Re: POLITICS:

[Guest guest]

Rather a hateful bigot.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_moral_meltdown.html

[Guest guest]

> Rather a hateful bigot.

>

> http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_moral_meltdown.html

Here we go again...guilt by association.

The Sy Hersch and Stanford Prof videos that references have ZERO

to do with your disagreement with him on religious/moral issues.

I assume the one article this page links to from a Birch Society

publication on homosexuality is the one you find " hateful " ?

And so you disagree with some links from the hundreds of thousands on AJ's

websites. We know that. He's Christian, you're not. Therefore you have

disagreements on some things. I'm not Christian either but I'm able to

understand that my disagreement with someone on some issues doesn't impugn

the veracity of their reporting on all issues.

I'm also a feminist and completely support the rights of gays to pursue

life, liberty and happiness as unimpinged as everyone else.

While there are some things that I disagree with on, I think he is

doing a tremendous service by waking people up to the tyranny that is

overtaking us not only in the US but in Europe and elsewhere. Show me

someone else who's reached as many people as he has with the anti-tyranny

message.

Suze

[Guest guest]

Well, I'd say that there is a difference between 'guilt by

association' and the consistent, bigoted, attitudes displayed on a

section of his site. Show me somewhere where he repudiates these

views! it has always been my impression that this is what the man

believes.

I really don't think that my objections to the views in that link stem

simply from me not being a Christian. In fact, I rather strongly

object to that incredibly simplistic statement.

I have never said that because holds certain abhorrent

views, all of the articles posted on his site are false. Never even

came close to implying this. However the man does have an agenda, he

is a crackpot conspiracy nut, and he badly wants you to spend money on

his stuff. All of these things should encourage you to research most

of what you see on his site. Was his site really banned in the UK? I'm

not saying that this is a lie, but in the few minutes that I searched

I could find no corroboration.

>

> > Rather a hateful bigot.

> >

> > http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_moral_meltdown.html

>

> Here we go again...guilt by association.

>

>

>

> The Sy Hersch and Stanford Prof videos that references

> have ZERO

> to do with your disagreement with him on religious/moral issues.

>

> I assume the one article this page links to from a Birch Society

> publication on homosexuality is the one you find " hateful " ?

>

> And so you disagree with some links from the hundreds of thousands

> on AJ's

> websites. We know that. He's Christian, you're not. Therefore you have

> disagreements on some things. I'm not Christian either but I'm able to

> understand that my disagreement with someone on some issues doesn't

> impugn

> the veracity of their reporting on all issues.

>

> I'm also a feminist and completely support the rights of gays to

> pursue

> life, liberty and happiness as unimpinged as everyone else.

>

> While there are some things that I disagree with on, I think

> he is

> doing a tremendous service by waking people up to the tyranny that is

> overtaking us not only in the US but in Europe and elsewhere. Show me

> someone else who's reached as many people as he has with the anti-

> tyranny

> message.

>

> Suze

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

And, by the way - I'd say that the point of that link is to show that

attitudes liberal to feminism, homosexuality, and sex education in

general is contributing to the breakdown of our society. I challenge

you to produce something that repudiates the accusation that this is

his viewpoint.

" Unmentionable Vice Goes Mainstream

Homosexuality's rapid rise from unmentionable vice to celebrated

minority status is part of a campaign to subvert Judeo-Christian

culture. "

I wasn't talking about links on the page - I didn't bother to check

them out. The quotes and the agenda, right there on the page for all

to see, are hateful enough for me. This kind of stuff, coupled with

his totally out there cultist conspiracies, makes me comfortable in

the opinion that is a rather dangerous crackpot. Dangerous

because so many people seem to swallow everything he says so

uncritically.

>

> > Rather a hateful bigot.

> >

> > http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_moral_meltdown.html

>

> Here we go again...guilt by association.

>

> The Sy Hersch and Stanford Prof videos that references

> have ZERO

> to do with your disagreement with him on religious/moral issues.

>

> I assume the one article this page links to from a Birch Society

> publication on homosexuality is the one you find " hateful " ?

>

> And so you disagree with some links from the hundreds of thousands

> on AJ's

> websites. We know that. He's Christian, you're not. Therefore you have

> disagreements on some things. I'm not Christian either but I'm able to

> understand that my disagreement with someone on some issues doesn't

> impugn

> the veracity of their reporting on all issues.

>

> I'm also a feminist and completely support the rights of gays to

> pursue

> life, liberty and happiness as unimpinged as everyone else.

>

> While there are some things that I disagree with on, I think

> he is

> doing a tremendous service by waking people up to the tyranny that is

> overtaking us not only in the US but in Europe and elsewhere. Show me

> someone else who's reached as many people as he has with the anti-

> tyranny

> message.

>

> Suze

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 8/15/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> Well, I'd say that there is a difference between 'guilt by

> association' and the consistent, bigoted, attitudes displayed on a

> section of his site. Show me somewhere where he repudiates these

> views! it has always been my impression that this is what the man

> believes.

Since you posted a page that was full of a bunch of links to other

articles, I'm afraid I missed your point. Certainly not everything on

that page was bigoted. Most of it was making factual claims rather

than value judgments. Some of them may have implied value judgments,

like children shouldn't be having sex at 11 or men shouldn't be

pursuing promiscuous sex, but were still largely historical

documentation of certain cultural influences.

So, could you elaborate in a paragraph or two so your point is clearer?

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 8/15/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> And, by the way - I'd say that the point of that link is to show that

> attitudes liberal to feminism, homosexuality, and sex education in

> general is contributing to the breakdown of our society. I challenge

> you to produce something that repudiates the accusation that this is

> his viewpoint.

>

> " Unmentionable Vice Goes Mainstream

>

> Homosexuality's rapid rise from unmentionable vice to celebrated

> minority status is part of a campaign to subvert Judeo-Christian

> culture. "

I missed that when I was scanning it the first time. The point of the

article is that the cultural shift has not merely produced liberties

for certain individuals, but also an air of legal and political

leverage to prohibit or punish " hate speech, " which, in large part,

does serve to undermine people's abilities to express their religious

views.

I've listened to a bit, mostly because you are so opposed

to him I figured he must have at least something valuable to say, and

he spends very little time talking about these social issues, but I

think it's fairly safe to say he agrees with some of these religious

views that are being undermined.

However, I don't htink you need to agree with him to support the

general statement. for example has expressed vigorous opposition

to hate speech/hate crimes laws and so on, despite being also a

vigorous opponent of bigotry, and doesn't support any of these

religious views.

It's also certainly a fact that most of the cultural shifts that

occurred in the 60s were the agenda of the Rockefellers. Just look at

the Rockefeller overpopulation commission documents, some of which

(Nixon) are available online, others (UN) in the library.

Chris

[Guest guest]

No. I absolutely don't think that the point of that page is that our freedom of

speech has been reduced. Sorry.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Masterjohn " <chrismasterjohn@...>

> On 8/15/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> >

> > And, by the way - I'd say that the point of that link is to show that

> > attitudes liberal to feminism, homosexuality, and sex education in

> > general is contributing to the breakdown of our society. I challenge

> > you to produce something that repudiates the accusation that this is

> > his viewpoint.

> >

> > " Unmentionable Vice Goes Mainstream

> >

> > Homosexuality's rapid rise from unmentionable vice to celebrated

> > minority status is part of a campaign to subvert Judeo-Christian

> > culture. "

>

> I missed that when I was scanning it the first time. The point of the

> article is that the cultural shift has not merely produced liberties

> for certain individuals, but also an air of legal and political

> leverage to prohibit or punish " hate speech, " which, in large part,

> does serve to undermine people's abilities to express their religious

> views.

>

> I've listened to a bit, mostly because you are so opposed

> to him I figured he must have at least something valuable to say, and

> he spends very little time talking about these social issues, but I

> think it's fairly safe to say he agrees with some of these religious

> views that are being undermined.

>

> However, I don't htink you need to agree with him to support the

> general statement. for example has expressed vigorous opposition

> to hate speech/hate crimes laws and so on, despite being also a

> vigorous opponent of bigotry, and doesn't support any of these

> religious views.

>

> It's also certainly a fact that most of the cultural shifts that

> occurred in the 60s were the agenda of the Rockefellers. Just look at

> the Rockefeller overpopulation commission documents, some of which

> (Nixon) are available online, others (UN) in the library.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

A curious statement: " mostly because you are so opposed

to him I figured he must have at least something valuable to say " - very curious

indeed. I'm not sure if I could have gotten away with that one.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Masterjohn " <chrismasterjohn@...>

> On 8/15/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> >

> > And, by the way - I'd say that the point of that link is to show that

> > attitudes liberal to feminism, homosexuality, and sex education in

> > general is contributing to the breakdown of our society. I challenge

> > you to produce something that repudiates the accusation that this is

> > his viewpoint.

> >

> > " Unmentionable Vice Goes Mainstream

> >

> > Homosexuality's rapid rise from unmentionable vice to celebrated

> > minority status is part of a campaign to subvert Judeo-Christian

> > culture. "

>

> I missed that when I was scanning it the first time. The point of the

> article is that the cultural shift has not merely produced liberties

> for certain individuals, but also an air of legal and political

> leverage to prohibit or punish " hate speech, " which, in large part,

> does serve to undermine people's abilities to express their religious

> views.

>

> I've listened to a bit, mostly because you are so opposed

> to him I figured he must have at least something valuable to say, and

> he spends very little time talking about these social issues, but I

> think it's fairly safe to say he agrees with some of these religious

> views that are being undermined.

>

> However, I don't htink you need to agree with him to support the

> general statement. for example has expressed vigorous opposition

> to hate speech/hate crimes laws and so on, despite being also a

> vigorous opponent of bigotry, and doesn't support any of these

> religious views.

>

> It's also certainly a fact that most of the cultural shifts that

> occurred in the 60s were the agenda of the Rockefellers. Just look at

> the Rockefeller overpopulation commission documents, some of which

> (Nixon) are available online, others (UN) in the library.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

On 8/15/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> No. I absolutely don't think that the point of that page is that our freedom

> of speech has been reduced. Sorry.

The part you quoted was a link to a page that was talking gay rights

activists infiltrating private communications in right-wing Christian

groups and planning a class action lawsuit against them for their

internal comments about homosexuality, which they believed they could

make a case in court precipitated seemingly unconnected acts of

violence.

That is the general trend of hate crimes and hate speech, the

criminalization of beliefs and thoughts, and it's a dangerous

precedent for the advent of fascism. First they come for the speech

nearly all of us find offensive, then they come for the speech only

some of us find offensive, then finally they come for us.

You can disagree if you want, but I supsect your disagreement has

something to do with the fact that, as you explicitly stated, you

didn't bother to read any of the articles, but only their titles and

the quotations from the first sentences of them that were compiled on

the page of links you posted.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 8/15/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> A curious statement: " mostly because you are so opposed

> to him I figured he must have at least something valuable to say " - very

> curious indeed. I'm not sure if I could have gotten away with that one.

No, I would surely have put you on moderation if you said that to me.

And I will put anyone on moderation who calls me a hypocrite or says I

have a double-standard, because that would be an ad hominem attack.

Bwa ha a ha. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha.

Chris

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Masterjohn " <chrismasterjohn@...>

> On 8/15/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> >

> > No. I absolutely don't think that the point of that page is that our freedom

> > of speech has been reduced. Sorry.

>

> The part you quoted was a link to a page that was talking gay rights

> activists infiltrating private communications in right-wing Christian

> groups and planning a class action lawsuit against them for their

> internal comments about homosexuality, which they believed they could

> make a case in court precipitated seemingly unconnected acts of

> violence.

I don't know what the original link was, but the link that I provided had its

own agenda, and that agenda was moralistic. Quite clearly....

>

> That is the general trend of hate crimes and hate speech, the

> criminalization of beliefs and thoughts, and it's a dangerous

> precedent for the advent of fascism. First they come for the speech

> nearly all of us find offensive, then they come for the speech only

> some of us find offensive, then finally they come for us.

Look I find it rather offensive that you would imply that I am against

freedom of speech. nothing that I have ever said here would imply that.

>

> You can disagree if you want, but I supsect your disagreement has

> something to do with the fact that, as you explicitly stated, you

> didn't bother to read any of the articles, but only their titles and

> the quotations from the first sentences of them that were compiled on

> the page of links you posted.

I think that the page I quoted clearly had an agenda. I don't think that it's

necessary to find where those quotes were pulled from. Show me where on the page

it states something like 'while these views are objectionable, we support the

right to speak them'. I didn't see that. maybe I missed it. I believe that these

are ' views. Perhaps you can find some article where he supports gay

marriage, or says something supportive of feminism. I doubt it, though.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

Well, I've been threatened here, for less than that.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Masterjohn " <chrismasterjohn@...>

> On 8/15/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> >

> > A curious statement: " mostly because you are so opposed

> > to him I figured he must have at least something valuable to say " - very

> > curious indeed. I'm not sure if I could have gotten away with that one.

>

> No, I would surely have put you on moderation if you said that to me.

> And I will put anyone on moderation who calls me a hypocrite or says I

> have a double-standard, because that would be an ad hominem attack.

> Bwa ha a ha. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

Gene,

>> The part you quoted was a link to a page that was talking gay rights

>> activists infiltrating private communications in right-wing Christian

>> groups and planning a class action lawsuit against them for their

>> internal comments about homosexuality, which they believed they could

>> make a case in court precipitated seemingly unconnected acts of

>> violence.

> I don't know what the original link was, but the link that I provided had

> its own agenda, and that agenda was moralistic. Quite clearly....

I think the purpose of the compilation page, as stated, is to show

that elites are undermining the traditional moral fabric of society.

I don't think it is moralistic judgment against individuals.

Naturally many people might support some changes to traditional morals

for independent reasons, but it is also true and well-recognized by

tyrants that the breakdown of the family assists the state in taking

power over individuals. It's a divide and conquer strategy, and was

used by the Soviet Union.

>> That is the general trend of hate crimes and hate speech, the

>> criminalization of beliefs and thoughts, and it's a dangerous

>> precedent for the advent of fascism. First they come for the speech

>> nearly all of us find offensive, then they come for the speech only

>> some of us find offensive, then finally they come for us.

> Look I find it rather offensive that you would imply that I am

> against freedom of speech. nothing that I have ever said here would imply

> that.

I didn't mean to imply that you were against freedom of speech. I

meant to explain why I believe the page is linking to that article.

All the articles on the page have in common the theme of elites

undermining traditional morals for the sake of increasing their own

power and decreasing resistance. In the case of the article you

quoted, I believe the page linked to it because it was talking about

the potential for the concept of hate crimes and hate speech to

further undermine traditional religious expression. I don't think the

purpose was hateful bigotry, even if the author of the article, which

was not , may happen to be a hateful bigot (I don't know

because I'm not familiar with him and I didn't read the article in

full).

>> You can disagree if you want, but I supsect your disagreement has

>> something to do with the fact that, as you explicitly stated, you

>> didn't bother to read any of the articles, but only their titles and

>> the quotations from the first sentences of them that were compiled on

>> the page of links you posted.

> I think that the page I quoted clearly had an agenda. I don't think that

> it's necessary to find where those quotes were pulled from. Show me where on

> the page it states something like 'while these views are objectionable, we

> support the right to speak them'. I didn't see that. maybe I missed it. I

> believe that these are ' views. Perhaps you can find some article

> where he supports gay marriage, or says something supportive of feminism. I

> doubt it, though.

I agree it has an agenda, but the agenda is not hateful bigotry. I

didn't mean to suggest that is a feminist or a gay rights

activist, but I don't consider someone automatically a hateful bigot

for being neither.

The quotes underneath the articles are either summaries of the

articles or first sentences, it would appear. I think reading the

articles would help shed light on why they are there and what the

overall point is. I think if you want to judge ' personal

character and how hateful he is or isn't, listening to his radio show

every day for a few weeks would be a good way to go about doing so.

It's really easy to misunderstand somone by grabbing a few quotes here

and there, especially when they approach matters from a very different

angle than the one to which one is accustomed.

In any case, it really is besides the point, isn't it? The

information is talking about regarding the internet Patriot Act

doesn't come from him, so the source of the information stands on his

own merits or demerits. If is one of the earliest publishers of

that information, the fact that everyone else ignored it doesn't make

' character somehow reflect on the reliability of the source.

This was even more true the last time you brought him up, which was

when Ron , a Congressman, was sharing information about what the

Congress had just discussed and voted on, which was housed on youtube,

and embedded in an infowars.com page. It is really a round-about way

of addressing the information to post the most objectionable material

you can find from a man who has only a tangential relationship to the

actual subject by having delivered the information on his web site or

radio show.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 8/15/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> Well, I've been threatened here, for less than that.

I didn't really mean to offend you, so I'm sorry if I did. I wasn't

trying to directly insult you, but I can see how I may have and how

that could have been an error on my part. It is just that, we

disagree so diametrically on these things that, if you oppose

something, chance are I will find something worthwhile in it, and vice

versa. Of course we probably agree on quite a bit, but I guess it is

normal for disagreements to take up a larger bulk of discussion.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I would insert more cause/effect into your explanation. I think that

you deliberately find worthwhile things in people/ideas that I don't

like, simply becaiuse I don't like them, and that you are absolutely

shameless and transparent in arguing these points.

> On 8/15/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> >

> > Well, I've been threatened here, for less than that.

>

> I didn't really mean to offend you, so I'm sorry if I did. I wasn't

> trying to directly insult you, but I can see how I may have and how

> that could have been an error on my part. It is just that, we

> disagree so diametrically on these things that, if you oppose

> something, chance are I will find something worthwhile in it, and vice

> versa. Of course we probably agree on quite a bit, but I guess it is

> normal for disagreements to take up a larger bulk of discussion.

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Gene,

>

> >> The part you quoted was a link to a page that was talking gay

> rights

> >> activists infiltrating private communications in right-wing

> Christian

> >> groups and planning a class action lawsuit against them for their

> >> internal comments about homosexuality, which they believed they

> could

> >> make a case in court precipitated seemingly unconnected acts of

> >> violence.

>

> > I don't know what the original link was, but the link that I

> provided had

> > its own agenda, and that agenda was moralistic. Quite clearly....

>

> I think the purpose of the compilation page, as stated, is to show

> that elites are undermining the traditional moral fabric of society.

> I don't think it is moralistic judgment against individuals.

>

That's hilarious. Really. So, for instance, this:

" Unmentionable Vice Goes Mainstream

Homosexuality�s rapid rise from unmentionable vice to celebrated

minority status is part of a campaign to subvert Judeo-Christian

culture "

does not imply in the least the homosexuals are doing anything wrong,

it is just a comment about elites? How does homosexuals getting full

rights in this society undermine the society, if their behavior is

fine and dandy? how exactly does that work? How, for instance, is a

comment that " the essence of manhood is to lead and support a family "

neutral about what a woman's role in society should be?

How can you possibly say this stuff? I suppose one could make an

argument that feminism/homosexuality etc, are not bad things at all,

but the government's use of them for hidden agendas is bad, but I

don't see ANY hint of disagreement here about the actual quotes

themselves, nor have I ever seen disclaim any of the filth

that one can find on his site.

>

> Naturally many people might support some changes to traditional morals

> for independent reasons, but it is also true and well-recognized by

> tyrants that the breakdown of the family assists the state in taking

> power over individuals. It's a divide and conquer strategy, and was

> used by the Soviet Union.

>

> >> That is the general trend of hate crimes and hate speech, the

> >> criminalization of beliefs and thoughts, and it's a dangerous

> >> precedent for the advent of fascism. First they come for the speech

> >> nearly all of us find offensive, then they come for the speech only

> >> some of us find offensive, then finally they come for us.

>

> > Look I find it rather offensive that you would imply that I

> am

> > against freedom of speech. nothing that I have ever said here

> would imply

> > that.

>

> I didn't mean to imply that you were against freedom of speech. I

> meant to explain why I believe the page is linking to that article.

> All the articles on the page have in common the theme of elites

> undermining traditional morals for the sake of increasing their own

> power and decreasing resistance. In the case of the article you

> quoted, I believe the page linked to it because it was talking about

> the potential for the concept of hate crimes and hate speech to

> further undermine traditional religious expression. I don't think the

> purpose was hateful bigotry, even if the author of the article, which

> was not , may happen to be a hateful bigot (I don't know

> because I'm not familiar with him and I didn't read the article in

> full).

>

> >> You can disagree if you want, but I supsect your disagreement has

> >> something to do with the fact that, as you explicitly stated, you

> >> didn't bother to read any of the articles, but only their titles

> and

> >> the quotations from the first sentences of them that were

> compiled on

> >> the page of links you posted.

>

> > I think that the page I quoted clearly had an agenda. I don't

> think that

> > it's necessary to find where those quotes were pulled from. Show

> me where on

> > the page it states something like 'while these views are

> objectionable, we

> > support the right to speak them'. I didn't see that. maybe I

> missed it. I

> > believe that these are ' views. Perhaps you can find

> some article

> > where he supports gay marriage, or says something supportive of

> feminism. I

> > doubt it, though.

>

> I agree it has an agenda, but the agenda is not hateful bigotry. I

> didn't mean to suggest that is a feminist or a gay rights

> activist, but I don't consider someone automatically a hateful bigot

> for being neither.

>

> The quotes underneath the articles are either summaries of the

> articles or first sentences, it would appear. I think reading the

> articles would help shed light on why they are there and what the

> overall point is. I think if you want to judge ' personal

> character and how hateful he is or isn't, listening to his radio show

> every day for a few weeks would be a good way to go about doing so.

> It's really easy to misunderstand somone by grabbing a few quotes here

> and there, especially when they approach matters from a very different

> angle than the one to which one is accustomed.

>

> In any case, it really is besides the point, isn't it? The

> information is talking about regarding the internet Patriot Act

> doesn't come from him, so the source of the information stands on his

> own merits or demerits. If is one of the earliest publishers of

> that information, the fact that everyone else ignored it doesn't make

> ' character somehow reflect on the reliability of the source.

>

> This was even more true the last time you brought him up, which was

> when Ron , a Congressman, was sharing information about what the

> Congress had just discussed and voted on, which was housed on youtube,

> and embedded in an infowars.com page. It is really a round-about way

> of addressing the information to post the most objectionable material

> you can find from a man who has only a tangential relationship to the

> actual subject by having delivered the information on his web site or

> radio show.

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gene,

>> I think the purpose of the compilation page, as stated, is to show

>> that elites are undermining the traditional moral fabric of society.

>> I don't think it is moralistic judgment against individuals.

>>

> That's hilarious. Really. So, for instance, this:

> " Unmentionable Vice Goes Mainstream

>

> Homosexuality�s rapid rise from unmentionable vice to celebrated

> minority status is part of a campaign to subvert Judeo-Christian

> culture "

>

> does not imply in the least the homosexuals are doing anything wrong,

> it is just a comment about elites? How does homosexuals getting full

> rights in this society undermine the society, if their behavior is

> fine and dandy? how exactly does that work?

Well honestly the subject doesn't interest me that much so I didn't

make it through the full article, which was pretty long, but what I

read was discussing the practice of big corporations forcing people

not to tolerate the rights of homosexuals but to rearrange their own

moral beliefs to celebrate homosexuality.

The author of the article, who was not , thought it an

important part of Christianity to " abhor " homosexuality, but advocates

a " live and let live " approach to tolerance of other people's moral

beliefs and systems. So he's arguing that neutrality would be to

allow some people to personally abhor the phenomenon and other people

to celebrate it, while allowing these beliefs to be private affairs

and not interfering with the rights of anyone to engage in society

based on their personal moral beliefs. But, the practices of the big

corporations that he discusses constitute an active reshaping of

people's moral beliefs and bullying into an acceptance of the moral

celebration of homosexuality rather than the mere tolerance of the

rights and liberties of homosexuals.

I think, based on the 30% or so of the article I read, that the author

is arguing that this is allowing the corporate and government elite a

hand into controlling the moral beliefs of common citizens, which

could eventually be used to go even further and forcefully undermine

religious belief in general.

> How, for instance, is a

> comment that " the essence of manhood is to lead and support a family "

> neutral about what a woman's role in society should be?

I read even less of that article so I don't know if it addresses

woman's role in society, but the statement itself is neutral because

male leadership and support is not mutually exclusive with female

leadership and support. But, more important, the brief glancing at

the article I did indicates that it was not contrasting this with male

subservience to female leadership, but was contrasting it to male

promiscuity and obsession with casual sex.

> How can you possibly say this stuff? I suppose one could make an

> argument that feminism/homosexuality etc, are not bad things at all,

> but the government's use of them for hidden agendas is bad, but I

> don't see ANY hint of disagreement here about the actual quotes

> themselves, nor have I ever seen disclaim any of the filth

> that one can find on his site.

Like I said before, I never meant to suggest that advocated

feminism or homosexuality, but merely that he is not a " hateful

bigot. " I think there is a big gap between being opposed to feminism

and hating women.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

>

> And, by the way - I'd say that the point of that link is to show that

> attitudes liberal to feminism, homosexuality, and sex education in

> general is contributing to the breakdown of our society. I challenge

> you to produce something that repudiates the accusation that this is

> his viewpoint.

I don't feel a need to repudiate it. I listen to his radio show and, other

than the death worship cult stuff on this page, which you failed to mention,

rarely touches on the other issues. I haven't heard him deal with

feminism whatsoever, in fact. The last time I heard him mocking the

neoconservative Christians meeting at Bohemian Grove (yes, it does exist) he

was lambasting them for hiring gay prostitutes at the Grove. After he was

done he explained that he's not mocking gayness but rather the hypocrisy if

neoconservative Christians who engage in gay sex with prostitutes. He

routinely explains stuff like this after one of his tirades so that he's not

misunderstood by knee jerk reactionaries. Same goes if he ever mentions the

nefarious stuff the Israeli gov't is up to - he explains he's not against

the Israeli people or jews, etc, etc. He lambasts our own US gov't

(specifically, neo-cons) more than any other group anyway, and he's not

anti-American, or anti-Christian, which most of them are.

Re his websites, if you look at his two main sites - www.infowars.com and

www.prisonplanet.com (the new version) the typical headlines you see are

like these from yesterday:

The Pentagon's alarming project: Avian Flu Biowar Vaccine

F. Engdahl | Is the international pharmaceutical industry cartel

acting in concert with the U.S. to develop a genetically modified H5N1 virus

substance that could unleash a man-made pandemic?

-------------------------------------------------

The Neocons Do Georgia

Craig | The neoconservatives represent the greatest danger ever

faced by the United States and the world. Humanity has no greater enemy.

-------------------------------------------------

Neocons Up Nuclear War Ante with Poland Missile Deal

Kurt Nimmo | It should be obvious by now the Russians will no longer

tolerate the U.S. deploying missile " defense " systems on their border.

-------------------------------------------------

U.S. banking giant switches billions in debt to Britain to avoid paying

corporation tax for 60 years U.S. banking giant switches billions in debt to

Britain to avoid paying corporation tax for 60 years

-------------------------------------------------

We Are Change Colorado Check Out DNC Detention Camps and Break Exclusive

Footage

-------------------------------------------------

So, while we are being strangled by a police state, while the Denver

authorities are building detention camps for peaceful protestors, while our

government's puppet leader of Georgia initiates attacks on Russian troops,

while our vice president is planning false flag attacks on Iran, while our

dollar is collapsing due to the greed of the private banking cartel (aka the

" Federal Reserve " ), while both major candidates for president talk of major

expansion of our already criminal police state, and while our government is

planning to greatly restrict the internet via an i-patriot act, you would

rather talk about one of the messenger's views on homosexuality as you

perceive it from an old page in the archive of one of his websites?

Enjoy your police state and tyrannical government while we waste our time

here discussing ' views on homosexuality.

Suze

[Guest guest]

> A curious statement: " mostly because you are so opposed

> to him I figured he must have at least something valuable to say " - very

curious

> indeed. I'm not sure if I could have gotten away with that one.

That is the funniest thing I've seen posted in a while. I've been on this

list for about 6 years and have never seen anyone get away with as much

flaming that *you* have gotten away with on this list. Sometimes you even

acknowledged what you did and said something to the effect " I don't care if

I get banned for this " .

Suze

[Guest guest]

> I really don't think that my objections to the views in that link stem

> simply from me not being a Christian. In fact, I rather strongly

> object to that incredibly simplistic statement.

I didn't say you disagreed with him about *everything* on that page because

you're not Christian and he is. But obviously *some* of your disagreements

are due to your different world views.

> I have never said that because holds certain abhorrent

> views, all of the articles posted on his site are false. Never even

> came close to implying this.

Uh, sure. OK.

However the man does have an agenda, he

> is a crackpot conspiracy nut,

Yeh, well we Weston Pricers are crackpots according to the mainstream. And

yes, we know you think he's a " conspiracy nut " and so far have indicated

that you actually haven't looked at the conspiracy evidence yourself but are

dismissing it out of hand. At least that's what you indicated in the 9/11

inside job thread.

and he badly wants you to spend money on

> his stuff.

Right. And that's why he constantly tells people to download his videos (on

tyranny, a police state, 9/11 etc.)and COPY them and to distribute the FREE

COPIES widely.

All of these things should encourage you to research most

> of what you see on his site. Was his site really banned in the UK? I'm

> not saying that this is a lie, but in the few minutes that I searched

> I could find no corroboration.

Well, " all of these things " are largely your opinion and not necessarily a

reflection of reality. So I don't think we should be encouraged by your

opinion to do something. But rather I think we should research ALL the

information we get from ALL sources, including the WAPF, to the extent that

we are able to corroborate it. Much of the info on infowars.com and

prisonplanet.com comes from other media outlets, or is stuff caught on

videos or is from some of his radio guests, including economic experts,

former counter intelligence agents, congressmen, presidential candidates,

authors, former gov't officials and so on.

I do check on several of the things he reports to verify if it's from

credible sources. On occasion I think he exaggerates something, but often

his information appears to check out. Each person needs to do the same for

herself or himself. And as with everything else, we need to examine evidence

and evaluate it on its own merits rather than to dismiss it out of hand

because it doesn't fit within our current world view or comes from a

messenger we don't like.

Suze

[Guest guest]

I " m not sure how that addressed the point, exactly.

> > A curious statement: " mostly because you are so opposed

> > to him I figured he must have at least something valuable to say "

> - very

> curious

> > indeed. I'm not sure if I could have gotten away with that one.

>

> That is the funniest thing I've seen posted in a while. I've been on

> this

> list for about 6 years and have never seen anyone get away with as

> much

> flaming that *you* have gotten away with on this list. Sometimes you

> even

> acknowledged what you did and said something to the effect " I don't

> care if

> I get banned for this " .

>

> Suze

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Aug 16, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Suze Fisher wrote:

>

> > I really don't think that my objections to the views in that link

> stem

> > simply from me not being a Christian. In fact, I rather strongly

> > object to that incredibly simplistic statement.

>

> I didn't say you disagreed with him about *everything* on that page

> because

> you're not Christian and he is. But obviously *some* of your

> disagreements

> are due to your different world views.

>

Well, that's not the same thing as saying that it is because I'm not a

Christian, though, is it?

>

>

> > I have never said that because holds certain abhorrent

> > views, all of the articles posted on his site are false. Never even

> > came close to implying this.

>

> Uh, sure. OK.

>

Hard to tell what degree of sarcasm to read into this, but there

shouldn't be any.

>

>

> However the man does have an agenda, he

> > is a crackpot conspiracy nut,

>

> Yeh, well we Weston Pricers are crackpots according to the mainstream.

>

However, I am not representing the mainstream, and so therefore this

doesn't logically follow.

> And

> yes, we know you think he's a " conspiracy nut " and so far have

> indicated

> that you actually haven't looked at the conspiracy evidence yourself

> but are

> dismissing it out of hand. At least that's what you indicated in the

> 9/11

> inside job thread.

>

>

I don't believe that I've EVER said that I've never checked out any of

the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. I however, choose not to do it repeatedly.

Has there been anything NEW brought out in the last year? I doubt it.

I don't lie, and for me to say that I've never check any of this

stuff out would be a blatant lie. Therefore I'll call you on this also.

> and he badly wants you to spend money on

> > his stuff.

>

> Right. And that's why he constantly tells people to download his

> videos (on

> tyranny, a police state, 9/11 etc.)and COPY them and to distribute

> the FREE

> COPIES widely.

>

And then apparently gets lots of them to buy them after the fact to

support him.

>

>

> All of these things should encourage you to research most

> > of what you see on his site. Was his site really banned in the UK?

> I'm

> > not saying that this is a lie, but in the few minutes that I

> searched

> > I could find no corroboration.

>

> Well, " all of these things " are largely your opinion and not

> necessarily a

> reflection of reality.

>

What in the world are you commenting on? I'm saying that you should

research what you see on his site. You believe that you should believe

EVERYTHING that you read there? Surely you jest.

Obviously we're all expressing opinions here, so this just seems like

posturing to me.

> So I don't think we should be encouraged by your

> opinion to do something. But rather I think we should research ALL the

> information we get from ALL sources, including the WAPF, to the

> extent that

> we are able to corroborate it.

>

Ok - so you agree with me, but even when you do you like to throw in

something like this.

Then you have or have not corroborated that his sites are banned in

the UK?

> Much of the info on infowars.com and

> prisonplanet.com comes from other media outlets, or is stuff caught on

> videos or is from some of his radio guests, including economic

> experts,

> former counter intelligence agents, congressmen, presidential

> candidates,

> authors, former gov't officials and so on.

>

I have said over and over that not everything on his site is screwy.

Obviously some of it is good info....and can be found elsewhere. But

that doesn't address anything that I've actually said.

>

>

> I do check on several of the things he reports to verify if it's from

> credible sources. On occasion I think he exaggerates something, but

> often

> his information appears to check out.

>

And I've never said that none of it checks out. Never. But much of is

nut job cultist conspiracy wacko garbage, mixed with ultra

conservative moralist nonsense.

> Each person needs to do the same for

> herself or himself. And as with everything else, we need to examine

> evidence

> and evaluate it on its own merits rather than to dismiss it out of

> hand

> because it doesn't fit within our current world view or comes from a

> messenger we don't like.

>

Who might you be speaking about here? And all of us must apply basic

reading skills to comment on what someone is actually saying, other

than what we would like him to have said in order to justify our points.

>

>

> Suze

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>Like I said before, I never meant to suggest that advocated

>feminism or homosexuality, but merely that he is not a " hateful

>bigot. " I think there is a big gap between being opposed to feminism

>and hating women.

Thank you for bringing up this point! Seriously, this whole issue of trying to

find something to call on is ridiculous! People can be against

feminism and homosexuality and not *hate* the people who engage in such

practices. You want to see a " hateful bigot " , try Fred Phelps.

amanda

[Guest guest]

On Aug 16, 2008, at 9:13 AM, wrote:

>

>

> >Like I said before, I never meant to suggest that advocated

> >feminism or homosexuality, but merely that he is not a " hateful

> >bigot. " I think there is a big gap between being opposed to feminism

> >and hating women.

>

> Thank you for bringing up this point! Seriously, this whole issue of

> trying to find something to call on is ridiculous! People

> can be against feminism and homosexuality and not *hate* the people

> who engage in such practices. You want to see a " hateful bigot " , try

> Fred Phelps.

>

Ok - so you would then openly say that there is nothing hateful about

the following quote, or anything else on the page that I quoted:

" Unmentionable Vice Goes Mainstream

Homosexuality�s rapid rise from unmentionable vice to celebrated

minority status is part of a campaign to subvert Judeo-Christian

culture "

Plus, for instance, I've known people in my life who are friendly to

individual black people, even hang out with them, but are rather

virulent racists. I would call their views hateful, despite the fact

that they don't hate individual black people. The term 'hateful' when

it applies to views, or statements, doesn't imply that the person

connected with this views or statements therefore must hate individual

people.

However, when all combined on one page, I will proudly call statements

implying that homosexuality is evil, men should be the head of the

household, feminism is ruining the moral fabric of society, etc, to be

hateful. Yes. Absolutely.

>

>

> amanda

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Aug 16, 2008, at 7:26 AM, Masterjohn wrote:

> Gene,

>

> >> I think the purpose of the compilation page, as stated, is to show

> >> that elites are undermining the traditional moral fabric of

> society.

> >> I don't think it is moralistic judgment against individuals.

> >>

> > That's hilarious. Really. So, for instance, this:

> > " Unmentionable Vice Goes Mainstream

> >

> > Homosexuality�s rapid rise from unmentionable vice to celebrated

> > minority status is part of a campaign to subvert Judeo-Christian

> > culture "

> >

> > does not imply in the least the homosexuals are doing anything

> wrong,

> > it is just a comment about elites? How does homosexuals getting full

> > rights in this society undermine the society, if their behavior is

> > fine and dandy? how exactly does that work?

>

> Well honestly the subject doesn't interest me that much so I didn't

> make it through the full article, which was pretty long, but what I

> read was discussing the practice of big corporations forcing people

> not to tolerate the rights of homosexuals but to rearrange their own

> moral beliefs to celebrate homosexuality.

>

I have repeatedly said that I am referring to the site that I posted,

and what the quotes mentioned there represent...NOT the complete

articles as referenced in links. I continue to claim that, whatever

subtleties you may pull from the links, it is quite obvious what

attitudes towards women/gays/sex education in schools, etc, are

intentionally implied by the page that I sent. IN any case, I think

that this whole conspiracy of corporations trying to get people to

celebrate homosexuality (which sounds like utter nonsense to me)

obviously has at its core a belief that homosexuality is evil. If it

were good, why bother with this garbage.

It continues to impress me that you're going to such extraordinary

lengths to support such a blatantly bigoted page.

>

>

> The author of the article, who was not , thought it an

> important part of Christianity to " abhor " homosexuality, but advocates

> a " live and let live " approach to tolerance of other people's moral

> beliefs and systems. So he's arguing that neutrality would be to

> allow some people to personally abhor the phenomenon and other people

> to celebrate it, while allowing these beliefs to be private affairs

> and not interfering with the rights of anyone to engage in society

> based on their personal moral beliefs. But, the practices of the big

> corporations that he discusses constitute an active reshaping of

> people's moral beliefs and bullying into an acceptance of the moral

> celebration of homosexuality rather than the mere tolerance of the

> rights and liberties of homosexuals.

>

" mere tolerance of the rights and liberties " - nah, there's not the

slightest hint of bigotry in that. By mere tolerance, btw, do we mean

that homosexuals cannot be discriminated against? Should it be ok not

to higher them if they are 'out', and is the 'don't ask don't tell'

policy ok? I'd be pretty confident that anyone who believes stuff like

this has the view that homosexuality is abhorrent, and that it should

be kept out of view. What exactly does celebrating it mean, anyway?

Should heterosexuality be 'celebrated' or is that wrong too? I really

can't believe that a real Christian would have the slightest tolerance

for this stuff.

>

>

> I think, based on the 30% or so of the article I read, that the author

> is arguing that this is allowing the corporate and government elite a

> hand into controlling the moral beliefs of common citizens, which

> could eventually be used to go even further and forcefully undermine

> religious belief in general.

>

> > How, for instance, is a

> > comment that " the essence of manhood is to lead and support a

> family "

> > neutral about what a woman's role in society should be?

>

> I read even less of that article so I don't know if it addresses

> woman's role in society, but the statement itself is neutral because

> male leadership and support is not mutually exclusive with female

> leadership and support.

>

Do you have any shame when it comes to these arguments. No, I suppose

that it's logically possible to state that a man should be the head of

the household, and also that a woman should also be the head of the

household - but in normal English language conversation about these

issues that's not what's meant. And you KNOW it.

As is usually the case, I simply lose interest arguing with you, since

I don't really see much effort at all to put much logic into arguing

against the points that I'm making, rather than simply arguing against

them because I make them (apparently, because there is little logical

content to what you're saying, and you've ignored quite a bit).

> But, more important, the brief glancing at

> the article I did indicates that it was not contrasting this with male

> subservience to female leadership, but was contrasting it to male

> promiscuity and obsession with casual sex.

>

> > How can you possibly say this stuff? I suppose one could make an

> > argument that feminism/homosexuality etc, are not bad things at all,

> > but the government's use of them for hidden agendas is bad, but I

> > don't see ANY hint of disagreement here about the actual quotes

> > themselves, nor have I ever seen disclaim any of the

> filth

> > that one can find on his site.

>

> Like I said before, I never meant to suggest that advocated

> feminism or homosexuality, but merely that he is not a " hateful

> bigot. " I think there is a big gap between being opposed to feminism

> and hating women.

>

> Chris

>

>