Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on May 18, 2011, 09:25:36 AM
-
Source: Raw Story
LGBT activist douses Newt Gingrich with rainbow glitter
Just before fmr. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) spoke to the anti-gay group Minnesota Family Council on Tuesday night, an LGBT activist dumped rainbow glitter on him and shouted, “Feel the rainbow, Newt!”
The protester, Nick Espinosa, was quickly rushed away by private security. He later told ABC News: “Today, I invited Newt to feel the rainbow because he decided to bring his anti-gay politics to my state. Newt has a long history of anti-gay politics and has chosen to focus on divisive social issues instead of working to fix our economy. I don’t think a free will adulterer like Newt has any ground to stand up while telling others who they can and can’t love.”
-
-
Shouting "Feel The Rainbow" at another person can only be justified if you have just whooped their ass with a bag full of frozen Skittles.
-
Feel the rainbow? HAHAHAHAH!!!
Not, taste the rainbow. LOL. That is one funny fag.
-
Source: Raw Story
LGBT activist douses Newt Gingrich with rainbow glitter
Just before fmr. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) spoke to the anti-gay group Minnesota Family Council on Tuesday night, an LGBT activist dumped rainbow glitter on him and shouted, “Feel the rainbow, Newt!”
The protester, Nick Espinosa, was quickly rushed away by private security. He later told ABC News: “Today, I invited Newt to feel the rainbow because he decided to bring his anti-gay politics to my state. Newt has a long history of anti-gay politics and has chosen to focus on divisive social issues instead of working to fix our economy. I don’t think a free will adulterer like Newt has any ground to stand up while telling others who they can and can’t love.”
Ha ha ha
-
wow.... that security guard was downright creepy.
and that was a LOT of glitter. Shit. I feel bad for newt.
-
It's true though. The fags do have a point that Newt is a hypocrite when it comes to the importance of family values.
-
Glitter is a bitch to get out...
seriously, i've done little art projects here and found glitter on me a day or two later.
newt will be picking that shit out of his hair for a week. If he goes under the lights this week, it's gonna show in shine.
-
What the fuck?
hahahahahaha
Bad week for newt
-
Now is a conservative had sprinkled holy water on any member of the liberals giving a speech there would have been some sort of assault charges drummed up. I wonder if Newt went and ran to his lawyers like the liberals would have.
-
Or if a religious conservative had been a literal Bible-thumper, applying the Word to their skulls, "hate crimes" charges would have been filed by the truckload.
First those pro-Palestinian nuts who interrupted John Hagee's church service (he was doing a pro-Israel sermon series), now this.
Beck talked about this yesterday on both his radio and TV shows. Liberals are acting a fool (even more than usual). Now, they just plant people at events, to disrupt them and become YouTube fodder.
They just pull stunts like this, so that they don't have sufficient time for the cops to arrive and beat them up.
-
Haha awesome. No place in America for the stupid hatred.
-
Haha awesome. No place in America for the stupid hatred.
Does that include Bill clinton who signed DOMA?
-
Haha awesome. No place in America for the stupid hatred.
Again, let some religious conservative sprinkle some holy water on some gay activist or dump communion bread crumbs on him, and let's see how "awesome" you find that.
Or how "awesome" was it when white gays in California were hurling racial slurs at black people, when the news reported that 70% of black voters supported the passage of Proposition 8?
-
Does that include Bill clinton who signed DOMA?
Not a fan of Doma. Live and let love. Too much hatred and defense of something that was never sacred anyway.
-
Again, let some religious conservative sprinkle some holy water on some gay activist or dump communion bread crumbs on him, and let's see how "awesome" you find that.
Or how "awesome" was it when white gays in California were hurling racial slurs at black people, when the news reported that 70% of black voters supported the passage of Proposition 8?
Like i said i'm not a fan of hatred. By anyone. Gay, straight whatever. Equal under the eyes of the law and equal marriage rights.
-
Again, let some religious conservative sprinkle some holy water on some gay activist or dump communion bread crumbs on him, and let's see how "awesome" you find that.
Or how "awesome" was it when white gays in California were hurling racial slurs at black people, when the news reported that 70% of black voters supported the passage of Proposition 8?
I think if someone gets pissed about any of that shit it's retarded... Unless you have some meeting or something to get to, or the water is really really cold or really really hot... I wouldn't give a damn.
That said... If people can be charged with assault for shooting you with a water pistol, this guy should be charged with assault for dropping glitter on everyone.
If anything, he should have been forced to clean it up.
-
Like i said i'm not a fan of hatred. By anyone. Gay, straight whatever. Equal under the eyes of the law and equal marriage rights.
The marriage rights, if you will, are equal. What you want is a change of the definition of marriage itself. BIG DIFFERENCE!!!
-
Again, let some religious conservative sprinkle some holy water on some gay activist or dump communion bread crumbs on him, and let's see how "awesome" you find that.
Or how "awesome" was it when white gays in California were hurling racial slurs at black people, when the news reported that 70% of black voters supported the passage of Proposition 8?
liberals will never see the double standard, you have to be able to think freely and not be a sheep to be able to see another view rather than what you are told to see
-
If gay people want to have all the same rights as a married man and woman, that's fine, I am all for that. However it needs to be called something else. By definition marriage is a union between a man and woman. If they wish for the same union, and rights that coincide, cool just pick a new name
-
The marriage rights, if you will, are equal. What you want is a change of the definition of marriage itself. BIG DIFFERENCE!!!
So the 1,138 statutory provisions that apply only to male-female marriage also apply to male-male and female-female too?
a domestic partnership does not confer any of the 1,138 rights afforded to married couples by the federal government.
Oh i see. YOU ARE WRONG. Again.
-
If gay people want to have all the same rights as a married man and woman, that's fine, I am all for that. However it needs to be called something else. By definition marriage is a union between a man and woman. If they wish for the same union, and rights that coincide, cool just pick a new name
I agree. The issue is about the benefits of marriage being conveyed onto same sex couples.
-
Not a fan of Doma. Live and let love. Too much hatred and defense of something that was never sacred anyway.
Yet you never say shit about Clinton in his role in DADT or DOMA so you are proving to be the very same hack you accuse others of being.
-
Yet you never say shit about Clinton in his role in DADT or DOMA so you are proving to be the very same hack you accuse others of being.
Uh no. I'm not crazy enough to start a thread about a president who no longer serves. What would be the point? What matters is now, if anyone asks i'll tell them like i did you, i don't like those pieces of legislation. Simple as that. We aren't all so narcissistic that we feel the need to spam every opinion we ever had on every issue that ever was.
-
Glitter is a bitch to get out...
seriously, i've done little art projects here and found glitter on me a day or two later.
newt will be picking that shit out of his hair for a week. If he goes under the lights this week, it's gonna show in shine.
Yep. I hate that stuff. :-\
-
Again, let some religious conservative sprinkle some holy water on some gay activist or dump communion bread crumbs on him, and let's see how "awesome" you find that.
Or how "awesome" was it when white gays in California were hurling racial slurs at black people, when the news reported that 70% of black voters supported the passage of Proposition 8?
What has holy water or communion bread crumbs got to do with queers? That analogy isn't the same. If gays were disqualified from being Christians, then you would have a point.
-
What has holy water or communion bread crumbs got to do with queers? That analogy isn't the same. If gays were disqualified from being Christians, then you would have a point.
The point is someone coming to a rally, who doesn't share the views of those at that rally (one speaker in particular), and throwing something on him is completely inappropriate and wrong.
Were a Christian to do that (with communion bread, or anything else) to a homosexual activist, the left would be having a fit, screaming about "hate crimes" and the like.
Left-winged activists do that on a regular basis. Some gay activists threw gay propaganda leaflets in a Michigan church, during service, screaming "It's OK to be gay". This was in reaction to California's passing of Prop. 8.
Code Pink is notorious for pulling similar stunts, particularly at a Karl Rove book signing.
It's dumb and it's wrong. It makes for good YouTube fodder, especially when they try vandalizing stuff and get smacked down by the cops.
-
Are you saying that no gay left activist can be a Christian?
-
So the 1,138 statutory provisions that apply only to male-female marriage also apply to male-male and female-female too?
a domestic partnership does not confer any of the 1,138 rights afforded to married couples by the federal government.
Oh i see. YOU ARE WRONG. Again.
LOL no one is stopping gay men from marrying women...A straight man cant go marry another man...
the laws are equal, just like in the locker rooms ;)
-
Benny seems upset today. Crackhead on the first floor must have intercepted and cashed his welfare check.
-
great - now the TSA are going to have us all strip naked and search us for glitter in all the nook & crannies
-
Are you saying that no gay left activist can be a Christian?
See 1 Cor. 6:9-11
-
Are you saying that no gay left activist can be a Christian?
Is this a joke?
-
LOL no one is stopping gay men from marrying women...A straight man cant go marry another man...
the laws are equal, just like in the locker rooms ;)
Dude seriously. You're an idiot. You think you're making some intelligent rights point with the locker room nonsense. You aren't. You come off sounding like such a fool each and every time. Please stick to attacking 240 'cause your posts aren't welcome here. They are nonsensical and reek of stupidity. It's like a festering bag of trash. That is the analogy i draw every time i read your supposed locker room injustice rubbish.
-
See 1 Cor. 6:9-11
Cherry picking at its finest.
-
Cherry picking at its finest.
And this is cherry picking because........
-
And this is cherry picking because........
You're following a command literally from the bible yet i'm sure you don't follow others.
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric
Don't cut your hair nor shave
If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake.
People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die.
And so on.
-
You're following a command literally from the bible yet i'm sure you don't follow others.
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric
Don't cut your hair nor shave
If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake.
People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die.
And so on.
By that silly logic, that means we can steal, kill, commit adultery, lie all without consequence ::).
BTW, it appears you didn't even read or comprehend those particular verses I referenced or you wouldn't have made that statements.
Here's a hint:
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.
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
-
By that silly logic, that means we can steal, kill, commit adultery, lie all without consequence ::).
So the bible is silly? Hmm weird. Considering you follow the command against homosexuality but not others. Cherry pick much?
-
According to the communist left like KC, all so called morals are relative.
-
According to the communist left like KC, all so called morals are relative.
Haha everything is relative to culture, time, influences etc.
-
So the bible is silly? Hmm weird. Considering you follow the command against homosexuality but not others. Cherry pick much?
That's funny. I don't recall stealing, or murdering, or coveting, and (to the best of my knowledge) I've borne no false witness.
The Bible silly? No. YOU on the other hand.........
-
Haha everything is relative to culture, time, influences etc.
So enlighten us, KC. What makes homosexuality so right and morally proper NOW, when it was a capital offense back then (well, in some countries, it still is such)?
-
That's funny. I don't recall stealing, or murdering, or coveting, and (to the best of my knowledge) I've borne no false witness.
The Bible silly? No. YOU on the other hand.........
Oh so you only follow the 10 commandments and selective passages? I see.
Your quote - By that silly logic, I never said the bible was silly, you did. You said silly not me.
-
Oh so you only follow the 10 commandments and selective passages? I see.
Your quote - By that silly logic, I never said the bible was silly, you did. You said silly not me.
I said nothing of the sort. The silly logic was in reference to YOUR statements, not the Bible.
Now, if you'll kindly address the question posed to you earlier......What makes homosexuality so right and morally proper NOW, when it was a capital offense back then (well, in some countries, it still is such)?
-
I said nothing of the sort. The silly logic was in reference to YOUR statements, not the Bible.
Now, if you'll kindly address the question posed to you earlier......What makes homosexuality so right and morally proper NOW, when it was a capital offense back then (well, in some countries, it still is such)?
Haha my statements are passages from the bible. Which you said were silly. Your words not mine.
What made homosexuality so wrong to begin with? It was rather common in the greek and roman cultures and wasn't till modern religion took hold that there was any real problem with it.
Your illogical attempt here is futile.
-
Haha my statements are passages from the bible. Which you said were silly. Your words not mine.
What made homosexuality so wrong to begin with? It was rather common in the greek and roman cultures and wasn't till modern religion took hold that there was any real problem with it.
Your illogical attempt here is futile.
The laws outlawing homosexuality were around before the Greeks and Romans became prominent in world society. And, if you think that only "modern religion" cited homosexuality as sinful, you might want to crack open an ancient history book or two.
Human sacrifice and raping of girls (and sometimes boys) were "common" among ancient societies (particularly Israel's neighbors), just as gayness was among Greeks and Romans (though not quite as "common" as you would think).
Try addressing the actual question. What makes it so right and proper now, when it was wrong back then?
-
The laws outlawing homosexuality were around before the Greeks and Romans became prominent in world society. And, if you think that only "modern religion" cited homosexuality as sinful, you might want to crack open an ancient history book or two.
Human sacrifice and raping of girls (and sometimes boys) were "common" among ancient societies (particularly Israel's neighbors), just as gayness was among Greeks and Romans (though not quite as "common" as you would think).
Try addressing the actual question. What makes it so right and proper now, when it was wrong back then?
Your question is a stupid one, because you are arguing that what was right in earlier periods must be right now. The same argument could be made for slavery, forced marriage, and other formerly acceptable practices.
Once again it's cherry picking. Saying one thing is wrong because it's always been wrong, yet agreeing that somethings are wrong when they used to be right. The same argument is made for homosexuality. Just because it was wrong in the earlier periods, doesn't mean it is still wrong now. The growing number of people calling for their right of marriage to be recognized is proof of this.
I'm sure at one point a majority of people liked having slaves, didn't make it morally right even if it was acceptable in the bible.
-
Is this a joke?
Absolutely not. On what basis does being a gay activist disqualifies one from being a Christian?
What basis and who is the one to determine that basis?
-
See 1 Cor. 6:9-11
Was this written by man or God?
Who determines who enters heaven, man or God?
-
Your question is a stupid one, because you are arguing that what was right in earlier periods must be right now. The same argument could be made for slavery, forced marriage, and other formerly acceptable practices.
Apparently it ain't so stupid, because you apparently have the most difficult time answering it.
We've addressed marriage, slavery, and other issues on other threads (both here and on the Religious Forum). Now, the issue is homosexuality. Try ADDRESSING the question. If I wanted to see this much dancing, I'd break out the MC Hammer videos from the 90s.
Once again it's cherry picking. Saying one thing is wrong because it's always been wrong, yet agreeing that somethings are wrong when they used to be right. The same argument is made for homosexuality. Just because it was wrong in the earlier periods, doesn't mean it is still wrong now. The growing number of people calling for their right of marriage to be recognized is proof of this.
I'm sure at one point a majority of people liked having slaves, didn't make it morally right even if it was acceptable in the bible.
Once again, you're ducking the issue. The slave issue has been (yet again) addressed elsewhere. YOU have been asked to explain why homosexuality is right and proper NOW, when it wasn't back then. Yet, it appears you lack the ability or the spine to do so.
If there's supposedly nothing with homosexuality now, explain the rationale for it. That's what's been asked of you at least three times.
-
Was this written by man or God?
The author for 1 Corinthians is Paul (but I believe you know that already).
Who determines who enters heaven, man or God?
::)
That would be the latter, God.
Of course, that would beg the question of why you suspect that God would allow unrepentant homosexuals into heaven, when through His commandments, prophets, and ministers, He has clearly spelled out that such is wrong.
-
Apparently it ain't so stupid, because you apparently have the most difficult time answering it.
We've addressed marriage, slavery, and other issues on other threads (both here and on the Religious Forum). Now, the issue is homosexuality. Try ADDRESSING the question. If I wanted to see this much dancing, I'd break out the MC Hammer videos from the 90s.
Once again, you're ducking the issue. The slave issue has been (yet again) addressed elsewhere. YOU have been asked to explain why homosexuality is right and proper NOW, when it wasn't back then. Yet, it appears you lack the ability or the spine to do so.
If there's supposedly nothing with homosexuality now, explain the rationale for it. That's what's been asked of you at least three times.
I already answered it. It all comes back to selective application. YOUR only reason to be against it is because YOU view it as something immoral. YOU back this up with a selective application of a passage in the bible.
The question itself is a pointless one. What makes anything right? There is no absolute answer it's a philosophical question that you are trying to make into a black and white logical one.
Homosexuality was never wrong to begin with, just like slavery was never right to begin with.
-
I already answered it. It all comes back to selective application. YOUR only reason to be against it is because YOU view it as something immoral. YOU back this up with a selective application of a passage in the bible.
The question itself is a pointless one. What makes anything right? There is no absolute answer it's a philosophical question that you are trying to make into a black and white logical one.
Homosexuality was never wrong to begin with, just like slavery was never right to begin with.
You claim there's no absolute answer; yet you JUST GAVE an absolute answer: Homosexuality was never wrong to begin with, just like slavery was never right to begin with.
And this claim of yours is based on what? What makes you think homosexuality was "never wrong"?
Edit - My view of something being immoral doesn't always mesh with what Scripture says.
-
You claim there's no absolute answer; yet you JUST GAVE an absolute answer: Homosexuality was never wrong to begin with, just like slavery was never right to begin with.
And this claim of yours is based on what? What makes you think homosexuality was "never wrong"?
Ah but is it absolute or is it opinion? I am no more the definitive answer than you or the bible passage you selectively follow.
My claim is based on my beliefs. Just like yours.
-
Ah but is it absolute or is it opinion? I am no more the definitive answer than you or the bible passage you selectively follow.
My claim is based on my beliefs. Just like yours.
And the basis of those beliefs would be...WHAT? You know what mine are. Let's see yours.
On what are these beliefs based and how does that correlate to homosexuality never being wrong?
-
And the basis of those beliefs would be...WHAT? You know what mine are. Let's see yours.
On what are these beliefs based and how does that correlate to homosexuality never being wrong?
My own mind and experiences, just like everyone else.
-
My own mind and experiences, just like everyone else.
Yeah - cause you know better than 4000 years of wisdom. ::) ::) ::)
Typical leftist communist.
-
Yeah - cause you know better than 4000 years of wisdom. ::) ::) ::)
Typical leftist communist.
Hahaha if that's not "group think" i don't know what is.
-
My own mind and experiences, just like everyone else.
Not exactly. My mind and experiences (and those of others) doesn't neccesarily agree with Scripture.
Take adultery. As you may have seen on the G&O thread, the poster boy for the sport of bodybuilding has been creeping (and has a child out of wedlock, as a result) and a number of folks are acting as if he just cured cancer.
In their minds and experiences, cheating on your wife is no big deal. But is that really the case?
-
Hahaha if that's not "group think" i don't know what is.
Yeah, cause KC the doper and leftist communist/marxist knows better than 4000 years of wisdom. got it. ::) ::)
Sorry Sheriff Dipshit - ill trust the judgment of 4000 years of humanity as opposed to your leftist drug induced psychosis any day.
-
The author for 1 Corinthians is Paul (but I believe you know that already).
::)
That would be the latter, God.
Of course, that would beg the question of why you suspect that God would allow unrepentant homosexuals into heaven, when through His commandments, prophets, and ministers, He has clearly spelled out that such is wrong.
Exactly what I was getting at. God never said that. Paul claimed that it was what was determined to be Gods Word by his (Paul's) decision and belief.
Paul, nor anyone else, determines who gets into heaven. That is God's judgement and choice. For one man (or many) who are creatures of God to judge another one of God's creature unfit for heaven for something THEY (not God) wrote, is hypocrisy.