| | | Author | Message |
|---|
Frostbrand 
| | #1 posted September 4, 2009 at 1:44am (EST) |
Take that all you bigoted jerks! How's your pet theory about gays destroying marriage now huh?
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glb...
Not that we could ever take you Right Wingers seriously on the issue of fidelity to begin with, but still... | Wicksy
| | #2 posted September 4, 2009 at 3:09am (EST) |
Go Gays! | cloudhugger
| | #3 posted September 4, 2009 at 9:15am (EST) |
A perfectly good post slathered with slander. Here's the good news you jerks!
wth? | Iseult  
| | #4 posted September 4, 2009 at 9:18am (EST) |
Gay marriage destroys marriage?
As if. I think it's the married people who've destroyed it a long time ago. | llamamama
| | #5 posted September 4, 2009 at 9:25am (EST) |
big⋅ot⋅ed –adjective utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
HOLY CRAP!!!!! FROSTY IS UTTERLY INTOLERANT OF RIGHT WINGERS!!!! POT TO KETTLE!!!
Dude, seriously..that could have been a nice informative thing..but you have to be a bigot and call bigots out. Seriously..you're probably the biggest bigot on this site..No offense I'm just calling it as I see it.
| Frostbrand
| | #6 posted September 4, 2009 at 12:28pm (EST) |
llamamama wrote:
> big⋅ot⋅ed –adjective utterly
> intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that
> differs from one's own.
>
>
> HOLY CRAP!!!!! FROSTY IS UTTERLY INTOLERANT OF
> RIGHT WINGERS!!!! POT TO KETTLE!!!
>
> Dude, seriously..that could have been a nice informative
> thing..but you have to be a bigot and call bigots
> out. Seriously..you're probably the biggest bigot
> on this site..No offense I'm just calling it as
> I see it.
>
So, because I don't like people who are bigots, I'm a bad guy? Man, just when I was beginning to respect you, you have to go and be a total twinkie.  | cerealkiller
| | #7 posted September 4, 2009 at 12:55pm (EST) |
We don't like people who are automaticaly prejudiced against anyone who doesn't share their beliefs and calls people derogatory names. Aren't you by definition a bigot also? | cerealkiller
| | #8 posted September 4, 2009 at 12:57pm (EST) |
llamamama wrote:
> big⋅ot⋅ed –adjective utterly
> intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that
> differs from one's own.
>
>
> HOLY CRAP!!!!! FROSTY IS UTTERLY INTOLERANT OF
> RIGHT WINGERS!!!! POT TO KETTLE!!!
>
> Dude, seriously..that could have been a nice informative
> thing..but you have to be a bigot and call bigots
> out. Seriously..you're probably the biggest bigot
> on this site..No offense I'm just calling it as
> I see it.
>
Hah, you hit it on the head. Frostie is an butt-hole like most liberals I see on TV. They shout, talk over everyone and act like babies and call people names when everything isn't their way. You remember when Bush won the election and he acted like a child throwing a temper tantrum? Perfect example. You can't reason with liberals, especially immature ones. | llamamama
| | #9 posted September 4, 2009 at 2:35pm (EST) |
I don't remember when Bush won the election..For the 2004 on, I just remember Kerry dropping out (but not really)..and the 2000 election..I was 10.
But he's not like most liberals..and your not like most conservatives..See this is what happens when we make broad generalizations.
Frosty, I'm sorry..but you are a bigot..I even provided you with the definition...and clearly that is what you are. If all you did was just hate bigots..then it wouldn't be that bad. But when you honestly fail to see the definition right in front of you, I feel nothing but pity. Again, sorry.
You're not a bad person you just don't want to believe you're wrong. So I accept your name calling because I know that's what you do when you feel threatened. It's all good. | Frostbrand
| | #10 posted September 4, 2009 at 3:29pm (EST) |
llamamama wrote:
> I don't remember when Bush won the election..For
> the 2004 on, I just remember Kerry dropping out
> (but not really)..and the 2000 election..I was
> 10.
>
> But he's not like most liberals..and your not
> like most conservatives..See this is what happens
> when we make broad generalizations.
>
> Frosty, I'm sorry..but you are a bigot..I even
> provided you with the definition...and clearly
> that is what you are. If all you did was just
> hate bigots..then it wouldn't be that bad. But
> when you honestly fail to see the definition right
> in front of you, I feel nothing but pity. Again,
> sorry.
> You're not a bad person you just don't want to
> believe you're wrong. So I accept your name calling
> because I know that's what you do when you feel
> threatened. It's all good.
What am I wrong about exactly? That anti-gay bigots tried to claim that allowing gay marriage would ruin straight marriages? They did. Was I wrong that the opposite seems to be happening? No. So what exactly is your point? You don't like that I was harsh in calling out the bigots? Too bad! People with that much contempt for fellow human beings on the basis of WHAT CONSENTING ADULTS THEY FALL IN LOVE WITH do not deserve my respect, and they don't deserve yours either. Respect has to be earned. Call it bigoted all you want, it doesn't make it true. What IS true is that I am sick and tired of people demanding I show respect to a group of people who chose to be what they are (Right Wing is an ideology, not a skin color, sexual orientation, genetic defect or accident induced handicap) who in just the 27 years I've been alive have as a whole done nothing to deserve it. Oh sure there are some individual members of the Republican party who I respect, though for more for their consistency than their actual ideas (Ron Paul) but as a group, the Right Wing in this country has been either directly behind, or tacitly approving of some of the most despicable acts ever committed against human beings, nature, and language in the past 200 years, and many of the worst of those acts have been in the last 100.
It's not bigotry if it's earned. Bigots will invent reasons to hate. just look at some of the most ridiculous theories that White Supremacists have about Blacks for instance. My hatred of the Right Wing comes from viewing their actions, seeing what it is they actually say and do. Hatred is like respect in that it shouldn't be given out freely and recklessly. I don't hate people "just because." That's what bigots do. I wasn't born hating Right Wingers. I just saw what they were doing, and how they used pretty words to try and make it look like what they were doing was good and patriotic and all the other things that true Right Wing philosophy is the opposite of. | llamamama
| | #11 posted September 4, 2009 at 3:39pm (EST) |
I'm just going to sit back and hope that one day you actually realize that you're doing what you're accusing right wingers of.
And maybe you weren't born hating right wingers, but I'm pretty sure you've said before that everyone in your family is very left. So maybe you weren't born hating right wingers, but you were certainly influenced that way. I'm not saying that has anything to do with how you are now, I'm just saying.
And you can tilt the definition as much as you want, but you're a bigot. Most people are not as far right as you think and most people are not as far left as you are. Most people are fairly moderate. And you cannot really look at events that happened so long ago. Things that happened hundreds of years ago we'd look at in disgust, but the people that were there would think nothing of it.
You can't try to change the subject back to what it was. You totally destroyed that when you mentioned how right wingers thought gays would destroy marriage. You destroyed this post.
I also really like how you put a sad smiley face after you called me a twinkie. Like, you were sad that you had to do it..but you had to do it.
This isn't a discussion about whether right wingers are bad or whether left wingers are bad...it's you not realizing how horrible you sound.
Dude, you're like PETA, you could potentially do a lot of good, but you take it so far that people just end up getting mad at you.
But thank you for allowing me to practice writing. | icurok
| | #12 posted September 4, 2009 at 4:44pm (EST) |
I'm sorry, but claiming this as some kind of victory is stupid and disingenuous for a number of reasons.
Firstly, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the opposition to gay marriage more about the perceived morality of homosexual relationships and less about the ability of gay people to be faithful to each other.
This is a quote from the article:
"Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature’s God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated."
Does that sound like the kind of person who would be won round by saying, "... but look how devoted they are to each other!".
Their issue is surely that allowing gay people to marry violates the institution of marriage in the same way as allowing bullfighters to join PETA. Arguing that the divorce statistics are a vindication is like arguing that it's a vindication if the bullfighters always renew their subscription on time. You're missing their point.
Secondly, Massachussets already had the lowest divorce rate anyway. These figures are from 1994.
Rank State Number Rate
---------------------------------------
United States 1,191,000 4.6
1 Massachusetts 14,530 2.4
2 Connecticut 9,095 2.8
3 New Jersey 23,899 3.0
4 Rhode Island 3,231 3.2
5 New York 59,195 3.3
Pennsylvania 40,040 3.3
7 Wisconsin 17,478 3.4
North Dakota 2,201 3.4
9 Maryland 17,439 3.5
10 Minnesota 16,217 3.6
New England has a much lower divorce rate than the rest of the country. One of the reasons is because it is made up of relatively affluent states and statistically poor people get divorced more than rich people.
Thirdly, allowing gay marriage has opened the floodgates. Thousands of couples who had been waiting years for such an opportunity did so as soon as it arose. In the first year, half of the applicants had been partners for more than a decade making them much less likely to divorce than a couple (gay or straight) who get hitched after three months. | cerealkiller
| | #13 posted September 4, 2009 at 4:48pm (EST) |
llamamama wrote:
> But thank you for allowing me to practice writing.
You've got it exactly right. He is a perfect example to the extreme of what he accuses others of being.
Me, I don't much like Mexicans or Middle Easterners. Mainly because I find looking at them objectionable. I have nothing personally against them nor do I treat them as less than I. I don't know where that fits within the definitions of racist or bigot.
I don't hate them though.
I don't believe gays/lesbians should be allowed to marry as does MOST of the people of this country. That also doesn't mean I hate them. I have nothing against their sexuality.
I think Frostie's problem goes back to being a bottle-fed baby  | Frostbrand
| | #14 posted September 4, 2009 at 5:13pm (EST) |
llamamama wrote:
> You can't try to change the subject back to what
> it was. You totally destroyed that when you mentioned
> how right wingers thought gays would destroy marriage.
So, by pointing out a fact, I destroyed a post? That's a stretch. And believe me, I'm being kind when I say "stretch."
You argument is summed up thus; "How dare Frostbrand say that Right Wingers said something that they totally did say. It undermines his point that they said it."
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/04/23/same-sex-mar...
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2009-08-26/news/are-g...
http://thediscust.com/?p=547 | icurok
| | #15 posted September 4, 2009 at 5:28pm (EST) |
cerealkiller wrote:
> Frostie is an butt-hole like most liberals I see on TV. They shout, talk over everyone and act like babies and call people names when everything isn't their way.
Hmmmm... that sounds kinda like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly now doesn't it? Honestly, you and Brian are as bad as each other. Fordguy might be right wing, but at least he isn't a dick about it. You on the other hand, seem to have taken up kaleb's mantle of Survey Central's resident incurable liberaphobe.
 | Frostbrand
| | #16 posted September 4, 2009 at 5:38pm (EST) |
I have CK filtered, but I saw the quote in icurok's post, and I had to laugh. Only CK could be so twisted as to take an instance of me rubbing in a victory against a Right Wing lie as "whining like a baby."  | icurok
| #17 posted September 4, 2009 at 5:54pm (EST)
edited September 4, 2009 at 5:55pm (EST) |
Frostbrand wrote:
So, by pointing out a fact, I destroyed a post? That's a stretch.
> And believe me, I'm being kind when I say "stretch."
>
> You argument is summed up thus; "How dare Frostbrand say that Right
> Wingers said something that they totally did say. It undermines his
> point that they said it."
>
> http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/04/23/same-sex-mar...
> http://www.seattleweekly.com/2009-08-26/news/are-g...
> http://thediscust.com/?p=547
No, being a dick harmed the point you were making.. The original post was fine until you got to the sentence underneath the link. I don't think anyone would have a problem with "Take that all you bigoted jerks!" Bigoted jerks deserve everything they get.
However, with the sentence "Not that we could ever take you Right Wingers seriously on the issue of fidelity to begin with, but still..." you spoiled it by falling in to the same trap Kaleb did when he used to say that all liberals were terrorist sympathizers.
It is true that many Conversative Christians have voiced their opposition to gay marriage. It is also true that not all right wingers are Conservative Christians in just the same way that not all left wingers are Socialist Atheists.
Do you know what the statistics are as far as rates of adultery between right wingers compared to left wingers? No? Me neither? Know why? Because they don't exist. If you think that being right wing makes you, by definition, more adulterous without any other evidence than the fact that you don't like right wingers, then llamamama is right - you ARE a bigot. | llamamama
| | #18 posted September 4, 2009 at 7:00pm (EST) |
Thank you, Icurok.
Andrew Jackson, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Garfield, Wilson, Harding, FDR, Einsenhower, JFK, and Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton..Were all accused of commiting adultery.
Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton were all Democrat. Holy Crap Batman, that's more than half!
My point, everyone can fall into the temptation of adultery. Just because you want more government programs doesn't mean you are any less like to be adulterous. Note, that's also probably not every president ever accused of commiting adultery. But that's hardly the point.
You lose. | Frostbrand
| | #19 posted September 4, 2009 at 7:14pm (EST) |
llamamama wrote:
> Thank you, Icurok.
>
> Andrew Jackson, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson,
> Garfield, Wilson, Harding, FDR, Einsenhower, JFK,
> and Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton..Were all accused
> of commiting adultery.
> Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, Lyndon
> Johnson, and Bill Clinton were all Democrat.
> Holy Crap Batman, that's more than half!
>
> My point, everyone can fall into the temptation
> of adultery. Just because you want more government
> programs doesn't mean you are any less like to
> be adulterous. Note, that's also probably not
> every president ever accused of commiting adultery.
> But that's hardly the point.
>
> You lose.
Except it's not about the adultery. Hello, John Edwards? It's the hypocrisy factor. What Clinton did was dumb, but at the same time he never campaigned as perfect Family Values man the way say, Gov. Sanford did. Or the way Newt Gingrich did. Or Henry Hyde, or John Ensign, etc. etc. Had those cheaters not run on a "more monogamous than thou" campaign theme, I honestly wouldn't care. It would be strictly between them and their families. | llamamama
| | #20 posted September 4, 2009 at 7:34pm (EST) |
It's seriously like talking to the wall. | Frostbrand
| | #21 posted September 4, 2009 at 7:50pm (EST) |
llamamama wrote:
> It's seriously like talking to the wall.
Funny, I was about say the same thing. Did you even read my last point about the hypocrisy factor, or did you just see my avatar and assume? | llamamama
| | #22 posted September 4, 2009 at 8:26pm (EST) |
I did, but I don't tihnk you really read mine. I think you just quoted it.
I said that the adultery doesn't matter..it's the fact that you think that right wingers are morally weaker than left wingers that's the problem.
Thanks for marking me negative too, by the way. I realize everything I'm saying is pissing you off, you don't need to negative it. | dab 
| | #23 posted September 4, 2009 at 8:52pm (EST) |
If you check the scorers llama, Frostbrand is almost always the leading negative scorer. | llamamama
| | #24 posted September 4, 2009 at 8:53pm (EST) |
Oh I know, because he's like a kid who's mom keeps telling him no..and instead of dealing with it..he throws a tantrum. | Frostbrand
| | #25 posted September 4, 2009 at 9:09pm (EST) |
Or maybe, I actually thought your comment was deserving of a negative score. Shocking I know. That I might actually have motives of my own as opposed to the ones you came up with while listening to the Jonas Brothers. | llamamama
| | #26 posted September 4, 2009 at 9:12pm (EST) |
Dude, I'm 18..I don't listen to Jonas Brothers. Shocking I know because you came up with that while watching Star Trek.
See what I did there, not only did I stoop to your level..but I also picked something that you actually do. | EyesOfCharisma
| | #27 posted September 4, 2009 at 9:29pm (EST) |
live long and prosper! | cerealkiller
| #28 posted September 4, 2009 at 9:51pm (EST)
edited September 4, 2009 at 9:58pm (EST) |
Actually I'm not a hardcore conservative. I'm somewhere to the right of center, as is the average American. I just argue with Frostie because he is so obtuse, so aggressive, so "I'm right and everyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong". Arguing with Frostie lets me blow off steam, nothing else. I'm not a Jeremy or Kaleb or whoever.
I'm in no way any kind of activist or even interested very much in politics. In my every day life I never ever discuss politics with anyone but my wife, and that is only because she is the "Hannity" of our house and is totally absorbed in watching everything on Foxnews. I have to sit through it because she insists. I agree with everything Beck says but it is getting boring and repetitive. I'd rather be watching Pinks or Pimp My Ride on the Speed channel. OMG, a blue collar, beer-drinker's channel!
As said, all conservatives aren't religious. I don't believe in organized religion but I do believe in God. That isn't a very popular thing on this website.
I do believe the government has no place being involved with healthcare or even social security or medicare. They also have no business in preaching their propaganda in schools, bailing out banks, auto makers or any private company. The government should stay our of our lives for the most part. Everyone in the U.S. has the basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If they don't make it, oh well. | cerealkiller
| | #29 posted September 4, 2009 at 9:52pm (EST) |
EyesOfCharisma wrote:
> live long and prosper!
How dare you associate with Brian. That's something like the nerdie Trekkie he is would say | cerealkiller
| #30 posted September 4, 2009 at 9:54pm (EST)
edited September 4, 2009 at 9:59pm (EST) |
llamamama wrote:
> Dude, I'm 18..I don't listen to Jonas Brothers.
> Shocking I know because you came up with that
> while watching Star Trek.
>
> See what I did there, not only did I stoop to
> your level..but I also picked something that you
> actually do.
You know, at 18 you have more intelligence, common sense and maturity than most of those of their 20's and many in their 30's. OMG, Frostie is in his 20's. | llamamama
| | #31 posted September 4, 2009 at 10:03pm (EST) |
Thank you  | EyesOfCharisma
| | #32 posted September 4, 2009 at 10:06pm (EST) |
I think I am the stupidest person on this site lol... I don't understand a damn word anyone talks about on here... I just scroll through and smile!!! Maybe being stupid is a good thing.. I don't argue about stupid crap like this | cerealkiller
| | #33 posted September 4, 2009 at 10:11pm (EST) |
EyesOfCharisma wrote:
> I think I am the stupidest person on this site
> lol... I don't understand a damn word anyone talks
> about on here... I just scroll through and smile!!!
> Maybe being stupid is a good thing.. I don't
> argue about stupid crap like this
That's fine. To me in reality it is stupid crap too. But I do have a concern about what the future brings with Obama being President. I'm not so totally to the right or a Republican to automatically judge Obama wrong. But personally I'd rather bring back Bill Clinton, a democrat also. I liked him. | southernyankee
| | #34 posted September 4, 2009 at 11:02pm (EST) |
I wouldn't call them bigots per se (just people who are wrong ). I've actually know some pro-gay marriage people who are more homophobic than some people who are against. I know quite a large chunk of peeps who are against gay marriage even though they have close gay friends. And lets not forget that gays already have the right to have sex anytime they want to; and since we no longer live in the 50's, where you actually had to be married to have sex, their fight to marry doesn't seem all that plightful.
I also wouldn't call Frostie a bigot either. Obtuse? Yes. Annoying? Sometimes. Immature? Sure. A bit of a dick sometimes? Yes. But bigoted? Nah. | llamamama
| | #35 posted September 4, 2009 at 11:14pm (EST) |
I'm just going by the dictionary definition.
I think perhaps he needs to grow up and realize that people aren't always going to see things his way. But we can't have everything. | Frostbrand
| | #36 posted September 5, 2009 at 12:29am (EST) |
llamamama wrote:
> Dude, I'm 18..I don't listen to Jonas Brothers.
> Shocking I know because you came up with that
> while watching Star Trek.
>
Serenity, thank you.
> See what I did there, not only did I stoop to
> your level..but I also picked something that you
> actually do.
If I were ashamed of being a Trekkie, that might actually have worked. That's a bit like trying to insult Simon Pegg by calling him Welsh. (He is Welsh). | cerealkiller
| #37 posted September 5, 2009 at 12:34am (EST)
edited September 5, 2009 at 12:35am (EST) |
A rational person in a discussion with someone with opposing views listens, understands the views of others, voices their position and sometimes the two can compromise and sometimes they agree to disagree. The blind, close-minded sort (Frostie) only see their own position, cannot fathom that someone else's opinion is valid and resorts to anger, name-calling and other childish behavior.
If Frostie believes gays should have the right to marry, that public healthcare is the way to go and that Obama is God then fine for him. I disagree with all that but that is my own opinion which is just as valid. I, just as some others here object to his behavior.
If I'm guilty of stooping to his level it's just as I've said - it's just for my own pure enjoyment of going after him and letting off steam.
Of course now that he's filtered me because he is pouting I don't have him to argue with anymore. Which I'm sure you don't mind. | FauxLo 
| | #38 posted September 5, 2009 at 4:02am (EST) |
<--- still thinks marriage is wrong for all people. | Wicksy
| #39 posted September 5, 2009 at 7:06am (EST)
edited September 5, 2009 at 7:32am (EST) |
I actually sympathise with Frostband and I support him in this post as I know exactly where he is coming from.
I suppose if you were to call if by definition:
big⋅ot⋅ed –adjective utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
then he is a bigot but ONLY ON CERTAIN ISSUES.
The part in capitals is key.
I am also a bigot but only when it comes to topics close to my heart like animal rights and factory farming.
FACT:
llamamama, you're a bigot
Iseult, you're a bigot
Let's pick someone I really like: THEY. You're a bigot.
Why? Because if I said to any of you that I believe all babies should be shot a birth, you would stand up for your beliefs and expel any other belief that state babies should die. This makes you all bigots. You are intolerant of any belief that states babies should die.
Going back to Frostband and I, what does this show?
It simply shows that we are both very emotionally involved in the subject that we discuss. Animal rights is held extremely close to my heart. It annoys me when people are simply ignorant when it comes to the truth. For example, I received a negative score when I suggested that most people that care about their pets don't give two hoots about the animals that are reared cruelly for meat.
http://surveycentral.org/forum/General/topic/12816... (twelth post down)
Did I get annoyed with the negative mark? Yes, because I simply cannot understand how that person (own up if you will, see the link) could think that was a bad comment. Is it because they are soooo ignorant that they don't believe there is any cruelty to animals (look at this for example: http://www.milkmyths.org.uk ), do they really believe cats are more important than cows and pigs?
See, I am involved in this, I would argue until Doomsday with anyone that tries to falsify my belief. Am I a bigot? Yes. Is it a bad thing? NO!!!
Frostband holds the above topic close to his heart and therefore stands up to his beliefs even if it means being verbally abusive.
I am sorry everyone, but if this topic was about Frostband advocating murder of black people, we would all attack him and become utterly intolerant of his belief. We would be BIGOTS!
This is simply a post which has a topic Frostband is emotionally attached to, more so than the rest of us. Yes, in hindsight, he probably should have erased a few comments, but this only shows how much it means to him.
I may start a new topic now for animal rights so that you lot can give Brian a break for a bit!!!
Wicksy | they 
| | #40 posted September 5, 2009 at 7:28am (EST) |
Aw, you like me! 
I agree.
If Brian was a bigot, he wouldn't support gay marriage.... because he's not gay. | | |
Topic Page Hits: 4 today (26 in the last 30 days) |
