Brokeback mountain...

[miked10270 0]

Quote

SHHHH dont let Clay know he will go just to watch the sheep

No. He's OK now. He's finally learning that "Baaa..." means NO. (sometimes... Sometimes she's a' jus' teasin'!)

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

In my experience, MANY straight people, male and female, find it repulsive to even watch men kissing.

I am not a bigot or a homophobe -- I have no problem with gay people and am friends with some. But I am repulsed by the idea of watching a movie made about gay cowboys. It seems too... faggy... Like watching a drag queen show or something. Too flamboyant. Too egregiously anti-masculine and macho, which is what the whole cowboy thing is supposed to be about.

Cowboys in a depiction like a feature film should, in my own opinon, be true to the "tradition" of cowboy films: heroic, honorable, manly, and straight.

But that's just me.
Hell, I haven't seen this film, so I don't know if it's done well or something. For all I know, it might be. It might be real poignant. But then, "cowboy" and "poignant" shouldn't really mix.


-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[AlexCrowley 0]

um.

It's not anything about your attitude towards homosexuals, but your attitude towards movies is offensive.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

The same place it says you can read it selectively and only follow the parts that support your personal biases. Duh.

Or try this novel idea: read the parts that apply to you, not the parts that apply to Israelites living 40 centuries ago.

[Keith 0]

You're just pissed that none of the gay men around here were impressed with the peepee pics you posted.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Got no shortage of gay guys who think I'm hot, here.

Too bad I want none of it.


-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

In a gay world, straight people would be treated with respect.

Pure speculation.

There was a girl I dated years ago. She was Bi. On many nights when we would hang out with her friends some of her gay friends were quite rude to me....Refering to me as "The Boy Toy"...ect.

People like to claim that hatred is only one way, but thats often not the case.

Edit...After reading some more I forgot all about the "Breeder" comments they used to describe me. Yes, you could claim it was not an insult. But it was in the tone and manner they used it.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

And finally, on the opposite coin, why would gay people FEAR straight people if the roles were reversed?

For the same reasons that some straights hate gays.

They are different. If gays ran the world, then "breeders" would be the strange ones.

Religion does not help. There is not yet (that I know) a religion that is anti-straight. But if gays were top dog then it could have happend.

Your gay...great. But some of your posts show anger towards people who don't respect that. Its pretty easy to see that people are people and gay or straight will not change hatred based on fear.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

But some of your posts show anger towards people who don't respect that. Its pretty easy to see that people are people and gay or straight will not change hatred based on fear.

Again with the spontaneous claims of anger. I swear I don't understand how my dispassionate and analytical posts always become "angry" to people who disagree with their content (but not with others of course).

Is this a new cliche in popular culture, perhaps a repeating theme in television shows or something? Are the thoughtful characters in sitcoms being called "angry" in recent years? That would explain this new trend here on dropzone.com.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Again with the spontaneous claims of anger. I swear I don't understand how my dispassionate and analytical posts always become "angry" to people who disagree with their content (but not with others of course).

If one person sees anger. They might be wrong. If several people see anger then you just might be projecting anger. Your posts are anything but "dispassionate".

Quote

Are the thoughtful characters in sitcoms being called "angry" in recent years?

Don't know. But while you have some valid points, you dismiss and belittle anyone that disagrees with your views. And the irony is you tell others they don't have an open mind.

You made a claim that gays if in charge would not bash straights. That was a statement that was questioned by several people. The simple fact is you made a statement that was pure speculation and history has shown that people in power who have fear of something have hatred.

You are of course very invested in this argument, enough that you move to another country. It is easy to see how passion can cause anger at anyone that disagrees.

But to claim you are being dispassionate, analytical and thoughtful when you post a statement that has no basis in fact is proven incorrect.

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

Again with the spontaneous claims of anger. I swear I don't understand how my dispassionate and analytical posts always become "angry" to people who disagree with their content (but not with others of course).

Is this a new cliche in popular culture, perhaps a repeating theme in television shows or something?

Actually, I think "you're a very angry person" is the classic response of those who have no good argument to make. It's right up there with arguing someone's psychology or experiences instead of the premises of the argument.

When people do it, I write them off, because I know that almost without exception, they'll never argue anything but my personality.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[narcimund 0]

Quote

If one person sees anger. They might be wrong. If several people see anger then you just might be projecting anger.

But if over and over again one class of people say I'm angry but another class say I'm not, then it's pretty clear that it's not rational. It's just partisan.

Those who disagree with my conclusions but don't address the content of my reasoning just LOVE to describe my personality. Then they make wild speculative claims about my motives without any evidence whatsoever.

I've been angry before and I've even posted angry things, but nothing in this thread is an example of that. Wouldn't you think I'd be the first to know?

Anger, no. Awe at the vitriol, bigotry, and delusions? Yes.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Actually, I think "you're a very angry person" is the classic response of those who have no good argument to make.

LOL!
I get that response all the time on boards like this! So you're saying, those people are at the end of their rope and have no valid argument against me?

COOOooooOOoOoOooOOOOOL!


-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

But if over and over again one class of people say I'm angry but another class say I'm not, then it's pretty clear that it's not rational. It's just partisan.

WHO is being partisan? Your group may think you are being rational, but that does not mean that its true. Skydivers think most skydivers are rational, whuffos think we all are crazy. Like minded people will agree that they all are rational. Bill Cole's church friends think he is quite rational for his views too.

I think you BOTH are extreme, just on different sides.

Quote

Those who disagree with my conclusions but don't address the content of my reasoning just LOVE to describe my personality. Then they make wild speculative claims about my motives without any evidence whatsoever.

You do the same. Saying things like like you did to the one guy about his "cluttered mind" does not help you prove to be non biased and rational.

As for evidence I have seen a few posts from you where you attack anyone that does not agree 100% with your views. In that manner you are the same as Bill Cole.

Quote

I've been angry before and I've even posted angry things, but nothing in this thread is an example of that. Wouldn't you think I'd be the first to know?

I personally think that some of the things you have posted have been pretty good. I also have seen you write some nasty semi-attacks. (i.e. the cluttered mind thing).

For the record before you think I am attacking you....I kinda respect you.

You didn't like the status quo, and you took steps to change it. You got married when you could, and when that turned on you (Something that would make me angry BTW) you tried to fix it. When you could not fix it you went to a place that would let you live the way you want instead of just bitching about it. For that you have my respect.

While I am not sure I agree with your lifestyle, its not my place to make you live one way or the other.

It SEEMS to me that you don't have the same views about leaving others alone (Just like Cole). Maybe I am wrong, but the tone of your post makes it seem that you have a problem with anyone that does not 100% agree with you.

Edit...Back to the topic.

I will most likely not see this movie. I don't normally go to movies anyway, and to be honest while this is a ground breaking movie, it just does not interest me. I would not go see the movie if it was about a guy and a girl, so why would I see it if its about two guys?

The great thing about this movie is it is about two guys. But thats not enough to make me want to see it. And I am not sure the movie would be as "good" without the ground breaking subject.

So, I most likely will not see it. Of course, I said the same thing about Moores movies, but I still ended up seeing most of them at some point.

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

Quote

Actually, I think "you're a very angry person" is the classic response of those who have no good argument to make.

LOL!
I get that response all the time on boards like this! So you're saying, those people are at the end of their rope and have no valid argument against me?

COOOooooOOoOoOooOOOOOL!


-Jeffrey

Allow me to clarify my statement.

I think "you're a very angry person" is the classic response of those who have no good argument to make, if this statement is made in response to an actual argument.

When it is merely a response to gibberish, nonsense or blather that upon examination bears no relation to the topic of the argument, it may well be an astute observation.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Are you a landscaper by trade?

You're so very good at hedging.


Or maybe you've been in fetish videos: you seem quite comfortable with a foot in your mouth.


-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Or maybe you've been in fetish videos: you seem quite comfortable with a foot in your mouth.

I'd say you just put your foot in yours . . .

. . =(_8^(1)

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

When it's getting in my face, to a point where I can no longer escape it, it becomes my business.

Oh you guys! I TOLD you not to handcuff markharju and drag him kicking and screaming to Brokeback Mountain then prop his eyelids open with toothpicks until the closing credits!

Look to see this movie ("Fudgepack Mountain") being used to advance the Militant Homosexual Agenda (TM) in places where there are captive audiences.

Like, say in Junior High Schools, where children can only "opt out" by getting a parental note, or in colleges, where one is obligated to watch the film in order to receive a passing grade. Look to see the course tied to obligatory PC subjects the institution requires for graduation.

This is very common in academia, and is known as "Indoctrination".

THIS WILL HAPPEN - you can bank on it. And when it does, please remember that you read it HERE first.

mh

edit for parsing

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Rebecca 0]

The queers are out to get our children???? Holy crap. I had no idea.

They're probably infiltrating our school systems as we speak, setting up conditions under which an entire class will be forced to attend queerification. That means they're getting to the parents first, likely through this movie, so they don't have a backlash of permission slips... yeah that could work...

Before we know it, the kids are going to be redecorating their classrooms, insisting on garni in the cafeteria, and having gangbangs in the little boys room.



Does the President know about this?

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[NelKel 0]

this movie ("Fudgepack Mountain") <<<<<

HA, HA!Most people here have been refering to it as (Homo on the range)

_________________________________________

Someone dies, someone says how stupid, someone says it was avoidable, someone says how to avoid it, someone calls them an idiot, someone proposes rule chan

[labrys 0]

Quote

THIS WILL HAPPEN - you can bank on it. And when it does, please remember that you read it HERE first.

That's very arrogant. What the hell makes you think anyone read that here first. It's common public discussion already. Sorry to disappoint you, but you didn't just enlighten us all because you repeated it here.

Calling this "Indoctrination" is total bullshit also. Teaching someone to be accepting of others is called teaching "Tolerance" not indoctrination. Just because someone with a political agenda calls it indoctrination doesn't make it a fact.

Allowing everyone an equal say without having them fear repercussions is called "Freedom of Speach"

It kills me how people in this forum can mock someone for not thinking for themselves in one breath and then imply that the world is going to hell in a handbasket because everyone is being brainwashed in another breath.

Make up your minds. Are your children capable of thinking for themselves? If you have any doubts you better get busy teaching them before all the gays and liberals get their hands on them.

Owned by Remi #?

[Rebecca 0]

HYPOTHETICAL

What do you think the state of "gay politics" would be right now if, say, there were no gay men, only lesbians? Just butch dykes and lipstick lesbians and everything in between, but no males.


I think things would be VERY very different.

I think most homophobia and anti-gay sentiments come from heterosexual men's very basic fear of being penetrated.

What do y'all think? Would there be such a to-do if ALL men and some women preferred sex with females?

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[Channman 2]

Well its good to know that we are so interested in two guys slobbing the knob of the other and looking up into their eyes saying...where's the cream filling?

Its a sick life style and it includes women on women as well, there are no redeeming values, but a fullfilment for lust. Its a preversion of what is natural between a man or women.

That being said, I've gone on record that I do have several close friends that are gay. I would prefer seeing them in loving relationships with the opposite sex and raise a family as a Mother and Father. Its not how a nation should define itself with a large percentage of children saying I have two moms / dads.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Its a sick life style and it includes women on women as well, there are no redeeming values, but a fullfilment for lust. Its a preversion of what is natural between a man or women.

Funny, I know a few long standing gay couples. Pretty certain they are not mongomous for lust. That statement is utterly ignorant no matter how many gay people you say you know. Why am I even responding to it? AHHHH!!! I can't stop the typing!!!!

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Rebecca 0]

So, when a man and a woman love each other, it's true and real and healthy and then they have chaste non-anal sex.

Otherwise, it's about lust and bodily secretions and assimilating a large percent of the population to do the same?



Why can't two people just love each other?

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?