State Representative: Homosexuality bigger threat than terrorism

[RjD]

It's definitely not genetic. Countless studies on identical twins have concluded that there is no link between these identical twins because the chances of having both identical twins be homosexual is right on par with the chances of any randomly selected individual being homosexual. I also have two good friends who are identical twins and one is perfectly straight, and his brother is gay.

You are shifting focus.
The question is not whether it is a "genetic" trait or not.

The question is whether it is a "disiase".
WHO has officially declared it to be NOT a disease.
NOT A DISEASE. PERIOD.

Plenty of historical evidence though.

O'RLY?

If you care to look at how the peoples of historical advanced civilations such as Rome or Greece... not long after they accepted homosexuality as the norm, the greek/roman family structures began to deteriorate and added to the other more commonly spoken about causes which you can find in history books.

In fact, this is so UNTRUE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire
Roman empire has undergone a total meltdown after it accepted CHRISTIANITY with all its CELIBACY NONSENSE. Off course, it was already a troubled state before christian takeover, but this just makes the popular claim of "ghey rotting away rome" not only a logical fallacy, but also a factual error.

note that I am not claiming that Christianity caused deterioration of Rome (that would be a logical fallacy)

 

[Sulkdodds]

All this stuff about terrorism is very interesting but not really relevant to the discussion at all. [I don't want to be a backseat moderator but] maybe you could leave it out.

Plenty of historical evidence though. If you care to look at how the peoples of historical advanced civilations such as Rome or Greece... not long after they accepted homosexuality as the norm, the greek/roman family structures began to deteriorate and added to the other more commonly spoken about causes which you can find in history books.

That's fairly absurd. Do you know how many civilisations have risen and fallen over the ages? And do you know how many different problems they had with their socities?

"Not long"? Try hundreds of years. "Family structures" is also pretty silly to talk about since notions of what a family is vary substantially from one civilisation to the next.

 

[Andrew LB]

^^^ What I said was 100% true and was a definite contributing factor to the other things you mentioned in your post.

And that also applies to the ancient Greek empire. (yes... i'm greek and know all about it's history probably better than Wikipedia or any other "editable" link you can post up.

 

[Raziaar]

It's ludicrous to say that an empire which has collapsed, collapsed from their culture and opinion on sexuality.

Why is it ludicrous? Because you're taking one thing, something which is entirely debatable and impossible to prove factually, and putting it as the cause of the collapse rather than the many actual logical reasons why an empire would collapse. Reasons such as immense size and inability to govern, corruption, war, calamities and more.



Name one reason why homosexuality in a culture would have any effect whatsoever in the collapse of that empire, both militarily and economically.

Name one reason, other than "Because god said homosexuality is bad" or the equally silly, "Because god destroys nations that practice homosexuality. Ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah?"

 

[Sulkdodds]

Good job with the sources and supporting arguments there, Andrew. You're really making a strong and comprehensive argument!

On the other hand, there are plenty of civilisations on whose rise or fall the acceptance or non-acceptance of homosexuality does not seem to have had a huge effect. Certainly you'd need to point to a rather broader historical trend to support your case.

EDIT: Big whoop, so you're greek. What does it mean? Plenty of people don't have a clue about their own country's history. Who do I trust more, the spectrum of scholars or the laymen nationalists? HMMM.

 

[RjD]

What I said was 100% true

Lol, now that's some great evidence!

yes... i'm greek and know all about it's history probably better than Wikipedia or any other "editable" link you can post up.

Wow.
Greek ppl have "genetic history knowledge"?
Wow, man. What does it feel like? Is it kinda like some "historic instinct" when you look at things and just know the associated historical facts?

Or is this genetic memory, like Zerg, when you remember all that your progenitors had ever learned?

Do Greek people have an Overmind?

ROTFLMAO.

 

[CptStern]

^^^ What I said was 100% true and was a definite contributing factor to the other things you mentioned in your post.

And that also applies to the ancient Greek empire. (yes... i'm greek and know all about it's history probably better than Wikipedia or any other "editable" link you can post up.

:upstare:

you're a lot of things when it's convienent

I was a self taught computer builder and troubleshooter for almost two decades now

I've been quite successful in the past two years in Auto racing in my 2006 Mitsubishi Evolution IX.

Systems Consultant as a part time job. But most of my time is working in the motorsports industry

I also spent two years just before leaving college as a stage manager for some of the most popular DJ's in the world

I personally know the former U.S. Ambassador to Israel during the late 80's. I do IT work for him on occasion at his penthouse in Beverly Hills, CA.

I've heard the same about Admiral Crowe over the years, including my friend who was the U.S. Ambassador at the time to Israel... and was right in the middle of the situation. He later worked as a CIA/NSA consultant and gave me the true facts of the situation that the Admiral faced at the moment of having to fire on the jet.

I didn't know a single democrat during my 4 years in the US ARMY Airborne

Reminds me of the huge crowd that came out with blow horns, drums, and megaphones when I went to go see Arnold Schwarzenegger speak at Long Beach State University a few years back

I'm also a personal friend of the Chairman of the Red Cross in Los Angeles and will be having lunch with him on Monday. His name is Kirk Hyde. Here he is on the right. http://www.pasadenalivingmagazine.co...ss/IMAG017.JPG

I also personally know Capt. Paul Wedenhoeft, the #1 top brass in the USCG here in Long Beach and spent quite a few days on various Coast Guard Cutters and small patrol vessels. Quite fun stuff IMO.

So i've met a lot of very influential people over the years due to my service in the Military, work with the Red Cross, and support for the military and its returning veterans from the middle east.

My father was a recipient of the Silver Star during the Vietnam war for a feat about 100x more heroic and dangerous than anything John Kerry ever did.

and that's just from a single thread:

http://halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=137287


I know more about you than 99% of our members even though you joined less than 6 months ago ..you're either a very influential person who just happens to post on a gaming site or you're full of shit ...guess which one I believe to be true

"Senator LB, your lear jet is waiting, we have cocktails at noon with the Chairman of the Central Executive Committee, lunch with Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council, afternoon tea with the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly of the Hellenic Republic followed by a late dinner with his holiness


oh btw if you really are greek you'd know that ancient greeks saw women as inferior, men were supreior, the prefect love was the love for another man because hey women were considered child bearers (you should probably read plato's symposium) ..it wasnt that homosexuality was allowed, it was the norm, at least for the ruling class

your other comments border on the idiotic

 

[Sulkdodds]

I say, this fellow has connections.

Me being a personal confidante of the Prime Minister hardly compares.

 

[CptStern]

I served alongside Ernest Hemingway during the spanish civil war, I actually ghost wrote For Whom the Bell Tolls

 

[Sulkdodds]

Bullshit. He was pregnant with me all the while and he had an early form of surround sound in there which my dad invented during World War 1 so I would have heard you and I didn't hear anything.

:arms:

 

[Dodo]

Hahahha

-dodo

 

[Irksome]

When I was in the senate I helped pass The No Child Left Behind Act, after which my unit was called up to serve in Iraq. I personally captured Saddam too, after which I helped the British investigate the assassination of former Russian Spy Alexander Litvinenko (who was a good friend of mine), now I just race cars and pilot space shuttles to resupply the ISS.

 

[CptStern]

Bullshit. He was pregnant with me all the while and he had an early form of surround sound in there which my dad invented during World War 1 so I would have heard you and I didn't hear anything.

:arms:

I'm surprised you survived ..he secretly told me he was trying to "fix a mistake" with copious amouints of alcohol ..I could have sworn a shotgun finally fixed that mistake for good ...guess I was wrong

:O

 

[Sulkdodds]

Wetly, I emerged.

 

[Mr Stabby]

You're forgetting that it's not "Muslims" or even "Brown Muslims". The problem is almost exclusively with "Fundamentalist Islam". Islamic Fundamentalists are responsible for almost every single significant terrorist attack on not only the United States, but our allies and interests around the world.

Never heard of the Provisional IRA, Red army faction or ETA then?

 

[Trevelyan]

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

Ah... a wiki source. Always a great way to prove a point. haha.

lol,

tbh i share your sentiments, as I do often with Wiki articles. But they serve at least a fairlyP) accurate, rudimentary outline & resouce for most things I think.

But can it seems be used in attempts to assuage people of trite, irrational nonsense.

There are serious sociological concerns that are the result of the breakdown of the family structure in recent years, and acceptance of "alternative lifestyles" (be that homosexuality, single parenting, unmarried parents etc.) in the role of raising children.

Also statements like this stand shoulder to shoulder in the banality stakes. Hopefully my comments about Synths don't apply!

btw, I was in the chorus of 'When I was a lad' in the original run of H.M.S Pinafore

 

[Eejit]

Wow.
Greek ppl have "genetic history knowledge"?
Wow, man. What does it feel like? Is it kinda like some "historic instinct" when you look at things and just know the associated historical facts?

Or is this genetic memory, like Zerg, when you remember all that your progenitors had ever learned?

Do Greek people have an Overmind?

ROTFLMAO.

Don't be silly.
It's simply that his surname is Atreides.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Nobody links wikipedia articles expecting you to take them at their face values, exactly, but where possible they almost always have a decent source. Pointing someone at wikipedia is often just a simple way to direct them towards the evidence.

 

[Trevelyan]

yeah,

they serve at least a fairlyP) accurate, rudimentary outline & resource for most things I think.

 

[repiV]

I dont see how homosexuality has anything to do with raising children as most homosexual relationships are childless ..if anything homosexual couples who raise children are filling a void in that childs life primarily because they were unwanted by their biologocal parents

No, homosexuality in itself doesn't have anything to do with raising children, but I was referring specifically to homosexual adoption.
I'm not suggesting that it is a bad thing, what I am saying is that people who dare to suggest that it may be are often demonised.
Reasoned debate is often denied on topics like homosexuality, marriage, immigration, multiculturalism and global warming - if you don't follow the liberal doctrine to the letter then you're a bigot, a racist or a planet-killer.

marriage has nothing to do with good child rearing ..you're probably referring to a tradional parents: one man one woman ..but that wasnt always the case ..it wasnt all that long ago that the extended family raised children ..in fact taking into account things like daycare, grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends of the family etc there has never been a clearly defined family unit, it always child rearing through community ..my parents play a role in the development of my kids ..to pigeon hole who can raise kids is just doing a disservice to the kids ..but this issue has NEVER been about the welfare of children but rather individual prejudice

You're missing my point about marriage. What I mean is that two married parents are more likely to stay together and provide a stable environment than two unmarried parents. These days a relationship is seen as a more of a throwaway pleasure than a serious commitment much more frequently than in the past...and instead of working to fix a troubled relationship people are more likely to go for a divorce now. People have short attention spans these days...
Of course, the old way of staying with your partner for life no matter how bad it gets isn't at all desirable either, but peoples' self-serving attitudes to relationships are harming the child-raising process.
I got no problem with ****ing around, in fact I'm a proponent of it, but what seems to have been forgotten somewhere along the line is that things change when you involve children. The purpose of marriage, ultimately, is to provide a stable and committed framework for bringing up children - it isn't just about the people who are married.

this is not even remotely true ..as a parent I can rightfully say that parents are FAR more involved then previous generations with the development of their children ..I am far more involved than my father ever was ..as is everyone of my male peers ..child rearing is much more demanding than it was even a decade ago. Parents are much more involved than they were even a decade ago

How can that be true overall when there are more dual-worker families than ever before?
And in any case, is it the right kind of involvement? Parents are far too over-protective these days, children are kept inside for fear of the kids falling over and hurting themselves, or the traffic, or the pedophile on the street corner. And then there's helicopter parents accompanying their "kids" to college interviews and mapping out their lives for them...
They spend their spare time - that is, when they're not snowed under with ridiculous amounts of homework - alone in front of the TV or the PlayStation instead of outside learning how to interact with others and picking up the kind of common sense and wisdom that only experiences can bring. Put simply, they aren't being given the chance to be children.
Either way, I don't know about Canada, but this country's new generation of kids is seriously, alarmingly dysfunctional. And they aren't learning the basic academic and life skills that they used to, either.

the biggest threat to the family is time/money ..single parents are very capable of single handedily raising their children however it's difficult to balance the time needed and a career ..so if anything it's heterosexual couples who are destroying the family by separating

Yes indeed, as I myself pointed out.

give me a break repiv the alternative: being bounced from foster home to foster home is much much worse ..and really is this even anissue? how many gay couples adopt?

Like I said, it's the lack of rational debate on the issue that bothers me. Personally I agree with you, but it's no good to just make assumptions. The assumption that multiculturalism is a good thing and that we should all embrace it, whilst suppressing open discussion on the subject, is one of the main reasons this country is going down the toilet - and now that people are waking up to that fact, it's already too late to do anything about it. Rapid, ill-considered changes in society are never a good thing.

You didn't. Which is why I was wondering why you were saying that people are getting their issues confused.

I was speaking in general terms.

They do have the right, but as Direwolf mentioned, studies tend to show that homosexual couples are as good as, if not better than, hetero couples when it comes to raising children.

The evidence supports it. It's nothing to do with the 'PC brigade'. And if such a brigade even exists, they do not, in America, stop plenty of people every day from expressing patently stupid opinions on the subject. Surely whining about political correctness in modern America is like Bill O'Reily complaining about the 'war on christians' - blatantly misrepresentative and missing the point.

Not at all. The evidence most likely does support it, but I'm pretty damn sure that most people aren't in favour of homosexual adoption because the evidence supports it - they agree with it because it suits their harmonic, inclusive world-view. If the evidence didn't support it, they'd still be in favour of it anyway - as we see with multiculturalism. The evidence shows it to be a catastrophe, but it makes no difference.
I'm more concerned about people's motivations at the end of the day - it doesn't matter if you support the right thing if you support it for the wrong reasons.
America has as much PC madness as it does Christian madness - it's a country of extremes. Their Christians are far more looney than ours, and so are their ultra-lefties. And what is stuff like "winterval", celebrating every religion at school except Christianity, and the abolition of the nativity play if it isn't a war on Christianity?
This shit does go on, you know. They're both as ****ed up as each other.

Besides, as Pi said, you are the one who is confusing the issue. This representative is not someone rationally questioning socioeconomic consequences - especially when such a rational enquiry would basically conclude there's no problem with tolerating The Gay. She's spouting mad sensationalist garble, patent untruths, and unsupported bullshit, going as far to complain of a mass conspiracy, a giant threat, and to advocate that people be let in or out of government on the basis of their sexuality. In what sense is anyone confusing the issue by criticising her? Do you think it's acceptable?

Not at all, but I'm not here to state the obvious. Extremism often begets extremism - the BNP only gains so much support here because the major political parties offer no solution to the problems we do face but which noone is willing to talk about openly. It's not an open and shut case of the Christian fundamentalists being batshit insane and everyone else being normal and rational, there are nutters on both sides and loonies on one side add to the ranks of loonies on the other. It's human nature.

Spoiler

PS: There are problems related to families and family dynamics in modern society but I remain unconvinced by your analysis. For example, one of your points mentions the consequences of rising divorce on society, but surely a rise in divorce rates is a symptom and not a cause.

Spoiler

Well it's a symptom both of people's impatience in choosing the right partner and their unwillingness to work on a relationship, which is the real culprit yes. In a society where people want as much as they can possibly get for as little effort as possible, children inevitably suffer. Let's face it, Western society today is a cultural wasteland. All style and no substance.

Another thing is how you claim that "both parents now have to work in order to be able to support the family. This never used to be the case..." which is clear bullshit. Even at the dawn of the modern family (which is not an essential or static ideal), in the early to mid 19th century, children and mothers needed to work just as hard as the men in order to support their units. In fact, it was labour laws against women and children working - labour laws that caused their fair share of harm and poverty - that were part of the Victorian project to cement 'family values' which are dependent on fixed and seperated gender roles.

Sure, but that's Victorian times. What about the 1950s?
Even 20 years ago, both parents didn't need to work like they do now. You have to be very rich to be able to support a family on a single wage.
Again another touchy issue is that equal rights is causing problems in terms of children - how can you be a successful career woman and a good mother at the same time? And what self-respecting man would be willing to look after their kids while their wife goes out to work?
Nothing will ever change the dynamic of gender relationships - the man needs to see themselves as the protector, the provider, and the woman wants to find a man who protects and provides for them. Submissive men are not attractive to women.
It's a real dilemma, and I don't know what the solution is.

You may note that nowadays, although both parents often need to work, there is provision for women who want to be at home for the first few years of their kids lives - not to mention child/maternity benefits etc which, while I'm sure are not perfect, were not available in the era where the family you feel is a bedrock of society was most fixed. I'm not wholly disagreeing with you but you are posing plenty of inconsistencies and untruths yourself.

Kids don't just need their parents to be around for them when they're young though. They need them right through to early adulthood. One of the main reasons so many teenagers are such utter little shithead cockwads these days is surely because they don't have the prevalence of adult role models like they used to - the parents aren't around so much, their teachers are not the authority figures they used to be, so they learn most of their social skills etc. from their peers instead of the older generation.

EDIT: Spoiler tagged as it's a little off-topic; I'd like to discuss this but I don't want it to bulk up the main (important) post.

That's cool.

 

[RjD]

I'm not suggesting that it is a bad thing, what I am saying is that people who dare to suggest that it may be are often demonised.

Not exactly demonized.
They are disregarded as loons because their POV contradicts ALL known scientific evidence.

There was rational debate. It ended when irrefutable evidence proving the harmlessness of homosexual adoption was obtained.
What "rational debate" can go on if one side of debate has scientific evidence, and the other has none?

===

Spoiler

Nothing will ever change the dynamic of gender relationships

In fact, "gender", unlike "biological sex" (google it) has a very flexible nature. Gender is a complex concept, but there are reasons to believe that it has more of cultural than biological to it.
The structure and nuances of gender roles vary greatly from individual to individual and from society to society.

There are several cases of gender roles being redefined through history.

So your statements about it being "unchangeable" are... gross oversimplification. At best.

As for the entire family debate.
Family as we know it is a failure. Plain and simple.

Let us face it - the concept is not faring very well, even with all the vast government support it gets (and it gets a ton of it).
Despite the governments of Europe, Russia, USA, spending vast amounts of money and propagandist effort to improve the functioning of the family as institution, it keeps demonstrating... let us put it mildly, unsatisfactory performance.

It appears the days of family as known and defined in most countries of XX century are numbered. IMHO it is already almost gone, existing only due to outside artificial support via copious "financial resuscitation" and propaganda.
What will follow - I do not know.

Anyway, with current rate of societal change and technological progress any attempt at prognostics beyond 2015 is a joke.

 

[Trevelyan]

Nothing will ever change the dynamic of gender relationships - the man needs to see themselves as the protector, the provider, and the woman wants to find a man who protects and provides for them. Submissive men are not attractive to women.
It's a real dilemma, and I don't know what the solution is.

:dozey: I recommend repiV you read more about Gender studies and also Philosophy. They are interesting and enlightening subjects in my opinion.

Have a bash at Judith Butler's Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity:dork:

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'd have a bash at Judith Butler. Oooh yeah.

Serious, not vaguely misogynistic response: pending.

EDIT: Actually, she's not unnattractive. Ahem.

 

[RjD]

Generating non misogynistic response.......
Failure.
Unknown Error. Please contact tech support.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Not at all. The evidence most likely does support it, but I'm pretty damn sure that most people aren't in favour of homosexual adoption because the evidence supports it - they agree with it because it suits their harmonic, inclusive world-view. If the evidence didn't support it, they'd still be in favour of it anyway - as we see with multiculturalism. The evidence shows it to be a catastrophe, but it makes no difference.
I'm more concerned about people's motivations at the end of the day - it doesn't matter if you support the right thing if you support it for the wrong reasons.

It's a fairish comparison, but the evidence on, say, gay adoption, is both more specific and far more clear than the evidence on the virtues of a broader 'multiculturalism' (which is confused). More people than you think - like most of those on this forum, and almost everyone I've ever talked to about the issue - have a good grasp of the rational basis for allowing gay adoption or gays in the media (like Thatcher didn't want) or whatever.

But whatever people's reasons, you don't have an argument if there isn't some kind of all-powerful gay agenda suppressing criticism in a country where 56% of people believe gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Now, as that just-linked poll shows, opinion in the states isn't monolithic, but it does look as if there is healthy public debate, doesn't there. Of course, a healthy public debate about the virtues of gay marriage and gay adoption would be a very short debate, because the evidence and the logic favours greater rather than lesser rights. However much you may claim that loads of liberals support LGBT rights in a blind fashion, I contend that far more people blindly support the halting of those rights. Why? Because it's very very difficult for a rational mind to conclude that those rights should not be granted. Concerns about the effect of homosexuality on society may and maybe should persist, but the right to marry and adopt are baselines. There aren't many logical arguments against them.

The 56% believes something which the evidence and the facts do not support.
The 39% believes something which the evidence and the facts do support.

Which group is more likely to be ignoring the evidence?
And for God's sake, what's more common: a fanatical "gays will destroy society" or a rational "we shouldn't be too eager to leap wholeheartedly into liberalism because there might be real concerns about the effect on society." Kern and her supporters are being very reasonable!

If motivation matters to you so much, maybe you want to examine the motivation of the evangelicals - and yes, there's a major link evident between evangelical christianity and opposition to gay rights.

America has as much PC madness as it does Christian madness - it's a country of extremes. Their Christians are far more looney than ours, and so are their ultra-lefties. And what is stuff like "winterval", celebrating every religion at school except Christianity, and the abolition of the nativity play if it isn't a war on Christianity?
This shit does go on, you know. They're both as ****ed up as each other.

Problems with this:
1. 'Winterval' is in the UK, particularly Birmingham, and not the US.
2. 'Winterval' is a catch-all term intended to refer to the whole gamut of various religious and cultural festivals taking place on the year divide. It's not a new name for Xmas. Its use does not preclude, but rather includes, Christmas - just it includes a load of other stuff as well, including the secular New Year. It's similar to the nonspecific "holiday period". It's not a war on xianity, as this (un)remarkably silly report almost makes out.
3. Source for "celebrating every religion at school except for Christianity? Source in America? Same goes for nativity play.

Basically I'm not inspired by your use of an example in the UK which is kind of a myth anyway. You need more evidence. It's true that there are plenty of crazy liberals in the US, but currently, how much are they affecting or changing the country? Do they have people in power? Are major politicians rushing to endorse their indoctrination camps? Is taxpayer money being routed into their support? Decrying their influence in the USA right now is willfully perverse. It's like the 'conservative comedy' "Half Hour News Hour" supported by Ann Coulter et al, which fails to understand that the reason, say, Comedy Central often has a liberal bias is because it simply has a bias against authority and those liberals are not in power. Who wants to pick on the underdog? Aren't there bigger fish to fry?

Comments like those of this Representative are not uncommon in America, whereas I've rarely heard a mainstream politician over there express 'PC gone mad' sentiments. All I've ever heard is retards on a CNN talk segment saying "we got rid of prayer from school! What more do they want?" and "freedom of religion is not freedom from religion!" as if the constitution actually guaranteed Jesus a right to meddle in the public sector, rather than completely the opposite.

Of course it's not

an open and shut case of the Christian fundamentalists being batshit insane and everyone else being normal and rational

but neither is it a case of both 'sides' (to the extent which there are 'sides') being just as loony and just as bad as each other. To suggest that is to give a false legitimacy to the people who are wrong, and wrong, more often than not, because they are being unreasonable.

Just like to suggest that "oh, there are bad apples in every religion, it's crazies using the religion for their own ends" is really to miss the point and ignore the very real roots of extremism that are present in the phenomenon of religious thought generally, or the Muslim faith specifically.

(note: I don't want to turn this into a discussion on religion, but as I said there's a big link between religion and this issue; it's difficult to avoid such comparisons)

Spoiler

This bit of the argument later. Too long!

 

[Andrew LB]

Good job with the sources and supporting arguments there, Andrew. You're really making a strong and comprehensive argument!

Speaking my own mind holds just as much salt in a debate as someone quoting wikipedia.

EDIT: Big whoop, so you're greek. What does it mean? Plenty of people don't have a clue about their own country's history.

Umm... on the bright side my Greek ancestors gave us Lesbians.

.... i'll be expecting a beer for that on!

Don't be silly.
It's simply that his surname is Atreides.

Makes perfect sense.

I love it when people have no idea what they're talking about.


Andrew as in St. Andrew of biblical origin stemmed from the Greek name Andreas.

lol,

The wiki page I was referring to was actually one of the few completely historically accurate pages on that site. Islamic terrorism during the past 100+ years is WELL documented.

you're a lot of things when it's convienent

I'm also a lot of things when it's not convenient.

But the fact of the matter is that I am what I am, and a bunch of keyboard jockeys who think otherwise will only be shown how how wrong they truly are.

Have a good night fellas, I'm off to a fun night of music and ladies on the roof of the Standard Hotel in Downtown LA.

 

[Eejit]

I love it when people have no idea what they're talking about.


Andrew as in St. Andrew of biblical origin stemmed from the Greek name Andreas.

You're the one who missed a pretty obvious reference. ^^

 

[Sulkdodds]

In a flash of blinding clarity, one realises he is a troll.

EDIT: Well, not blinding.

 

[Trevelyan]

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

Ah... a wiki source. Always a great way to prove a point. haha.

lol,

The wiki page I was referring to was actually one of the few completely historically accurate pages on that site.

so on stoic self-contradiction's you can have your cake and eat it, shoveled in with this mighty spade of spades you wield. I use mine and dig for turnips!

EDIT:

EDIT: Well, not blinding.

I never even blinked mate!

 

[CptStern]

Speaking my own mind holds just as much salt in a debate as someone quoting wikipedia.

except wiki provides sources ..you just give us your opinion ..there's a monumental difference ..not too mention wiki's facts are consistently challenged ..you could just be making up shit as you go along (HMMMMMM!!! what a novel idea)) ..unless there's multiple personalities hammering out each one of your opinions that we're unaware of ..if so that can be managed with medication

Umm... on the bright side my Greek ancestors gave us Lesbians.

.... i'll be expecting a beer for that on!

your ancestors also gave us or at least popularised homersexual bum love + sex with sheep ...should we administer the beating now or later? (on account on how you demand a beer for the inaccurately named island of lesbos)

The wiki page I was referring to was actually one of the few completely historically accurate pages on that site. Islamic terrorism during the past 100+ years is WELL documented.

you've fact checked them all have you? funny how that one article is accurate but all else is suspect because YOU say it is ..give me a break

I'm also a lot of things when it's not convenient.

Aquaman?

But the fact of the matter is that I am what I am, and a bunch of keyboard jockeys who think otherwise will only be shown how how wrong they truly are.

you keep saying you're going to administer the smack down on everyone in the politics forum and yet from where I'm sitting it appears it is you who are recieving the ass paddling

Have a good night fellas, I'm off to a fun night of music and ladies on the roof of the Standard Hotel in Downtown LA.

cocktails are served at 8pm at which time the 101st Airborne Rangers will parachute into the festivities dressed in matching sequined nightgowns in coral pink accompanied by a live orchestra playing Hail to the Chief


http://www.metacafe.com/watch/137472/hail_to_the_chief/






on the internets I'm a viking

 

[Eejit]

Be careful how much crap you make up Andrew, Short Recoil might think you're trying to challange him in the manliness contest.

 

[CptStern]

short recoil would win ..nah Andrew is more of a name dropper/important vip wanna be



I once peed in the stall next to Supernintendo Chalmers, therefore I am the most important person on hl2.net