Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 50

Thread: The Reptilian Transgender Agenda

  1. #31
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    4,055
    Thanks
    15,643
    Thanked 17,739 Times in 4,032 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    Apart from having split off this discussion from another thread — where it was derailing the on-topic discussion — into this separate thread here, I was going to stay out of this debate, because, quite frankly and with my background in various fields of science, I found the premise in the original post too ludicrous for myself to even respond to. But as I am always trying to educate — and I don't mean this in a condescending way — I am now going to try and bring some sanity into this discussion.

    As always, it is very easy for anyone who doesn't know or understand the basics and the mechanisms behind any given phenomenon to come up with totally implausible and/or impossible stories. That's how this so-called "alternative community" has been deluding itself for years already, and why there doesn't really have to be too much in the way of government shill activity in order to lead this "alternative community" astray. Humans are perfectly capable of deluding themselves.


    So here are the scientific facts...

    Barring any genetic anomalies — which do exist — a baby's physical gender is determined by which chromosome pairs it has. Women have XX chromosome pairs, and men have XY chromosome pairs. As such, a mammalian egg always contains an X chromosome, and a mammalian sperm contains either an X chromosome or a Y chromosome. In some cases, the chromosomes are damaged and/or an anomalous pairing occurs. For instance, girls with Down Syndrome have XXX chromosomes, and boys with Down Syndrome have XXY chromosomes.

    Another such anomalous pairing would be babies with XO chromosomes. These babies are physically androgynous — i.e. they will have the genitalia of both genders, albeit usually not in a functional form, and, insofar as I know, also in an incomplete state of development. In other words, when these children reach the age of sexual maturity, they are actually sterile.

    Because genetic research is a still relatively young branch of science, and because of people's earlier (and religiously inspired) belief that gender identity and sexual orientation were only defined later in life — according to Catholic doctrine, this would be around the age of 6 or 7 — androgynous children were usually surgically altered in such a way that they would appear female. In other words, the penis and testicles were cut away, and what remained was shaped into a vagina. Before such children were old enough to undergo the "corrective" surgery, they were then usually also kept away from the other children of their age whenever they needed to change into or out of a bathing suit, or when they needed to shower.

    However, as I wrote in the paragraph here-above, this was all in a time when genetic research was still pretty much non-existent, and when people still believed that sexual orientation and gender identity would only develop years after the baby had already been born. Scientific research has in the meantime shown this to be false. Brain scans of both heterosexual and homosexual (or bisexual) people of both genders have shown that there is a significant difference in the layout and functioning of the brain between heterosexual and non-heterosexual people. In fact, to give you an example, in the event of a homosexual male, the brain actually appears to have a lot in common with that of a heterosexual female.

    Furthermore, homosexuality and bisexuality also appear to be reflected in the genetic structure, or otherwise put, sexual orientation is just as much determined by one's genes as one's physical gender. And in the event of androgynous children, they are most often not even bisexual. They will commonly have a sexual preference for one gender only. However, given the "corrective" surgery that many of these children have been put through at the time, coupled to their environment then attempting to raise them as girls, these children are guaranteed to find themselves in a lot of emotional and psychological distress, and in having an identity crisis. Nowadays, luckily, there is a better scientific understanding of the phenomenon, and the "corrective" surgery and gender-specific upbringing are no longer applied.

    Another such strange phenomenon is a quite frequent occurrence at a specific island or group of islands in the Pacific Ocean, and which is believed to be tied to environmental factors. It has been observed there — and is considered pretty normal by the locals — that certain girls seem to spontaneously turn into boys when puberty sets in. This is however not a matter of an actual biological sex change, but rather a matter of misinterpretation of the babies' gender when they are born.

    Genetically and biologically, these children are actually boys — there are no discernible genetic anomalies at all — but due to some strange and apparently localized environmental influence, the baby's penis does not appear to be fully developed yet at birth, and their testes also won't start dropping until at a much later age. And behaviorally, even though those children are raised as girls — because that is what their family believes them to be when they are born — they generally behave very boyish throughout their childhood. They play with toys designed for boys, and they grow up to be perfectly heterosexual men.

    Now, the above all said, a transgender is not someone whose physical gender has changed, but rather someone whose physical appearance of gender has instead been altered by way of surgery and hormones. In other words, a male-to-female transgender still has XY chromosomes, and a female-to-male transgender still has XX chromosomes. And no amount of hormone injections, pills or breast implants is ever going to change that, let alone that it would allow a transgender to reproduce sexually by way of their newly assigned gender identity.

    With all of that out of the way, I do want to add that it is my personal belief that gender identity and thus also sexual orientation are rather properties of the soul, and that the creation of the fetus from the DNA and the chromosomes of its parents would be influenced by the gender identity of the soul that is to be merged with that particular fetus. Or at least, if the soul is actually self-aware enough to know its own gender identity and sexual preferences. And even then still, it is not unthinkable that some souls may consciously decide to go for a ride in a body of the opposite gender.

    Lastly, I will also add the following on account of the conspiracy angle to this thread. While I am firmly convinced that the premise of the original poster is utterly and grossly wrong, both on account of all the celebrities he has listed and on account of his claim of it having something to do with reptilians, there obviously is an "LGBT agenda" being played out, and it has nothing to do with human rights.

    We see the same thing here in Europe as in the USA, i.e. there's a Gay Pride — or some equivalent name — almost every month of the year, because it's being organized at different times in different countries. And it serves no purpose at all, because Europe is very liberal in that regard. For instance, gay marriage is perfectly legal here in Belgium, as well as in the Netherlands, and I believe in Germany as well — France has ruled against it, I believe, and given how Catholic Italy is, they probably don't allow it over there yet either. And believe it or not, the Brussels Capitol Region even has a dedicated LGBT police squadron, whose job it is to go out and penalize gay-bashing. I kid you not.

    But hey, let the following be a consolation for gay people whose country of residence does not allow them to get legally married... At least you won't have the government meddling with your finances, and you can also save yourselves the trouble of having to pay an expensive lawyer and fight yourselves through a divorce if/when you decide to break up with one another. (Hey, what business is it of the bureaucrats whom you choose to have a romantic and/or sexual relationship with anyway, so long as they're legal adults?)

    But so anyway, if it's not about human rights, then what is it about? Well, I don't think it has anything to do with the balance between the Divine Feminine and the Divine Masculine either, but rather with a deliberate attempt to pervert the sanctity of these two divine polarities — because that is what they are. And still in my personal opinion, the reason behind this attempt is that the satanists who control Hollywood, politics, et al, are serving the opposite of Creation. Creation seeks to create order out of chaos — the word "chaos" in this context actually being "the undefined and unidentified potential of the quantum superstate" — while those who serve a satanic agenda seek the exact opposite; they are a destructive force that wants entropy and chaos, because dissonance generates loosh energy, which they feed off.

    Now, I don't believe in the character of Satan — or, for that matter, Lucifer — because that's just a concoction of mankind, but I do know that there are evil and destructive forces in the universe. Call them the Archons, if you will. And whatever goes down here on Earth — as on any other world in the universe, I suppose — is definitely in their interest. The more chaos and dissonance they can generate, the more loosh it produces, and that's what makes them happy.

    The above all said, people often misunderstand something they read on the internet, so let me be clear... Yes, I do believe that some kind of "LGBT" agenda is being played out, and especially so with regard to Hollywood and the music industry. For instance, all recent movies and series in the Star Trek franchise now have to have at least one openly LGBT character on the show.

    Gene Roddenberry had also already envisioned that gender and gender roles could pose somewhat of a mystery when dealing with alien species and cultures, but at least, he brought the concept to the foreground in a natural way, for instance when Jadzia Dax met up again with another Trill woman, who had been the wife of a previous (and male) host of the Dax symbiont with whom Jadzia was merged. Bringing an "LGBT awareness" to the screen by forcing every Star Trek series and movie to feature at least one LGBT character is far from natural, and reeks of a "politically correct" agenda, and thus of thought policing.

    The bottom line is this: As a happily heterosexual male, I fully support human rights — and I call them "human rights" rather than "LGBT rights", because being LGBT does not grant one more rights than that other humans are entitled to — but LGBT people really ought to lay off on that thought policing agenda. We're all human on this planet, and neither gender identity nor sexual orientation have anything to do with that.

    wow, ok, I would add that Robert Heinlein reveled in blurring the lines of gender and sexual orientation almost 75 years ago and just between you and I it always made me a bit squemish, but I'm not sure I would agree in the 'agenda' factor. I would tend to believe that it is a 'natural' progression of evolving social consciousness. Hollywood, as a bastion of social progressiveness, has always used itself as a forum for progressive issues. Consider this, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, DaVinci, Turing, even Jesus have all had their sexual orientation questioned, or even confirmed, as not 'typical'. Creative, or even enlightened individuals have insight and even identification into what you characterized as the divine feminine and divine masculine polarity. This is not new.

    Archons:

    I have a personal theory about that and it does relate to 'sexuality'. The bible, according to some reactionaries, precludes intermingling of races. However, it doesn't define 'race'. I've long believed that 'race' actually is meant to refer to a notion that dates to antiquity (i.e. Neanderthals, Denisovans, et al). It is patently obvious that mystics have long 'sensed' an evil energy emanating from creation and there is no doubt that it exists. I'm beginning to think that the evil energy is actually latched onto the part of ourselves that violated the Biblical proscription of no intermingling. It is latched onto the part of ourselves that is Neaderthal or Denisovan or even perhaps the animal part of our precursor races.
    Last edited by NotAPretender, 26th September 2017 at 16:48.

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (27th September 2017), Dreamtimer (26th September 2017), Elen (26th September 2017), giovonni (28th September 2017), pabranno (28th September 2017)

  3. #32
    Senior Member Jengelen's Avatar
    Join Date
    31st March 2015
    Posts
    333
    Thanks
    605
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 314 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Dreamtimer View Post
    I think you hit the nail on the head.

    I'm feeling a bit nostalgic. Bsbray and I had some fun discussions about my beard and whether I would be sporting it on a TOT-cast. He got some images off the internet that could be real. Some men are quite pretty. This pic isn't the best example but the others are YUGE.
    Well, there are legal reasons to know the biology of someone, and not the gender preference but the actual biology. Boy Scouts for example is for boys! It's not for manufactured boys that were born female though because those are still biological females! See it says plainly in the rules it has to be boys! The boys scouts by the way, have already kicked people out for this. Girl Scouts too so it goes both ways. You can't chose what is determined by your biology in other words no matter how much you believe in magic which is what it would be. So I am in complete agreement that gender is not a choice. But it does matter no matter how much you want to say it doesn't. Other cases in the past would have been submarine service and such things as this but they changed that to allow enlisted women to work in limited numbers on subs in Dec. of 2014 as I recall.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jengelen For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (27th September 2017), giovonni (28th September 2017)

  5. #33
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    4,055
    Thanks
    15,643
    Thanked 17,739 Times in 4,032 Posts
    gotta join the future...talk about things that are on the way...manufactured everything most assuredly is...

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (27th September 2017), giovonni (28th September 2017)

  7. #34
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    13,964
    Thanks
    61,831
    Thanked 57,954 Times in 13,951 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Jengelen View Post
    Its just a repeat of what I have already stated Aragorn. Read it again and you can see you are not in as much disagreement as you think you are! Loosh is reptile and you are obviously aware.
    The idea that the concept of loosh would be reptilian is hogwash. Hollywood tends to stigmatize reptilians in science fiction movies because reptilians look fearsome, and because the Roman Catholic Church and Judaism before it have designated the snake in the (metaphorical) Book of Genesis as Satan, the source of all evil. Christianity — as a derivative of Judaism — is still the dominant religion in the western hemisphere, and certainly in the USA. As I've said before, there's also a reason as to why virtually the whole of South America speaks Spanish and is Catholic.

    Yet, if you happen to have read the Book of Job, then you will know that it was not "the Satan" — which was a title, not a proper name — who put Job through all of his misery and deprived him of all that he loved. The Satan was merely an angel who acted in the role of a prosecutor in Yahweh's court, and it was Yahweh himself who decided to ruin Job's life, so as to make his point before the Satan.

    In addition to that, the Book of Job is a book from the Old Testament, and in the Old Testament, angels were not beings with an individual soul, but were rather described as emanations of Yahweh's mind and will. So any which way you turn it, the bad guy in the Abrahamic religions is not a character named Satan, but Yahweh himself. According to the scriptures, he did after all say that he's a jealous god, and the Old Testament is full of instances where Yahweh killed people or ruined their lives for not obeying him.

    My strongest points of contention with your original post were that none of the people whose names I recognized from that list of celebrities you gave would be a transgender, as well as that transgenders cannot physically procreate by way of their newly assigned gender. You suggested that they could, and that's ridiculous.

    Quote Originally posted by Jengelen View Post
    And if the thread is so ridiculous why start a new one then? It seems to me that just because discomfort is experienced with the topic people want to shut it out.
    Just because I did not agree with your assertions doesn't mean that The One Truth would prevent or forbid you from having a discussion about this topic. This is not Project Avalon, and you are free to discuss here whatever you want, so long as it's not against the Forum Rules — e.g. no pornography, no hate speech, et al.

    Furthermore, you know very well why I split this discussion off into a separate thread. You were posting this stuff on the "What Motivates Bill Ryan of Project Avalon Community Forum?" thread, and considering your tenacity at discussing this subject there, as well as the fact that people were responding to it, you were derailing that thread. Therefore, by splitting the discussion off into a separate thread, I have brought the original thread back on topic and I have given you a space where you can indulge in this discussion.

    Among other things, this is what moderators and administrators do, you know?





    Quote Originally posted by Jengelen View Post
    "The Times reports that John Lewis made the decision to go neutral after consulting with the Let Clothes Be Clothes campaign group, which is lobbying to "end gender stereotyping in [the] design/marketing of childrenswear."

    Let Clothes Be Clothes said on Twitter this morning that they are "absolutely thrilled" by John Lewis's announcement. Parents and commentators have also praised the retailer's decision to go gender neutral on children's clothes."
    Unisex clothing has been around for decades already. There's nothing new about that. But like I said, I do see an agenda being played out, albeit that it's not being played out for the reasons you think it is. It's got nothing to do with females being the domineering gender among reptilians — which they're not, by the way — but with social disruption and thought policing.





    Quote Originally posted by Dreamtimer View Post
    They want to know for sure it's a pussy they'll be grabbing.
    Hey, I know more than one dude who found out too late that what he was playing with was not a kitty cat.





    Quote Originally posted by NotAPretender View Post
    wow, ok, I would add that Robert Heinlein reveled in blurring the lines of gender and sexual orientation almost 75 years ago and just between you and I it always made me a bit squemish, but I'm not sure I would agree in the 'agenda' factor. I would tend to believe that it is a 'natural' progression of evolving social consciousness. Hollywood, as a bastion of social progressiveness, has always used itself as a forum for progressive issues.
    I wouldn't call that progressive at all. It is a matter of a certain population group trying to deal with its own frustrations of not feeling "mainstream enough" by overdoing it and over-accentuating whatever it is that makes them different, without wanting to admit to themselves that it is their very difference which makes them feel "special", and "more entitled than others".

    I'll give you an example, which I've already brought up a while ago on another thread. I myself am not a Holocaust denier, and I also have nothing whatsoever against Jewish people. But here in Belgium, as well as in Germany and in several other European nations, Holocaust denial is a crime — not a misdemeanor, but a crime, for which you can go to jail. Do you think that's fair? What about freedom of speech? What about freedom of thought?

    Likewise, I myself have — in a similar vein — been accused of antisemitism twice in a row for daring to speak up for the Palestinians and against the policies and practices of the Israeli government. Really? Does that make me antisemitic?


    Quote Originally posted by NotAPretender View Post
    Consider this, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, DaVinci, Turing, even Jesus have all had their sexual orientation questioned, or even confirmed, as not 'typical'.
    • William Shakespeare, if he even existed, was merely an actor. All of his plays were written by other people, and most notably one Sir Francis Bacon.

    • Michelangelo had his sexual orientation questioned, indeed, but insofar as I know, there has been no conclusive evidence in either direction.

    • Leonardo DaVinci's sexuality was questioned because his painting of "The Last Supper" depicts what the Roman Catholic Church has termed to be John in a rather feminine way, and with somewhat of a romantically inclined pose toward the figure of Jesus. However, DaVinci was a member of the Priory of Zion, and he wanted to contend that the Catholic Church had deliberately replaced the character of Mary Magdalene as Jesus' wife and primary apostle by a male, John, because of Peter's misogyny. Don't forget that up until only recently, the official story was that Mary Magdalene had been the prostitute saved by Jesus from being stoned to death, even though the very Bible itself never mentions said prostitute by name, and instead describes Mary Magdalene as a respectable woman from an equally respectable family, even.

    • Alan Turing was a homosexual, but back in those days, homosexuality was still illegal in the UK. In spite of the fact that Turing's efforts had helped the allies win World War II, Turing was convicted in court over his sexual orientation and he was sentenced to castration. I do not know whether he eventually was or wasn't castrated, but in the end he either way saw no other option but to take his own life. So much for having served his country, not to mention that everyone using a computer or computing device today is indebted to Alan Turing's genius.

    • Jesus' sexual orientation was questioned because he was said to have displayed love indiscriminately. However, that was the unconditional and universal agape love, not the eros type of love. And that's all based upon the scriptures and historical recounts, because there is contention as to whether Jesus ever even existed, as well as that there are recounts of at least four different people who were socially and spiritually active at the same time, and who could all be considered eligible for having been the Biblical Jesus.



    Quote Originally posted by NotAPretender View Post
    It is patently obvious that mystics have long 'sensed' an evil energy emanating from creation and there is no doubt that it exists.
    Yes, but this evil was created as a side-effect of Creation itself, and it needs to exist as a catalyst for Creation to be able to accomplish its goal. I know, it sucks, but that's the way it is.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (27th September 2017), Elen (27th September 2017), giovonni (28th September 2017), Kathy (27th September 2017), modwiz (27th September 2017), NotAPretender (27th September 2017), pabranno (27th September 2017)

  9. #35
    Senior Member Jengelen's Avatar
    Join Date
    31st March 2015
    Posts
    333
    Thanks
    605
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 314 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    The idea that the concept of loosh would be reptilian is hogwash. Hollywood tends to stigmatize reptilians in science fiction movies because reptilians look fearsome, and because the Roman Catholic Church and Judaism before it have designated the snake in the (metaphorical) Book of Genesis as Satan, the source of all evil. Christianity — as a derivative of Judaism — is still the dominant religion in the western hemisphere, and certainly in the USA. As I've said before, there's also a reason as to why virtually the whole of South America speaks Spanish and is Catholic.

    Yet, if you happen to have read the Book of Job, then you will know that it was not "the Satan" — which was a title, not a proper name — who put Job through all of his misery and deprived him of all that he loved. The Satan was merely an angel who acted in the role of a prosecutor in Yahweh's court, and it was Yahweh himself who decided to ruin Job's life, so as to make his point before the Satan.

    In addition to that, the Book of Job is a book from the Old Testament, and in the Old Testament, angels were not beings with an individual soul, but were rather described as emanations of Yahweh's mind and will. So any which way you turn it, the bad guy in the Abrahamic religions is not a character named Satan, but Yahweh himself. According to the scriptures, he did after all say that he's a jealous god, and the Old Testament is full of instances where Yahweh killed people or ruined their lives for not obeying him.

    My strongest points of contention with your original post were that none of the people whose names I recognized from that list of celebrities you gave would be a transgender, as well as that transgenders cannot physically procreate by way of their newly assigned gender. You suggested that they could, and that's ridiculous.



    Just because I did not agree with your assertions doesn't mean that The One Truth would prevent or forbid you from having a discussion about this topic. This is not Project Avalon, and you are free to discuss here whatever you want, so long as it's not against the Forum Rules — e.g. no pornography, no hate speech, et al.

    Furthermore, you know very well why I split this discussion off into a separate thread. You were posting this stuff on the "What Motivates Bill Ryan of Project Avalon Community Forum?" thread, and considering your tenacity at discussing this subject there, as well as the fact that people were responding to it, you were derailing that thread. Therefore, by splitting the discussion off into a separate thread, I have brought the original thread back on topic and I have given you a space where you can indulge in this discussion.

    Among other things, this is what moderators and administrators do, you know?







    Unisex clothing has been around for decades already. There's nothing new about that. But like I said, I do see an agenda being played out, albeit that it's not being played out for the reasons you think it is. It's got nothing to do with females being the domineering gender among reptilians — which they're not, by the way — but with social disruption and thought policing.







    Hey, I know more than one dude who found out too late that what he was playing with was not a kitty cat.







    I wouldn't call that progressive at all. It is a matter of a certain population group trying to deal with its own frustrations of not feeling "mainstream enough" by overdoing it and over-accentuating whatever it is that makes them different, without wanting to admit to themselves that it is their very difference which makes them feel "special", and "more entitled than others".

    I'll give you an example, which I've already brought up a while ago on another thread. I myself am not a Holocaust denier, and I also have nothing whatsoever against Jewish people. But here in Belgium, as well as in Germany and in several other European nations, Holocaust denial is a crime — not a misdemeanor, but a crime, for which you can go to jail. Do you think that's fair? What about freedom of speech? What about freedom of thought?

    Likewise, I myself have — in a similar vein — been accused of antisemitism twice in a row for daring to speak up for the Palestinians and against the policies and practices of the Israeli government. Really? Does that make me antisemitic?




    • William Shakespeare, if he even existed, was merely an actor. All of his plays were written by other people, and most notably one Sir Francis Bacon.

    • Michelangelo had his sexual orientation questioned, indeed, but insofar as I know, there has been no conclusive evidence in either direction.

    • Leonardo DaVinci's sexuality was questioned because his painting of "The Last Supper" depicts what the Roman Catholic Church has termed to be John in a rather feminine way, and with somewhat of a romantically inclined pose toward the figure of Jesus. However, DaVinci was a member of the Priory of Zion, and he wanted to contend that the Catholic Church had deliberately replaced the character of Mary Magdalene as Jesus' wife and primary apostle by a male, John, because of Peter's misogyny. Don't forget that up until only recently, the official story was that Mary Magdalene had been the prostitute saved by Jesus from being stoned to death, even though the very Bible itself never mentions said prostitute by name, and instead describes Mary Magdalene as a respectable woman from an equally respectable family, even.

    • Alan Turing was a homosexual, but back in those days, homosexuality was still illegal in the UK. In spite of the fact that Turing's efforts had helped the allies win World War II, Turing was convicted in court over his sexual orientation and he was sentenced to castration. I do not know whether he eventually was or wasn't castrated, but in the end he either way saw no other option but to take his own life. So much for having served his country, not to mention that everyone using a computer or computing device today is indebted to Alan Turing's genius.

    • Jesus' sexual orientation was questioned because he was said to have displayed love indiscriminately. However, that was the unconditional and universal agape love, not the eros type of love. And that's all based upon the scriptures and historical recounts, because there is contention as to whether Jesus ever even existed, as well as that there are recounts of at least four different people who were socially and spiritually active at the same time, and who could all be considered eligible for having been the Biblical Jesus.





    Yes, but this evil was created as a side-effect of Creation itself, and it needs to exist as a catalyst for Creation to be able to accomplish its goal. I know, it sucks, but that's the way it is.
    Not everyone on the list I made is a transgender that is the idea! There are supposed to be straight ones in there mixed and you guys were to figure which was which. There are many trans in that list btw! If you don't know you don't know because you haven't researched it!! Wake up and watch some of those videos dude! Those are trans in that list and more than a few and some big surprises!! One day down the road some of those people will come out and all of you will crap yourself!

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jengelen For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (27th September 2017), Elen (27th September 2017), giovonni (28th September 2017), NotAPretender (27th September 2017)

  11. #36
    Senior Member Jengelen's Avatar
    Join Date
    31st March 2015
    Posts
    333
    Thanks
    605
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 314 Posts
    The first women president was "Lady O" Here we see her giving the NFL and others their first lesson on disrespecting your flag, song and country.

    The first man of the white house during that stay is pictured below for your convenience. Nuff said there.
    Attached Images Attached Images   

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jengelen For This Useful Post:

    giovonni (28th September 2017), Kathy (27th September 2017)

  13. #37
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    4,055
    Thanks
    15,643
    Thanked 17,739 Times in 4,032 Posts
    I won't, I might find it 'dramatic' but that's the extent of it. As Dreamtimer posted, progressives don't care.

    Aragorn: In terms of thought policing I can appreciate your take but between you and I, nobody polices my thoughts. I tend not to let police police me, I've paid the price for that one in the past. Authoritarians are useless in whatever guise they appear. I don't believe the 'LGBT' movement represents thought policing, just people wanting what they want. Perhaps that is a bit selfish but they deserve that given the social misunderstandings and mistreatment directed at them for centuries.

    Quote Originally posted by Jengelen View Post
    The first women president was "Lady O" Here we see her giving the NFL and others their first lesson on disrespecting your flag, song and country.

    The first man of the white house during that stay is pictured below for your convenience. Nuff said there.
    Oh please, spare me the flag and country nonsense. This is overt nationalism and is the greatest source of hostility known to man.

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (27th September 2017), Elen (27th September 2017), giovonni (28th September 2017)

  15. #38
    Senior Member Jengelen's Avatar
    Join Date
    31st March 2015
    Posts
    333
    Thanks
    605
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 314 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by NotAPretender View Post
    I won't, I might find it 'dramatic' but that's the extent of it. As Dreamtimer posted, progressives don't care.

    Aragorn: In terms of thought policing I can appreciate your take but between you and I, nobody polices my thoughts. I tend not to let police police me, I've paid the price for that one in the past. Authoritarians are useless in whatever guise they appear. I don't believe the 'LGBT' movement represents thought policing, just people wanting what they want. Perhaps that is a bit selfish but they deserve that given the social misunderstandings and mistreatment directed at them for centuries.



    Oh please, spare me the flag and country nonsense. This is overt nationalism and is the greatest source of hostility known to man.
    I don't consider it nonsense to show respect for the man that wrote the anthem or our country by doing it proper the way every other president has in the past. Doing that should be natural and volunteered when the national anthem is played. You would think of all people that Barry would respect Francis Scott Key, the man that had his memorial written down on stone as the 'Nigger Lawyer' because he was so well known for going to the defense of black folk everywhere, even at no charge often and it was even reported at times he took food even off his own table to feed families of those that were without income when someone he tried and failed to defend was in the stockade or jail or had been whipped. When he died black folk came from all over to respect him and cried big tears and now they all kneel while America forgets he was their man. He went to bat for the blacks more often than not and the thanks he gets is a protest in his song. I found it very distasteful. Barry was a supposed constitutional scholar and he stands up there as president sometimes even talking during the song. What a real jerk he was! And people like you that justify it quite frankly make me sick!

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jengelen For This Useful Post:

    giovonni (28th September 2017), NotAPretender (27th September 2017)

  17. #39
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    4,055
    Thanks
    15,643
    Thanked 17,739 Times in 4,032 Posts
    I'll never understand this animalistic territorial imperative. My territory begins and ends at my front and back yard.

    NAP

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    enjoy being (27th September 2017), giovonni (28th September 2017)

  19. #40
    Senior Member giovonni's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th September 2016
    Posts
    4,648
    Thanks
    4,564
    Thanked 24,770 Times in 4,656 Posts

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to giovonni For This Useful Post:

    modwiz (27th September 2017), NotAPretender (27th September 2017)

  21. #41
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    4,055
    Thanks
    15,643
    Thanked 17,739 Times in 4,032 Posts
    they likely didn't have a box for 'reptilian'

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    giovonni (28th September 2017), modwiz (27th September 2017)

  23. #42
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    13,964
    Thanks
    61,831
    Thanked 57,954 Times in 13,951 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by NotAPretender View Post
    Aragorn: In terms of thought policing I can appreciate your take but between you and I, nobody polices my thoughts. I tend not to let police police me, I've paid the price for that one in the past.
    Well, I can understand, but it still won't stop anyone from trying to police our thoughts. I could give you tons of examples — don't even get me started on the revolting horror pictures of rotting teeth, freshly removed internal organs and all kinds of ulcerous tumors which must by law take up a third of either side of every pack of cigarettes being sold here in the EU these days — but I'll pick one that's related to the topic of this thread.

    Does anyone still remember what the word "gay" originally meant to imply? If you don't, it means "merry", "cheerful", and it's an English word derived from the French word "gai", which still bears that original meaning — you know, as in "gai Paris". But somewhere along the line — at least as early as the 1970s, but it may even have been sooner — that word was given a whole new meaning by the LGBT advocates. And I do mean "advocates", as opposed to "defenders of human rights". I'll get back to that in a minute.

    As I've already mentioned in one of my earlier posts on this thread, Belgium supports gay marriage, and so do Germany and the Netherlands. So why do we then still need to have an annual Belgian Pride — because that's what they call it over here — with, on a separate day, an Antwerp Pride? Last time I checked Antwerp was still a Belgian city — notwithstanding the firmly held religious belief among Antwerpians that Antwerp lies at the center of the universe.

    Now I'm not certain, but I believe that there would be a Brussels Pride or whatever as well, and on yet another day — I'm not exactly keeping tabs, but the mainstream media definitely make sure that everyone's aware of it by pouring it into a news headline whenever any such Gay Pride parades are being organized. Don't you think that's a little over the top? And in a country which supports equal rights for those with another sexual orientation than heterosexual? And that's not even all, because there are things happening during those parades that you wouldn't even get away with as a heterosexual if you were to do that in public.

    And then there's the LGBT police squadron that goes out to penalize gay-bashing. Seriously? Is that something a heterosexual police officer — or for that matter, any police officer, regardless of their gender and sexual orientation — would not be able to report and penalize? Or could it not rather be that it is a kind of sting operation, just so as to be able to punish someone who might, after a few beers, have a potty mouth and utter a word like "faggot"? You know, just like those strategically positioned unmarked patrol vehicles with a speed camera attached to them, set up to catch anyone who happens to stray 1 km/h over the speed limit because they've got their eyes on the road — where they should be — rather than on their speedometer?

    Now, I can understand that LGBT people would be vying for respect of their human rights, and especially in developing countries like the United States of Acronyms. () And seriously, I think that what happened to Alan Turing was repulsive and abominable, and that the death sentence and execution of homosexuals in Iran — as well as by Iran's enemy, ISIS, who throw homosexuals down on the street from the roof of a tall building — is scandalously horrifying. I'm sure Saudi Arabia won't be any better in that regard either — human rights don't even seem to exist at all there.

    So yes, I do strongly protest and oppose the fact that LGBT people — or for that matter, any other group of people — are being deprived of their human rights, not to mention tortured and gruesomely put to death. But there's a difference between advocating human rights and advocating disrespect for what is probably the most beautiful of all Yin/Yang manifestations of Creation: the fireworks between the Divine Feminine (Yin) and the Divine Masculine (Yang).

    And that is what certain groups of people — call them the Illuminati, if you will — are seeking to accomplish. Their game is the disruption of the Creative energies, and they are only using the LGBT people as a forefront. Those people themselves don't even realize that they are being used. They think they are fighting for their human rights, but they are actually being used by a group of satanic psychopaths behind the scenes in a ploy to desecrate (one of the principal forces of) Creation.

    Quote Originally posted by NotAPretender View Post
    Authoritarians are useless in whatever guise they appear. I don't believe the 'LGBT' movement represents thought policing, just people wanting what they want. Perhaps that is a bit selfish but they deserve that given the social misunderstandings and mistreatment directed at them for centuries.
    In hindsight, I did realize that my original wording was poorly chosen, but as I had already been quoted by other people, there was no point anymore in editing my original post. Therefore, I trust that my expounding here-above would offer sufficient clarification of my vantage on this topic.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  24. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Elen (28th September 2017), enjoy being (27th September 2017), giovonni (28th September 2017), Kathy (28th September 2017), modwiz (27th September 2017), NotAPretender (27th September 2017)

  25. #43
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    4,055
    Thanks
    15,643
    Thanked 17,739 Times in 4,032 Posts
    yeah, I think I understand...

    How do you feel about Amsterdam pride...Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!

    I'm just yanking your chain, Aragorn. I can see how it would be easy to gain your perspective. I always view 'solid opinions' as a 'model'. Representative but not always entirely accurate. And I certainly wouldn't belabor the point. I'll just keep my eyes open...
    Last edited by NotAPretender, 27th September 2017 at 21:46.

  26. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (27th September 2017), giovonni (28th September 2017), Kathy (28th September 2017), modwiz (27th September 2017)

  27. #44
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    6th August 2015
    Posts
    1,853
    Thanks
    4,608
    Thanked 11,708 Times in 2,094 Posts
    Oh my bad is this actually a serious thread? I just presumed it was an extremely ramped up spoof.

  28. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to enjoy being For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (27th September 2017), Elen (28th September 2017), giovonni (28th September 2017), Kathy (28th September 2017), modwiz (27th September 2017), NotAPretender (27th September 2017)

  29. #45
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    6th August 2015
    Posts
    1,853
    Thanks
    4,608
    Thanked 11,708 Times in 2,094 Posts
    Seems there's plenty of badges to wear out there, make your own, choose the wording and polish the blighter till you can see your face in it. Marry your badge, and what it stands for. Let it all be about your badge and let no fool pass unaware of the message you and the badge bring. Force your badge down others throats, make them listen and make them pay when they don't meet fickle requirements of the badge. Let the rest of the world pass you by while you go about focussing on the chores of the badge. I'm picking Pink Floyd or someone said it all already before.

  30. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to enjoy being For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (27th September 2017), Elen (28th September 2017), giovonni (28th September 2017), modwiz (27th September 2017), NotAPretender (27th September 2017)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •