Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - radicalangel

The Homosexual Agenda
Many of you have heard Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and others speak of the "Homosexual Agenda," but no one has ever seen a copy of it. A friend of mine recently obtained a copy directly from the Head Homosexual. I certainly hope it will assist your own planning efforts. It reads as follows:

6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping (preferably at Marshall Fields's, Macy's or Nordstom's)
12:00 pm Brunch
2:00 pm 1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State, and Local Governments, as well as all other national governments,
2) destroy all healthy marriages,
3) replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels,
4) bulldoze all houses of worship,
5) secure total control of the Internet and all mass media, and
6) be fabulous
2:30 pm Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from the stress of world conquest
4:00 pm Cocktails
6:00 pm Light Dinner (soup, salad [with arugula and balsamic vinegar dressing], Chardonnay)
8:00 pm Theater
10.30 pm Cocktails in the 'hood
12:00 am Bed (du jour)
Quote from: "Dan Lynch"
Actually the homosexual agenda will undermine our rights as parents.
Nah, it's too busy helping conceal Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
Main / John Kerry
Mar 02, 2004, 07:43 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Hey RA!  Good to see you. Where ya been?
Hey, good to see you too.  Basically been wrapped up in work, and I'll, more than likely, disappear for a while yet again.  Such is life for me, but oh, well... :)
All the democratic candidates creep me out.  Hell, even the republicans creep me out.  There's not one among them who has the slightest interest or good will toward men and boys.
It's beginning to seem like a task in choosing the lesser of two evils.  Of course, that's probably always been the case. :(
Quote from: "Dan Lynch"
The point of my thread isn't about individual homosexuals, the point of my thread is the idea that their is a vast conspiracy designed to convert everyone to homosexuality, or paganism if you will.  Either the elite who own media outlets are gay and want to promote it, or something else is going on.  

The gay conditioning process has been going on for years, slowly but surely making it normal, then absolute.  Shows like
Dawson's Creek making characters suffer heartache and having watchers feel sorry for him cause he's gay and unaccepted.  Okay fine, but now, it's everywhere as normal and promted.  Why?  Is it a part of the depopulation agenda from the UN?  OR is it something else?
Why is it "promotion" when gay people and sexuality are visible in the media?  

Do you consider it "promotion" when straight people and relationships are visible?  Does it mean they're trying to convert people to heterosexuality?  Think about it.
Main / John Kerry
Mar 02, 2004, 04:11 AM
I think Kerry is basically Clinton II. Hopefully this version can keep it in his pants around young interns.
Quote from: "AlexanderGoMavs"
It's odd, but not surprising, that the gay crowd will not accept the gay priests that have made up the recent priest molestation scandal.  Instead of being called the "gay priest scandal" it is called the "pedophile priest scandal", even though it has been male on male molestations in the vast majority of instances.
Why, exactly, should the entire gay community be on trial for crimes of which the entire community is not guilty? It's always amazed me how the crime of a single gay person is suddenly seen as grounds for condemning all of them.

As another note, are you, therefore, willing to accept straight pedophiles?
Main / That's it for marriage in THIS state
Jan 16, 2004, 01:18 AM
Quote from: "Sir Duke"
I agree with you Nichov, it is between them and God. But I am opposed to gay couples adopting, I believe it is a threat to traditional parenting and parental rights. Say there is a gay couple, the partner adopts and then there is a split. The laws could conceivably give custody or guardianship to the partner and not the blood parent. I know arguments state that it is what is good for the child, but family law is so aborted that is a very grey area and bleak to say the least. If that is possible, then the state/government can come in and take control of ANYONES children. I see it as a serious threat, know what I mean?
Question: How is this different from an identical situation in a heterosexual couple?  If a person who already has a child gets married and the spouse adopts the child and becomes a full parent, couldn't the same situation still happen?  

Furthermore, what precisely is so special about the blood parent?  I would think that the child be provided the best environment possible is the most important thing, not the genetic code of the person providing the environment.

Quote from: "Teddy_Roosevelt"
Is anyone going to seriously argue that a child is better off in an orphanage or being bounced from foster-family to foster-family than in a gay household?
Main / Disappearing threads
Nov 30, 2003, 04:22 AM
I have searched for a few threads (from this summer, if I remember correctly) here and there, that I remember posting on, but I cannot find them for the life of me.  Any idea what's up?
Main / Women-only good/Male-only bad
Nov 20, 2003, 10:55 AM
Quote from: "Teddy_Roosevelt"
I've nailed many a feminist poster on MS for claiming to speak for all women.
They try to speak for men, too, by trying to attribute anything bad a man does to his maleness.

Check out this quote from :
The first male in my Intro to WS got upset and left the first day.
I had introduced concepts of feminist pedagogy, including the value
of the experiential.  I then asked students to consider what
"patriarchy" meant, and to share any experiences they had with
patriarchy with the class.  Even though it was only the first day,
the discussion was quite lively.  The class essentially took over
the discussion, and the flow and connection was fantastic.  Except
for the young man - he was to my left in our circle, and he sat
there with his hand up.  It was the class's dialogue - I was not
controlling who spoke next.  But as the dialogue flowed to his
geographic space, he said, "It's in religion, too."  There was a
pause, and the class continued with dialogue without acknowledging
what he had said.

After class, he came up and said that I disrespected him.  I started
to apologize, and stopped mid-sentence.  I had not disrespected him.
So I said something to the effect that I was sorry he was upset, and
we could talk about that, but I had not disrespected him.  He repeated
his statement three times, and I in a soft voice repeated some
version of mine.


Finally, if we recall Peggy McIntosh's concept of privilege.  In the
case of the young man who said I disrespected him, I think that what
happened was that the class did not assign him the privilege to which
he was accustomed.  That women as a group are more used to saying
something in class and not having it lauded; but that when he made
his comment, even though I acknowledged it with an "OK" or "yes,"
the class did not acknowledge or praise him or his comment, but
just continued as though he were not there.  Any this loss of
privilege is what caused him to react as he did.

I don't suppose his feelings could be due to a general human desire to be acknowledged, could it?  Naah...
Nov 19, 2003, 02:25 PM
They should really reinstate me, while they're at it :twisted:
Main / Re: Who has rights?
Nov 18, 2003, 05:16 PM
Quote from: "InternetDevil"
Do you think every person has human rights?
Yes, that's why they are called "human rights."
Does a bum have a right to community's help?
Nope, though I think the community should help him if he is willing to help himself.
Do people who think about suicide have a right to counselling even if they can't afford it?  
If someone has a potentially fatal form of cancer, do they have a right to treatment even if they cannot afford it?
Do you think any criminal has a right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment?  For instance should Westerfield or Green River killer be protected from other inmates?
Yes, I think everyone should be free from cruel and unusual punishment.  Once you start to allow those punishments in some cases, you automatically open the door for them to be used on others as well, and I think that undeserved punishment is a greater injustice than escaping deserved punishment.
Do you think Jeffery Dahmer and Father Geoghan were murdered by the system?
The system is not guilty, per se.  However, such inmates should be kept safe from fates such as theirs.  If the sentence is imprisonment, that should be the sentence they receive.
On the other hand, what do you think about WWII criminals who killed thousands yet were treated very humanly by the Western Allies?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Care to imagine some of the horrific tortures that could be given to male prisoners of war?  I am thinking stuff like rape and genital torture, or whatever they could come up with.
Quote from: "John"
I also stated in my e-mail that it was clear to me the value of this to special interest groups such as the homosexual community
Please explain.
Main / Death Penalty debate.
Nov 05, 2003, 12:58 PM
I am against the state imposing the death penalty for various reasons (eg, humans to fallible to decide whether someone is fit to live, the chance of executing an innocent person, two wrongs don't make a right, dangerous to give the state authority to end human lives, etc.).  However, I do think that convicted criminals should have the option.  That is, if someone is sentenced to life without parole, I think it would be appropriate to offer him/her the option of being put to death instead, because--for some--life in prison would be even worse.