Texas GOP to Ban Sodomy? (NSFW... I think)


Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Last Updated:

  1. Vihzel

    Vihzel Destroying Balls Everyday VIP Member

    Oh nothing. I never said there's a problem with that.

    Advertisement
  2. hakr100

    hakr100 Well-Known Member

    Never heard of it, actually, but if it is supported by the Texas GOP'ers who support the long list of ugliness reported in this thread, I'd be suspicious of it, and of just about anything else they favor. When politicians or political parties start talking about pushing their religious beliefs and superstitions on society as a whole, it's time to leave the room.

    Aren't these most of the people who, like their governor, want to secede? I say, let 'em go. Carve out a small part of Texas, say along the border with Mexico, and give it to the secessionists, and eliminate all contact and support from the USA. Give it a week, and it'll be part of Mexico again, and the secessionist will be mowing the lawn and watching the children of their new masters. Think of how many problems that would solve. Rich Perry could be their spokesperson.

    (Just kidding...) :D
  3. mkeath

    mkeath Well-Known Member

    It advocates using local law enforcement to enforce immigration. I am not saying that local law enforcement shouldn't report illegals they happen across. I am saying they shouldn't be actively seeking them out. We should be imposing economic sanctions against Mexico since their government has been encouraging its impoverished citizens to enter the U.S. illegally. I don't get why politicians are such pussies about stuff like this.
  4. mkeath

    mkeath Well-Known Member

    I don't know what you're talking about and I don't really see your point here. Regardless, if it became legal to commit crimes against homosexuals based on some faith BS excuse, I guarantee you that radicals will do so.
  5. Crude

    Crude Well-Known Member

    I think we should declare war and seize Mexico... Obama has made it clear that illegal immigration is not some thing he's going to address. At this point if the feds aren't going to enforce their law then it's ok for local government to take action.

    What's wrong with:

    Creating a free market for water to help meet future demand.
  6. Crude

    Crude Well-Known Member

    I haven't been able to find anything on this one besides this claim. IF it exists I would think it's being misrepresented. I think hate crime laws against anyone especially for sexual differences are stupid and illegal. You are empowering one group of people over another and does not agree with " all men are created equally" Crime is crime. Help me out, find another source for this one.
  7. hakr100

    hakr100 Well-Known Member

    If the weapons are small arms and the venue is street fighting, I'd bet on the Mexican gangs...

    We don't do so well in guerrilla warfare.
  8. Racist Holder and Oilbama are saying that homosexuals attacking a white, Christian minister are just fine and the physical attack on the minister is not protected by hate crimes laws. IOW, homosexuals can physically attack a white minister in retaliation for a sermon about the wickedness of homosexuality, and racist Holder says that is OK, no hate crime committed.

    This also happens in day-to-day violent crime. Whites are attacked by blacks and very, very rarely are the blacks charged with a hate crime. Whereas whites are charged with a hate crime at the drop of a hat.
  9. brab

    brab Guest

    Fenga

    That statement is a distortion and you know it. Here is what he said:

    Sessions: "[A] minister gives a sermon, quotes the Bible about homosexuality, is thereafter attacked by a gay activist because of what the minister said about his religious beliefs and what Scripture says about homosexuality. Is the minister protected", is what Sessions said. Here's the pertinent portion of the answer, the testimony from Eric Holder.

    HOLDER: "Well, the statute would not -- would not necessarily cover that. We're talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends -- is designed to cover. We don't have the indication that the attack was motivated by a person's desire to strike at somebody who was in one of these protected groups. That would not be covered by the statute."

    You extracted your quote from the Free Republic, a right wing smut page on the web. Clearly, you subscribe to the Free Republic.

    Now nothing Sessions says indicates the race of the minister. You would have to make the assumption he was white. Where'd that come from Fenga. You know what you can do with your Fenga.

    You can argue that the minister is a member of a protected class under the proposed legislation and should be protected. That would be a legitimate argument but there you go making up stuff, stretching the truth and disclosing your own bigotry.
  10. You just made up a bunch of crap with your personal attacks and outright lies. You are clearly a hateful person and a bigot. Anyone can see that. Please, don't ever have children.

    Speaking of your cowardice, why haven't you gone back to address this post - http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/106297-should-mcchrystal-fired-2.html#post1006229 - where I pwned your sorry ass in a major way? I proved you lied about being in the military, taking the oath, and that you hate America. You should at least respond in that thread and admit I pwned and exposed you. Otherwise you just prove even more what a coward you are.
  11. Snow_Fox

    Snow_Fox Well-Known Member

    First, It "hate crimes" do not have to be explicitly dealing with race. Hate crimes are "historically" noted by race.. particularly white people lynching black people unjustly.

    However, it is unfair that there has to be a "historic" basis for something to qualify as a "hate crime".

    When I type in "Define: Hate Crime" on google here is what comes up
  12. hakr100

    hakr100 Well-Known Member

    Federal hate crime laws make it possible to prosecute those who commit hate crimes and give greater assurance that the perpetrators, if convicted, will be penalized. These laws grew out of the federal civil rights laws, which made it possible to assure federal prosecution after states typically in the south refused to properly prosecute those who committed violence aganst black Americans. The hate crimes laws were passed because states were not properly prosecuting those who committed violence against gays.
  13. Hate crimes are the liberal thought police charging someone with a perceived emotion. This is another attempt to remove free speech from what liberals consider to be "unworthy" people. More proof the party of tolerance is nothing but a group of two-faced liars and crooks. You're a proud member, right?
  14. hakr100

    hakr100 Well-Known Member

    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    Serious grown-up discussion of issues interests me. Your over the top screeds just make me giggle.
  15. As usual, you reply with your mindless bantering and personal attacks because you can't debate the comments. Go have your mommy wipe your nose now. Grown ups are talking.
  16. brab

    brab Guest

    Finger, I Mean Fenga
    Evidently you haven't checked the McCrystal thread.
    Fenga, want me to email you my DD-214? On the other hand I'm not going to waste my time on you anymore.

    You are in need of some serious psychiatric help.
  17. You posted in the wrong thread, numbnutz. Look in hach100's thread about the judge that has oil stocks. You really need to watch yourself when you try to hurl your insults because so far you end up making glaring mistakes and prove how dumb you are.

    As for mental help, being a liberal you must have heard that liberalism is a mental disease, so try increasing your medication. You know, like I told you to the last time you kept pestering me with a dozen PM's about comments I never made in a thread I had never entered!

    You have a track record here for schizo behavior and I can prove that with Pm messages.
  18. bunnymud

    bunnymud Well-Known Member

    Voters requiring an I.D. is a good thing. It protects against Mickey Mouse and illegal alien votes
    Crude likes this.
  19. Crude

    Crude Well-Known Member

    well, this one went south in a hurry...didn't it? Hot dang....
  20. brab

    brab Guest

    Fenga

    Sounds like a threat to me.
  21. brab

    brab Guest

    Crude

    Don't impune the south!
  22. brab

    brab Guest

    Fenga
    Why don't you share the pictures that I sent you with all.

    I have now fired up my full kilowatt fraction and will meet you at the OK corral.
  23. What threat? Nevermind that, get back to the McChrystal thread and try explaining how the oath that doesn't have anything about swearing allegiance to the CIC "does".....according to you. :rolleyes: I'm looking forward to your explanation and meanings of words that don't exist.

    Those were NOT pics of Cote de Pablo! Why not discuss openly how we talked about your Ritalin dosage? You seem to still be crashing and that shows in your posts.
  24. hakr100

    hakr100 Well-Known Member


    You might benefit from reading [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2][FONT=Geneva, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=-2]JM Ryan's Pharmacologic approach to aggression in neuropsychiatric disorders. Semin Clin Neuropsychiatry. 2000;5:238-249. Some of the meds mentioned therein can also help control verbal aggressiveness.


    [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
  25. You should look into that, there might be some hope for you.


    Cracks me up how you like to point fingers. You remember what happens when you point fingers don't you? You should since you are the biggest offender here with "verbal aggressiveness." Now run along. Adults are talking.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page