If we ever have an openly gay President, I am moving to my vacation home in Colorado permanently. There, I will raise my American flag to half-staff and go into mourning for my country.
What sort of abomination would be next? A pedophile? Bestiality? Yeah, we get treated to the pics of a POTUS getting it up the ass or sucking a horse’s cock. Man, if shit like that ever happens, I WANT Sharia Law here.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If we ever have an openly gay President, I am moving to my vacation home in Colorado permanently. There, I will raise my American flag to half-staff and go into mourning for my country.
What sort of abomination would be next? A pedophile? Bestiality? Yeah, we get treated to the pics of a POTUS getting it up the ass or sucking a horse’s cock. Man, if shit like that ever happens, I WANT Sharia Law here.[/quote]
Ah, trolls. Where would we be without them?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If we ever have an openly gay President, I am moving to my vacation home in Colorado permanently. There, I will raise my American flag to half-staff and go into mourning for my country.
What sort of abomination would be next? A pedophile? Bestiality? Yeah, we get treated to the pics of a POTUS getting it up the ass or sucking a horse’s cock. Man, if shit like that ever happens, I WANT Sharia Law here.
Ah, trolls. Where would we be without them?[/quote]
What’s trollish about it? Don’t think it can happen? There actually is a Dutch Pedophile Party. Bill Clinton was a rapist. Who knows what else goes on?
I’d bet that 50 years from now, bestiality and pedophaelia will be similar to how homosexual perverts are ‘cool’ now.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What’s trollish about it? Don’t think it can happen? There actually is a Dutch Pedophile Party.[/quote]
Bull. Proof.
I don’t seem to remember that particular rape case.
Pedophilia will never be mainstream. Bestiality will also never be accepted. Why? Because the idea of “consent” will always be there. Children can’t give informed consent, and animals can’t give consent. But a grown woman can give consent to be eaten out by another woman.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What’s trollish about it? Don’t think it can happen? There actually is a Dutch Pedophile Party.
Bull. Proof. [/quote]
I rarely agree with what Headhunter says, but I think he’s correct that there is a pedophile party (there’s one in the US called NAMBLA). However, I think his assumption that there presence is enough to change thinking is questionable.
[quote]Bill Clinton was a rapist. Who knows what else goes on?
I don’t seem to remember that particular rape case.[/quote]
Headhunter has assumed guilt on an allegation of rape ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm ). He has no good reason for doing so.
[quote]I’d bet that 50 years from now, bestiality and pedophaelia will be similar to how homosexual perverts are ‘cool’ now.
Pedophilia will never be mainstream. Bestiality will also never be accepted. Why? Because the idea of “consent” will always be there. Children can’t give informed consent, and animals can’t give consent. But a grown woman can give consent to be eaten out by another woman.
[/quote]
Good call, Makavali.
Headhunter, what do you mean by homosexual perverts being considered “cool”? Where do you get this stuff?
[quote]bigstu wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What’s trollish about it? Don’t think it can happen? There actually is a Dutch Pedophile Party.
Bull. Proof.
I rarely agree with what Headhunter says, but I think he’s correct that there is a pedophile party (there’s one in the US called NAMBLA). However, I think his assumption that there presence is enough to change thinking is questionable.
Bill Clinton was a rapist. Who knows what else goes on?
I don’t seem to remember that particular rape case.
Headhunter has assumed guilt on an allegation of rape (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm). He has no good reason for doing so.
I’d bet that 50 years from now, bestiality and pedophaelia will be similar to how homosexual perverts are ‘cool’ now.
Pedophilia will never be mainstream. Bestiality will also never be accepted. Why? Because the idea of “consent” will always be there. Children can’t give informed consent, and animals can’t give consent. But a grown woman can give consent to be eaten out by another woman.
Good call, Makavali.
Headhunter, what do you mean by homosexual perverts being considered “cool”? Where do you get this stuff?[/quote]
Hillary Swank won an Oscar for portraying a transgender. Tom Hanks won an Oscar for portraying a dying AIDS gay dude. Brokeback Mountain won all sorts of accolades. Rosie and Ellen are celebrities, getting married and adopting children, with all their antics spread all over the newspapers and mags.
In fact, the whole PC movement is an attempt to degrade American society into worshipping perversion:
“The task of the Frankfurt School, then, was first, to undermine the Judeo-Christian legacy through an “abolition of culture” (Aufhebung der Kultur in Lukacs’ German); and, second, to determine new cultural forms which would increase the alienation of the population, thus creating a “new barbarism.” To this task, there gathered in and around the Frankfurt School an incredible assortment of not only Communists, but also non-party socialists, radical phenomenologists, Zionists, renegade Freudians, and at least a few members of a self-identified “cult of Astarte.” The variegated membership reflected, to a certain extent, the sponsorship: although the Institute for Social Research started with Comintern support, over the next three decades its sources of funds included various German and American universities, the Rockefeller Foundation, Columbia Broadcasting System, the American Jewish Committee, several American intelligence services, the Office of the U.S. High Commissioner for Germany, the International Labour Organization, and the Hacker Institute, a posh psychiatric clinic in Beverly Hills.”
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Hillary Swank won an Oscar for portraying a transgender. Tom Hanks won an Oscar for portraying a dying AIDS gay dude. Brokeback Mountain won all sorts of accolades.
[/quote]
Don’t forget Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of a cannibal.
Just goes to show how mainstream and accepted cannibalism is. Because it was portrayed in a movie and won awards. That’s how you determine if an idea or lifestyle is accepted and is mainstream. By actors in movies winning awards. Like actors portraying cannibals.
[quote]Don’t forget Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of a cannibal.
Just goes to show how mainstream and accepted cannibalism is. Because it was portrayed in a movie and won awards. That’s how you determine if an idea or lifestyle is accepted and is mainstream. By actors in movies winning awards. Like actors portraying cannibals.[/quote]
Look what “Gandhi” did for making people humanistic and endorsing passive resistance.
[quote]905Patrick wrote:
Don’t forget Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of a cannibal.
Just goes to show how mainstream and accepted cannibalism is. Because it was portrayed in a movie and won awards. That’s how you determine if an idea or lifestyle is accepted and is mainstream. By actors in movies winning awards. Like actors portraying cannibals.
Look what “Gandhi” did for making people humanistic and endorsing passive resistance.[/quote]
Just to clarifty: Not Gandhi the person. Nothing counts until it’s portrayed in a movie that wins critical praise - then it is law. So you actually have to give the credit to Ben Kingsley.
[quote]905Patrick wrote:
Don’t forget Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of a cannibal.
Just goes to show how mainstream and accepted cannibalism is. Because it was portrayed in a movie and won awards. That’s how you determine if an idea or lifestyle is accepted and is mainstream. By actors in movies winning awards. Like actors portraying cannibals.
Look what “Gandhi” did for making people humanistic and endorsing passive resistance.[/quote]
And what “Terminator” did for human-cyborg relations.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
To this task, there gathered in and around the Frankfurt School an incredible assortment of not only Communists, but also non-party socialists, radical phenomenologists, Zionists, renegade Freudians, and at least a few members of a self-identified “cult of Astarte.” The variegated membership reflected, to a certain extent, the sponsorship: although the Institute for Social Research started with Comintern support
[/quote]
The above is ridiculous. The Frankfurt School was a group of left-leaning intellectuals, like Max Horkheimer, Theodore Adorno, Jurgen Habermas, Herbert Marcuse and Erich Fromm, who fled Nazi Germany and re-established themselves, primarily at Columbia University in New York. To suggest that they received money from the Comintern is preposterous (unless it happened in some kind of indirect way), as the group assembled around it intellectuals who were influenced by Marx but completely against the totalitarianism of the Soviet bloc.
Furthermore, they were not any sort of predeccesor to the post-modernists. They did not want to relativize everything as does this latter. In fact, they considered themselves upholders of the Enlightenment tradition and, as such, have been criticized by post-modernists.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Why? Because the idea of “consent” will always be there. Children can’t give informed consent, and animals can’t give consent.
[/quote]
Try telling that to Mister Ed. Who knows what sick sick shit transpired behind the scenes that was too much for TV 
[quote]BigKDawg wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Why? Because the idea of “consent” will always be there. Children can’t give informed consent, and animals can’t give consent.
Try telling that to Mister Ed. Who knows what sick sick shit transpired behind the scenes that was too much for TV
[/quote]
I’ve heard rumors. They involved peanut butter.
[quote]BigKDawg wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Why? Because the idea of “consent” will always be there. Children can’t give informed consent, and animals can’t give consent.
Try telling that to Mister Ed. Who knows what sick sick shit transpired behind the scenes that was too much for TV
[/quote]
Ed was doing the ‘steed deed’ with Carol, Wilbur’s wife. He wanted nothing to do with Wilbur.
I like how HH ignored my statement about the ethical concerns regarding consent.
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Hillary Swank won an Oscar for portraying a transgender. Tom Hanks won an Oscar for portraying a dying AIDS gay dude. Brokeback Mountain won all sorts of accolades.
Don’t forget Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of a cannibal.
Just goes to show how mainstream and accepted cannibalism is. Because it was portrayed in a movie and won awards. That’s how you determine if an idea or lifestyle is accepted and is mainstream. By actors in movies winning awards. Like actors portraying cannibals.[/quote]
It would be interesting to see the a movie that portrays cannibals as a repressed minority struggling with their social plight. As long as the person who gets eaten consented, there’s no reason the gov’t should interfere. Homovores should be able to enjoy the same tax benefits and social privileges that we heterovores have always enjoyed.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I like how HH ignored my statement about the ethical concerns regarding consent.[/quote]
He’s a moron. He’ll ignore anything that remotely makes sense and spew his homophobic bullshit any chance he gets.
HH is what’s wrong with America.
Charlie Crist 2016!
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Hillary Swank won an Oscar for portraying a transgender. Tom Hanks won an Oscar for portraying a dying AIDS gay dude. Brokeback Mountain won all sorts of accolades.
Don’t forget Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of a cannibal.
Just goes to show how mainstream and accepted cannibalism is. Because it was portrayed in a movie and won awards. That’s how you determine if an idea or lifestyle is accepted and is mainstream. By actors in movies winning awards. Like actors portraying cannibals.
It would be interesting to see the a movie that portrays cannibals as a repressed minority struggling with their social plight. As long as the person who gets eaten consented, there’s no reason the gov’t should interfere. Homovores should be able to enjoy the same tax benefits and social privileges that we heterovores have always enjoyed.[/quote]
I take it you never read or saw the sequel? 
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I like how HH ignored my statement about the ethical concerns regarding consent.[/quote]
No, it was a dumb statement. Consent has nothing to do with the morality of an act. Just ask Dr. Kevorkian.
You’ve been raised in a culture of ethical relativism. A moral code is an objective standard to which one adheres. You can only choose to ignore the code. The act is still wrong even if you choose to ignore it.