Michele Bachmann's Husband Says Gays are 'Barbarians' That Need to be 'Disciplined'

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Losing a debate? That's pretty funny considering I haven't taken any specific stance.

Disingenuous and now Delusional.

Liberal - - - the convenient "catch all" bucket when a conservative has no real argument.

What is the point here? I haven't denied the truthfulness of the documentary. You only imagine I have because I said that pbs also promotes the horrid MKULTRA Sesame Street programming. But after I take the time to view it I may give an official personal opinion.
People are asking the question, "What is moral?" The impression I have is that the liberals have won the day on moralism, because they view change as the best moral compass. The Humanist Manifesto is full of ideas about moral relativity.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Losing a debate? That's pretty funny considering I haven't taken any specific stance.

Disingenuous and now Delusional.

Liberal - - - the convenient "catch all" bucket when a conservative has no real argument.

Yep and every post I've ever seen of yours is liberal to some extent.

Are we now discussing other threads? Nice evasion try.

What is Liberal? I guess you are going to need to define it.

Is Equal Rights considered Liberal? I kind of thought it was constitutional.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
When the whole gay marriage thing erupted into the public scene, gays threatened to ruin straight people's weddings if they didn't endorse gay marriage.

Do you have a legitimate source from a legitimate LGBT organization on this?

Or just more media sensation - - focusing on the extreme of a few individuals.

I read it somewhere, but since you don't like what I say, you must challenge it by asking for a legitimate source. I just remember reading it. Media sensation? So if a gay person promises to ruin Straight people's weddings it's just a media sensation to talk about it. Interesting perspective.

The bigger part of all this is that there is an orchestrated attack on the values of the traditional family unit. It has been the goal of the Communist Manifesto.

Statement of Bill Wood
FC-8 Hearing on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse July 17, 2003
TESTIMONY FOR THE [US] WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE

The planned destruction of the family was part of the communist agenda from its inception by Karl Marx and Frederic Engels. It became government policy in the USSR in about 1917. It was so successful in the USSR that it threatened to destroy society in the USSR. Curiously, while in the 1940s the USSR took steps to repair the damages its family-hostile policies had caused, American communists imported the Soviet agenda for the planned destruction of the family into the USA. It has been and continues to be promoted by left-leaning liberals in the West ever since.

When it was determined that this type of class warfare directed at the family was a complete failure, the Soviets worked quickly to restore the traditional nuclear family in the 1940’s. Shortly after this, the NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers) began their push for adopting these failed Soviet policies in America. America’s version of “family law” has adopted much of the early Soviet failed version of class warfare, while adopting new and more insidious Gramscian versions with gender, cultural, and social warfare components.

From Bill Wood's testimony to the
Ways and Means Committee

oops here is the url for that

fathersforlife.org...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I guess Obama had to be super-liberal to win over a liberal Republican.

Here is the title of this thread: Michele Bachmann's Husband Says Gays are 'Barbarians' That Need to be 'Disciplined'

What does Obama have to do with this discussion?

More evasion of discussion of homosexuality and a really ignorant man.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Losing a debate? That's pretty funny considering I haven't taken any specific stance.

Disingenuous and now Delusional.

Liberal - - - the convenient "catch all" bucket when a conservative has no real argument.

Yep and every post I've ever seen of yours is liberal to some extent.

Are we now discussing other threads? Nice evasion try.

What is Liberal? I guess you are going to need to define it.

Is Equal Rights considered Liberal? I kind of thought it was constitutional.

edit on 2-7-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)

What? Other threads? I just have read a lot of your posts on various threads. Well the Equal Rights Amendment was never passed really. That was for feminism though and not for Gays. Wrong argument. Under the Constitution, we already have equal rights. It's just that the traditional concept of marriage is being hotly debated.

And please don't confuse classical liberalism of our Founding Fathers with the liberalism of today's Progressives.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I read it somewhere, but since you don't like what I say, you must challenge it by asking for a legitimate source.

Dear god, please give me permission to make that my signature.


How dare someone challenge what you say by asking for a legitimate source. The nerve of some people.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I read it somewhere, but since you don't like what I say, you must challenge it by asking for a legitimate source.

Dear god, please give me permission to make that my signature.

How dare someone challenge what you say by asking for a legitimate source. The nerve of some people.

Oh pullease! I just said what I read and everyone is demanding proof. Hahaha that's hilarious. It was some freakin anarchist who said it. Or a guy who was jealous of someone's wedding cake. Not sure which really.

Anyway, my real point is that even if American Indians accepted it as part of their culture, it does not mean that the majority of them did it, and it also can be exploited by liberals promoting their agenda. It is an agenda, and if it were not, then why is there such a push to promote it in the schools? Why the childrens books circulating around in pre-schoolers book bags under the radar? I read about that too, a specific school district. Should I find proof of that too?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
When the whole gay marriage thing erupted into the public scene, gays threatened to ruin straight people's weddings if they didn't endorse gay marriage.

Do you have a legitimate source from a legitimate LGBT organization on this?

Or just more media sensation - - focusing on the extreme of a few individuals.

I read it somewhere, but since you don't like what I say, you must challenge it by asking for a legitimate source. I just remember reading it. Media sensation? So if a gay person promises to ruin Straight people's weddings it's just a media sensation to talk about it. Interesting perspective.

Do you see anywhere in my post - - denying that a few individual gays would say this?

Gays are individuals - - - like all human beings - - - they are not a group think.

Does the media sensationalize? Absolutely! If only one gay person said this - - the media would blast it over and over and over.

I commend official gay organizations for their patience in trying to bring about change on a mature responsible level.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Oh pullease! I just said what I read and everyone is demanding proof. Hahaha that's hilarious. It was some freakin anarchist who said it. Or a guy who was jealous of someone's wedding cake. Not sure which really.

So you stated something as matter of fact that you yourself have no idea whether or not it is even remotely true? I am sorry am I supposed to admire or respect that? It is called lying where I come from.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Is it just me? When I hear Michelle Bachmans husband talk about wanting to discipline gays I get this mental image of him in leather and fishnets with a riding crop.

Its probably just me.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Oh pullease! I just said what I read and everyone is demanding proof. Hahaha that's hilarious. It was some freakin anarchist who said it. Or a guy who was jealous of someone's wedding cake. Not sure which really.

So you stated something as matter of fact that you yourself have no idea whether or not it is even remotely true? I am sorry am I supposed to admire or respect that? It is called lying where I come from.

What I stated was that someone said that he and others would sabotage straight people's marriages. You are making way bigger a deal of this than necessary. I doubt I could even find it. It was quite some time ago. If I could produce it I would. So now you are accusing me of posting something that I didnt read about. That's novel.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Well the Equal Rights Amendment was never passed really. That was for feminism though and not for Gays. Wrong argument. Under the Constitution, we already have equal rights. It's just that the traditional concept of marriage is being hotly debated.

Can you get any sillier. I am fully aware of the ERA. I'm a female of the 60s.

14th Amendment. Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.

Traditional marriage went out the window with its escalating divorce rate. Traditional marriage is a total cop out argument to deny same gender couples the same right to Legal Marriage.

But - that is getting off topic.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
What I stated was that someone said that he and others would sabotage straight people's marriages.

I know what you said and I was just curious if it was true at all. Forgive me for that.

You are making way bigger a deal of this than necessary. I doubt I could even find it. It was quite some time ago. If I could produce it I would. So now you are accusing me of posting something that I didnt read about. That's novel.

You could say I am suggesting you imagined it but I believe it is possible you did read someone write that somewhere. It could have been a lone nut scribbling on a bathroom stall you were in. You do not even know. I guess I just figured since you stated is as a fact that there was some threat afoot from "gays" to ruin weddings that it was based on something real. Apparently not. ATS is having a real problem with people just making crap up and then getting all kinds of offended when I ask for proof of it today.

I personally find it extremely offensive to class acceptance of homosexuality as a liberal issue or even a political issue.

What right does anyone have to deny a human being because of their gender orientation. It is their birth right.

Its disgusting and inhumane. The self-righteous holier than thous - need to get out of their book - and do some really deep soul searching.

Fortunately many have - - and many churches now welcome all gender orientation. Its about damn time we grow up.

Originally posted by Annee
I personally find it extremely offensive to class acceptance of homosexuality as a liberal issue or even a political issue.

Especially when you consider things like the fact that gay marriage passed in NY state thanks to that last Republican that voted for it, it seems like a weak argument to attempt to limit the belief they have basic rights to just one side of the political spectrum. That Republican actually gave a rather moving statement about simply valuing the rights of others. I guess that did not happen where some ATS members are coming from.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Well the Equal Rights Amendment was never passed really. That was for feminism though and not for Gays. Wrong argument. Under the Constitution, we already have equal rights. It's just that the traditional concept of marriage is being hotly debated.

Can you get any sillier. I am fully aware of the ERA. I'm a female of the 60s.

14th Amendment. Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.

Traditional marriage went out the window with its escalating divorce rate. Traditional marriage is a total cop out argument to deny same gender couples the same right to Legal Marriage.

But - that is getting off topic.

No, it isn't. This is part of the bigger picture, as I have posted on the UN Agenda regarding the Rights of the Child to explain further my point that the issue is being exploited to further the communist agenda of destroying the nuclear family as per the communist Manifesto and the ideas of Karl Marx. This also was discussed by ex KGB Yuri Besmenov, which I have also posted his lectures on other threads. And if one notes, he does not say whether the gay agenda is good or bad, only that it is used by "Sleepers" to create chaos and division.

So, now why was my discussion of the Equal Rights Amendment silly? If women felt that they needed the ERA to give them credence, I guess that goes for everyone else too. How about cannibals or murderers? They just want to eat people.

reply to post by Kitilani


It wasn't a bathroom stall, I assure you. This is a most ridiculous thing anyway. It was probably a news article on the Net though.

Why are humans who have done nothing wrong - - naturally born with attraction to same gender - - still being persecuted in the 21st century?

Why are human beings of naturally born attraction to same gender being used as political fodder?

It is insane and inhuman. There is no excuse for this. None.

Fortunately - - current polls show a 51% acceptance of gays. It is the first time these polls have tipped in the majority.

Progression is winning over ignorance.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I guess Obama had to be super-liberal to win over a liberal Republican.

Here is the title of this thread: Michele Bachmann's Husband Says Gays are 'Barbarians' That Need to be 'Disciplined'

What does Obama have to do with this discussion?

More evasion of discussion of homosexuality and a really ignorant man.

edit on 2-7-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)

If you were going to be really fair about this debate, you would notice that I even had amended my own post to include the wiki entry on "Two-Spirit" American Indians. Guess that got lost in the hububb.