America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 8 years ago by banderl. 154 replies replies.
4 Pages<1234>
Chick-Fil-A
DrafterX Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
negative attention..?? you're the one that road in here on your high horse like the gay-homo Batman acting like you just won some sort of gay-homo victory by starting this thread... what did you expect, apologies or something..?? Huh

get real... you got exactly what you were looking for... Mellow
teedubbya Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
^ chicken
DrafterX Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
yep... fried chicken for dinner tonite... ThumpUp
teedubbya Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I knew you liked gobbling c o c k
HockeyDad Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
So Victor starts another gay-homo Chick-Fil-A thread and then almost instantly gets all butt-hurt again.

Drama queen.
teedubbya Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Mmmm butt hurt
dpnewell Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
victor809 wrote:
Even if a hate-group doesn't go under, reduced funding reduces the amount of stupid crap they can do to try to enforce discrimination.

Simply put drafter, as long as you use that "gay-homo" crap and consistently prove that you cannot have an intelligent discussion without trying to stupidly denigrate a group of people, then I cannot take you seriously as anything other than a disgusting little puddle of effluent.

At some point in time you're going to have to learn that the words you choose to use will color your message.


Typical liberal hypocrisy. Anyone who disagrees with your world view is a "hate group", yet you, and those who think like you, have no problem hating and bashing those you disagree with.

When your Georgetown buddies where mugged, it was immediately a “hate crime”, though you have no evidence to support your accusation. I bet you think the gay activist that shot the security guard for the group that supported traditional marriage was not committing a hate crime, even though he said he hated them during the attack. Typical.
victor809 Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
DrafterX wrote:
negative attention..?? you're the one that road in here on your high horse like the gay-homo Batman acting like you just won some sort of gay-homo victory by starting this thread... what did you expect, apologies or something..?? Huh

get real... you got exactly what you were looking for... Mellow


Really? I fully admitted I created the thread to laugh at those individuals who were determined to stuff as much grease down their throat as possible to try to fund anti-gay groups (somehow not smart enough to just donate the money themselves).

However, that did not require denigrating a group. Funny how you couldn't help but involve denigrating a group, something you do in just about every thread you sully.
victor809 Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HockeyDad wrote:
So Victor starts another gay-homo Chick-Fil-A thread and then almost instantly gets all butt-hurt again.

Drama queen.


Technically it wasn't a "gay-homo" thread (you guys do realize this is the equivalent of saying "blacky-negro") until drafter decided to start using that term.
victor809 Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
dpnewell wrote:
Typical liberal hypocrisy. Anyone who disagrees with your world view is a "hate group", yet you, and those who think like you, have no problem hating and bashing those you disagree with.


we covered this. denigrating or restricting the rights of an entire group based on sterotypes etc etc etc is 100% different than calling an individual a jackass for being a jackass. Any of you can bash the hell out of any other for things you know about them based on your personal experience with them. ie - drafter is an idiot


Quote:

When your Georgetown buddies where mugged, it was immediately a “hate crime”, though you have no evidence to support your accusation. I bet you think the gay activist that shot the security guard for the group that supported traditional marriage was not committing a hate crime, even though he said he hated them during the attack. Typical.


my friends were not mugged. there was no attempt to take anything. fortunately they were able to fight the bastards off, but please, list the multitude of other possible reasons for people to be attacked in one of the safest areas of dc.

As for whether the gay activist committed a hate crime, that's a very interesting question. My first answer would be he committed a crime of stupidity. shooting a security guard of an anti-gay group because of their anti-gay stance is the equivalent of shooting a traffic cop outside an abortion clinic. The individual is simply an unaffiliated employee. Did he try to commit a hate crime? I don't know... it's a very interesting question, as you'd have to first define whether you considered the anti-gay supporters to be a "group". Can you define the boundaries of the group? I do think its an interesting question and worth consideration.
wheelrite Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
teedubbya wrote:
Nah I actually think Vic is straight. Just open minded.


Hmmm ?Think

If I had to bet the farm I'd say Victor was the target for gay homo gang shootoff at one time. Just to see if he liked it..
HockeyDad Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
victor809 wrote:
Technically it wasn't a "gay-homo" thread (you guys do realize this is the equivalent of saying "blacky-negro") until drafter decided to start using that term.



It is not the equivalent. Blacky-Negros are perfectly normal people. Gay-homos are people waiting for the gay-homo gene to be discovered so one day Merck and Pfizer can discover the cure.
victor809 Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HockeyDad wrote:
It is not the equivalent. Blacky-Negros are perfectly normal people. Gay-homos are people waiting for the gay-homo gene to be discovered so one day Merck and Pfizer can discover the cure.


Yeah... because no one has ever tried curing skin color....
Hell, I have an asian friend who's grandfather used to make him scour his skin with bleach or something ridiculous like that to "lighten" his skin color.
tailgater Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Yeah... because no one has ever tried curing skin color....
Hell, I have an asian friend who's grandfather used to make him scour his skin with bleach or something ridiculous like that to "lighten" his skin color.


Michael Jackson was Asian??
teedubbya Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Actually Vic you did start this thread to denigrate a group. You said it yourself. A group that decided to shove grease down their throats etc. the only real difference is you have disdain for one group and not the other.

But your whole purpose was to agitate one group while defending your group.

Ya gay homo.
DrafterX Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
victor809 wrote:
we covered this. denigrating or restricting the rights of an entire group based on sterotypes etc etc etc is 100% different than calling an individual a jackass for being a jackass. Any of you can bash the hell out of any other for things you know about them based on your personal experience with them. ie - drafter is an idiot





There you go making up rules again.. you're really fuqued in the head man.. you come in here again this morning all judgemental wearing your Batman suit again condeming others because they don't beleive associating with militant gay-homos and clopper freaks is normal... why do you hang out with them Victor..?? you claim to be straight but I think you get off on those freaks checking you out everyday don't you... sure you do... you should consider celelbrating your false victory in another forum or on your facebook page... I'm sure there's lots of freaks who would follow you anywhere there....
and just for the record, as I've stated before, I have no problem with someone being gay if that's how they choose to live.. What bothers me is the militant gay-homos that dress up in muppet suits and picket outside Chick-filas trying to convice kids a man is evil because he beleives marriage should be between a man and a woman.. and the militant gay-homos that prance down the streets of Georgetown with chips on their shoulders...

carry on if you wish.. your mission here is a lost cause...








but we're still friends right..?? Huh
victor809 Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
teedubbya wrote:
Actually Vic you did start this thread to denigrate a group. You said it yourself. A group that decided to shove grease down their throats etc. the only real difference is you have disdain for one group and not the other.

But your whole purpose was to agitate one group while defending your group.

Ya gay homo.


I'll accept that, as long as we clarify that it's a group defined by their actions (stuffing grease down their gullets in an attempt to fund anti-gay organizations) rather than a group defined by their race, creed or sexuality (ie, blacks, christians or gays).

An individual can freely choose to enter or leave the group I'm denigrating.

It's the equivalent of mocking people who drive slow in the left hand lane. Once they stop being idiots, they stop fitting in the group you're mocking.
HockeyDad Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
victor809 wrote:
Yeah... because no one has ever tried curing skin color....
Hell, I have an asian friend who's grandfather used to make him scour his skin with bleach or something ridiculous like that to "lighten" his skin color.



The Irish and English have developed the means to have absolutely no skin color if that counts as a cure.

....but you have really weird friends.
HockeyDad Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
victor809 wrote:
An individual can freely choose to enter or leave the group I'm denigrating.

It's the equivalent of mocking people who drive slow in the left hand lane. Once they stop being idiots, they stop fitting in the group you're mocking.




This also applies for the gay-homos. They're free to leave the group whenever they want.
DrafterX Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
HockeyDad wrote:
This also applies for the gay-homos. They're free to leave the group whenever they want.



true... true... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
DrafterX wrote:
There you go making up rules again.. you're really fuqued in the head man.. you come in here again this morning all judgemental wearing your Batman suit again condeming others because they don't beleive associating with militant gay-homos and clopper freaks is normal... why do you hang out with them Victor..?? you claim to be straight but I think you get off on those freaks checking you out everyday don't you... sure you do... you should consider celelbrating your false victory in another forum or on your facebook page... I'm sure there's lots of freaks who would follow you anywhere there....
and just for the record, as I've stated before, I have no problem with someone being gay if that's how they choose to live.. What bothers me is the militant gay-homos that dress up in muppet suits and picket outside Chick-filas trying to convice kids a man is evil because he beleives marriage should be between a man and a woman.. and the militant gay-homos that prance down the streets of Georgetown with chips on their shoulders...

carry on if you wish.. your mission here is a lost cause...



but we're still friends right..?? Huh


awww... are you upset I'm judgmental of you?
first off, why would you even care who I choose to have as friends? I'll associate with any individual who doesn't act like an ass. While I've never met a "clopper", if they are less of an idiotic ass than you, I would have no problem hanging out with them. My choice of friends has nothing to do with their sexuality.

As for you having no problem with someone being gay... the words you choose to use here on this forum on an hourly basis say otherwise. You can claim its just the people protesting you don't like, but the words you use denigrate anyone of that sexuality. You are conveniently making sure that anyone who is gay is sure as hell not going to voluntarily speak to you about it, isolating yourself away in a little bubble.

victor809 Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HockeyDad wrote:
This also applies for the gay-homos. They're free to leave the group whenever they want.


Blowing a senator in an airport bathroom to gain "cone of protection" status isn't the same thing as actually being gay.
DrafterX Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
I never touched Bubbles.... Not talking Not talking


are you afraid to admit you're a clopper Vic..?? it's ok, we're open minded and stuff... as long as you don't try to convince the children it's ok I don't have a problem with it.... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
DrafterX wrote:
I never touched Bubbles.... Not talking Not talking


are you afraid to admit you're a clopper Vic..?? it's ok, we're open minded and stuff... as long as you don't try to convince the children it's ok I don't have a problem with it.... Mellow


Are you trying to deflect the conversation?
DrafterX Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
were you not done calling me an idiot among other things..?? sorry man.. carry on... and BTW your mask is crooked... Mellow



Victor playing hero in Georgetown:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-77WSLqe_IQ


Laugh
HockeyDad Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
victor809 wrote:
Blowing a senator in an airport bathroom to gain "cone of protection" status isn't the same thing as actually being gay.



I warned you not to trust that senator.
teedubbya Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
victor809 wrote:
awww... are you upset I'm judgmental of you?
first off, why would you even care who I choose to have as friends? I'll associate with any individual who doesn't act like an ass. While I've never met a "clopper", if they are less of an idiotic ass than you, I would have no problem hanging out with them. My choice of friends has nothing to do with their sexuality.

As for you having no problem with someone being gay... the words you choose to use here on this forum on an hourly basis say otherwise. You can claim its just the people protesting you don't like, but the words you use denigrate anyone of that sexuality. You are conveniently making sure that anyone who is gay is sure as hell not going to voluntarily speak to you about it, isolating yourself away in a little bubble.




In my can you milk a cat voice

I act like and ass. Are we friends?
teedubbya Offline
#78 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I like gay homos. for some reason when we swap the very same cigars theirs always taste more earthy
DrafterX Offline
#79 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
teedubbya wrote:
I like gay homos.



I like Victor too.... he's just gets a little emotional every now and then.. it's to be expected I guess... Mellow
teedubbya Offline
#80 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Seriously I don't care if someone is gay or not and only you truly know if you feel the same. I can't judge that based on the words you use. I at one time was homophobic and like most anything else that fear/phobia/misunderstanding went away with exposure/experience/education etc. From my experience they call each other by far worse things than I ever have/will. It's your intent more than the words.

Vic is riding in on the white unicorn trying to slay a rainbow dragon that likely doesn't exisit. Oh sure there are some bigots in here.... no doubt. But not as many as you think and not around every corner. Its like the idiots in here that think if you ever disagree with a R speaking point you are a lib and all libs are bad. Stupid.
HockeyDad Offline
#81 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
I'm not sure that Victor is a gay-homo. It may just be that he has the highest estrogen count on the boards.

He's got all the drama of a Taylor Swift song.
teedubbya Offline
#82 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
A frenchman with a false f a g operation
HockeyDad Offline
#83 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
Don't touch my oui oui!
teedubbya Offline
#84 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
HockeyDad wrote:
Don't touch my oui oui!


gay homophobe
HockeyDad Offline
#85 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
teedubbya wrote:
gay homophobe


Am not! I'm not afraid of Victor rubbing off on me.
DrafterX Offline
#86 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
HockeyDad wrote:
I'm not afraid of Victor rubbing off on me.



I think your pic is over in the Pic Post forum so he prolly already has..... Mellow
tailgater Offline
#87 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
teedubbya wrote:
I at one time was homophobic and like most anything else that fear/phobia/misunderstanding went away with exposure/experience/education etc.
.



Is it truly a phobia?
I don't think most folks are afraid of gay people.
So is it just a "misunderstanding" as you offer above?
If so, I have french-ophobia because I don't understand them either.

Plus they smell bad and have a disturbing air of misplaced arrogance.



victor809 Offline
#88 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
Is it truly a phobia?
I don't think most folks are afraid of gay people.
So is it just a "misunderstanding" as you offer above?
If so, I have french-ophobia because I don't understand them either.

Plus they smell bad and have a disturbing air of misplaced arrogance.



I believe the roots of the term homophobia come from the idea that the most strident anti-gay individuals are usually doing so out of repression of some internal issues and that they are acting out of fear of their own sexual desires (hence the "phobe" part). I don't think anyone is actually afraid of being attacked by a gay if they walk down the street.
tailgater Offline
#89 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
I believe the roots of the term homophobia come from the idea that the most strident anti-gay individuals are usually doing so out of repression of some internal issues and that they are acting out of fear of their own sexual desires (hence the "phobe" part). I don't think anyone is actually afraid of being attacked by a gay if they walk down the street.


I doubt that the term "Most" applies.
That's wishful thinking, and is also a means to provide a verbal and psychological punch to their adversaries.
I find it ridiculous that it's been universally accepted as a means to describe everyone who doesn't want special rules enacted to support the gay agenda.
Oops. I mean to protect gay rights.



victor809 Offline
#90 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
I doubt that the term "Most" applies.
That's wishful thinking, and is also a means to provide a verbal and psychological punch to their adversaries.
I find it ridiculous that it's been universally accepted as a means to describe everyone who doesn't want special rules enacted to support the gay agenda.
Oops. I mean to protect gay rights.





Look where the "most" is in the sentence.
The idea (I don't remember which psychologist proposed it, but there is an actual paper in which "homophobia" was coined) is that the most anti-gay... not "most of the..." a little word shift means a lot here.
tailgater Offline
#91 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Look where the "most" is in the sentence.
The idea (I don't remember which psychologist proposed it, but there is an actual paper in which "homophobia" was coined) is that the most anti-gay... not "most of the..." a little word shift means a lot here.


OK.
Then the word "usually" is wishful thinking.


tailgater Offline
#92 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
The whole "thou doth protest too loud" is foreign to my thought process.

I hate the NY Jets. I tell everyone. Does that mean I secretly dream of Rex Ryan's feet?

victor809 Offline
#93 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
The whole "thou doth protest too loud" is foreign to my thought process.

I hate the NY Jets. I tell everyone. Does that mean I secretly dream of Rex Ryan's feet?



Nah, it means you're an idiot for caring a whit about a sports team. :)

I was just stating where the term came from. However, the number of anti-gay senators/congressmen and pundits caught in the closet with their pants down does give oneself pause.
tailgater Offline
#94 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:


I was just stating where the term came from. However, the number of anti-gay senators/congressmen and pundits caught in the closet with their pants down does give oneself pause.


I'm sure some or many fail to practice what they preach.
But how would you feel if you were labeled a pedophile because you spoke out against NAMBLA?
Extreme, certainly. But not entirely unrelated.
victor809 Offline
#95 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
I'm sure some or many fail to practice what they preach.
But how would you feel if you were labeled a pedophile because you spoke out against NAMBLA?
Extreme, certainly. But not entirely unrelated.


That's easy. NAMBLA advocates a victimization (statutory rape of a minor, at minimum). This is a huge difference from any gay advocacy group, as "gay" doesn't victimize anyone, hell it really doesn't even involve sex. A celibate gay person is still gay. Being against NAMBLA is the same as being against the National Association for Murdering Elderly Women (NAMEW, not so catchy... but heck). A person being against the victimization of another human being has a rational reason to be against it. Without a rational reason for being against something (ie, something between two adults with no actual impact on your life), then you're just meddling and a person has to question why you care so much.

At least that's my view on it.

For the record, I'm against NAMEW.
tailgater Offline
#96 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
That's easy. NAMBLA advocates a victimization (statutory rape of a minor, at minimum). This is a huge difference from any gay advocacy group, as "gay" doesn't victimize anyone, hell it really doesn't even involve sex. A celibate gay person is still gay. Being against NAMBLA is the same as being against the National Association for Murdering Elderly Women (NAMEW, not so catchy... but heck). A person being against the victimization of another human being has a rational reason to be against it. Without a rational reason for being against something (ie, something between two adults with no actual impact on your life), then you're just meddling and a person has to question why you care so much.

At least that's my view on it.
.


Nice dialog, but totally unrelated.
I'm not comparing anti-gay to anti-victim.
It's the tendency to Label someone as a hypocrite of the purest form simply because of their public stance.
victor809 Offline
#97 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
Nice dialog, but totally unrelated.
I'm not comparing anti-gay to anti-victim.
It's the tendency to Label someone as a hypocrite of the purest form simply because of their public stance.


Not unrelated. If you notice the trend, it's usually (at least to me) the irrational public stances that gain that sort of attention, primarily because no one can come up with a rational reason for someone to care so much.

There's a rational reason to be against child violation, elderly woman murder, burglary etc. So people who make a public stance against it don't usually get labeled as closeted forms of whatever they're against (until it actually turns out they were... old drug addict friend of mine made sure he was the drug sergeant for his national guard platoon so he knew when the piss tests were coming... but that's another story).

If you make a public stance against women wearing high-heels, try to pass legislature banning the sale of high heels and the public exhibition of high heels... well, people might start to wonder why it is so important to you that you never see high heels on the street.
teedubbya Offline
#98 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
yes it is a phobia. remember you have a definiiton of phobia that differs from the medical world.
rumraider Offline
#99 Posted:
Joined: 08-05-2012
Posts: 727
tailgater wrote:
The whole "thou doth protest too loud" is foreign to my thought process.

I hate the NY Jets. I tell everyone. Does that mean I secretly dream of Rex Ryan's feet?


Well... you do seem to have an unatural attachment to a tight end who is kinda famous for posing naked!Shame on you
tailgater Offline
#100 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
rumraider wrote:
Well... you do seem to have an unatural attachment to a tight end who is kinda famous for posing naked!Shame on you


You saying he's now a "wide receiver"?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234>