BTW, these are in no particular order save for how I feel like answering them, and could be considered "out of context" were it not for the fact that hyperlinking makes it pretty easy to go back and read the full text, if you're so inclined, provided you have a few aspirin handy.
notice how I changed the subject so many times? Well, it's because I get to without anyone interrupting me, since you have abandoned your own blog site. Maybe you'll come out with a series of "jokes" so that all these lies that you've made will get off the main site easily visible to everyone. Like you did the last time I called you on your lies and misinformation.
Wow. I've abandoned my own site! Yep, mean ol' Willie sure had me running for cover, didn't he?
Will: I have a life. I have a wife, a house, two kids, a dog, and a job. I've been to the gym four nights a week for the past month (7 pounds down, TYMV) and do enjoy playing the occasional video game. I've been busy. It happens. And as for... *sniff*, *cry* all my friends abandoning me? I'm sure they have better things to do with their lives than to constantly check up on a blog that's not being updated, save for some belligerent jackass who thinks it's his personal stage. I don't take their ignoring you anymore personally than I do your wiping your ass all over my blog.
Here's a suggestion: Why don't you try setting up your own blog? Then everyone can ignore the verbal diarrhea you shit out over there as well!
"pursuit of happines." [...] Will Smith would be mad at you.
OK. I could be a joyless shitpale and point out that, in fact, it's CHRIS GARDNER who would be mad at me, BUT... credit where it's due. This DID make me laugh. Touche'.
Bull-crap! You have freedom of religion but you failed to mention that you cannot lead a prayer in school. What part of that is harmful to ANYONE?
Um... Actually I could lead a prayer in school anytime I want: I'm not a teacher or school administrator. In fact, under the very doctrine of the separation of church and state, ALL STUDENTS have the right to pray in school. As for "what harm" is done by a TEACHER leading a school prayer? Hmmm.... I wonder how YOU of all people would feel about that if the teacher in question was Muslim. Or Hindu. Or Buddhist. Or Jewish. Or Wiccan. Or Taoist. Or Shinto. Or Siek. But hey: I'm sure you would feel it was any kind of indoctrination if you're child's teacher was having them pray to Allah or Ganesha, for example, right?
[Niceguy Eddie] "Looks like I was born strait. [...] [William] "Interesting statement. You say it turns you off, but cannot back up that statement with anything other than "the THOUGHT of being with another man".
Yeah, as opposed to the ACT, dipshit. If I've never done it - precisely because it DOES turn me off - on what other basis can I make a comment on the matter? What else could I possibly have to go with? Well... I have a THOUGHT. That might be unfamiliar territory to YOU, but it's pretty much where I LIVE.
I see why you stopped posting at this site. I would too if all my statements and ideals turned out to be based on lies and misinformation.
Well, I've already mentioned why I "stopped" (???) posting: I have a life. Sad that a seldom updated blog should be such a large part of YOURS. As for that second statement? If that were true you'd have stopped after your first post.
So, you admit you have to think about it before you act? If you were truly born straight there would be no thought process involved. However, you need to think about it before you make (made) your decision. How does that fit into your proclamations that people are born gay or straight? This isn't rocket science, you know. If you are truly born straight (or gay) then you would not have to think about who you want as a partner. But, since you DO have to think about it, that shows your stance that you are born gay or straight is based on nothing factual ... again. So, you have no proof you are born gay/straight and you have no belief that you are born gay/straight, yet you seek to garner civil rights for the choice of being gay. REALLY ?!?
First of all, regarding Civil Rights: It is not I who wishes to grant them. It is YOU who wished to continue to deny them on that basis. Even if one's orientation WAS a choice, the only justification to punnish them on that basis is your own medieval superstitions about it.
They both are sins against nature.
Yeah, THAT one. You know what else is, according to religious doctrine and state laws, some of which were only overturned in the past decade? Inter-racial marriage and oral sex. Condoms too, at one point. While we're at it, and as long as were talking about NATURE, I might point out that so is modern medicine, aviation, the Internet, democracy and fat-free frozen yogurt. By I digress.
SECONDLY, getting back to the previous quote, if you do nothing else with the inevitable waste of time you're going to grace us all with, I would ask you to do me one simple favor. PLEASE, for the love of God, and for our understanding, describe the THOUGHT PROCESS you went though in CHOOSING to be strait. I really want to understand this. Because for all your absurd word-twisting, I am left with one simple truth about myself: I was born strait. Period. There was never any doubt in my mind that women were attractive creatures. And I'd bet my left nut that every poster here - who's not named "William" or who's not actually gay themselves - would say the same. (Although they'd say it about BEING GAY.)
[READ THE FOLLOWING VERY CAREFULLY!]
So I really need to understand the process YOU went through, because Will? If you had to actually tangle this out and made a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to pursue women instead of men? If that was not instinctual for you?
(Or Bi-Sexual, I suppose.)
And if it WAS instinctual for you? If there was never any conflict in your mind?
Take your pick.
And they're not mutually exclusive: Both can in fact be true, but they cannot both be false. (Logic, FTW!) Also? A gay man (by MY definition) who marries a woman and live the heterosexual lifestyle? Is still gay. Behavior doesn't change desire. There are terms to describe such men. "In the closet" and "beard" come to mind.
[Niceguy Eddie] "The difference between you and me? Is that I don't give a flying fuck what consenting adults do on their own time." [...] [William] Fully understandable and acknowledged. You know WHY you don't care what consenting adults do on their own time? Because it is there CHOICE to do whatever they want ... as long as no one gets harmed, right(?), including giving each other AIDS/HIV? No, I guess you don't mean THAT kind of harm. You just mean 'other' kinds of harm, not the deadly and un-curable kind of harm. You mean psychological harm, not physical harm, right?
Harm, I define harm very specifically. (See my 'Doctrine of Choice.') But the short answer? Mental, emotional and physical harm, are ALL in fact harm. But you see... Having sex with another man, in and of itself, doesn't give you HIV. See... If I'm with an infected PERSON - male OR female, dumbass - I can get HIV. Not infected? I can ass-fuck them 'til the cows come home and all I'm going to get is calluses. Now if they have it, know it, and don't tell me? Yeah - THAT'S doing me harm. Duh. But that not a function of their gender or orientation. It's about without holding information that would inform my own choice.
OK. That's enough of the gay stuff. As rewarding as that was, There are two other things I need to address.
Some of the many Mediamatters lies exposed (do they ever end?) [...] http://www.mediaite.com/online/media-matters-writer-apologizes-after-accusing-drudge-of-posting-fake-trayvon-martin-photo/ [...] http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C1049953760/E20070926121225/index.html [...] http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/29/media-matters-lies-again-this-time-about-obama-intimidating-supreme-court/ [...] http://blog.heartland.org/2011/08/media-matters-lies-about-the-heartland-institute-again/
How this ends up in a post about homosexuality, I'll never know. Anyway, let's say I concede these points. (Not yet, but lets say.) Since 2003, MMFA has posted well over 50,000 items. You're taking issue with four of them. Well done. *clap, clap*
Don't worry, Eddie, I already know what your defense of these lies and misinformation brought by Mediamatters will be: "they're not as bad as the ones conservatives make". Is that the correct defense you'll make of Mediamatters?
No, I won't presume to compare the value of one lie to another. Although, as I mentioned, I might take issue with the FREQUENCY of them. But, in any case, nonse of that is necessary. This is all utter bullshit.
The first one is easy: "Media matters writer apologizes." OK, great. Good for him. A sincere apology is a sign of character. Seems like this is to his credit. If Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage or O'Rielly had the character to muster up a sincere apology they would be such malodorous scumbags. So he got it wrong and apologized for it. That's how things ARE SUPPOSED to work.
The second one is complete load of crap. Bill O'Rielly's full audio WAS included. I can't see any "context" that would make, "No one was shouting 'gimme my m-f'ing iced tea!'" a reasonable observation. (And Juan Williams' comments are irrelevant to the MMFA piece. If he has an opinion, fine. That's his business. MMFA isn't under any obligation to post it.) Whatever. This is just crap. The typical "taken out of context" whine that all RW'ers do whenever they just say something ignorant - as if ANY context would make it make sense. (In my experience? These things are WORSE in context.)
The third one is, itself, a blatant lie. They say MMFA is "lying" because the fail to prove their hypothesis. Fist of all, that's not a lie - that's just a poorly written argument. Second of all, CLICK THE FUCKING LINK. MMFA provides PLENTY of previous Presidents criticizing the Supreme Court! Hypothesis proven.
Where the fuck do you find this trash? And WHY do you READ it?!
Finally, MMFA is accused of "lying" about the Heartland Institute by... THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE. Now... remember the last site, that claimed that failing to prove the hypothesis = lying? Well, you see... MMFA's claim, per the Heartland Institute, was that
"The Heartland Institute is a libertarian think tank that hosts regular conferences disputing mainstream climate science and received $676,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006, including $90,000 specifically for ”General Operating Support — Climate Change.”
Let's see: (1) They ARE a Libertarian think tank. Agreed? (2) They host conferences disputing mainstream climate science, yes? (3) received $676,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006: They don't actually dispute this. They point out that it's only 5% of their funding, but they don't even SAY it's wrong. and (4) including $90,000 specifically for ”General Operating Support — Climate Change.”
Now they do SAY that ExxonMobil STOPPED funding them in 2006. Um... Yeah: So does MMFA! They then say something about how this was before the conferences started. Here's the thing. If you go to the MMFA piece, and go down to the quote in question, you can click on the words "specifically for." These will hyperlink you to ExxonMobil's 990-PF, filed for 2006. Scroll WAAAAY down to page 206 and read the third item. If Heartland has a problem with what MMFA reported, they should take it up with ExxonMobil. (And you should do YOUR OWN research, doofus.)
So... Heartland failed to prove their hypothesis... I guess THEY'RE the liars.
Any other softballs you'd like to lob my way / waste my time with? (Not that it took that long. I only spent about 5 minutes pouring over ExxonMobil's tax form.)
P.S. Still waiting on a comment about your false/misleading 80% number you used.
For those who have a life and don't comb through posts from two months ago, 80% is the number of sub-prime loans issued by banks not governed by the CRA. And I'm done 'commenting' on it, so I'll simply give him a citation. It comes from University of Michigan Law Professor Michael Barr's testimony before congress:
Despite the fact that CRA appears to have increased bank and thrift lending in low- and moderate-income communities, such institutions are not the only ones operating in these areas. In fact, with new and lower-cost sources of funding available from the secondary market through securitization, and with advances in financial technology, subprime lending exploded in the late 1990s, reaching over $600 billion and 20% of all originations by 2005. More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30 percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts, which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts.
He's one of many who have studied it, and you can find several of his papers online rather easily. I've read portions of many of them myself, but I'm done doing your research for you. And, in any case, MMFA was kind enough to link to many of their own sources.
Now this DID take a bit of effort on my part, so I would appreciate it if you'd actually read the whole thing. (And I'll know from your comments if you did.) And I'l say up front that I don't plan to reply to your comments on this: You can have the last word, unless there's something truly eggregious in what you say. I'm confident that anyone who reads my work and yours side by side will see the truth of the matter.