Homophobia At Its Finest

[Teutonic Knight 1]

if you were not so lonely I would say you are insecure

Oh, another PAKI who "knows" me 

Post more 

[Teutonic Knight 1]

He's clearly on the spectrum.

Still no FATWA , I'm so disapointed   

       Sheitan wins 

[Teutonic Knight 1]

Just the one..?

O, gee another PAKI 

[Sissysquats]

72 not 50 "virgins", there is no info about age of those females ..........

 Are they actually female virgins?

[Soul Crusher]

wwwhhaaaaqaaa   gay, lgggttvvxcxcxssqqqtttbbb b, climate change, guns, tax the rich,  wwwwhhhaaaaaaa, guns climate change, trannies, lggqqttbbbbbb wwwaahhhaaaaaa

 

[Grape Ape]

wwwhhaaaaqaaa   gay, lgggttvvxcxcxssqqqtttbbb b, climate change, guns, tax the rich,  wwwwhhhaaaaaaa, guns climate change, trannies, lggqqttbbbbbb wwwaahhhaaaaaa

Apparently a popular gay twitter account was congratulation Mayor Pete on being the first openly gay cabinet member.

People were quick to remind the account of Grenell.

More proof of the left isolating themselves in a TDS bubble for four years.

In addition, Buttiegieg getting nominated lends more credence that the Democrats fixed super tuesday for biden.

[Primemuscle]

Apparently a popular gay twitter account was congratulation Mayor Pete on being the first openly gay cabinet member.

People were quick to remind the account of Grenell.

More proof of the left isolating themselves in a TDS bubble for four years.

In addition, Buttiegieg getting nominated lends more credence that the Democrats fixed super tuesday for biden.

Some argue the Grenell was technically not the first openly gay cabinet member because he was the Acting Director of National Intelligence. It seems nit picky to me. But that's what others are saying. Anyway, who cares. Being gay neither qualifies nor disqualifies someone from being a cabinet member. Therefore, it should not be a big deal.

[Grape Ape]

Some argue the Grenell was technically not the first openly gay cabinet member because he was the Acting Director of National Intelligence. It seems nit picky to me. But that's what others are saying. Anyway, who cares. Being gay neither qualifies nor disqualifies someone from being a cabinet member. Therefore, it should not be a big deal.

It's only a big deal because they're making it one.

But in their attempt to do that, they are giving false credit to Biden, and none to Trump.

Par for the course.

[Primemuscle]

It's only a big deal because they're making it one.

But in their attempt to do that, they are giving false credit to Biden, and none to Trump.

Par for the course.

That's fair. By 'they're', you mean the media and not Biden. Many if not most liberals don't care whether someone is gay or not. They care whether the person can do a good job. 

[Soul Crusher]

That's fair. By 'they're', you mean the media and not Biden. Many if not most liberals don't care whether someone is gay or not. They care whether the person can do a good job.

Gtfo.   Most libfaggets only care that someone checks the boxes of being black a gay a tranny etc.

[Primemuscle]

Gtfo.   Most libfaggets only care that someone checks the boxes of being black a gay a tranny etc.

That is your opinion, which doesn't count for much since you don't actually know any liberals well enough to know what they care about. I'm a liberal and I don't care that Buttigieg is a gay married man. If I were to ask my liberal family and friends, I'm confident they don't care either. It's possible some gay folks care about this, be they liberal or conservative.

[Grape Ape]

That's fair. By 'they're', you mean the media and not Biden. Many if not most liberals don't care whether someone is gay or not. They care whether the person can do a good job.

Yes, the media and other non media leftists, not Biden.

Most PEOPLE, Republican or Democrat, do not care if someone is gay. Yes, the left is more socially liberal (yet ironically less tolerant, but that's a different topic), but most people fall towards being more centrist, including Republicans.

However, this is another example of the media, and the left, ignoring something Trump did because it doesn't fit their narrative around him.

[Primemuscle]

Yes, the media and other non media leftists, not Biden.

Most PEOPLE, Republican or Democrat, do not care if someone is gay. Yes, the left is more socially liberal (yet ironically less tolerant, but that's a different topic), but most people fall towards being more centrist, including Republicans.

However, this is another example of the media, and the left, ignoring something Trump did because it doesn't fit their narrative around him.

The media may have ignored it which would explain why the public would too. It's not like most people would know or seek to know an appointees sexual orientation. BTW, it would seem the right ignored it too. Otherwise, we'd all know about it. Trump supporters have no problem touting everything he does as being great.

[Grape Ape]

BTW, it would seem the right ignored it too. Otherwise, we'd all know about it. Trump supporters have no problem touting everything he does as being great.

This is easily proven false by the Hunter Biden laptop story.

The entire right not only knew, but was screaming about it from the rooftops, including the President.

A recent poll showed that 35% of Biden voters had not even heard the story.

[Primemuscle]

This is easily proven false by the Hunter Biden laptop story.

The entire right not only knew, but was screaming about it from the rooftops, including the President.

A recent poll showed that 35% of Biden voters had not even heard the story.

Can you post an excerpt from the Hunter Biden laptop story that shows the right both knew and screamed about Trumps appointee being gay? I am really interested in reading it. Oh and send me a copy of that poll. Also, help me to understand how Hunter Biden's laptop story has anything to do with Buttigieg or Grenell.

On another note, Bill Barr sees no reason to appoint special counsels to investigate Hunter Biden or the election. Barr not going out quietly.

[Grape Ape]

Can you post an excerpt from the Hunter Biden laptop story that shows the right both knew and screamed about Trumps appointee being gay? I am really interested in reading it. Oh and send me a copy of that poll. Also, help me to understand how Hunter Biden's laptop story has anything to do with Buttigieg or Grenell.

On another note, Bill Barr sees no reason to appoint special counsels to investigate Hunter Biden or the election. Barr not going out quietly.

Have you ever heard of drawing a parallel to make a point?

You're a big copy/paste guy, so here is the Webster definition:

to indicate ways in which two distinct things are similar

You made a point that if Trump supporters know something, everyone knows about - (paraphrasing your point).

I counter with a DIFFERENT EXAMPLE to show why your statement isn't necessarily true.

For some reason, you then conflate everything together and completely misrepresent what I said.

[AbrahamG]

Yes, the media and other non media leftists, not Biden.

Most PEOPLE, Republican or Democrat, do not care if someone is gay. Yes, the left is more socially liberal (yet ironically less tolerant, but that's a different topic), but most people fall towards being more centrist, including Republicans.

However, this is another example of the media, and the left, ignoring something Trump did because it doesn't fit their narrative around him.

I'm the left and I'm pretty much tolerant of everything except intolerance.  It is not incumbent on me or any good person to tolerate intolerance. 

[Grape Ape]

Barr not going out quietly.

Or Barr resigned so that he can now be a material witness in any criminal proceedings before Jan 20......

[Grape Ape]

I'm the left and I'm pretty much tolerant of everything except intolerance.  It is not incumbent on me or any good person to tolerate intolerance.

I will tolerate your intolerance of intolerance.

But, yes you are on the left, but can actually be normal when something ridiculous happens on the left - like Newsom's birthday thing.

Others here cannot do that.

[Primemuscle]

Have you ever heard of drawing a parallel to make a point?

You're a big copy/paste guy, so here is the Webster definition:

You made a point that if Trump supporters know something, everyone knows about - (paraphrasing your point).

I counter with a DIFFERENT EXAMPLE to show why your statement isn't necessarily true.

For some reason, you then conflate everything together and completely misrepresent what I said.

Seems like when someone is making a point by drawing a parallel between two distinctly different things they should qualify it by saying that' s what they are doing so there is no room for confusion. But then, a few people accuse me of being dense or clueless. If you agree with this, all the more reason to make yourself perfectly clear, no?

Not all republicans or even Trump supporters know everything about most everything. 

Not sure I misrepresented what you said. I simply asked you some questions in hopes that you would help me to understand where you were coming from.

My 'statement' was my opinion based on observation and it was not necessarily a statement of fact. From my perspective, those who are adamant about something (Trump supporters) have no problem expressing how the feel or what they believe.

Maybe the media tries to suppress or simply not report on some issues in order to appeal to their audience. But not all the media is coming from the same perspective. I've seen many posts on Getbig where folks have said FOX News has the highest viewership of any of the cable news channels. No doubt some would say FOX plays to their audience too. Suppression by omission most likely happens from the liberal media and the conservative media alike. 

I am a big copy and paste person. Mainly so as to not confuse what is just my opinion with what many people consider to be fact.

[Grape Ape]

Seems like when someone is making a point by drawing a parallel between two distinctly different things they should qualify it by saying that' s what they are doing so there is no room for confusion. But then, a few people accuse me of being dense or clueless. If you agree with this, all the more reason to make yourself perfectly clear, no?

Not all republicans or even Trump supporters know everything about most everything. 

Not sure I misrepresented what you said. I simply asked you some questions in hopes that you would help me to understand where you were coming from.

My 'statement' was my opinion based on observation and it was not necessarily a statement of fact. From my perspective, those who are adamant about something (Trump supporters) have no problem expressing how the feel or what they believe.

Maybe the media tries to suppress or simply not report on some issues in order to appeal to their audience. But not all the media is coming from the same perspective. I've seen many posts on Getbig where folks have said FOX News has the highest viewership of any of the cable news channels. No doubt some would say FOX plays to their audience too. Suppression by omission most likely happens from the liberal media and the conservative media alike. 

I am a big copy and paste person. Mainly so as to not confuse what is just my opinion with what many people consider to be fact.

I'll ignore the first part since it's subjective. I thought I was perfectly clear, but doesn't matter.

Of course Fox plays to conservatives.  But it is not "suppression by omission" that has conservative media outlets and platforms having to testify before congress recently.  It's the suppression OF conservative views, or just suppression of real stories that may be damaging to the left that has platforms in danger of losing their gov't liability protection.

There are always examples of both sides doing things, but this isn't that.  This is widespread, and completely biased towards one side.

[Primemuscle]

I'll ignore the first part since it's subjective. I thought I was perfectly clear, but doesn't matter.

Of course Fox plays to conservatives.  But it is not "suppression by omission" that has conservative media outlets and platforms having to testify before congress recently.  It's the suppression OF conservative views, or just suppression of real stories that may be damaging to the left that has platforms in danger of losing their gov't liability protection.

There are always examples of both sides doing things, but this isn't that.  This is widespread, and completely biased towards one side.

Social media giants Facebook, Google and Twitter C.E.O.s defended their content moderation at a Senate hearing in October 2020. Apparently it is not only conservative media that is having to testify before Congress. It is common practice for Congress to hold hearings on a variety of issues where people testify. I've testified at various legislative committees in Oregon a few times. In fact, one of the major functions of these committees is to hear testimony before making decisions about all kinds of issues. 

[Grape Ape]

Social media giants Facebook, Google and Twitter C.E.O.s defended their content moderation at a Senate hearing in October 2020. Apparently it is not only conservative media that is having to testify before Congress. It is common practice for Congress to hold hearings on a variety of issues where people testify. I've testified at various legislative committees in Oregon a few times. In fact, one of the major functions of these committees is to hear testimony before making decisions about all kinds of issues.

I listened to the whole thing live, that's exactly what I was referring to.

I didn't say it was conservative media, I said it's NOT them.

I can see how you may have been confused there, but how did you not think THIS referred to Twitter and Facebook?

So, in a nutshell, both sides have bias, but it's overwhelmingly anti-conservative in aggregate.

It's the suppression OF conservative views, or just suppression of real stories that may be damaging to the left that has platforms in danger of losing their gov't liability protection.

The Senate October hearings were platforms (Facebook, Twitter), in danger of losing Section 230 protection.

[Primemuscle]

I listened to the whole thing live, that's exactly what I was referring to.

I didn't say it was conservative media, I said it's NOT them.

I can see how you may have been confused there, but how did you not think THIS referred to Twitter and Facebook?

"The Senate October hearings were platforms (Facebook, Twitter), in danger of losing Section 230 protection.

What can I say? I am 76 years old. Sometimes I get confused when people aren't absolutely clear about what they are saying.

For example, please explain why you believe this to be the case "it's overwhelmingly anti-conservative in aggregate." And just to humor me, please be specific.

[Grape Ape]

What can I say? I am 76 years old. Sometimes I get confused when people aren't absolutely clear about what they are saying.

For example, please explain why you believe this to be the case "it's overwhelmingly anti-conservative in aggregate." And just to humor me, please be specific.

Ok...makes sense.

I will leave the googling to you if you want to dig in to numbers, but, a couple statements from mostly memory.

Obviously some of these are just single examples, but they add up.

1. The Hunter Biden lack of coverage, intentional spread of disinformation (it was Russian!) happened in real time in front of all of us.
2. Zuckerberg admitting their algorithm needed tweaking as it was too anti-conservative
3. The Senate hearings and stats/examples brought up in the hearings against Facebook and Twitter.
4. Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media study which showed 80% of coverage of Trumps first 100 days was negative, whereas Obama's was 59% positive.
5. How the "very fine people",  "veterans are losers" myths were perpetuated
6. How little coverage positive things were given - Trump making cruelty to animals a federal offense, Trump admonishing countries who outlaw homosexuality, no wars, nobel peace nominations, trade reform.
7. Killing Solemani was criticized heavily, whereas killing Bin Laden was universally celebrated.
8. Not one Republican White House reporter
9. Center for Public Integrity study showed that 96% of media donations were to Democrats
10. Kids in cages stories blaming Trump, when it was Obama's admin that started it.
11. The complete lack of any tough questions levelled at Biden during his non-campaign.
12. Lack of transparency over what the $700 in taxes really represented.

Plenty more.