It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Liberals Aren’t as Tolerant as They Think

page: 10
40
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: XTexan

I have faced far worse than anything you can imagine, in my life.




posted on May, 10 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Fine. This is where we left off. Is Sex what determines if someone is Gay or Straight? You know people are born without genitals at all right? Swing away.


originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: ketsuko

No. Bull#. Sexual orientations retain their own definitions that are Agape love based on the preferred selection of Carnal love.

Is a Virgin that waits until marriage 'not straight' for the preceding years? The actual sexual act is EXPLICITLY removed from the definition while retaining the preference. You having sex proves nothing, dingbat. You can be a lesbian tomorrow if you want, no strings attached. Or a flying helicopter bot.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: XTexan

I have faced far worse than anything you can imagine, in my life.


I hope you never have to go through hard times again.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Fine. This is where we left off. Is Sex what determines if someone is Gay or Straight? You know people are born without genitals at all right? Swing away.


originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: ketsuko

No. Bull#. Sexual orientations retain their own definitions that are Agape love based on the preferred selection of Carnal love.

Is a Virgin that waits until marriage 'not straight' for the preceding years? The actual sexual act is EXPLICITLY removed from the definition while retaining the preference. You having sex proves nothing, dingbat. You can be a lesbian tomorrow if you want, no strings attached. Or a flying helicopter bot.



Well, people are born with genitals. I birthed three kids...they all had genitals. There are some babies born though with both sets of genitals and even two sets of the same genitals...some, it's true, are born with none.

BUT, I also have a cousin that came out as transgender this week (well, I knew a couple of months ago because s/he confided in me).

I am cool with it all. You are caught up in defining and then legitimizing others based on your own understanding of things. My cousin lived his life as a man until he started HRT recently. Does that make him NOT transgender?



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: XTexan

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: XTexan

I have faced far worse than anything you can imagine, in my life.


I hope you never have to go through hard times again.



And if I do, I will survive. Hey hey.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

While people that are 'gender fluid' are stupid, the point is gender and sexual preference along with it, is fluid. Acting like it's not and someone has to have sex to be Gay, is incorrect, there are Gay people that do not have Sex, a Transgender is a common example due to obvious complications.

Edit:
Either way this was in response that Obama is gay, something completely bogus. For him to make the assertion himself that someone else is gay, is not something he can definitively say for Obama, or anyone else. Inspite ALL THIS, he is SPECIFICALLY noting that Obama is NOT BI, BUT GAY, in his assertion. Insanity. Assuming I'm not the obvious winner of that debacle, I'll end if for myself there anyway then.
edit on 10-5-2017 by Mordekaiser because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: MotherMayEye

While people that are 'gender fluid' are stupid, the point is gender and sexual preference along with it, is fluid. Acting like it's not and someone has to have sex to be Gay, is incorrect, there are Gay people that do not have Sex, a Transgender is a common example due to obvious complications.



Erm...I think we have both lost the plot. I thought that was the point you were trying to make.

Gay people can have no sex or hetero sex and still be legitimately gay.

We might be on the same page.

ETA: you added this: "Either way this was in response that Obama is gay, something completely bogus."

He may not be gay, but I am inclined to think he is bisexual based on Larry Sinclair's claims, Obama not denying them, and then the ensuing retaliation that Larry experienced. Since I believe Larry and Obama has NEVER denied Larry's claims, I assume Obama is bisexual and a power-abuser...and he is ashamed of both.
edit on 10-5-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm fine with your noted interpretation as it's presented verses 'OBAMA IS GAY'. As long as you consciously understand it's not your choice to make his feelings work, and he can change them however he wants. Someone can equally covert from "Gay" to "Straight" this doesn't make them "less straight" or "bi". It's fluid. The moment you decide your orientation, it's true, it's not based on evidence at all.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Mordekaiser

I agree then. It's not my decision to declare. But I do believe he is bisexual because I do believe Larry.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

As long as the 'i believe' uncertainty is there, it's not offensive, the moment it is, the entire statement is a sham to doublestone Obama with a true bigoted opinion of Gay people.

That's the second issue in this line in the sand you haven't crossed, that he did. Nothing is wrong with being Gay. It's not proper cannon fodder for political opponents of the highest level in 2017. Hits closer to home than even remotely being true.
edit on 10-5-2017 by Mordekaiser because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: MotherMayEye

As long as the 'i believe' uncertainty is there, it's not offensive, the moment it is, the entire statement is a sham to doublestone Obama with a true bigoted opinion of Gay people.

That's the second issue in this line in the sand you haven't crossed, that he did. Nothing is wrong with being Gay. It's not proper cannon fodder for political opponents of the highest level in 2017. Hits closer to home than even remotely being true.


It would be bigoted to gay people to not believe Larry Sinclair, who is gay. Obama has never denied his claims. Larry spent two weeks in jail for outing his affair with Obama. Larry's disability benefits were cut off in retaliation, too. Larry was jailed ON A BOGUS WARRANT ISSUED BY BEAU BIDEN'S OFFICE. It's buIIsh*t.

Obama is the monster in this situation -- even if Larry was lying. The proper legal method to deal with false claims is not to abuse your running mate's son's AG office and have someone jailed in violation of their Constitutional rights. The legal way to deal with false claims is to DENY them and file a defamation suit. Obama did not do either of those things.

Also, Obama was against gay marriage at the time Larry came forward.

Again, Obama never denied Larry's claims, so no one else has any reason to...unless they were with Obama on that weekend, in 1999, that Larry claims he was with Obama.

edit on 10-5-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Nothing is wrong with being gay though, so the only purpose of proposing Obama is gay is to consider it negative to attribute, something to him he can only obviously decide himself.

The issue is the label, it's continuing the idea falsely that being gay is bad, because Obama could strut in BDSM straps and have gay sex on live TV and still proclaim he his straight, it subjectively isn't anyones decision, and the proponent to this story is merely to assert it's bad because of it.
edit on 10-5-2017 by Mordekaiser because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Nothing is wrong with being gay though, so the only purpose of proposing Obama is gay is to consider it negative to attribute, something to him he can only obviously decide himself.

The issue is the label, it's continuing the idea falsely that being gay is bad, because Obama could strut in BDSM straps and have gay sex on live TV and still proclaim he his straight, it subjectively isn't anyones decision, and the proponent to this story is merely to assert it's bad because of it.


Obama is the one that had an issue with being accused of being gay by a man that had sex with him. These are claims Obama never denied. He's had eight years to deny them.

Larry was falsely imprisoned at his press conference outing Obama. HE WAS MADE A POLITICAL PRISONER.

In Obama's case, he reacted badly to being outed by Larry. Larry's Constitutional protections were violated. That is a matter of public record.

I don't feel bad calling Obama anything. I think his treatment of his domestic political enemies is FAR WORSE than Nixon's.


edit on 10-5-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Obviously Obama has issues with being accused of being Gay, it's not anyone's proclamation but him, what part of this are you not understanding?

If I proclaim you're straight, you may have no issue, but the fact is, it's not my place to proclaim this, just like it's not my place to proclaim you are gay.

To make the proclamation is subjective to INTENT. WHY does it matter again? The answer is bigotry.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Obviously Obama has issues with being accused of being Gay, it's not anyone's proclamation but him, what part of this are you not understanding?

If I proclaim you're straight, you may have no issue, but the fact is, it's not my place to proclaim this, just like it's not my place to proclaim you are gay.

To make the proclamation is subjective to INTENT. WHY does it matter again? The answer is bigotry.


Obama is the bigot then.

And the fact that he (or Beau Biden) had anything to do with Larry being falsely imprisoned is egregious. Anyone who cares about LGBTQ rights...human rights...Constitutional rights....should be disgusted with him.

Larry should never have been jailed for the reasons given. All charges were dropped...but not until after Larry spent two weeks in jail and had his disability benefits cut off.

Abuses of power...that bugs the crap out of me.


edit on 10-5-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Obama being a massive jerk has nothing to do with it. Change the grounds and I'll care more about you abandoning the logic of my words to rephrase them against Obama.

My entire point is he's not exactly someone exempt from political criticism, but calling him Gay on top of this to slight him, when he doesn't say this himself, is just an aggression towards gay people. It would literally be more offensive and effective if Obama was actually telling people he's gay, but as it is, I just see "HUR-DUR GOOD REASON AGAIN TO BASH GAY PEOPLE BECAUSE UNRELATED POLITICS" in half the responses before mine. There are millions of gay people, we don't need a figurehead.
edit on 11-5-2017 by Mordekaiser because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Mordekaiser

I still get your logic...it's my logic, too. I just don't feel particularly apologetic towards Obama.

I'll concede it's not my place to say he is gay. I do reserve the right to believe Larry though and believe that Obama is bi and deeply ashamed of it....and his gross abuse of power.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes, what you said was at least interesting and I'll be Googling it.

This is different from where original thoughts were coming.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Mordekaiser

It is different. It's not that he's bi...or even gay. It's the fact that Larry was arrested at his press conference outing Obama. I am not homophobic, at all. It's the abuse of power.

That is not how the U.S. legal system handles defamation. It should be a civil court matter. But Obama never denied Larry's claims and never filed a defamation case. Why? I can only assume it's because Larry could have filed his own defamation case if Obama denied it and that would have allowed him to compel the court to disclose Sprint phone records to prove his case.

Instead, Larry was made a political prisoner. So I believe Larry based on circumstances and the evidence that Larry was able to produce: hotel receipts and the limo driver's name.

Had Obama denied Larry's claims..then perhaps I could understand why his supporters denied them, too. But he didn't. So why should anyone else?
edit on 11-5-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 04:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Sheye

I'm sorry, nobody refers to a black person as an "ape". It's like using the N word. You may act innocent about it. But it sure smells like racism no matter how you rationalize it with words.


Meh. In my neck of the woods, all bouncers/doormen/etc are referred to as apes, regardless of their skin. We don't say, "The apes are in a bad mood tonight - oh, except that one, because he's black so we can't include him in our otherwise fitting summation of the situation." After all, that would be singling him out on the basis of his skin, and that would be... wait for it... racist.

Was it mean as a racist pejorative in the situation discussed? Almost certainly. But here's the thing - from that, liberalism extracts the philosophy that there can never ever ever ever be a situation where a term can be used, because it must always be racist. Liberals see racism everywhere, in everything.

When I was a kid we used to play on monkey bars in the school playground - called as such because you can swing around on them like a monkey. Apparently, despite the area I lived in being so lily white that the locals could live and die without seeing a black person except on the TV, this was just too offensive and the school now insists it is referred to as the "swinging frame". In liberal ideology, a black person who came past would automatically assume that it was somehow a reference to them, because liberals cannot accept that someone who isn't white might be capable of forming a rational opinion on their own.

This is one of the differences that underlines the tolerance argument between the two camps. Conservatives would assume that a black person would look at that and say the same thing as every other sane person on the planet - "Huh, monkey bars in a school playground, I guess that means that kids swing around on the bars". Liberals assume a black person would say, "OMGWTFBBQ THEY'RE INDOCTRINATING THE KIDS INTO THINKING I'M AN EVOLUTIONARY THROWBACK!"

Conservatives assume that being sane and rational is a product of upbringing. Liberals assume that being any color except white makes people too stupid to understand anything, so they must be protected from anything that could be even remotely interpreted or leveraged into a disparaging remark. In their minds, only lily-white liberals have the intelligence to protect the poor black folk from the big mean world. This approach is abhorrent to the rest of us rational people, which is why we resist it and ridicule it at every opportunity.

Conservativism is, ultimately, the ideology of letting a person prove their own worth, with the freedom to fail being an essential ingredient to having the freedom to succeed.

Liberalism is, ultimately, the ideology of paternalism, racism, and white supremacy, all wrapped up in a velvet glove.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join