We Have Bigger Issues Than Bullying To Deal With

Actually, enough with any anti-bullying laws.

You know how bullying was handled when I was in school? It wasn’t by an act of Congress. You either stood up for yourself, or you didn’t. Your choice.

I’m not saying bullying should be tolerated, but it’s not a Washington issue. It’s a parent issue. Parents have to either teach their kids to stand up for themselves, or take up the issue with the school.

But, what’s really bugging me these days is how a single incident can cause a national movement (so to speak) to curb anti-gay bullying in schools.

A history teacher amends his lessons on the civil rights movement to include the push for gay equality. A high school removes Internet filters blocking gay advocacy websites. Six gay students sue their district, saying officials failed to protect them from bullies.

After anti-gay bullying led to a spate of teen suicides last year, school districts across the country are stepping up efforts to prevent such incidents, while more students are coming forward to report bullies.

“It’s an issue that has taken over the public consciousness since last fall,” said Jill Marcellus, spokeswoman for the Gay-Straight Alliance Network. “People realize it doesn’t have to be this way. We can make it better.”

Awareness of anti-gay bullying is increasing as acceptance of gay people has grown in society. Gay marriage is legal in several states, gays are now permitted to serve openly in the military and, in California, schools will soon have to teach gay-rights history.

Kids, even as young as middle school age, feel more emboldened to openly express their sexual or gender orientation, but many are not prepared for a possible backlash, gay-rights advocates say.

As much as I hate all this attention being given to curb bullying, it really bugs me that there are apparently enough people who seem to think anti-gay bullying is the only bullying that is worth addressing. You know what, school sucks for a lot of people. Kids get picked on for all sorts of reasons, but you don’t see such specific attention being given to bullying based on social or economic factors, fashion, or weight, etc. etc. etc.

When did we get so soft that the immediate response to an act of bullying is community action, and inevitably government action?

I’m not a parent yet, but when I am, if my kid gets bullying, my response would be to teach him to stand up for himself. Bullies prey on the weak because they feel they can manipulate them. If we teach kids that they don’t have to handle their own problem, that the government will come in and solve it all for them, then things are just going to get a lot worse. It’s bad enough so many rely on the government for monetary handouts… do we really need the government fighting our schoolyard battles too?


120 thoughts on “We Have Bigger Issues Than Bullying To Deal With

  1. bardolf October 23, 2011 / 8:50 pm

    Nice post:

    First lesson to teach kids is that bullying never stops, not even in the retirement center.


    Second lesson to teach kids is that new rules are less often about helping group 1 than they are about putting group 2 on notice. When the ritalin isn’t enough to stop boys from being boys there is always anti-bullying laws.

    Third lesson- letting the teacher/govt/mom stand up for you is a short term solution and makes you more fragile to serious bullies later in life. I’ve been in jobs where co-workers were bullied and they waited for some administrator to save them, didn’t happen. Unfortunately, at the adult level, one can’t help out by giving the bully a poke in the nose when they deserve it.

  2. J. R. Babcock October 23, 2011 / 11:57 pm

    Statistically, my 1973 high school class of around 300 should have had 3-6 homosexuals. If it did, I had no idea who they were because they didn’t rub their sexual preference in my face. It would sure solve a lot of problems if everyone simply kept their sex life in the bedroom.

    • Cory October 24, 2011 / 1:44 am

      Yeah, I remember in High School when all the straight kids went out of their way to never talk about sex. If only we could hold the gays to that standard!

      • neocon1 October 24, 2011 / 8:33 am


        then STFU

    • js03 October 24, 2011 / 12:07 pm

      another oxymoron…from a stooge nonetheless…

      sex is an act of reproduction…homosexuals dont reproduce…they use thier physical bodies to achieve an euphoric state that quckly passes away…they become addicted to the simple feeling…and in order to become aroused so they can achieve that feeling…they sodomize one another…or commit acts upon others to achieve thier goals…

      while they use thier reproductive systems…to achieve this…it is not sexual…it is selfish and selfserving…addictive behavior that does not fulfill any other purpose…

      the human reproductive system was made for reproduction…its use results in families…children…the generation to come in the future…nothing like that can be acomplished by sodomites…

      its not sex, its a mental problem…akin to the addictio to heroin

      • cory October 24, 2011 / 12:14 pm

        You seem to be describing the behavior of billions of people in this world, including those straight high school students we were just talking about. Or do you think that your average teen is having sex because they are trying to start a family?

      • js03 October 24, 2011 / 1:08 pm

        to a reprobate mind…uh…IT DONE MATTER WHAT YOU THINK…you got that…disease

  3. Green Mountain Boy October 24, 2011 / 3:09 am

    It would seem at this moment in time that homosexuals are more equal than anybody else. It is the cause of the day. Welcome to the farm.

    • neocon1 October 24, 2011 / 8:34 am



      • Green Mountain Boy October 24, 2011 / 11:20 am

        Neo, look up Animal Farm.


        Right now the sodomites are more “equal” than the rest of the animals. Give it time, some other “oppressed” group will become more equal.

  4. Q the Platypus October 24, 2011 / 4:28 am

    Mean gay teenages don’t have the support of there parents which is why they are more vulnerable to bullying and harassment. If they where adults they would be able sue under civil law but because they are children they come under criminal law protection.

    • neocon1 October 24, 2011 / 8:34 am

      sodomy = pathology = sick puppies. sue away you are still gay.

      • David October 24, 2011 / 10:12 am

        To quote the UC Davis Department of Psychology website:

        “However, empirical evidence and professional norms do not support the idea that homosexuality is a form of mental illness or is inherently linked to psychopathology.”

      • RetiredSpook October 24, 2011 / 10:22 am

        Yeah, David; engaging in behavior that (a) you know will shorten your life by an average of 20 years, and (b) is likely to result in discrimination and possibly even bodily harm, is the clinical definition of normal.

      • bardolf October 24, 2011 / 12:12 pm


        The idea that psychologists APA can’t be pressured into declaring one form of behavior normal and another one abnormal is absurd.

        I don’t hold homosexuality as pathalogical, but I would never appeal to the APA to make such a call. I would do it based on actual people I know.

      • js03 October 24, 2011 / 12:12 pm

        “Psychopathology is a term which refers to either the study of mental illness or mental distress or the manifestation of behaviours and experiences which may be indicative of mental illness or psychological impairment.”

        sorry david…the psychological imparement that sodomites experience prevent them from having normal sexual relationships with women…shoot…most of them have so many partners that they lose count…and a high percentage of them aquire uncurable STD’s and diseases that shorten thier lives by decades…

        the idiots that made that statement that you quoted…obviously were wrong and fullofshxt…only a stooge would post something like that out of ignorance…

        is that true davidstooge?

    • js03 October 24, 2011 / 9:11 am

      homosexual behavior (aka-sodomy etc) is not natural human behavior…it is literaly deviant sexual behavior and the government has no right or duty to protect anybody who choses this path…

      laws created to protect them from violence are only duplicative and useless…the constitution does not enumerate power to create new classes of individual rights…those powers were specific and to the letter…and left to the states and the people…

      every state has the right to enact whatever protections they want…but the federal government does not…

      and the same goes with prohibition…the constitution never enumerated rights to the federal government to outlaw any substance that altered the mood of its user..back in the old days before the federal government usurped the states rights on this issue…the percentage of abuse was far less than today…just like outlawing booze for kids challenges them to drink underage…so does drug laws when applied to the general population…

      instead of outlawing them…we need to educate ourselves about the effects of substance abuse…it wouldnt change much except to educate the rebelious who become challenge to try the outlawed substance under our current laws…

      knowledge is the key…not prohibition

      • js03 October 24, 2011 / 9:14 am

        and…beyond all that…the constitution is founded upon the laws of nature…which literally dictate that homosexual behavior leads to extinction of the affected individuals…

        there is nothing down that road that the US Government can protect us from by protecting those who follow that path…its an oxymoron….

      • David October 24, 2011 / 10:10 am

        “homosexual behavior (aka-sodomy etc) is not natural human behavior”

        There are animals other than humans that engage in homosexual behavior. What evidence is there that such behavior is not natural in humans?

        “it is literaly deviant sexual behavior and the government has no right or duty to protect anybody who choses this path”

        What does deviant even mean? It’s not normal? Who wants to be normal? Normal people make C’s, have boring jobs, and are overweight.

        So basically, if someone has sex with the wrong person, you believe that person should receive no benefits of the government? So if my neighbor is gay I can punch him in the face and not go to jail? Really?

      • David October 24, 2011 / 10:16 am

        “the constitution is founded upon the laws of nature”

        From good old Wikipedia:
        “A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.”

        So are those 500 species artificial or natural?

        “which literally dictate that homosexual behavior leads to extinction of the affected individuals”

        No it doesn’t. That’s like saying I can’t take a vacation to France because if everyone did that, then the US would be empty and France would be way too crowded.

      • RetiredSpook October 24, 2011 / 11:31 am

        “which literally dictate that homosexual behavior leads to extinction of the affected individuals”

        No it doesn’t. That’s like saying I can’t take a vacation to France because if everyone did that, then the US would be empty and France would be way too crowded.

        David, I missed the news that homosexuals have found a way to procreate. Could you provide me with a link?

      • js03 October 24, 2011 / 11:31 am

        so if you are done davidstooge…all that you spout is that you cant figure out the difference between men and animals…so does that men you can also justify creating protections for a class of predatory human beings that have the desire to rip out the throats of other creatures and eat them raw…because animals do it so it must be ok…hmmm…no…you still didnt get it….typical stooge…

        the humans reproductive system, just like animals…have a purpose…that is obvious…and when that purpose is set aside…for selfish lust…then it is all deviant sexual behavior…defying the natural purpose of the reproductive system…no matter what species it appears in…so the answer to your objection is…no answer at all…you appear to be subject to a reprobate mind…in that looking you cannot see…and listening you do not hear…the basic truth is nature

      • cory October 24, 2011 / 12:34 pm

        “David, I missed the news that homosexuals have found a way to procreate. Could you provide me with a link?”

        I missed the news that we try to discriminate against straight couples who have no interest or ability to procreate. If somebody is infertile, does that mean they are also deviant when they have sex? Is wearing a condom deviant?

      • js03 October 24, 2011 / 1:09 pm

        i wont even ask if you are that ignorant corystooge…I ALREADY KNOW YOU ARE

      • neocon1 October 24, 2011 / 4:23 pm


        There are animals other than humans that engage in homosexual behavior. What evidence is there that such behavior is not natural in humans?

        dogs lick their butts to, do you?

      • David October 25, 2011 / 7:58 am

        To those who think I condone all animal behaviors:

        I did not say that homosexuality was acceptable because it’s natural. I said it is, in fact, present in nature, which directly contradicts this statement: “the constitution is founded upon the laws of nature…which literally dictate that homosexual behavior leads to extinction of the affected individuals…”

      • js03 October 25, 2011 / 9:00 am

        “the constitution is founded upon the laws of nature…which literally dictate that homosexual behavior leads to extinction of the affected individuals…”

        it doesnt contradict nature…matter of fact…you made the suggestion that those animals who reject natural sexual behavior reproduce…and try to justify it because the entire species is not extinct…

        nice try…halfwit…but just as inept as ever…you are not capable of changing the laws of nature…no matter how hard you try…

      • David October 25, 2011 / 9:56 am

        I never said it contradicted nature. I said it contradicted your statement that homosexuals go extinct. If there are homosexual animals in the wild, then homosexuality didn’t cause extinction of those animals.

      • js03 October 25, 2011 / 6:18 pm

        perfect rebuttal…for a brain dead libtard…is that it…you got nadda…must really suck to be a stooge eh….

      • David October 25, 2011 / 7:32 pm

        I have nada except tons of evidence on my side, and you have baseless assertions.

      • neocon1 October 26, 2011 / 9:29 am


        you have BS and anan penetration….good job
        stick with the poop throwing chimps at the zoo as your “proof”
        sodomy is un natural, disease ridden pathology.

        I guess you and corky like that…enjoy

  5. Bob October 24, 2011 / 11:51 am

    I invite you all to come to my blog and to engage in a general discussion of this matter at http://christianityetc.org/blog/bullying . The issue is bigger than just the matter of homosexuality.

  6. Green Mountain Boy October 24, 2011 / 12:27 pm

    The people of this country created this monster of a government. It will be up to the people to end it too. I don’t see it happening. We have one party that wants to expand governments role in our daily lives and another party that pretends to oppose them, until the bad press starts.

    Deal with it. 🙂

    • neocon1 October 24, 2011 / 1:35 pm

      settled science

      A Review of the Scientific Literature

      It is widely known that in 1974 the full membership of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) followed the 1973 recommendation of its board by voting to remove homosexuality as a pathological psychiatric condition as such (or “in itself”) from the DSM, which is the official reference book for diagnosing mental disorders in America (and through much of the world).

      The removal of homosexuality from the DSM was in response to a majority vote of the APA. The original APA vote was called at a time of significant social change and was taken with unconventional speed that circumvented normal channels for consideration of the issues because of explicit threats from gay rights groups to disrupt APA conventions and research.

      However, it appears that in contrast to the results of the vote, the majority of the APA membership continued to view homosexuality as a pathology. A survey four years after the vote found that 69% of psychiatrists regarded homosexuality as a “pathological adaptation.” A much more recent survey suggests that the majority of psychiatrists around the world continue to view same-sex behavior as signaling mental illness.

      • neocon1 October 24, 2011 / 1:46 pm

        Ahhhhhh the loony leftist Looooooove.

        Actress Kathy Bates: I Want Obama ‘To Stand Up on His Hind Legs and Fight These Rat Bastards’

        “I think he’s got to indict these guys from Wall Street.”

      • David October 25, 2011 / 7:59 am

        So 1977 psychological practices are state of the art?

      • js03 October 25, 2011 / 6:23 pm

        well…welll…i dont know beaver…do you suppose that its right for the apa to wipe away the research that they upheld and developed for a hundred+ years just for the sake of…a few sodomite feeling socially accepted…

        got any empirical evidence documenting the entire scientific studies that changed all that stooge…(no…the APA didnt have a lick of study to certify the coop….they just changed the classification for political reason)…wow…and they sucked you in on that screwed up deal eh…hows it feel…to be a mental case that the medical establishment tells you that nothing is wrong…feed the disease…grow and problem…it worked

      • neocon1 October 26, 2011 / 9:35 am


        So 1977 psychological practices are state of the art?

        anal sex and poop are universal.
        yet you (mis) quote the constitution?
        is that document “state of the art?
        is AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, warts, “state of the art”?
        seems you love for this pathology gives your lil closet away.

      • cory October 26, 2011 / 3:16 pm

        A hundred years? Do you have any idea how much the field of psychiatry has changed in a hundred years? Do you also think that we still should be trying to treat diseases with leeches, because it is ridiculous to throw away hundreds of years of science?

        That hundred years of development is exactly what caused them to change their practices in the way that so rubs you the wrong way.

  7. dennis October 24, 2011 / 1:45 pm

    “David, I missed the news that homosexuals have found a way to procreate. Could you provide me with a link?”

    Spook, homosexuals can procreate the same way everyone else does and some do. I don’t need a link – I personally know at least five gay people (two men and three women) who have biological children. At least three of them are Republicans, one is retired from the Air Force, if that matters. Nowadays many gay people prefer to use artificial or in vitro fertilization, egg donation or a surrogate mother. The method doesn’t matter in terms of extending their genetic lineage. But the logical point David was making you chose to ignore is that not everyone is homosexual – it seems to be a fairly consistent statistical minority (like people vacationing in Paris). So the existence of homosexuals – even if they don’t procreate – doesn’t mean the species will die out.

    However, JS said “the laws of nature dictate that homosexual behavior leads to extinction of the affected individuals.” I hate to be the one to break this to you JS, but that will happen anyway when you die. Old JS will cease to exist. If you have siblings, chances are good that some of your genetic material will live on in their offspring, even if you had no children. But really, why does everyone’s genetic material have to be passed on? That’s an egotistical concept with no grounding in “the laws of nature.” There’s enough diversity and sexual activity going on to insure we won’t become extinct as a species.

    And as Cory pointed out, some heterosexual couples can’t have children, some choose not to. Nobody has clarified – is their sexual behavior aberrant, just because it won’t produce children? How about sex after menopause, or having a vasectomy – is that deviant as well? Should the sexual activity of all infertile people be regarded immoral?

    • neocon1 October 24, 2011 / 1:47 pm

      poop is not sex dennistooge

      • neocon1 October 24, 2011 / 2:11 pm

        Romans 1:26-27

        That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.


      • neocon1 October 24, 2011 / 2:14 pm

        1 Corinthians 6:9-10

        KJV (King James Version, 1611): Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
        Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

      • neocon1 October 24, 2011 / 2:17 pm

        Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

      • cory October 24, 2011 / 2:31 pm

        Leviticus 11:9-12:
        9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
        10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
        11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
        12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

        I don’t suppose you eat shrimp, clams, lobster, crab, or any of the other fun things in the ocean that don’t have fins and scales? It even uses the same “abomination” word that you quoted in your last piece of scripture, both pre- and post- English translation.

        You guys get real selective when choosing which pieces of the Old Testament to pay attention to.

      • js03 October 25, 2011 / 9:17 am

        levitical laws dont apply to gentiles…corystooge obviously is ignorant about the Bible…

        there are very few things that gentiles have to comply with…the law is set in stone yes…however…the stone is for those who are judged under the law…not those who are saved in Jesus…we are justified by faith…much like Abraham was…not by the law…

        nice try…but sodomy and homosexual behaviors are condemned in both the new and the old testament….it reaches beyond salvation by faith…and it gives fair warning that sodomites reject…

        they are given to the reprobate mind…they dont know any better any more…much like you corystooge…what is obvious to the world…is hidden from your sight…you remain ignorant and fight against the truth no matter how obvious it is…that…is a reprobate mind…gratz….you have qualified…without any reservations

      • Cory October 25, 2011 / 6:17 pm

        js, I know scrolling up a few posts is very difficult and all, but neo just posted a passage from Leviticus. Why didn’t you give him any crap about it?

      • js03 October 25, 2011 / 6:24 pm

        your reprobate mind will never figure that one out corystooge…promise

      • cory October 26, 2011 / 3:21 pm

        “your reprobate mind will never figure that one out corystooge…promise”

        No, I had figured it out before I even replied to you. You don’t care about anything we’re saying in this discussion outside of “winning” some juvenile game where you score “points” every time you bash a liberal. Neo is not a liberal and is playing on your team, so even when he does the exact same thing that I do even before I do it, when he does it it’s cool because he’s one of the good guys, and if I save a bus load full of orphans from certain death, it will be part of my Marxist plan to destroy America.

        I was mostly just interested to see what your explanation would be for it, but I guess I had vastly overestimated your ability to even come with a half-assed explanation for your hypocrisy.

    • RetiredSpook October 24, 2011 / 2:23 pm

      Point taken, Dennis. I should have clarified that homosexuals cannot procreate with each other via sexual intercourse.

      And as Cory pointed out, some heterosexual couples can’t have children, some choose not to. Nobody has clarified – is their sexual behavior aberrant, just because it won’t produce children?

      Is that a rhetorical question?

      • cory October 24, 2011 / 2:34 pm

        No, it isn’t rhetorical. If your metric for sexual deviance is based on whether it will produce offspring, we’d like to know what that means for straight couples who have sex without any chance of procreation.

      • neocon1 October 24, 2011 / 2:53 pm


        it was for historical purpose only, funny though you skipped past the NT Romans….

      • neocon1 October 24, 2011 / 2:55 pm

        corky how many times have YOU had homosexual sex?

      • RetiredSpook October 24, 2011 / 6:14 pm

        If your metric for sexual deviance is based on whether it will produce offspring, we’d like to know what that means for straight couples who have sex without any chance of procreation.

        Whose metric for sexual deviance is based on whether or not it will produce offspring? Certainly not mine.

      • tiredoflibbs October 24, 2011 / 7:44 pm

        spook, cory is just regurgitating the leftists homosexual agenda talking points like the good little drone he is.

        Nothing more.

        Leave it to cory to oversimplify an argument of a heterosexual couple who are incapable of procreation through some physical problem and compare it to homosexuals who can’t procreate through entirely different and impossible reasons.

        Again, he compares apples to oranges.

        Let’s see how he spins his way out of this one.

      • cory October 24, 2011 / 9:51 pm

        “Whose metric for sexual deviance is based on whether or not it will produce offspring? Certainly not mine.”

        Then why are you asking about homosexuals’ ability to procreate? I can only assume you are either packpedaling or you actually don’t know for sure whether gay sex can produce children, otherwise why would you say:

        “David, I missed the news that homosexuals have found a way to procreate. Could you provide me with a link?”

      • cory October 24, 2011 / 10:00 pm

        “spook, cory is just regurgitating the leftists homosexual agenda talking points like the good little drone he is.

        Nothing more.

        Leave it to cory to oversimplify an argument of a heterosexual couple who are incapable of procreation through some physical problem and compare it to homosexuals who can’t procreate through entirely different and impossible reasons.

        Again, he compares apples to oranges.

        Let’s see how he spins his way out of this one.”

        If I’m oversimplifying it, feel free to give me the complicated explanation of why the ability to procreate only matters to you if the people involved are gay. And speaking of regurgitating, I’m getting really bored of hearing that word from you. Either tell me where specifically I’m getting my talking points from or get some new material, because between you posting the same thing over and over and neo and js replying to themselves over and over (and neo pasting multipage articles) it gets harder and harder to scroll through all the completely useless crap in these comment threads. I’ll give you some help again: I’m not gay, so I don’t get the newsletter.

      • tiredoflibbs October 25, 2011 / 6:46 am

        Uh, cory, read David’s response to spook’s comment – then look at your own response.

        David said it was not true what spook said. You countered with a pathetic and erroneous comparison to heterosexual couples.

        You sadly, oversimplified it and compared apples to oranges.

        Kindly, explain how homosexuals can procreate? Can two males (homosexual or heterosexual), combine their DNA and create a child?

        That is how a species is perpetuated.

        BTW, if you are tired of me using the word “regurgitate” then stop repeating verbatim the dumbed down talking points you use constantly.

      • David October 25, 2011 / 7:56 am

        What I specifically responded to was this:
        “which literally dictate that homosexual behavior leads to extinction of the affected individuals”

        Which was not posted by Spook. In any case, my point is that homosexual behavior does not lead to extinction or else there wouldn’t be homosexuals. Yes, if everyone is homosexual, then people have to do some unpleasant things to perpetuate the species, but that’s not how things are or ever will be, so it’s a completely asinine and pointless argument.

        And Cory’s comparison is not pathetic and erroneous. What if everyone who is straight decided to stop having children? Well obviously that would be bad. However, that’s not going to happen, so it’s OK for heterosexual couples to choose to or not be able to produce offspring. It’s the exact same standard applied above, and it’s ludicrous whether applied to hetero or homosexuals (or any other people).

      • js03 October 25, 2011 / 8:37 am

        mental midgetry is a byproduct of stooge…

        sorry corystooge…you missed the entire jist of the matter…

        if you have a hammer…and try to use it like you would a paintbrush…you pretty well end up as a clueless bimbo…this is what you are trying to confuse the issue with…procreation…the act of reproduction can only happen between a man and a woman…its pretty much covered…whatever goes on between the two…

        that does not happen between two people of the same sex…and when they attempt to counterfeit the behavior…it is…deviant sexual behavior…its the abnormal use of the human reproductive system….and the ONLY basis is selfish lust….

      • js03 October 25, 2011 / 8:42 am

        ok davidstooge…why not indulge in insanity for a few seconds…

        explain to us…how exactly it works…if you disagree…tell us exactly how two sodomites dont go into extinction…exactly how does this theory work that you propose…

        medical science has pretty well locked this up…at not time…or place…in all of history…has a child ever been produced by that scenario…extinction is inevitable…same with all of Gods critters…this is empirical….so let at it stooge…tell us how you get reproduction out of sodomy…

      • David October 25, 2011 / 10:01 am

        I never said that reproduction comes from sodomy. I said that extinction isn’t inevitable.

        It’s well documented that there are genetic benefits to sacrifice to protect one’s family, as your family members share significant portions of your DNA. This is called “kin selection.” The idea is that the homosexual animals provide support for the family in some way that helps perpetuate the family’s genes even though the homosexual animals themselves do not reproduce. Also, many animals engage in both heterosexual and homosexual behavior, which is another way they don’t go extinct.

        And, no, I”m not going to “indulge in insanity.” Thanks, though.

      • RetiredSpook October 25, 2011 / 10:30 am

        Then why are you asking about homosexuals’ ability to procreate? I can only assume you are either packpedaling or you actually don’t know for sure whether gay sex can produce children…


        My response that you are referencing was a tongue-in-cheek response to David’s assertion that homosexual behavior would not lead to extinction. Nowhere in this thread have I said that the inability to procreate is the dynamic by which I judge the aberrant nature of homosexuality.

      • tiredoflibbs October 25, 2011 / 12:22 pm

        I see nuance is wasted on drones like cory and david.

        No wonder they fell for obAMATEUR’s “nuance” and mindless rhetoric.

        Spook, it is a waste of time explaining your point to mindless drones.

      • tiredoflibbs October 25, 2011 / 12:29 pm

        davey: “And Cory’s comparison is not pathetic and erroneous.”

        Apparently, you missed the minor detail: “If your metric for sexual deviance is based on whether it will produce offspring, we’d like to know what that means for straight couples who have sex without any chance of procreation.”


        “If somebody is infertile, does that mean they are also deviant when they have sex?”

        Again, your lack of reading comprehension is a crutch that you cannot part with and it makes you look more and more foolish with each of your rants.

      • cory October 25, 2011 / 1:21 pm

        If Spook doesn’t subscribe to the idea that procreation is related at all to the issue, that’s great, but since others of you clearly do, I’m still waiting for an actual explanation as to why it only matters when you are talking about gay people. And no, claiming that anything I’m saying is erroneous or ridiculous without any supporting reasoning doesn’t count as an explanation, even if you post it repeatedly.

      • Wallace October 25, 2011 / 1:28 pm

        “I’m still waiting for an actual explanation as to why it only matters when you are talking about gay people. ”

        You’ll be waiting for a long, long time.

      • js03 October 25, 2011 / 1:58 pm

        duck…dodge…evade…misinterpet…gee…you have run the entire liberal gamut on this and still missed the point…

        typical stooge…thanks for the confirmation

      • David October 25, 2011 / 7:37 pm

        I wish I could respond, but my detractors are lacking any meaningful content in their messages.

        While we at it, what’s the deal with so-called Christians calling people names? Is that really what Jesus would do? Or is this one of those things you’re allowed to do as long as you say you’re sorry on Sunday?

    • js03 October 25, 2011 / 9:04 am

      another dennistooge blunder…

      you have pointed out that these people actually had children through natural sexual behavior….you have not shown that homosexuality is either natural or that it ever caused any species to reproduce…this lie is obviously the only game you have to play…

      there is no dedicated homosexual, human or not…that will ever reproduce…unless they revert to the natural behavior…

      sucks but truth just slammed your lie…stooge

      • js03 October 25, 2011 / 9:10 am

        this sets aside the truth to create a lie…the real shame of it all…is that the children created under the mess dennistooge describes…are really f’d…raised in an environment that condones unnatural sexual behavior over natural human behavior…

        up til the last 40 years…society as a whole…would not let this go on…they would take the children away from the offending parties and insure they have a proper environment to grow up in…they protected the children from those who participated in this behavior…and thats what we should be doing NOW…instead of make believe games that nothing is wrong…

        the innocent victims today become the predators of tomoorow…all we need to is nothing to guarantee its success

      • cory October 25, 2011 / 1:23 pm


        Please provide empirical evidence that children raised by homosexual couples are, in fact, “really f’d”.

      • js03 October 25, 2011 / 1:47 pm

        start with marraiges…

        statistics demonstrate that 71% of all marraige between sodomites end within the 1st 7 years, 52% last less than 3 years…

        in normal married couples you find that almost 60% of them last past 20 years…

        empirical fact…normal married couples provide a much more stable homelife for children…

        next…70%+/- of all homosexuals end up with a uncurable disease, this is due to promiscuity…these behavior patterns are passed on to the children raised in sodomite relationships…making them far more vulnerable to repeating those same mistakes that thier parents made…as an example for the children…who do follow in their footsteps…

        · In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that “typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in ‘transactional’ relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months.”[5]

        · A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years.[6]

        · In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”[7]

        · In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]

        Lest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing:

        Married couples

        · A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.[9]

        · A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.[10]

        · A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.[11]

      • js03 October 25, 2011 / 1:48 pm

        Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:

        · The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]

        · Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]

        · In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]

        · A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.[15]

      • js03 October 25, 2011 / 1:52 pm

        Implications for Homosexual Parenting

        Gay activists attempt to minimize the differences between homosexual and heterosexual households in order to make homosexuality look as normal as possible. However, as already shown, only a small minority of gay and lesbian households have children. Beyond that, the evidence also indicates that comparatively few homosexuals choose to establish households together–the type of setting that is normally prerequisite for the rearing of children.

        The Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual advocacy organization, claims that the U.S. population of gays and lesbians is 10,456,405, or five percent of the total U.S. population over 18 years of age.[37] However, as we have seen, the best available data supports a lower estimate of 2.5 percent for male homosexuals and 1.4 percent for lesbians.[38] This would lead to a figure of approximately 4,040,000 homosexual men and women in the U.S. population. Thus, only about 30 percent of homosexuals (1,202,418 out of some 4 million) choose to live in a household with a person of the same sex.

        The above indicates that only a small minority of gays and lesbians choose to live in partnered relationships, and furthermore, only a small percentage of partnered homosexual households actually have children. The evidence thus does not support the claim that significant numbers of homosexuals desire to provide a stable home for children.

        Even those homosexual relationships that are loosely termed “monogamous” do not necessarily result in healthier behavior. The evidence indicates that homosexual and lesbian relationships are at far greater risk for contracting life-threatening disease compared with married couples:

        · The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than did those without a steady partner.[39] Anal intercourse has been linked with a host of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.

        · The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of AIDS concurred, finding that most “unsafe” sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.[40]

        · A study of steady and casual male homosexual relationships in Amsterdam found that “steady partners contribute to (HIV) incidence more than casual partners. This can mainly be explained by the fact that risky behavior with steady partners is much greater than that with casual partners (30 versus 1.5 UAI [unprotected anal intercourse] acts annually).”[41]

        · These findings confirmed an earlier study by the Dutch Department of Health and Environment, which found that 67 percent of HIV-positive men aged 30 and younger had been infected by a steady partner. The study concluded: “In recent years, young gay men have become more likely to contract HIV from a steady sexual partner than from a casual one.”[42]

      • js03 October 25, 2011 / 1:55 pm


        this covers many many studies in many different nations…its a fairly decent summary of empirical facts…and demonstrates why parenting sucks in same sex relationships…mainly due to the failure of those very relationships…

      • js03 October 25, 2011 / 3:26 pm

        Some statistics about the Homosexual lifestyle:

        * One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3)
        * One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime
        * Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7)
        * Many homosexuals don’t pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: “Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior” (16)
        * Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. “Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence” (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels “subjective distress”) (27)
        * Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population
        * Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27)
        * 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13)
        * 25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11)
        * Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex
        * 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20)
        * Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10)
        * Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals” (10)
        * 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10)
        * Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, “Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person” (10). For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
        * It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us(10)
        * Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population
        * Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (8)
        * 37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8)
        * 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8)
        * Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (8)
        * The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8)
        * The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8)
        * Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident (8)
        * 21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things(8)
        * 50% of the calls to a hotline to report “queer bashing” involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (18)
        * About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians (12).

      • cory October 25, 2011 / 3:35 pm

        First, if we’re going to start rejecting parents based on their life expectancy, you have a lot of higher value targets available that we should be hitting first. Let’s go with smokers and fat people and move on to men in the military during armed conflicts. We don’t want little Johnny to not have a dad because he died in Iraq, right?

        As to the link you posted, the whole thing is kind of a joke. They are comparing homosexual relationships to straight marriages, and cite a bunch of useless information about what short term homosexual relationships are like. I mean really, you’re going to compare divorce rates versus total population in committed relationships and pretend like they are the same thing? That’s your big proof that homosexuals make bad parents, not some statistical evidence related to say how well children do when raised by homosexual parents, data which is conspicuously absent in this whole useless article?

      • js03 October 25, 2011 / 6:28 pm

        oh ya…another alinsky move to ignore the 99 percent so you can isolate the 1% that you think you can challenge eh…as a whole the report is far beyond your understanding…but you keep pretending…

        it shows us how big an idiot er….stooge you really are…clamp on like a pit bull and dont let go…cause if ya do…we will…bad new is…that if ya stay clamped on..we see just how stupid you really are…and we win anyways…a serious lose lose situation for your halfwitted attempt to challenge the rules of nature…

        but keep trying…that sound of crushing beneath my heel keeps everyones attention…

      • Cory October 25, 2011 / 8:08 pm

        I ignored nothing. 100% of the article is irrelevant to the topic of discussion at hand. The whole thing is an argument against gay marriage, not against homosexuals raising children, and as such, it doesn’t even attempt to address the issue. The fact that you can’t even tell the difference and somehow thing you’ve made a solid point is astounding.

  8. Green Mountain Boy October 24, 2011 / 4:26 pm

    “I think he’s got to indict these guys from Wall Street.”

    Hows he going to do that and take thier campaign money at the same time? Like to see him try.

    • neocon1 October 24, 2011 / 4:54 pm

      talk about bullying….and gay at that.

    • RetiredSpook October 24, 2011 / 6:19 pm

      That certainly is a dilemma — indict them or take their money. I wonder which one ObiOne will choose.

      BTW, I agree with Kathy Bates. There are lots of Wall Street rat bastards that should be in the graybar hotel.

      • neocon1 October 24, 2011 / 6:33 pm

        rat bastards that should be in the graybar hotel.

        like bwany fwank and chris dodd

    • js03 October 25, 2011 / 8:28 am

      potus doesnt have the authority to indict squat…only a grand jury has that power

  9. Jeremiah October 24, 2011 / 9:45 pm

    Davie Boy,

    There are repercussions for choosing to live in a lifestyle such as homosexuality. One of those is acquiring diseases, such as AIDS, the most common example. Another is God withdrawing is His Spirit’s calling on that person’s heart … leading to a condition known as a reprobate mind, a reprobate mind is one who has been rejected, thrown out, because they chose to reject His rules, His commandments, His mighty right hand to live their life to please themselves. In this state of existence they have no possibility to accept Christ’s redemptive plan of salvation, and thus, will spend eternity in a state of torment … this implication is far more important than the physical repercussions that are likely to occur to the individual who has rejected God’s rules.

    Take for example, a little sparrow, if that little sparrow started on the East coast and picked up every grain of sand on the East coast, hopped all the way to California to the West coast, dropped one grain of sand, and hopped back to get another grain of sand in its beak … how long would it take that little sparrow to carry every grain of sand from one coast to the other? Okay, double that amount of grains of sand, and the little bird carries the sand from both coasts all the way back to the East coast? How long would it be?

    Let me ask you this? How long is forever?

    Well, I’ll tell you, by the time that little bird carried all those grains of sand from one coast to the other….eternity, or ‘forever’ will have not even begun. What if the little bird carried every grain of sand in the world around the world; how long would it take? Well, eternity will have not even begun by the time the little bird is done carry every grain of sand in the world around the world.

    I like to make the point clear; the torment of hell is neverending, because time will have ceased to exist, and God’s reign will have no end. His judgment is just, and He expects each of us to live Holy and righteous lives before Him!!

    Holy! Holy! Holy! is the Lord God Almighty, Who was, Who is, and Who is to come!!

    • cory October 24, 2011 / 9:52 pm

      Keep your religious arguments out of my government, thanks.

      • Jeremiah October 24, 2011 / 10:01 pm

        It matters not whether my religion is in “your” government or not, every person has a decision to make – a decision in which they will give account to the Supreme Judge, the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.

        You have that decision to make, as well.

        All people, whether living in a disobedient lifestyle, or that condone a disobedient lifestyle, or that are in a position to sanction a disobedient lifestyle on a societal basis must and will have to pay the consequences of doing so.

        God is above man, and the governments of the world.

      • Amazona October 25, 2011 / 12:09 am

        It’s also Jeremiah’s government, and my government, so why don’t you keep your meaningless valueless chatter out of OUR government?

        BTW, it’s a government founded by and structured by men who were determined to keep religion IN this selfsame government.

      • js03 October 25, 2011 / 8:27 am

        its the government of the PEOPLE…not of the socialists…marxists and stooges…

        its got nothing to do with you corystooge…

      • cory October 25, 2011 / 1:39 pm

        It’s always interesting to see religious people revert to making claims about our founding fathers with regard to the role of religion in government rather than deferring to their own religious texts.

      • neocon1 October 25, 2011 / 10:27 pm


        keep your homosexual, atheist hands off my GOD given government.

      • cory October 26, 2011 / 12:03 pm

        Really, God-given government? I can’t decide whether that is funny or just scary.

      • neocon1 October 26, 2011 / 1:36 pm


        SCARY 100%
        .45 ACP and Pissed off.

    • David October 25, 2011 / 7:50 am

      Thanks for the explanation of infinity. I took Calculus like everyone else who went to college.

      Where does that leave the establishment clause? How is standing up for other people valueless?

      • neocon1 October 25, 2011 / 10:29 pm


        I took Calculus like everyone else who went to college.

        along with basket weaving, and pole sitting?
        Im “impressed”

      • David October 25, 2011 / 10:47 pm

        I didn’t ask you to be impressed, and, no, I don’t know how to weave baskets.

      • Amazona October 26, 2011 / 9:37 am

        Well, gee, David, I guess “that” (whatever “that” is supposed to be) leaves the Establishment Clause right where it always has been, stating that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Did you think you were making a point there?

        And just who do you think you, or your fellow travelers, are “standing up” for?

        The RRL loves to invent illusionary causes for which they posture as staunch defenders, yet you are oddly silent about defending those who truly need protection. Unborn children come to mind.

        You may preen at the illusion that you are, in some way, “standing up” for someone who needs it, and that this somehow gives you values, but this does nothing to change or hide the fact that the Left suffocates in a climate of moral strength and courage and can only flourish when traditional values such as faith are ridiculed, weakened and then discarded.

      • neocon1 October 26, 2011 / 9:40 am


      • Wallace October 26, 2011 / 10:43 am

        “How is standing up for other people valueless?”

        Well, it’s the wrong other people, you see, plus *mumblemumblemumble* abortion!

      • neocon1 October 26, 2011 / 1:39 pm

        we are standing up for other people walleye.

        TAX PAYING, employees and businesses. WE are the 53% paying for you looting, thieving, dead ass scumbags who demand OUR MONEY for nothing.

      • David October 26, 2011 / 4:11 pm

        I apologize for the use of such a complex idiomatic expression. I thought you were a native speaker, Amazona.

        The people being stood up for are the people js03 and neocon take so much pleasure in deriding. What do traditional values have to say about children killing themselves because they’ve been bullied to the point that they think death is the only way to make the pain stop?

        Regarding your repeated, constant, and strident assertion that the Left has no faith, I’ll point you to the various Christian communes of the early United States (communes in particular since you apparently can’t want to raise taxes without being a Marxist).

    • js03 October 25, 2011 / 3:30 pm

      so stretch the truth…stretch reality…stretch religion so everthing you hear stretches into what “you christians” say…

      its only a stretch of your imagination corystooge…you cant deal with the truth…so you need to ridicule those who carry its message…


      • neocon1 October 25, 2011 / 9:30 pm


        neocon1 October 24, 2011 at 2:55 pm #

        corky, how many times have YOU had homosexual sex?

      • cory October 26, 2011 / 3:30 pm


      • David October 26, 2011 / 4:12 pm

        How about you, neocon? Ever batted for the other team?

      • neocon1 October 27, 2011 / 9:34 am


        you seem to defend something you CLAIM not to participate in very strongly.
        WHY is that?

        Nope, I leave that to you democRATS. who are very proficient kneepadders.

      • cory October 27, 2011 / 5:38 pm

        Because I think our country’s treatment of homosexuals is wrong regardless of whether it directly affects me. Would you speak up if women’s rights were taken away, even though you are not a woman?

      • Wallace October 27, 2011 / 6:09 pm

        “Would you speak up if women’s rights were taken away, even though you are not a woman?”

        No, he would not.

      • neocon1 October 27, 2011 / 7:30 pm

        corky and walleye

        anal sex is NOT a right.
        NO one has to know if someone is “gay” they announce it to the world.
        Thus it becomes a weapon and an agenda, open for discussion and disgust, and rebuttal.
        just STFU andthen nobody cares what you do in your own bedroom.

        womens “rights”?…a loaded gotcha question.

        I am 100% for equality with men.
        when I can MURDER MY child in the womb then OK with it.
        When they can MURDER MY child and I have no right to stop it it is not equality.


      • cory October 28, 2011 / 12:33 am

        Actually, I picked women specifically because I thought it was less loaded than picking some random minority. And you asked why I was standing up for homosexuals if I’m not gay, so your views on homosexuality don’t really matter with regard to the answer to that question.

      • neocon1 October 28, 2011 / 4:50 am


        but you are gay, NOBODY defends a pathology with your vigor for any other reason.
        camon corky you have outed your self “man” up and admit it ranger.

      • cory October 28, 2011 / 1:27 pm

        Are you hitting on me?

      • neocon1 October 28, 2011 / 2:47 pm



        do you still have your teeth?

      • cory October 28, 2011 / 3:09 pm

        Would it make want me more or less if I said I have all my teeth?

      • neocon1 October 29, 2011 / 2:33 pm

        you asked if I was hitting on you?

        My reply was do you still have any teeth.?
        My insinuation was if I HIT “on” you ranger, you would be missing several.

        seems you are occupied by gay sex and missing teeth, I would suggest you stay with your boyfriend bwany fwank.

      • Wallace October 29, 2011 / 3:51 pm

        “How about you, neocon? Ever batted for the other team?”

        He obviously has and probably still does–look how fixated he is on gays. If he were anybody of any importance whatsoever, he would’ve been one of the first on this site.

      • Cory October 30, 2011 / 3:42 am

        Just as a tip for picking up dudes, neo, they tend to not like having their teeth checked out like a horse for sale. Try starting out by taking them out for coffee or something, it will probably increase your take-home percentage, if you know what I mean.

        Good luck in your future man-finding endeavors.

      • neocon1 October 31, 2011 / 12:44 pm


        thanks for letting me know, what you gays do.
        as they say learn from the best, you and your lil “buddy” walleye.
        but for me?
        No thanks i pass, and leave that sick stuff to you walleye, bwany and barry.

Comments are closed.