LittleFokker
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:25 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:43 pm

Tugger wrote:
LittleFokker wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
What is QIA+


Yeah, the non-traditional sex/gender community needs a better term than an amalgamation of letters, only some of which most of us know. It's clunky to pronounce, and gets worse with each sub-group that gets included/identified.

How about Rainbow?

How about "Human sexuality"?

We could even shorten it to just "Human".

Tugg


Fine, but there are situations where those people would like a way to distinguish themselves, and I would prefer a better way to do so.
"All human activities are doomed to failure." - Jean Paul Sartre
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9262
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:59 pm

LittleFokker wrote:
Fine, but there are situations where those people would like a way to distinguish themselves, and I would prefer a better way to do so.


Yeah, I get that. And I understand it of course too. We often like to be, in fact need to be clear about who we are and what we are. We like to have firm ground under us about who we are. And many have for many years tried to make sexuality out to be a fixed thing, and that it is only right/proper/safe if fixed in a way they approve.

But having lived with and known enough "alphabet's" I have seen the reality of life and learning and change (and non-change) and have found that so many really don't need to be required to identify themselves as any one thing. Just treat them (there I go, labeling "them"), just treat PEOPLE you meet and know as a person, be open and accepting and pleasant and they will find their way in the world. And you will be OK too. It is an amazing thing!

So what if they show up to the Christmas party with one person or another or with no one. So what if the show pictures of their trip with a same sex partner, or a spouse, or a "friend", or if they have short hair, a "butch" haircut, multicolored hair. Yes there are limits for different work places but in the real world if people were just people and not "them" I think it would be better.

Sorry, I am ranting, and I am not ranting at you or anyone particular.
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
TSS
Posts: 3163
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:03 pm

alfa164 wrote:
BestWestern wrote:
Guys, let’s all calm down. It’s obvious that he is just researching the impact of homosexuality on the size of testicles for his next all LGBT must burn legislation.


Perhaps he was performing an on-the-spot circumcision - solely for Biblical reasons, of course.


I've heard different hard-core fundamentalist ministers say that:
A. Circumcision causes homosexuality- "We didn't have all these gays everywhere back before doctors started cutting all the baby boys after the war (World War II)"
B. Lack of circumcision causes homosexuality- "If you don't cut 'em, they'll play with it all the time and turn out gay when they grow up"

Perhaps Former Congressman Schock was performing an informal "Pole Poll" to see which of the above theories was correct.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 7377
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:28 am

LittleFokker wrote:
Fine, but there are situations where those people would like a way to distinguish themselves, and I would prefer a better way to do so.

This is stupid, IMO. LGBT was and is just fine. Then with all the different orientations (asexual, demisexual, sapiosexual, intersex, non-binary, gender fluid, etc.), we'll have the entire alphabet, and even THAT may not please folks.

I'd be OK with LGBT+.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
seb146
Posts: 20208
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:52 am

LittleFokker wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
What is QIA+


Yeah, the non-traditional sex/gender community needs a better term than an amalgamation of letters, only some of which most of us know. It's clunky to pronounce, and gets worse with each sub-group that gets included/identified.

How about Rainbow?


I use "dude". Seems to work well. Addresses any gender, any identity, any age, any race, any religion.

Or "human".

If this guy wants to play with hoo-hoos or hee-hees or by himself or whatever, a majority of people do not care. It is that he looks so incredibly comfortable sticking his hand down there while playing tonsil hockey with another man when it is documented he voted against equality for what he would be included.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 12306
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 5:08 am

seb146 wrote:
when it is documented he voted against equality for what he would be included.

At ...every ...single ...opportunity. Even for standalone anti-gay legislation which wasn't sandwiched into a larger body of proposed law.

And furthermore, he's NEVER apologized for it. Not once. Not the slightest showing of remorse or penance.

He hasn't even done the public all-about-my-redemption Road to Damascus type thing: where his eyes are miraculously opened to how wrong his past life has been towards others.



For those reasons, the case can very objectively be made that he is **THE** single most malicious of all the gay US politicians who've been busted in their hypocrisy.

The saddest part of all of this, is that so many refuse to see him for what he is, because of how he looks. Or worse, outright excuse him for it.
If he had the same resume but looked like Mitch McConnell, he wouldn't get the same courtesy.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17255
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:55 am

Tugger wrote:
We could even shorten it to just "Human".


Woah, steady there, Tugger. Way to radical! :lol:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1244
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:03 am

He spent $100,000 redecorating his office? How is that even possible? Congressional offices really aren't THAT big.
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 6517
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:27 pm

bennett123 wrote:
What exactly is ‘fluid’ sexuality?.

I thought that was the aftermath that you had to wipe up. :rotfl:
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
Growing older, but not up.
 
seb146
Posts: 20208
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 5:01 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
seb146 wrote:
when it is documented he voted against equality for what he would be included.

At ...every ...single ...opportunity. Even for standalone anti-gay legislation which wasn't sandwiched into a larger body of proposed law.

And furthermore, he's NEVER apologized for it. Not once. Not the slightest showing of remorse or penance.

He hasn't even done the public all-about-my-redemption Road to Damascus type thing: where his eyes are miraculously opened to how wrong his past life has been towards others.



For those reasons, the case can very objectively be made that he is **THE** single most malicious of all the gay US politicians who've been busted in their hypocrisy.

The saddest part of all of this, is that so many refuse to see him for what he is, because of how he looks. Or worse, outright excuse him for it.
If he had the same resume but looked like Mitch McConnell, he wouldn't get the same courtesy.


I just wonder if he is like other Republicans who say things like "I don't care what consenting adults do behind closed doors" and "we don't need special legislation when those people can already do those things". And these same people turn around and say "we can fire you because there is nothing in the law that says we can't" or "we can refuse service to you because there is nothing in the law that says we can't" and proceed to make even more laws and expand government even more but they hate big government.

Because of my past experiences, people like this really anger me.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 12306
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 5:31 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
He spent $100,000 redecorating his office? How is that even possible?

ANSWER: when you try to turn it into a simulacrum of a TV set (Downton Abbey) with custom-made Edwardian-era furniture replicas... that's how.

His office:

Image


Setting on the show:

Image


And just like him choosing to hand-blow some dude at a music fest:
the sheer idiocy in all of this is his believing that nobody would (1) notice, (2) report and (3) be outraged, by this.

Either that, or he knew it, and just didn't care.... which brings us right back to the contention that he might be *THE* single most malicious (ex) member of Congress that we've seen in a longggggg time.

I'm certainly no shrink, but this dude truly seems like a sociopath:
he doesn't outwardly seem to give a shit about who/what he hurts or outright destroys (e.g. his peers, his electoral community, his political party, even his own job) as long as he gets to have some very-short-lived fun in the process.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
alfa164
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:22 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
He spent $100,000 redecorating his office? How is that even possible? Congressional offices really aren't THAT big.


Gay people really do like to redecorate...

;)
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
BlueberryWheats
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:46 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:28 pm

My word, that's an incredibly ugly and claustrophobic office. $100k spent on it? I think the contractors took him for a ride (maybe literally considering what we now know about his... social habits)
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:36 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
LittleFokker wrote:
Fine, but there are situations where those people would like a way to distinguish themselves, and I would prefer a better way to do so.

This is stupid, IMO. LGBT was and is just fine. Then with all the different orientations (asexual, demisexual, sapiosexual, intersex, non-binary, gender fluid, etc.), we'll have the entire alphabet, and even THAT may not please folks.

I'd be OK with LGBT+.


I can’t work out why the LGB crowd want to be banded together with all the others alphabets, cause let’s face it anything after B is generally a pretty screwed up individual.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9262
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:44 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
I can’t work out why the LGB crowd want to be banded together with all the others alphabets, cause let’s face it anything after B is generally a pretty screwed up individual.

Actually no, they are not. They at least know who they are and appreciate it enough to accept it. Just like you. (I assume you know who you are and appreciate that..)

And who doesn't prefer to be with people who know who they are and are confident enough to say so?

Tugg
Last edited by Tugger on Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 12306
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:44 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
cause let’s face it anything after B is generally a pretty screwed up individual.

So are you, but you're allowed to live without obstruction of your rights as an individual and taxpayer. They're striving for, and achieving, the same.


Tugger wrote:
And who doesn't prefer to be with people who know who they are and are confident enough to say so?

Insecure people who think they (or, more commonly used as a stand-in: "the children") will become/change into gay or trans if they see other gay/trans people just out there enjoying life.

Apparently, they have LGBTs confused with vampires.
Last edited by LAX772LR on Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:46 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
cause let’s face it anything after B is generally a pretty screwed up individual.

So are you, but you're allowed to live without obstruction of your rights as an individual and taxpayer. They're striving for, and achieving, the same.


Except where you live the taxpayer isn’t funding this sort of stupidity, where I live we do.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 12306
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:47 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Except where you live the taxpayer isn’t funding this sort of stupidity, where I live we do.

And as usual, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

That's actually one of the key issues behind the latest military ban for Trans people.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:55 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Except where you live the taxpayer isn’t funding this sort of stupidity, where I live we do.

And as usual, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

That's actually one of the key issues behind the latest military ban for Trans people.


I do know that as a taxpayer I’m paying for lifestyles I don’t think should be paid for by the govt.

Why should the military pay the medical expenses of trans people? It’s a lifestyle which probably isn’t conducive to a military career.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9262
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:09 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Except where you live the taxpayer isn’t funding this sort of stupidity, where I live we do.

And as usual, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

That's actually one of the key issues behind the latest military ban for Trans people.


I do know that as a taxpayer I’m paying for lifestyles I don’t think should be paid for by the govt.

Why should the military pay the medical expenses of trans people? It’s a lifestyle which probably isn’t conducive to a military career.

Are you treated if you get herpes or get melanoma or get injured from playing a sport you enjoy?

And the ignorance of your statement is this: Do "those people" not also work and pay into the social medical system? And are people in general more productive when they are healthy and happy?

Regarding you comment on the military, your use of the word "probably" indicates you have no evidence to support the claim and are just making an assumption or guess. As I think about it, PROBABLY one interesting thing for "front-line" issues regarding this is that a trans-woman would naturally (funny to use that word, ain't it?) have more muscle mass and be stronger and more capable simply due to their earlier life. And a trans-man would begin to gain more strength and muscle-ability that would work in combination with the original born muscle structure to have greater endurance with the strength. But of course since 90% of the military is not front-line this makes it rather little of an issue. Probably.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:21 pm

Tugger wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
And as usual, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

That's actually one of the key issues behind the latest military ban for Trans people.


I do know that as a taxpayer I’m paying for lifestyles I don’t think should be paid for by the govt.

Why should the military pay the medical expenses of trans people? It’s a lifestyle which probably isn’t conducive to a military career.

Are you treated if you get herpes or get melanoma or get injured from playing a sport you enjoy?

And the ignorance of your statement is this: Do "those people" not also work and pay into the social medical system? And are people in general more productive when they are healthy and happy?

Tugg


Wrong analogy, it’s elective like getting a boob job or penis extension, govts shouldn’t fund elective and medically unnecessary procedures.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 12306
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:26 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
govts shouldn’t fund elective and medically unnecessary procedures.

And yet minds far greater than yours (not that that's a particularly difficult threshold to surpass) have concluded that ...(wait for it)... gender reassignment surgery is medically necessary for trans people in various situations.

Thus, so much for your argument.

Hell, even major US insurers-- ya know, those groups that sometimes need convincing that treatment is necessary for cancer prevention-- have come to that conclusion. Here's just one example:
http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/600_699/0615.html
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9262
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:29 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

I do know that as a taxpayer I’m paying for lifestyles I don’t think should be paid for by the govt.

Why should the military pay the medical expenses of trans people? It’s a lifestyle which probably isn’t conducive to a military career.

Are you treated if you get herpes or get melanoma or get injured from playing a sport you enjoy?

And the ignorance of your statement is this: Do "those people" not also work and pay into the social medical system? And are people in general more productive when they are healthy and happy?

Tugg


Wrong analogy, it’s elective like getting a boob job or penis extension, govts shouldn’t fund elective and medically unnecessary procedures.

How is getting herpes from being stupid and not using protection that is available everywhere not elective? You elected to have sex without protection. Why does the state owe you any treatment for a fully preventable disease?

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:02 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
govts shouldn’t fund elective and medically unnecessary procedures.

And yet minds far greater than yours (not that that's a particularly difficult threshold to surpass) have concluded that ...(wait for it)... gender reassignment surgery is medically necessary for trans people in various situations.

Thus, so much for your argument.

Hell, even major US insurers-- ya know, those groups that sometimes need convincing that treatment is necessary for cancer prevention-- have come to that conclusion. Here's just one example:
http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/600_699/0615.html


So long as my tax NOKs aren’t paying for it I really don’t give a crap if Eve chops off her tits and has a tube made of thigh to try and pretend she’s now Steve, all the surgery in the world can’t make her a Steve. It’s a huge waste of my tax when there are other people who really need the money spent on them. I don’t really care about there quality of life either.

As for the insurance company, I find it distasteful that they fund unnecessary cosmetic procedures like this but decline people with life threatening conditions.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9262
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:05 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
So long as my tax NOKs aren’t paying for it I really don’t give a crap if Eve chops off her tits and has a tube made of thigh to try and pretend she’s now Steve, all the surgery in the world can’t make her a Steve. It’s a huge waste of my tax when there are other people who really need the money spent on them. I don’t really care about there quality of life either.

They aren't "your tax NOKs" anymore than the "tax NOKs" that those who go through surgery are yours. (You do understand that they pay taxes as well don't you?)

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:11 pm

Tugger wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Are you treated if you get herpes or get melanoma or get injured from playing a sport you enjoy?

And the ignorance of your statement is this: Do "those people" not also work and pay into the social medical system? And are people in general more productive when they are healthy and happy?

Tugg


Wrong analogy, it’s elective like getting a boob job or penis extension, govts shouldn’t fund elective and medically unnecessary procedures.

How is getting herpes from being stupid and not using protection that is available everywhere not elective? You elected to have sex without protection. Why does the state owe you any treatment for a fully preventable disease?

Tugg


You don’t need to have sex to contract herpes.

Trans isn’t an STD or a disease it’s cosmetic, nor are they people who have suffered disfiguring injuries who should be allowed cosmetic procedures on the taxpayer.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 12306
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:14 pm

Anyway, getting back to the actual topic:

seb146 wrote:
Because of my past experiences, people like this really anger me.

As well they should.

It's no different than George Wallace screaming "Segregation today, tomorrow, forever" in a modern context.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:14 pm

Tugger wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
So long as my tax NOKs aren’t paying for it I really don’t give a crap if Eve chops off her tits and has a tube made of thigh to try and pretend she’s now Steve, all the surgery in the world can’t make her a Steve. It’s a huge waste of my tax when there are other people who really need the money spent on them. I don’t really care about there quality of life either.

They aren't "your tax NOKs" anymore than the "tax NOKs" that those who go through surgery are yours. (You do understand that they pay taxes as well don't you?)

Tugg


Semantics, there good uses for tax and stupid uses for tax, sex change ops are beyond stupid and should be privately funded, you’ll never get me to change my opinion on this regardless of what you write.
 
seb146
Posts: 20208
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:22 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
So long as my tax NOKs aren’t paying for it I really don’t give a crap if Eve chops off her tits and has a tube made of thigh to try and pretend she’s now Steve, all the surgery in the world can’t make her a Steve. It’s a huge waste of my tax when there are other people who really need the money spent on them. I don’t really care about there quality of life either.

They aren't "your tax NOKs" anymore than the "tax NOKs" that those who go through surgery are yours. (You do understand that they pay taxes as well don't you?)

Tugg


Semantics, there good uses for tax and stupid uses for tax, sex change ops are beyond stupid and should be privately funded, you’ll never get me to change my opinion on this regardless of what you write.


I do not understand why someone would change genders. I was born male and I am happy being male. I do understand that people who have access to and go through with gender reassignment are less likely to commit suicide and end up happier and healthier and more productive. It is such a small number compared to the general population, I don't see the big deal. If someone wants to do it, fine. If they want to use ACA to help, fine. I would rather have millions covered for everything including the relatively few who want gender reassignment than have no one covered for anything.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 12306
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:19 pm

I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
OA412
Moderator
Posts: 4648
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:30 pm

LAX772LR wrote:

That tweet is an insult to innocent trash cans.
Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9262
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:36 am

Kiwirob wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
So long as my tax NOKs aren’t paying for it I really don’t give a crap if Eve chops off her tits and has a tube made of thigh to try and pretend she’s now Steve, all the surgery in the world can’t make her a Steve. It’s a huge waste of my tax when there are other people who really need the money spent on them. I don’t really care about there quality of life either.

They aren't "your tax NOKs" anymore than the "tax NOKs" that those who go through surgery are yours. (You do understand that they pay taxes as well don't you?)

Tugg


Semantics, there good uses for tax and stupid uses for tax, sex change ops are beyond stupid and should be privately funded, you’ll never get me to change my opinion on this regardless of what you write.

Just so you know, I am not trying to change your mind. I am just responding to your posts and countering some silly things your are saying or are saying from a position of ignorance. They deserve a response so no one thinks they are educated or wise. In my life I have very well learned that to try and change others is a fools errand. I can only speak my piece and let others decide for themselves, but at least the information is out there for them to consider.

As to private versus public services for any particular treatment, others have reviewed it and decided. Since you can't change others it might be smart to just leave Norway and not let them abuse the taxes you pay. Are you also one of those virulent "anti-children" people who believe that since they don't have children they shouldn't have to contribute to paying for things like schools and prenatal and labor and delivery.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
LMP737
Posts: 5902
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:03 am

LAX772LR wrote:




Keep in mind that this is the clown who had to resign because he spent his Congressional campaign budget remodeling his office to look like Downton Abbey..... and whose father's only comment in response to his son's resignation was: "Well, my son's not gay," despite no one even bringing that topic up! :-D
:


Spending all that money on interior decorating should have been the first clue. ;)
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
luckyone
Posts: 2772
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:42 pm

A ruthless and calculating politician found to be talking out of both sides of his mouth? *conjuring up my best Chicago accent* Stahhhhp!
I will agree that people should be allowed to out themselves as they see fit, But I also have a hard time feeling sorry for people like Aaron Schock for being publicly exposed as hypocrites. What irritates me more than anything is that the good people of Peoria were dumb enough to fall for his empty words that were simply their own thoughts reflected back to them.
 
Barny123
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:20 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Mon Apr 29, 2019 10:02 am

Kiwirob wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Except where you live the taxpayer isn’t funding this sort of stupidity, where I live we do.

And as usual, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

That's actually one of the key issues behind the latest military ban for Trans people.


I do know that as a taxpayer I’m paying for lifestyles I don’t think should be paid for by the govt.

Why should the military pay the medical expenses of trans people? It’s a lifestyle which probably isn’t conducive to a military career.


Oh the arrogance!!! As if you're the only tax payer. What about all those 'leftist' tax payers that may agree with the policy?

Democracy! Get used to it!!! As a gay person (and a tax payer) I'm used to democracy overruling my wishes throughout my life so it's only fair you have your turn princess!
 
BN747
Posts: 6536
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:25 pm

alfa164 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
He spent $100,000 redecorating his office? How is that even possible? Congressional offices really aren't THAT big.


Gay people really do like to redecorate...

;)


...and thank goodness, creativity has to emanate from somewhere, I mean imagine if straight designers of airline liveries and logo remained in force?
The US carriers would all still be wearing those ugly 1950's liveries.

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
User avatar
Dieuwer
Posts: 1331
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:13 pm

luckyone wrote:
What irritates me more than anything is that the good people of Peoria were dumb enough to fall for his empty words that were simply their own thoughts reflected back to them.


I suspected this a long time, but Americans are indeed - on average - more stupid than many others on the planet: https://brainstats.com/average-iq-by-country.html
So, no surprise there that they fall for empty rhetoric and believe anything a politician tells them.
 
stratclub
Posts: 1288
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:32 am

Magog wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
Him being Gay is not the issue.

Him being Gay and then supporting Anti Gay legislation is.

Sexuality can be fluid. You don’t know if he is a hypocrite.

No sexuality is not fluid, but sexual behavior is. I hope that isn't gay bashing, because if it is I would be a closet homosexual which would destroy my wife and have my kids and grand kids go WTF.......................
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1244
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:54 am

BN747 wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
He spent $100,000 redecorating his office? How is that even possible? Congressional offices really aren't THAT big.


Gay people really do like to redecorate...

;)


...and thank goodness, creativity has to emanate from somewhere, I mean imagine if straight designers of airline liveries and logo remained in force?
The US carriers would all still be wearing those ugly 1950's liveries.

BN747


Yeah it takes so much imagination to come up with painting 90% of the plane white...
 
TSS
Posts: 3163
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:19 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
BN747 wrote:
alfa164 wrote:

Gay people really do like to redecorate...

;)


...and thank goodness, creativity has to emanate from somewhere, I mean imagine if straight designers of airline liveries and logo remained in force?
The US carriers would all still be wearing those ugly 1950's liveries.

BN747


Yeah it takes so much imagination to come up with painting 90% of the plane white...

It's not the white that counts, it's what goes on the white that counts. What separates us from the animals is our ability to accessorize.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
seb146
Posts: 20208
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:03 am

TSS wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
BN747 wrote:

...and thank goodness, creativity has to emanate from somewhere, I mean imagine if straight designers of airline liveries and logo remained in force?
The US carriers would all still be wearing those ugly 1950's liveries.

BN747


Yeah it takes so much imagination to come up with painting 90% of the plane white...

It's not the white that counts, it's what goes on the white that counts. What separates us from the animals is our ability to accessorize.


Do you think it colored grape or aubergine?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
BN747
Posts: 6536
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:09 am

seb146 wrote:
TSS wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Yeah it takes so much imagination to come up with painting 90% of the plane white...

It's not the white that counts, it's what goes on the white that counts. What separates us from the animals is our ability to accessorize.


Do you think it colored grape or aubergine?


Hmmm...now we know wo'd be the livery designer...

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
Barny123
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:20 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat May 04, 2019 1:01 am

Kiwirob wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Except where you live the taxpayer isn’t funding this sort of stupidity, where I live we do.

And as usual, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

That's actually one of the key issues behind the latest military ban for Trans people.


I do know that as a taxpayer I’m paying for lifestyles I don’t think should be paid for by the govt.

Why should the military pay the medical expenses of trans people? It’s a lifestyle which probably isn’t conducive to a military career.


Barny123 wrote:

Oh the arrogance!!! As if you're the only tax payer. What about all those 'leftist' tax payers that may agree with the policy?

Democracy! Get used to it!!! As a gay person (and a tax payer) I'm used to democracy overruling my wishes throughout my life so it's only fair you have your turn princess!


@ Kiwirob,

Can you please re-post your reply to me in a more civil manner as I have a notification that you have replied but there is no reply in the tread! Sorry I don't log on every day.

Preempting your reply... I called you a Princess because your acting like a princess, 'not my tax dollars!' tantrum much!
Last edited by Barny123 on Sat May 04, 2019 1:16 am, edited 4 times in total.
 
Barny123
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:20 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat May 04, 2019 1:04 am

stratclub wrote:
Magog wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
Him being Gay is not the issue.

Him being Gay and then supporting Anti Gay legislation is.

Sexuality can be fluid. You don’t know if he is a hypocrite.

No sexuality is not fluid, but sexual behavior is. I hope that isn't gay bashing, because if it is I would be a closet homosexual which would destroy my wife and have my kids and grand kids go WTF.......................


You could still be a closet homosexual conforming to society's norms by taking a wife and having kids! You're wife, kids and grand kids may still get the WTF moment!
 
seb146
Posts: 20208
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat May 04, 2019 5:15 am

Kiwirob wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

Wrong analogy, it’s elective like getting a boob job or penis extension, govts shouldn’t fund elective and medically unnecessary procedures.

How is getting herpes from being stupid and not using protection that is available everywhere not elective? You elected to have sex without protection. Why does the state owe you any treatment for a fully preventable disease?

Tugg


You don’t need to have sex to contract herpes.

Trans isn’t an STD or a disease it’s cosmetic, nor are they people who have suffered disfiguring injuries who should be allowed cosmetic procedures on the taxpayer.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... der-brain/

According to science, transgender is NOT cosmetic. Transgender are wired different than cisgender.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
bennett123
Posts: 8857
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat May 04, 2019 6:43 am

What is Cisgender?.

Are we still on topic?.
 
TSS
Posts: 3163
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat May 04, 2019 7:00 am

bennett123 wrote:
What is Cisgender?

"Cisgender" comes from the acronym CIS which stands for Comfortable In Self and would refer to someone who is, if not perfectly, then more than reasonably happy and or satisfied being and living as the gender they were born… or in short, guys who were born guys and are happy being guys as well as girls who were born girls and are happy being girls.

bennett123 wrote:
Are we still on topic?

By the strictest definition probably not, but this thread has seemed to evolve into a chance for people to ask questions they wouldn't normally feel comfortable asking and get straightforward answers to same, so I don't see that as a bad thing.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
luckyone
Posts: 2772
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat May 04, 2019 12:05 pm

TSS wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
What is Cisgender?

"Cisgender" comes from the acronym CIS which stands for Comfortable In Self and would refer to someone who is, if not perfectly, then more than reasonably happy and or satisfied being and living as the gender they were born… or in short, guys who were born guys and are happy being guys as well as girls who were born girls and are happy being girls.

bennett123 wrote:
Are we still on topic?

By the strictest definition probably not, but this thread has seemed to evolve into a chance for people to ask questions they wouldn't normally feel comfortable asking and get straightforward answers to same, so I don't see that as a bad thing.

The terms “cis” and “trans” actually originate from Latin and are used in structural chemistry to designate spatial orientation, usually with respect to bonding phenomena. One sees this in terms like “cis fat” and “trans fat,” with “cis” meaning “this side,” and trans meaning “other side.” With respect to fat it means that the side groups are either oriented on the same (cis) or opposite (trans) side of a bond. This has applications biochemically in terms of enzyme actions, or even something as simple as storage. Trans fats are easier to stack and store. The terminology has now been applied to human sexuality.
 
TSS
Posts: 3163
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat May 04, 2019 4:46 pm

luckyone wrote:
TSS wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
What is Cisgender?

"Cisgender" comes from the acronym CIS which stands for Comfortable In Self and would refer to someone who is, if not perfectly, then more than reasonably happy and or satisfied being and living as the gender they were born… or in short, guys who were born guys and are happy being guys as well as girls who were born girls and are happy being girls.

bennett123 wrote:
Are we still on topic?

By the strictest definition probably not, but this thread has seemed to evolve into a chance for people to ask questions they wouldn't normally feel comfortable asking and get straightforward answers to same, so I don't see that as a bad thing.

The terms “cis” and “trans” actually originate from Latin and are used in structural chemistry to designate spatial orientation, usually with respect to bonding phenomena. One sees this in terms like “cis fat” and “trans fat,” with “cis” meaning “this side,” and trans meaning “other side.” With respect to fat it means that the side groups are either oriented on the same (cis) or opposite (trans) side of a bond. This has applications biochemically in terms of enzyme actions, or even something as simple as storage. Trans fats are easier to stack and store. The terminology has now been applied to human sexuality.

Fair enough. That explanation makes more sense, plus it destroys a big chunk of the trust I had in Urban Dictionary which is where I got my definition from some time ago after hearing a few trans activists use the term "cis" repeatedly in a scornful and derisive context.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
bennett123
Posts: 8857
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Another anti-gay Republican photoed with male partner

Sat May 04, 2019 5:09 pm

Think that covers me.

Good to know what category I fall into.

LOL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anrec80, apodino, BlueberryWheats, casinterest, Mani87, TangoandCash and 32 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos