The homophobic thread :>

Generally an unmoderated forum for discussion of pretty much any topic. The focus however, is usually politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
Bungalow Bill
Ensign
Posts: 1340
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:12 pm
Location: Downtown Mills River

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by Bungalow Bill »

Things will get entertaining when it's tried in the southeastern U.S. Good luck with that.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 23182
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by O Really »

Vrede wrote:]And then there were 4: Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Tim Johnson of South Dakota (lame duck).[/color]
I'll give Manchin a break in appreciation for his effort on the gun bill, even though it was so far unsuccessful. I won't take pitchforks and torches to Landrieu because I know the demographic she has to deal with and she's not otherwise a bad character. The others are on their own and I hope they fry.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 23182
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by O Really »

Vrede wrote:
O Really wrote:
Vrede wrote:And then there were 4 (anti-SSM Dem. Senators): Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Tim Johnson of South Dakota (lame duck).
I'll give Manchin a break...and...Landrieu because I know the demographic she has to deal with...
Yeah, because both WV and LA are known for their exemplary sexual morality. ;)
Indeed. But I look at it like this - no politician is perfect, and if there was one that I thought was perfect, s/he'd never get elected. I'd rather have a flawed Manchin in office wearing a "D" on his hat than somebody else wearing a hard right tilted "R".

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 23182
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by O Really »

It's not really a homophobic issue, but I thought maybe homo would enjoy a good dick article.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/natio ... penis.html

SANTA ANA, Calif. - A woman was convicted Monday of drugging her estranged husband, cutting off his penis and tossing it in the garbage disposal.

Jurors found Catherine Kieu guilty of torture and aggravated mayhem for the July 11, 2011, attack.

User avatar
rstrong
Captain
Posts: 5889
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Winnipeg, MB

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by rstrong »

O Really wrote:Jurors found Catherine Kieu guilty of torture and aggravated mayhem
I thought Aggravated Mayhem was that band on the Muppet Show.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 23182
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by O Really »

No, that was Mayhem, a Norwegian black metal band formed in 1984 in Oslo long regarded as one of the pioneers of the Norwegian black metal scene. It does make a better name for a band than a criminal charge, doesn't it? But since I didn't know what constituted "mayhem" I looked it up:
Mayhem is defined in California Penal Code Section 203, which reads:

�Every person who unlawfully and maliciously deprives a human being of a member of his body, or disables, disfigures, or renders it useless, or cuts or disables the tongue, or puts out an eye, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, is guilty of mayhem.�

In order to convict a person of mayhem, all elements of the offense must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the California criminal jury instructions (CALJIC) No. 9.30 the following elements must be proved:

1. One person unlawfully and by means of physical force deprived a human being of a member of his or her body or, disable, permanently disfigured, or rendered it useless and
2. The person who committed the act causing the bodily harm, did so maliciously, that is with an unlawful intent to vex, annoy, or injure another person.

Case law has held that even something like a 3-inch laceration scarring the face may constitute mayhem. It is not a defense that a disfigurement has been or may be medically alleviated. Mayhem is a general intent felony. A felony is a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment in the state prison. General intent crimes mean that the person committing the crime need not intend a specific outcome, but rather purposely acted to produce an unlawful action. In the case of mayhem, it need only be proved that the person is punishable by a state prison term of 2, 4, or 8 years.

Assault with Intent to Commit Mayhem

An assault with intent to commit mayhem is a felony, governed by California Penal Code Section 220. An assault is the threat or attempt to commit a violent injury on another person, whether successful or not. It is required that the assaulter be reasonably capable of carrying through with the attack and that the target is aware of the danger. It is not necessary that any actual injury be inflicted. An assault with intent to commit mayhem is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 2, 4, or 6 years.

The following elements for assault, as defined by CALJIC 9.00 must be proved:

1. A person willfully and unlawfully committed an act which by its nature would probably and directly result in the application of physical force on another person; and
2. At the time the act was committed, the person had the present ability to apply physical force to the person of another.

In a situation where a different person is assaulted than the one originally intended, the law will punish the resulting assault as though the person assaulted was the original target.

Aggravated Mayhem

Aggravated mayhem is a felony, governed by Penal Code Section 205, which reads:

�A person is guilty of aggravated mayhem when he or she unlawfully, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the physical or psychological well-being of another person, intentionally causes permanent disability or disfigurement of another human being or deprives a human being of a limb, organ, or member of his or her body. For purposes of this section, it is not necessary to prove an intent to kill.�

In order to prove the crime of aggravated mayhem, the prosecution must prove that the defendant specifically intended to permanently disable, disfigure, or to deprive the other person of a limb, organ, or member of his or her body. However, it is not necessary to prove that the defendant had intent to kill.

User avatar
Stinger
Sub-Lieutenant
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by Stinger »

Could go on the nutjobs thread, too. The wingnuts are using Jason Collins to bash Obama and that "liberal" corporate media. They're claiming the media tells good Christian Tebow to go away while hailing Collins as a hero. The other one is claiming that Obama called Jason Collins to congratulate (?) him while Obama did nothing when hero Seal Chris Kyle was "assassinated." Kyle wasn't "assassinated," and it's kind of hard to congratulate a dead man, but since when has logic had anything to do with wingnut stupidity?

User avatar
homerfobe
Ensign
Posts: 1565
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:37 am
Location: All over more than anywhere else.

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by homerfobe »

Stinger wrote:Could go on the nutjobs thread, too. The wingnuts are using Jason Collins to bash Obama and that "liberal" corporate media...The other one is claiming that Obama called Jason Collins to congratulate him (?)......since when has logic had anything to do with wingnut stupidity?
Good question. Answer that since you moonbats and queer lovers have all the answers. Also, in reply to your (?), smoke this over. President Obama Calls Jason Collins, Says He's 'Impressed By His Courage'
Yep, Collins is to be congratulated for announcing to the world that he's nothing but a low-down faggot. The news media is going ape-shit with the story, just as you're doing; singing his praises, showering him with "love and understanding".

Big deal. Another dick-sucker "comes out". Hooray.
Proudly Telling It Like It Is: In Your Face! Whether You Like It Or Not!

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 23182
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by O Really »

Vrede wrote:A big enough deal for you to care and comment. Another barrier down, things are movin' pretty fast. So cool, homerfobe, you're gonna live to see a lot of it. A lot. Bet you didn't see that coming just a few years ago.
The places Homo could live happily are getting fewer. Maybe he'd be better off in Nigeria, where the vast majority of residents seem to agree with him and where, "According to Criminal Code in Nigeria (as it applies in the southern states), any person “who has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature” or “permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature” is “guilty of a felony and liable to imprisonment for fourteen years”. The Penal Code in northern regions parallel, although several northern Nigerian states, in adopting some form of Sharia Law, carry a maximum penalty of death."

Whoda thunk ol' Homo would have favored Sharia Law?

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 23182
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by O Really »

Homo will never understand the admiration of Collins really has little to do with homosexuality. Similar admiration has occurred for celebrities who have a condition and by being public with it drew attention to fundraising efforts and support for others with it. Not life threatening by any means, but Mickelson's work on psoriatic arthritis comes to mind. Jack Osbourne's MS. Being gay isn't a disease, except in the minds of the terminally ignorant, but it does often serve as a lightening rod of derision and criticism in some circumstances - such as male sports.
To acknowledge being gay, knowing the potential reaction and effect on ones career, is by any definition courageous.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1787
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by Leo Lyons »

Vrede wrote:too many pick-a-ninnies and black bucks for him there.
Saw this the other day and thought it fit right in with your post.
I'm sure I'm going to piss some body off, but what fun is there in agreeing with every one else?

All Presidents Did Not Have Dogs as White House Pets
Image

Pictured above is First Lady Grace Coolidge
with her pet raccoon Rebecca at the White
House Easter Egg Roll on April 18, 1927 –
This photo is proof that there was
another coon in the White House, first.

Opps! Image

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1787
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by Leo Lyons »

Vrede wrote:Your "joke" doesn't make sense. Blacks have been in the WH as builders, slaves and servants from the beginning.
Ok, here's how the real copy read: this photo is proof that Barack Obama was not the first coon in the White House.

There-- you forced it out of me. Of course the "joke" referred to rank.

User avatar
rstrong
Captain
Posts: 5889
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Winnipeg, MB

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by rstrong »

Leo Lyons wrote:Ok, here's how the real copy read: this photo is proof that Barack Obama was not the first coon in the White House.
That tells us more than we needed to know about the sort of places you go for humor.

User avatar
Bungalow Bill
Ensign
Posts: 1340
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:12 pm
Location: Downtown Mills River

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by Bungalow Bill »

And the wingnuts keep on saying there are no racists now. :crazy:

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1787
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by Leo Lyons »

rstrong wrote:
Leo Lyons wrote:Ok, here's how the real copy read: this photo is proof that Barack Obama was not the first coon in the White House.
That tells us more than we needed to know about the sort of places you go for humor.
Bungalow Bill wrote:And the wingnuts keep on saying there are no racists now. :crazy:
I said it would piss y'un's off; it did. :lol: Sticks and stones and all that other stuff. I'm sure Obama has thicker skin than you all do; you'll get over it.

User avatar
Boatrocker
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 2066
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:53 am
Location: Southeast of Disorder

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by Boatrocker »

Vrede wrote:. . . Bet you didn't see that coming just a few years ago.
Nah. I bet he's been close enough to see one coming several times.
People are crazy and times are strange. I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range.
I used to care, but, things have changed.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1787
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by Leo Lyons »

Vrede wrote:It didn't piss me off, LL. I think it's funny that you demonstrated that racists are so dumb they can't even tell a joke that makes sense by its own logic.
Joke or not, you understood the message. I didn't create it, just happened to see it and posted it with your quotes.
See, wasn't that easy now?

Just because someone thinks something is humorous, that doesn't make them a racist
Just because someone thinks the gay lifestyle is abnormal doesn't make them homophobic (or bigoted)
Just because someone dislikes someone/something, that doesn't make them a hater

User avatar
Bungalow Bill
Ensign
Posts: 1340
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:12 pm
Location: Downtown Mills River

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by Bungalow Bill »

The nutjobs always do that I pissed you off thing, even when the reply
is a sentence long. So there are nutjob racists out there. Big surprise.

User avatar
Stinger
Sub-Lieutenant
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by Stinger »

Wow. Just ... wow.

Conservative Harvard economics professor says that John Keynes' economic views were short-sighted because he was gay and didn't have children.

Boston Globe

Stupid.

User avatar
Bungalow Bill
Ensign
Posts: 1340
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:12 pm
Location: Downtown Mills River

Re: The homophobic thread :>

Unread post by Bungalow Bill »

I guess that means Adam Smith's economic views were only half as short-sighted as
Keyne's.

Post Reply