be gone by Monday? More by Toby Young • Here's a prop Farage might bring to his debate with Clegg • Forget about a Robin Hood Tax. How about a Luvvie Tax? • Should children be taught 'character'?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Is 13 a mature enough age to contract a deadly incurable sexually transmitted disease Al?[/quote]

In some states over in your neck of the woods - aka America (or in your case loonyville) it's legal for one of such an age to be married - and lest we forget that bastion of virtue Phil "get em' when they're 15/16" Robertson as well. Over here having intercourse or any sort of sexual contact with a 13-15 year old is counted as child molesting, so why aren't you up in arms over the lax laws you have over there, and why can't you condemn that cretin Robertson's remarks in regards to teenage girls?

:think:

For those of you not familiar with what Art Brain is talking about, it's about an off the cuff comment that a Christian television actor made in a interview where he told the truth about homosexuality.



Art's rants are documented in the table of contents in both part 1 and 2. His defense of indoctrinating innocent children into accepting homosexuality (as long as two homosexuals love each other) in a righteous society would be grounds to have Art incarcerated for pedophilia.

 

[Arthur Brain]

For those of you not familiar with what Art Brain is talking about, it's about an off the cuff comment that a Christian television actor made in a interview where he told the truth about homosexuality.

Hmm, it would seem as though you're the one somehow not familiar with what I was talking about as the actual pertinent video would be the following - and there's extended versions as well:



Now either you're having trouble following the context of a conversation or you were deliberately trying to sidetrack it back to your own little pet obsession. Whichever it is it either makes you look thick(er) or a liar. Take your 'pick' (as Phil Robertson would likely say)

Art's rants are documented in the table of contents in both part 1 and 2. His defense of indoctrinating innocent children into accepting homosexuality (as long as two homosexuals love each other) in a righteous society would be grounds to have Art incarcerated for pedophilia.

Oh geez, you talking about rants is as ironic as an 'H bomb' complaining it didn't have enough time to explode properly. Your whole thread is one big boring rant, all two an a half years of it...telling also how you can't bring yourself to condemn Robertson's own vile words and instead hide behind the usual veneer of smog.

Carry on with your nutty delusions...

 

[Balerion the Black]

Nazaroo is clearly off his rocker.

And most likely off his meds again.

 

[Nazaroo]

Nazaroo is clearly off his rocker.

I'm not even the main contributor to this thread.
But all you've got time for is me.


Lets do the math:

User Name Posts
aCultureWarrior 484
GFR7 288
Arthur Brain 96
TracerBullet 95
Christian Liberty 95
alwight 81
shagster01 63
Heterodoxical 57
Nazaroo 54

I come in 9th, at 54 posts out of 1,600, or less than 4% of total contributions here.


You're crap. Smell yourself.

Go live in a leftist country like Cuba.

Don't come back.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

This guy makes an even better and more detailed,
even handed analysis of this incident and ongoing problem:

More on Michael Brown

For those that don't want to watch the entire video, the case is made at the 18:15-22:00 mark, showing that Officer Darren Wilson was justified in using deadly force against a 6'4", 292 lb. violent male who was without a doubt high on drugs.

GFR7: Please share the video with your friends at HRC, GLSEN, GLAAD and the 13 other homosexual organizations that painted Officer Darren Wilson as a cold blooded murderer before knowing the facts. I'll look forward to reading a retraction of their previous letter.
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/lgbt-organizations-stand-with-family-of-michael-brown

 

[GFR7]

I don't have friends there and I was motivated by the idea of over-militarized police. :AMR1:

Addendum:

Also the evils of for-profit policing are abundantly clear, and there is nothing "Christian" about supporting them:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...conomic_incentives_that_make_cops_harass.html

 

[aCultureWarrior]

As I had mentioned in an earlier post, GFR7 and the homosexual movement that he is a big part of has had a HATRED of police going back in modern times to the Stonewall Inn in NYC.

Here's some of the reasons (in their own words) why homosexuals hate law enforcement:

With Malice Aforethought: LGBTQs and the criminal justice system

The legal definition of malice aforethought includes "an intent willfully to act in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to human life."
Throughout much of U.S. legal history, this would be an apt description of the legal system's approach to people beyond the traditional definitions of sexuality and gender identity.

The ways the system has harmed the LGBTQ community are many, but here are a few key historical problems:

— Sodomy and related sex laws. They primarily targeted gay men. Illinois was the first state to get rid of its sodomy law, in 1961, and the U.S. Supreme Court finally banned such laws in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.

— Targeting "vice." These commissions and police squads go after any illegal activity, including prostitution. But many over-eager departments have also targeted gay men having consensual sex (without prostitution), and police have had handsome decoys pose as gay men in order to entrap victims in public spaces. Police even placed ads in gay papers' personals and massage sections seeking to entrap men.

— Cross-dressing laws. Many states and cities had laws that barred people from wearing items traditionally linked to the opposite sex. These laws allowed for police harassment and arrests. It took Chicago until the 1970s (first through legal rulings and later through City Council action) to eliminate the cross-dressing law.

— Dancing queens. While it was technically not illegal, police often harassed and arrested people for dancing with a partner of the same sex. Until the early 1970s, most Chicago-area gay bars banned same-partner dancing to avoid additional police scrutiny.

— Official harassment. LGBT bars, especially prior to 1980, were targets of police shakedowns, and were often also harassed by the Mafia. The police harassment created a large level of distrust in seeking help from authorities when the businesses experienced other problems, and owners often turned to the Mob for pseudo-protection. Police cooperated with media to provide names of those arrested—resulting in lost jobs and even suicides.

— Fear of authorities. Because of this fear, including potential arrest, many gays did not report crimes, including shakedowns by men impersonating police officers, or blackmail from other criminals. This in turn allowed criminals to flourish. Even today, community organizations often document higher anti-LGBT crime numbers than police do, because of this fear of reporting to authorities.

— Institutionalized bias. Past exclusion of known sexual-minority persons from law licenses, police employment and other jobs meant openly LGBT people did not have a seat at the table in creating policies and enforcing laws.

— Gay panic. This is a common "defense" used by those charged with violent gay attacks and murders, and it has often been successful.

— Ignoring violence. Neighborhoods perceived as "gay" have often been targeted by gay-bashers and serial killers. In the past, because police ignored the crimes or often treated them with little seriousness, LGBTs organized their own street patrols and response, including a whistle-blowing campaign in 1970s Chicago, and a 1980s Pink Angels group. Ignoring violence has gone beyond ignoring neighborhood gay-bashing to ignoring or belittling individual complaints of crime or to inadequate investigations of homicides. Some serial killers likely were able to continue their trade longer because of a lack of police attention to their attacks, and their victims. (John Wayne Gacy, Larry Eyler and Jeffrey Dahmer are three such examples.)

— Criminalization of HIV and AIDS. Gay men have been targeted for their sexuality based on the consequences of these types of laws, many of them still on the books. And new HIV/AIDS transmission laws are also being passed with regressive language.

— Intimate-partner violence. Police and authorities have had a difficult time handling domestic-violence cases involving people of the same gender, or gender non-conforming people. The police ask "who is the man" or "who is the woman" because they do not have the training to understand how LGBT relationships work.

— Mishandling transgender cases. The police across the U.S. have had difficulty with transgender survivors of attacks, and with solving the large number of transgender murder cases. Victims are often treated with shocking levels of ignorance and transphobia.

— Prison problems. Discriminatory denial of prison rights or privileges, derogation, and the debatable issue of segregation, which has sometimes seemed to benefit sexual-minority prisoners but can lead to more discrimination or harassment by guards.

— Criminalization of sex work. Transgender people, who face employment discrimination and lack of access to extremely expensive (often life-saving) gender-related medical care, are disproportionately engaged in sex work. But even those who are not are frequently arrested as sex workers by police simply for "walking while trans."

These are just a few of the problems related to LGBTs and the criminal justice system...

Read more: http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/...Qs-and-the-criminal-justice-system/42712.html

Society is dealing with some very sick and often times violent people here, people who need righteous laws enacted to help them with their sickness, not laws that encourage and allow them to continue in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Eyler

 

[GFR7]

GFR7 and the homosexual movement that he is a big part of has had a HATRED of police going back in modern times to the Stonewall Inn in NYC.

Uh huh. Only I never was part of this movement, and up until 4 years ago, was a major supporter of police.

My brother-in-law is a Lieutenant in Homicide and Major Crimes.

Please stop spreading falsehoods; it is libelous to do so in the U.S.

Looking back, I see you doing the exact same to others - to the TOL poster called

WizardofOz in the case below -

and all I can say is that on no other forum would such libelous nonsense be tolerated:

The deceit of aCultureWarrior:


1). aCW lies about me twice in post #4. First he calls me a homosexualist but has no evidence to support his (false) claim. When asked for evidence aCW slithers away and says he "don't have the time nor desire to" back his accusations up with evidence.

2). aCW calls me a "moderate Libertarian" although I have corrected him dozens of times by telling him I am not and have never been a Libertarian.

3). If you post any replies to aCW, he will make immature comments packed with innuendo that suggest you are active in the LGBT community. An example of this is in post 14 when, rather than supporting his (false) claim as I challenged him to do, he says:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Uh huh. Only I never was part of this movement, and up until 4 years ago, was a major supporter of police.

My brother-in-law is a Lieutenant in Homicide and Major Crimes.

Please stop spreading falsehoods; it is libelous to do so in the U.S.

Looking back, I see you doing the exact same to others - to the TOL poster called

WizardofOz in the case below -

and all I can say is that on no other forum would such libelous nonsense be tolerated:

It's standard aCW diversionary 'tactics'. When he's caught in deception or having made a pratt of himself (which is pretty much most of the time) it's his usual MO, along with drowning his thread with laborious cut 'n' pastes and telling us all that he'll address those issues that he's unable to address sometime within the following fifteen years etc...

 

[GFR7]

It's standard aCW diversionary 'tactics'. When he's caught in deception or having made a pratt of himself (which is pretty much most of the time) it's his usual MO, along with drowning his thread with laborious cut 'n' pastes and telling us all that he'll address those issues that he's unable to address sometime within the following fifteen years etc...

thnx - but, it seems it would just be simpler if he simply did not slander others, to begin with . . . aaaargh :dizzy::doh:

 

[Arthur Brain]

thnx - but, it seems it would just be simpler if he simply did not slander others, to begin with . . . aaaargh :dizzy::doh:

Well, you'd think, but then he has a problem with that, or is just incapable of it altogether...