or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › "pacifism: Lurid Centerpiece Of The Homosexual Agenda"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"pacifism: Lurid Centerpiece Of The Homosexual Agenda"

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 

here is a short excerpt, read the whole thing at the link above

Thing is - in my America, you're either for killing the bad guy or you are the bad guy. There's no wishy-washy middle ground. You know, Jesus may have once joked about turning the other cheek. But gents, you only have two cheeks - and rest assured that Big JC never meant for you to get your ass whooped! No sir. Long girly hair or not, Jesus wasn't no wussy peacenik. I should know, because he sits on my shoulder all day long and talks to me, saying heavy Jesus-like stuff like "George, if I wasn't busy whispering my divine plan directly into your brain stem, then hell, I'd be out in the street snapping those whining streaker hippy traitors' flimsy little chicken necks."

it was the greasy, back-stabbing homosexuals, along with the faggot-sympathizing, free-thinking artists who infected and destroyed his decent, righteously Christ-worshipping Empire.

omg, I cannot believe that ANYONE supports this guy.
post #2 of 22
You do realize that WhiteHouse.org is a parody website and not the real deal, right?

See domain name's Whois info:

Satire On-line
245-M Mount Hermon Road, Suite 137
Scotts Valley CA,95066

post #3 of 22
As much as I dislike George Bush, I find it hard to believe he actually made those remarks publicly. Surely that isn't a legitimate White House website?

Did he actually say those hateful things?

Ah, we posted at the same time, Rowan's dad.
post #4 of 22
Thread Starter 
I just can't get over this, I am sitting here in a daze that a "person" so full of hate could possibly be representing my country. I am so utterly embarrassed that anyone might assume that because I am a US citizen that I could agree with even 1% of this diatribe. This "man" is truly extremely scary to me.

He doesn't care for human rights, he doesn't care for freedom. All he cares is that he gets to force his hateful and biggoted views on MY country and the world.

post #5 of 22
Thread Starter 
thank you for pointing out it is a parody site, because I couldn't find that info.

Sorry to those (including myself) that took this seriously. ug, these need to be more clear. this freaked me out.
post #6 of 22
i'm not a W lover, but when i see stuff like that, it totally discredits people who oppose him. if you're viewing it for sarcastic humor, then it's fine, but it's clearly over the top hyperbole.
post #7 of 22
Over the top it may be...................but deep inside myself I have no doubt that this man says crap like this privately. I can just feel the disdain for any not in his camp.............

post #8 of 22
It is markedly too fluid and multi-syllabic for Dubya.

Dubya shows no ability in his speeches or impromptu comments, to rapid-fire adjectives like this. He is much more into 'ya know', smirking, and repitition. 'it just goes on and on and on...' (alleged evasions by Saddam Hussein for 12 years) or 'it's a re-run of a bad movie' (again, Saddam Hussein)
post #9 of 22
".org" is different from ".gov"

".gov" is the real deal...but you had me goin' for a minute, for SURE!

Joyce in the mts.
post #10 of 22
Thread Starter 
Originally posted by Els' 3 Ones

I completely agree, I have no doubt that he does feel that way. And my first impression (before I knew it was a parody) is that surely even he isn't stupid enough to say this is public.
post #11 of 22
NM said: "I see people here also seemingly believing that if its on the internet and supports their views its just gotta be true."

Apples-to-Oranges comparison: taking apples (honest mistakes relating to noticing Internet addresses and/or knowing the differences in what comes after the dot...) and comparing them to oranges (as intimated in the quote... preferred use of bogus online sources because they support certain views).

And let's face it: The page in question IS at a well-known political satire page. Just because one doesn't like it, doesn't mean that it is not protected by the first amendment OR that it was presented as fact at that page.

(And just because one may not agree with, or like the content of a post, doesn't mean the content isn't true. One can do more research at widely-valued resources to cross reference. It does take time, but it is time well-spent.)

You learn as you go. And you pay your dues. Sometimes it's the "garbage in; garbage out" thing that is just choice and free will. Some folks, no matter what, prefer info that keeps them feeling comfy. If they don't accept challenge well, then posting online may simply not be for them.

All that said, yes, one must be careful..

The Internet is FULL of accurate info and also fun, silly things, as well as rife with garbage..you pays your money and you takes your chances...Joyce in the mts.
post #12 of 22
Originally posted by Nursing Mother
Here in this thread or at MDC? Who are you talking about?
post #13 of 22
NM- It's interesting because I see people do the same thing with the news. If it's on the news, it must be true. I believe no matter what the source, cross-referencing is important, especially these days where on my stations you can find opinion marketed as fact.
post #14 of 22
I forgot to add that I think the news situation is far more dangerous than the internet. Many, many people watch the news with the assumption that what they're seeing is fact because, well, it's supposed to be. I think far fewer people view the internet that way. As far as some of the sites people have posted here, I think some question the validity because the theory and fact presented is extremely different from what they hold true and it so far from the main stream. But what we've proved with the news example is that being main stream doesn't equal truth.
post #15 of 22
Thread Starter 
If several private news sources are stating and claiming the same story in the same way I'd most likely consider it true

Couldn't all the of them be reporting info from the same source?? If so that doesn't help the credibility factor.
post #16 of 22
My apologies for those who have seen the first study already.



In the works

Bill O'Reilly

Hadn't heard this before...
post #17 of 22
After what just went down with the Washington Post, NY Times and the leaks straight from the mouth of Kenneth Starr (despite it being illegal) to these publications (which were printed to slander the Clinton administration but printed as factual evidence, which it was not), anything is possible.

Two names: Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass.

As it is said, tip of the iceberg.
post #18 of 22
Sorry, but that site is just sooo funny. The pictures are great.

Accd to Paul Belega (definately not a GWB fan, wrote "Its still the economy stupid" and "is our children learning?") Bush is not racist/exclusionary, just very comfortabel around people who are.

There is a funny Onion article related to this, though... something about there being an incorrect fact on the internet. Lots of people (online, IRL, etc...), take *anything* as fact!
post #19 of 22

Truth Stranger Than Fiction...

Remember how the satirical content of the article at WH.org that was linked in the OP struck revulsion in folks till they realized it was indeed satire?

Well...never underestimate the potential for life to imitate art: what the mind can conceive, can soon be perceived...in reality:


snip>>> "'We are trying to change the tone in the state capitals - and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship,' said Grover Norquist, a leading Republican strategist, who heads a group called Americans for Tax Reform.

*....And here is the kicker!!!!!!....* :

"Bipartisanship is another name for date rape, " Norquist, a onetime adviser to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said, citing an axiom of House conservatives." <<<end snip.

Yet another instance of these guys revealing repressed sexual proclivities? THIS is what is driving governance of this country now? And women think this is good?...and OK?

(I personally, don't see too much difference in the content of this article and the WH.org satire from the standpoint of "Wha-wha-whaaaaaat?", that it elicits. And what's more...is...it's REAL!)

Could this administration, RNC, or those quoted get any more blatant in the concepts and choice of words used to communicate and promote their agenda?

WWJD? WWFT? (What would Freud think?)

...Don't know...it just reminded me of the OP in this thread somehow, only worse and more twisted, because it's real...Joyce in the mts. (edited for spelling)
post #20 of 22
I haven't seen the site, but I did hear him say that he prayed for God to make him a better person.

Why won't she answer him?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism Archives