'Dig a hole and dump them in it.'

Einherjar wrote:

This is bad.

Yes, and this, which nobody else has mentioned -- the reason it is "news" -- is worse:

quoted from the first post wrote:

Allen (Piffka note: that would be the "innocent" Alabama representative) got a call from Washington. He will be meeting with President Bush on Monday. I asked him if this was his first invitation to the White House. "Oh no," he laughs. "It's my fifth meeting with Mr Bush."

Bush is interested in Allen's opinions because Allen is an elected Republican representative in the Alabama state legislature. He is Bush's base.

Geez. Isn't it wonderful to have a nice big group for Bush's Base to hate? Apparently, the Muslims aren't enough.

0 Replies

When do we start burning the "unacceptable" books as they did in Nazi Germany. The religious facists are on the move in this nation. And Ayatollah Bush and his religious right are leading the charge. If we are not carefull we will go from separation of Church and state. To religion being the state.

0 Replies

I'm sorry, but it's a slow news day if it's news that the President met with an elected official. And can you draw for me the connection from that point to "President Bush wants 'pro-homosexual' drama banned"?

By the way, I'm going to a book-burning rally tomorrow at the Courthouse Square. We've been doing it pretty regularly around here ever since Bush was elected (the 1st time). The books are hauled in trucks & wagons by brown-shirt functionaries and piled up in the center of the square. I'm not sure what's in the books, but that's hardly the point. Often, depending on the hour, we'll have entire elementary schools show up, and as usual, the teacher's attendance list must be handed in the following school day to a supervisor. The entire proceeding will be led by local party officials who will scream endless propaganda at the onlookers. It's great fun.

0 Replies

Tico
Spoken as a true citizen of a red state.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I'm sorry, but it's a slow news day if it's news that the President met with an elected official. And can you draw for me the connection from that point to "President Bush wants 'pro-homosexual' drama banned"?

By the way, I'm going to a book-burning rally tomorrow at the Courthouse Square. We've been doing it pretty regularly around here ever since Bush was elected (the 1st time). The books are hauled in trucks & wagons by brown-shirt functionaries and piled up in the center of the square. I'm not sure what's in the books, but that's hardly the point. Often, depending on the hour, we'll have entire elementary schools show up, and as usual, the teacher's attendance list must be handed in the following school day to a supervisor. The entire proceeding will be led by local party officials who will scream endless propaganda at the onlookers. It's great fun.

Up here in the North countries we use those books as fuel for the gay witches we are burning at the stake. Two birds and all that.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Let me see if I have it straight ... you didn't vote for Bush, and don't understand those who did, because an Alabama state senator has proposed legislation, in the State of Alabama, because he doesn't want taxpayer money to be used to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle"? How is that attributable to Bush?I agree. What's the problem?

Ticomaya wrote:

Did you read the rest of the article and see the examples we're talking about here?

Did you read the beginning of the article where

Quote:

Bush is interested in Allen's opinions because Allen is an elected Republican representative in the Alabama state legislature. He is Bush's base. Last week, Bush's base introduced a bill that would ban the use of state funds to purchase any books or other materials that "promote homosexuality". Allen does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle". That's why Tennessee Williams and Alice Walker have got to go.

That's how it's attributable to Bush.

Ticomaya wrote:

It seems to me the problem is ascertaining where to draw the line.

And we are continually given every indication that Bush has preconceived notions regarding the demarcation of these lines...and a very large number of Americans abhor his methodology and logic.

0 Replies

candidone1, you mis-attribute to me the following line:

Quote:

Did you read the rest of the article and see the examples we're talking about here?

nimh said that. Not sure what your point was, anyway, but thought I should clear that up for you.

You quote the following from the Guardian article as supportive of the proposition that this legislation is "attributable to Bush":

Quote:

Bush's base introduced a bill that would ban the use of state funds to purchase any books or other materials that "promote homosexuality".

So, is this the equation you're running with: Gerald Allen = Alabama Republican State Senator = Bush's Base = Bush?

So when Gerald Allen, lone Alabama state senator, introduces a piece of legislation, The Guardian feels free to attribute that action to President Bush? And you wish to go on record agreeing with that spurious attribution?

0 Replies

Floodgates, that's what it's all about. Damn floodgates, you start having them queers looking happy and the next thing you know you start seeing happy liberals in public places and then alongs comes happy democrats. Where will it all end? We need to nip this happy **** right in the bud, bud. Dig that hole deep and wide boys, deep and wide. Actually we need to burn the entire libraries, nothing but decandent books in there anyway full of crazy ideas.

0 Replies

christ.

0 Replies

He is busy burning the gays.

Can I help ?

0 Replies

Sure baby, hmmmm, something's different about you....

0 Replies

So they say christ never married and he is often portrayed as happy. Ummmm

0 Replies

While I gotta agree at least that Tico argued pretty decisively how the attribution to Bush is spurious, that doesnt make any of this less troublesome. Neither is Tico's c.s. apparent agreement with the proposition itself. Banning books that "promote a gay lifestyle". What the ef does that mean, in the first place? Like FreeDuck says, its not like we're talking "How to Become Gay in Five Steps" here. Its literature that happens to feature gay people.

Tico says, "It seems to me the problem is ascertaining where to draw the line". OK, where's your line? Any literature that features happy gays? Any literature that features gays at all? Or (the as far as I know conspicuously non-existing) books that say, "hey you straight kids, be gay, its fun, I'll show you how!"?

Tico also writes:

Ticomaya wrote:

With all due respect, why don't you just buy your own gay books?

I dont see any "respect" here. Gays are citizens and taxpayers just like everyone else. But their tastes are not supposed to be catered for by public libraries? Just those of straight taxpayers? Just those of straight taxpayers who dont want any gays popping up in their books even if its a Tennessee Williams one, to be precise? What about the straight taxpayers who are just interested in reading good literature, regardless of whether the main characters are gay or straight? Every state citizen contributes to the funds those libraries are paid by. How do the Christians-who-fear-gays get to decide what books everyone gets or does not get to find there?

But please, if you're going to reply to this post at all, then to the question what in heavens name you consider "literature that promotes a gay lifestyle", in the first place.

0 Replies

Let me clarify for you one thing: I have given you the impression that I'm in favor of the proposed legislation ... I am not. I heard Allen on the television the other day, and I found him to be an idiot. Now, while I'm not in favor of my children walking into the library and reading a book on gay lifestyles, in a general sense I don't have a problem with those books being in the library. This is not because I have an interest,

dlowan wrote:

in seeing the WHOLE of human life depicted in art.

It's more that I just don't care.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

But please, if you're going to reply to this post at all, then to the question what in heavens name you consider "literature that promotes a gay lifestyle", in the first place.

Well, literally, one is "promoting" something if one features it or focuses on it in some way in a public forum.

So, if an author choses to feature homosexuality in his/her book, they are "promoting" it in some way. They are shining a light on it.

If I wrote a book and it featured Nissan vans, for example, I could be accused by other van manufacturers of "promoting" Nissan vans in favour of other (or perhaps in their opinion better?) types of van.

"Promote" in the "popularize by advertising" sense.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

candidone1, you mis-attribute to me the following line:

Quote:
Did you read the rest of the article and see the examples we're talking about here?

nimh said that. Not sure what your point was, anyway, but thought I should clear that up for you.

I did indeed mis-quote. My apologies.

Ticomaya wrote:

So, is this the equation you're running with: Gerald Allen = Alabama Republican State Senator = Bush's Base = Bush?

Or...Bush's base is representative of the ideologies espoused by the Bush administration (and vice-cersa). Bush either condemns or extolls it, supports it or kills it.
The above equation is "logical" in a very simplified sense because you are trying to get me to say that Gerald Allen=George W. Bush, and any beliefs attributed to one should therefore be attributed to the other.
That is pure nonsense.

Ticomaya wrote:

So when Gerald Allen, lone Alabama state senator, introduces a piece of legislation, The Guardian feels free to attribute that action to President Bush? And you wish to go on record agreeing with that spurious attribution?

Spurious it may seem.
But Bush is bound to carry through with his conservative base's wishes, which as we have seen in other threads, would lead to stricter regulations on abortions, legislation against same sex marriages, no acknowledgement of gay rights, etc, etc.
So am I going to go on record agreeing with that spurious attribution, no. But will I reflect on the Bush/neo-con agenda and see this as a nothing but a step in their direction, yes.

0 Replies

Another ridiculous idea by some redneck politician. How f*cking stupid that this moron has decided that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed.

Doesn't this idiot have anything better to do?

0 Replies

no

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Another ridiculous idea by some redneck politician. How f*cking stupid that this moron has decided that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed.

Doesn't this idiot have anything better to do?

Kind of up to his constuincy isn't it? If that's why they elected him then he would be doing his job representing them. He is not representing you, or me, or anyone else on here (is he? If so, you'd be wise to get the word out about this maniac...).

Why is it that this guy, who is not known to be a redneck, stupid or a moron has become a beacon for such vulgarity? We can't all think the same way or hold the same morals or values.

0 Replies

the prince wrote:

woiyo wrote:
I do not want taxpayer money to promote a homosexual lifestyle.

Let the homosexual community try to promote their own lifestyle.

Why ? Don't homosexuals pay tax as well ?

I don't want tax payers money to promote heterosexual lifestyle.

Let the heterosexual community try to promote their won lifestyle.

Well said, G.

The other hilarious thing about these bigots is that, as well as not understanding simple stuff like who pays tax, they - who (if they HAVE an argument to support their bigotry - which is moot) would appear to base whatever is coherent in their objection to homosexuality on some argument to do with "un-naturalness" - yet, these same folk appear to believe that, despite its "naturalness", heterosexuality is so under threat that any depiction of gayness - or at least any that is not full of misery, pain, disease and death - will lure heterosexuals from their fragile allegiance to "nature" and begin a nightmare slide towards "the other side".

It would be funny, if it had not had so much power in the world.

0 Replies

'Dig a hole and dump them in it.'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know