Quote from Billy

You didn't see me cry about censorship on this thread, I believe that was you and Tera trying to censor and silence Osho who obviously don't care what you two think.

With every freedom comes responsibility- and with every action or inaction comes consequence.

Quote from Billy

You miss the point again which isn't unlike you.
Maybe if I speak v-e-r-y sl-o-w-l-y

Your tits have as much to do with anti-misandry as opposing the homosexual agenda does. This site allows for a multitude of topics and fortunately nobody has to ask if Terror approves.

You're quite right. My approval is not necessary. Nor is your approval necessary in order for me to present my views.

Quote from Billy

You didn't see me cry about censorship on this thread, I believe that was you and Tera trying to censor and silence Osho who obviously don't care what you two think.

That's what I mean about "crying about censorship." Neither Tera nor I tried to censor or silence anyone. You accuse us of such just because we dare to disagree with you and the mighty Ohso.

And I don't care what you or Ohso think. I care about attracting people not consumed with your hatred to the cause of anti-misandry.

Quote from Billy

Homophobia is one of those politically correct terms to shame people from talking about homosexual perversions

So what are homosexual perversions?

As I used the term homophobia as well, and if you read to some of Ohsos posts we learn that
- gays stage many of the hate crimes against them
- that many of the nazi prison camps were run by gays
- that allowing gay marriage is something akin to handing a drink to alcoholics (as if homosexuality is a disease)

These posts mirror the notion of radical feminists, only that the target is not men, but men who do not have the right kind of sexuality. How do you call that?

Quote from Billy

You didn't see me cry about censorship on this thread, I believe that was you and Tera trying to censor and silence Osho who obviously don't care what you two think.

How can members without admin rights censor anyone? They can´t. They can however voice there opinion.

Quote from Billy

You miss the point again which isn't unlike you.
Maybe if I speak v-e-r-y sl-o-w-l-y

Your tits have as much to do with anti-misandry as opposing the homosexual agenda does. This site allows for a multitude of topics and fortunately nobody has to ask if Terror approves.

Well, also nobody has to ask if Billy (or Ohso) approves, right?

Dear Lurkers:

With the recent increase in attacks on this and related threads by some of the self appointed Thought Police of this website, I thought a generic response to You - The Lurking Public, appropriate to the case.

Most of those dive bombing these threads I have already filtered in response to their ad-hominem (against the person - not the topic) attacks against me, in retaliation for posting rational, reasonable, logical, fact based, intellectually and morally valid viewpoints...

- About subjects which they want Censored Completely - save where they alone control the terms and conditions of any alleged 'discussion.'

Misandry - we are told, does Not Include addressing Issues they do not want discussed, or facts they do not approve of, and thus are out of bounds to anyone - or at least ought to be...

- And if filling up a message thread with shrieking harpy hissy fits of tantrum theater will help disrupt the discussion (or even shut it down) then such BAMN BAMN (Bash Men, By Any Means Necessary) tactics are fully politically justified; at least according to the only politics they endorse, and thus the only ones permitted.

Some of these Harpies have long been in residence here, and some showed up almost as if they were homing in on yours truly - one even launching demands for removal of your correspondent from the system before the ink on their own membership certificate had even dried.

There is a tremendous, and coordinated push worldwide by the Thought Police to seize control of the lines of communication (Lenin recommended seizing the telegraph stations as the first act of the revolution) and banish any opposing viewpoints or Ungood facts that might expose the Lies that they are pushing; using the same type sense of panic driven emergency dictates that led an earlier Weimar German Republic to turn itself over to the National Homo-Socialist Fascism of the third reich.

Edmund Burke once said that "All that is required for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing."

Speaking out Against Evil, including Misandry, is now being defined as Thought Crime - and it is the Issue of Our Day.

Letting the Resident Harpies silence the voices of reason by dint of their shrill squawking only plays in to the hands of such evil, and will simply not do.

Ohso.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

Quote from Ohso

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Dear Lurkers:
Most of those dive bombing these threads I have already filtered in response to their ad-hominem (against the person - not the topic) attacks against me, in retaliation for posting rational, reasonable, logical, fact based, intellectually and morally valid viewpoints...

Talk about projection! I would love to have a reasonable fact-based discussion of the topics Ohso brings up but I don't see how that's possible with someone who answers every criticism with a long ad-hom rant. But then observing the bounds of civil debate would be "censorship" and "trying to control the discussion."

Ohso, there has never been a discussion in your posts, like the other forum were you seem to be posting in this seems to be an endless ranting of one person. What you can see now happening is the start of a discussion where people are raising a different opinion. Your reaction to the opposing posts is quite ironic as your complains about censorship and thought police are simple tries to silence the opposing viewpoint.

Quote from Ohso

in retaliation for posting rational, reasonable, logical, fact based, intellectually and morally valid viewpoints...

I had to laugh after reading this, but well....this is some of the stuff one can read in your posts without offering facts:

- radical homosex activists stage so many phony 'hate crimes'
- most violent crime committed against effeminate homosexuals is likely perpetrated by "ubermenchen" militant "gay" pederasts.[...]For the record, acts of "gay" violence have often been unjustly stamped on the backs of the so-called "straight" community by a mostly naive and often complicit media.
- Many of the Nazi prison camps were run by homosexuals
- The homosexual condition itself is an objective disorder (ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil, that of homosexual behaviour)

So please, give us the facts, were are they?

Dear Lurkers,

Forgive in advance any spelling mistakes, grammatical errors or typo's I might make while I sit bleary-eyed typing this in the early hours of the morning, but I just wanted to say one thing before I hit the sack:

I WOULD GAY GUYS TO THE MEN'S MOVEMENT WITH OPEN ARMS.

One of my best mates is gay and he would be thrilled by this site.
He is easily as anti-feminist as I am and we've spent hours trying to plot their demise. It really wouldn't surprise me if he is on here already to be honest.

So, any lurkers who are either gay or are deterred from joining the Men's Movement becasue of threads such as this... PAY NO MIND!

Don't be put off by Pinky and The Brain!

The sexual orientation of an individual is about as big an issue as the colour of their eyes.
Gay men are, first and foremost, men... and are not unaffected by modern society's male gender persecution.

If any are reading this... your support and contribution would be greatly appreciated and welcomed.

Quote from Billy

Homosexuals today have every right and in fact they have special class protection that the average white boy don't have.. White males can be fired for any reason, be careful not to fire women or homos though.


So good of you to fight for homo rights when they have more than I do as a white heterosexual male. Oh wait I suppose because we haven't changed the definition of marriage somehow means they have less rights now?

Freaking liberal wackos

Billy first of all I am not a liberal I am a libertarian. Look it up if you don't know the difference, if you're still confused after that let me know and I'll try to explain.

Gays are not a protected minority in most of the United States, maybe in your state. I am not in favor of protected minority status, myself. I think everyone should be hired and fired on their own merits not based on any group they belong to and I support efforts to end any form of reverse discrimination. Of course, that means that you as a heterosexual, white man, which I also am, get fired because of your own incompetence or bad attitude you need to accept that, and not assume that someone else is to blame.

Marriage has been redefined thousands of times. In the Old Testament from which you get your obscure, isolated passages condemning homosexuality, masturbation, and eating shellfish, marriage was one very rich man and as many women as he could afford. Ordinary men were left out of the picture to an even greater extent than in present day society.

Quote from Billy

Quote from Feckless

These posts mirror the notion of radical feminists, only that the target is not men, but men who do not have the right kind of sexuality. How do you call that?

Oh you didn't mean that? Feminist are all for turning men gay. Gays are fem friendly.

Do you have any evidence of that? How many gay men do you know? What statistics do you have proving that the majority of them are "fem friendly"? Do you know of even one case in the real world of feminists "turning a man gay?" I do know that there are some feminists who try to turn women into lesbians, so that they can become separatists and celebrate their mutual hostility to men. This is as despicable as you and Ohso trying to force gay people to become straight. I know some real lesbians who are not man-haters who also find turning straight women gay based on their hatred of men despicable. While gay women in general are not natural allies of the men's movement (unlike gay men who are very natural allies) these lesbians who are offended by man-haters trying to co-opt their identity do have some common ground with us that those of us who don't hate them can use to our advantage.

Quote from Billy

Censorship is the suppression of speech
That they attempted and you don't have to be a Mod to suppress speech if you are trying to silence someone.

And nobody's speech was suppressed. You keep posting, Ohso keeps posting, and none of your posts have been deleted. You have not been threatened with death or with prison. You have just had your views criticized. If that feels like censorship to you, God forbid you should ever have to face real censorship.

Quote from Billy

You can defend liberals all you want but I defend male members here first, just like I would defend you if Tera jumped on you the way she has Popadibs, Zuberi, Osho, CD and a host of others with her name calling, shaming tactics and hypocritical BS.. It's nice to know where you stand.

As I said before I am not a liberal and I am a man. I am a heterosexual man, so is Male Perspective, so is Feckless. I know you and Ohso do not consider anyone who disagrees with you to be Real Men but I would like to know what makes either of you worthy to decide. Oh yes, and Tera/Incognito is a woman but so what? Should we not defend her when she is right and side against her with men who are wrong just because she is a woman and they are men? Another example of feminist thinking in reverse.

Scum-Conventional Thinking

"The Men's Auxiliary of SCUM" - (Society for Cutting Up Men) is discussed by author Christina Hoff Sommers in her book "Who Stole Feminism", along with its founder - Dyke Icon Valerie Solanas. The reluctance of many alleged MRA's to acknowledge let alone discuss the types of Separatist / Exterminationist Misandry that defines what being a true "Dyke" is about, and avoidance of considering the consequences of the takeover by Dykes in the 'Leadership' of the Radical Gender Feminist political power structure...

- in turn leads to huge gaps in exposing and addressing Real Misandry, which is a whole lot more than a few Hollyweird beer commercials showing men kicked in the crotch for fun; or as broadcast during one 'super bowl' - trained attack dogs lunging for male genitals.

Anywayyyy... Solanas (Still very much a current Icon to Dykes, and who once emptied a pistol in to pop artist andy warhole in a bid for fame and was dissed when he wouldn't press charges to give hyr a media show trial, and then later offed hyrself) described the types of Men that were doing a good job in promoting the campaign to exterminate all other Men - also known amongst the Twysted Systerhood as rape prevention work.

Special Mention is given in the SCUM Manifesto to those (homo-anal males): "who, by their shimmering, flaming example, encourage others to de-man themselves and thereby make themselves relatively inoffensive.”

Hence - I submit that if naught else this provides independent corroboration, from a deeply opposing viewpoint (shared World-Dyke-Wide) that promoting homo-anal coprophile behaviors is seen and encouraged as a great Misandrist positive by those who Most Hate Men and Boys...

- Which BTW is also what a lot of knowledgeable people opposed to Misandry also say the facts clearly show; although clearly they should keep shut about it if it upsets the Radical Homosex Thought Police on these boards.

Still - That these opposing camps agree on such facts contrasts greatly with the smarmy spin pushed by pro-homosex propagandists who want to disguise the Pathology inherent in Behaviors such as Ephebophilia, Coprophilia... mostly through substitution of sanitized misleading 'happy' euphemisms for Behaviors they dare not discuss openly.
The SCUM Manifesto at least recognizes Homosex Behaviors for the harm it causes to Boys and Men and applauds the effort.

Contrast this open frankness of stated intent to cause maximum harm in the name of Misandry - with those who want to disrupt this Topic of the Radical Homosex Attack on Boys - by use of whining in shimmering flaming rainbow rants full of carefully sanitized euphemisms welcoming 'happy sexuality'...

- And Avoiding the Topic of Harm to Boys by instead focusing (as trained SCUM Auxiliaries are supposed to) on politically trashing Ungood people suffering from "Ism-Obia" - who are obviously the only ones who could 'wrongly' object to pushing such Evil on Boys as Coprophile Buggery at the Back End of the Road.

By Contrast - One of the more interesting aspects of the AM Board is the proliferation of topics / posts about Heterosexual Women who sexually abuse Boys, and of course the split between those who see it as fulfilling a boy's fantasy, versus Rape - Statutory or Other. Upon examination one soon finds there is a third rail to this track, and it involves promoting Heterosexual Animosity between Men and Women.

As remarked before, some posters on this site are simply angry at an Ex or the Entire Sex, and looking to stir up an Us versus Them fight, if only to feed their own anger with that of the crowd. Others however have a different reason if similar approach to trashing Heterosexual Complimentarity. These radicals are Not content to push Homosex Hatreds and Perversions alone; they must also correspondingly attack debase and degrade Heterosexual Normalcy, like hissy fights between catty rivals at drag queen proms.

Hence - With the Attack on Boys (author Sommers also wrote "The War Against Boys" - maybe some day a Man will be able to publish a similarly titled work in the 'mainstream') there are different lines at work. Some want to directly indoctrinate Boys in to Homosex Behaviors (without actually mentioning the Coprophile Nature of the Behaviors in Public, which might discomfort their 'tolerant' allies); while others want to so trash Heterosexual Norms and Comity - so as to ward Boys Away from Girls at the outset...

- Kind of like Dyke Approved rape prevention, only for Girls Alone (who according to dogma are incapable of consenting anyway), and definitely not recognizing the Boys in any way As Victims.

But then to the Men's Auxiliary of SCUM (and allies) trying to shut down a thread about the Radical Homosex Attack on Boys, who don't seem to take similar offense at Threads about Hererosexual Women who Sexually Abuse Boys; the only Real Victims must be those oppressed by the 'Heterosex Patriarchy.'

Yup - Ole Valerie would have been proud of hyr boyz (and gyrls)- and particularly the way they treat the little pigs, er, um, uh - Boys.

Ohso
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
.................................................. ....................................

“SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) will kill all men who are not in the men's auxiliary of SCUM. Men in the men's auxiliary are those who are working diligently to eliminate themselves.

A few examples of men in the men's auxiliary are: Men who kill men… Journalists, writers, editors, publishers, producers who disseminate and promote ideas that will lead to the achievement of SCUM's goals;

faggots (*Solanas' Term 'Faggot' actually relates to homosex abuse victims in the English public schools) who, by their shimmering, flaming example, encourage others to de-man themselves and thereby make themselves relatively inoffensive.”
V. Solanas

The discriminatory 'Non-Discrimination Act' http://www.onenewsnow.com
Matt Barber - Guest Columnist - 12/3/2009

Today's Democratic leadership is a predictable lot. They've cornered the market on mass manipulation through semantic tinkering. It's a relatively easy code to crack. To decipher what Democrats mean versus what they say one need merely apply the "forked-tongue test."

If Dems say "Fairness Doctrine," expect unfairness in spades. When Harry Reid tags Obamacare the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," we know that the patient gets hosed, and the "care" breaks the bank. Indeed, if the 111th Congress were to pass the "No Kicking Fuzzy Puppies Act," bet your Obama tax hike that Nancy Pelosi would be first in line to punt Poochie across the Capitol Rotunda.

And so it goes with the characteristically mislabeled "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" or ENDA (S. 1584 in the Senate and H.R. 3017 in the House). According to its leftist proponents, ENDA – which is under consideration in both houses of Congress – would merely insulate people who choose to engage in homosexual conduct (sexual orientation) or those who suffer from gender confusion (gender identity) against employment discrimination. But in truth, this legislation would effectively codify the very thing it purports to combat: workplace discrimination.

ENDA would force – under penalty of law – Christian, Jewish, or Muslim business owners to hire people who unrepentantly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors, despite the fact that those volitional behaviors are in direct conflict with every major world religion, thousands of years of history, and uncompromising human biology.

This is no different than compelling a deeply religious business owner to hire and accommodate an "out and proud" adulterous "swinger." It's a direct assault on the inalienable rights of people of faith. It pits the government directly against the free exercise of religion and is, therefore, unconstitutional on its face.

During his second term, President Bush issued a Statement of Administration Policy on ENDA, pointing out its clearly unconstitutional nature. "[ENDA] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)," noted the statement. "The Act prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion except for compelling reasons, and then only in the least restrictive manner possible. [ENDA] does not meet this standard."

The fact that our current president both supports ENDA and prefers our sacred Constitution as potty paper for the aforementioned Poochie makes ENDA no less unconstitutional.

Chai Feldblum (pronounced "high" as in "stoned") is a lesbian activist and sexual anarchist attorney who supports legalized polygamy and bisexual polyamory. She has been nominated by President Obama to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
This is like having Michael Moore guard the donuts. In the past, Feldblum – ENDA's chief framer and, if confirmed, one of five commissioners charged with its enforcement – has candidly summed-up the mindset behind the bill.

Feldblum believes that the battle between religious freedom and unfettered sexual license (aka, "gay rights") is a "zero sum game," meaning that the two cannot possibly coexist in harmony. One must triumph over the other. (Guess who wins in her twisted analysis?)

When asked about the Christian business owner or religious organization that morally objects to hiring people openly engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, Feldblum snapped: "Gays win; Christians lose."

And where Americans' constitutionally guaranteed right to religious liberty comes into conflict with the postmodern concept of "gay rights," Feldblum has admitted having "a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win." Of course Feldblum's analysis is entirely arbitrary and completely unsupported by any reasonable constitutional interpretation or federal precedent.

In fact ENDA would – for the first time since the Constitutional Convention – extend special, federally preferred government status to individuals based upon a changeable and objectively aberrant sexual lifestyle,
rather than requiring that such status be delineated by immutable, non-behavioral characteristics such as skin color or gender.

Former Secretary of State Collin Powell put it well when he said, "Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument."

But Ken Hutcherson, a prominent, well-respected African-American pastor from the Seattle area, summed it up even better, stating rather incisively: "Don't compare your sin to my skin."

Quote from Billy

I don't care to educate you on homo perversians.

Well you brought it up in the first place....

I personally don't care what homos do in private but taking it into the streets and threatening to violate our kids is worthy of opposition.

Who is threatening to violate our kids? Men attracting to other men?

Quote from Billy

I don't know about that but the institution of Marriage was created by our creator. Redefining the terms of marriage should require his approval. The governments have interfered with marriage enough as it is.

So much that marriage can only be considered a stage marriage. Heck it isn´t even called marriage but civil union. They won´t even "marry" in church.

Quote from Billy

Oh you didn't mean that? Feminist are all for turning men gay. Gays are fem friendly.

Not all of them are.

Quote from Billy

I defend male members here first, just like I would defend you if Tera jumped on you

Because we have the same genitalia? Woopdeedooh now I do not have to fear all those bullying women anymore? That makes us penis-buddies right?

Quote from Billy

Haha clever..

But they wont read!

Well I do....

Quote from Ohso

promoting homo-anal coprophile behaviors is seen and encouraged as a great Misandrist positive by those who Most Hate Men and Boys...

I think you are confusing terms here. Homosexulity doesn´t equal coprohilia. You wouldn´t accuse a straight couple that has anal sex of being turned on by feces right?

Also, which is a common misconception, those men who have sex with children are most often straight (similar to those men raping other men in prison).

Homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are not synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature child’s qualities are more feminine than masculine...The child offender who is attracted to and engaged in adult sexual relationships is heterosexual. It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male.

-A. Nicholas Groth, William F. Hobson, and Thomas S. Gary, “The Child Molester: Clinical Observations,” in Social Work and Child Sexual Abuse, eds. Jon R. Conte and David A. Shore (New York: Haworth Press, 1982), p.136.

Besides that, your interpretation of Solanas is faulty. To say she was obsessed with rape woud be an understatement. What she means here is that gay men won´t rape women and are therefor "relatively inoffensive" not hurtful to men as you apparently think she does.

Quote from Ohso

Which BTW is also what a lot of knowledgeable people opposed to Misandry also say the facts clearly show; although clearly they should keep shut about it if it upsets the Radical Homosex Thought Police on these boards.

The irony here, to those who believe that homosexuality is a sickness, being attrackted to the same sex is indeed a thought crime.

Quote from Ohso

who want to disguise the Pathology inherent in Behaviors such as Ephebophilia, Coprophilia... mostly through substitution of sanitized misleading 'happy' euphemisms for Behaviors they dare not discuss openly.

Well you surely have data on this as you are a man of facts and logic, or are this just slogans?

Quote from Ohso

And Avoiding the Topic of Harm to Boys by instead focusing (as trained SCUM Auxiliaries are supposed to) on politically trashing Ungood people suffering from "Ism-Obia" - who are obviously the only ones who could 'wrongly' object to pushing such Evil on Boys as Coprophile Buggery at the Back End of the Road.

So you believe that acceptance of homosexuality is forcing boys to be attracted to men?

Quote from Ohso

With the Attack on Boys (author Sommers also wrote "The War Against Boys" - maybe some day a Man will be able to publish a similarly titled work in the 'mainstream') there are different lines at work.

Ohso, so you read the title of the book right? It is not about "turning boys into homosexuals" but about boys failing in our female centric school system.

Quote from Ohso

But then to the Men's Auxiliary of SCUM (and allies) trying to shut down a thread about the Radical Homosex Attack on Boys, who don't seem to take similar offense at Threads about Hererosexual Women who Sexually Abuse Boys; the only Real Victims must be those oppressed by the 'Heterosex Patriarchy.'

Hahaha you really like to put words into other peoples mouth, do you? I would take offense on those abuse threads if all women were painted as pedophiles as you apparently do with homosexuals which is my critque here. Interestingly the focus in this thread have never been boys or male victims but a group you deem dangerous to children.

Quote from Billy

Marriage has been redefined thousands of times. In the Old Testament from which you get your obscure, isolated passages condemning homosexuality, masturbation, and eating shellfish, marriage was one very rich man and as many women as he could afford. Ordinary men were left out of the picture to an even greater extent than in present day society.

you're incorrect on most everything you've said.

No, I'm not! Here's a link to the Bible passage referring to King Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a. Don't trust the internet though, look it up in your own Bible! What else could I be incorrect about? That the few passages about homosexuality come from the Old Testament? Paul might have made some indirect references to it but Jesus never did. No, I'm not a Christian, not claiming to be. I was raised a Catholic and could now best be described as a Deist, but if you want to claim to be a Christian you should at least try to live up to your own standards.

Quote from Billy

Do you have any evidence of that? How many gay men do you know? What statistics do you have proving that the majority of them are "fem friendly"? Do you know of even one case in the real world of feminists "turning a man gay?" I do know that there are some feminists who try to turn women into lesbians, so that they can become separatists and celebrate their mutual hostility to men. This is as despicable as you and Ohso trying to force gay people to become straight. I know some real lesbians who are not man-haters who also find turning straight women gay based on their hatred of men despicable. While gay women in general are not natural allies of the men's movement (unlike gay men who are very natural allies) these lesbians who are offended by man-haters trying to co-opt their identity do have some common ground with us that those of us who don't hate them can use to our advantage.


And nobody's speech was suppressed. You keep posting, Ohso keeps posting, and none of your posts have been deleted. You have not been threatened with death or with prison. You have just had your views criticized. If that feels like censorship to you, God forbid you should ever have to face real censorship.

As I said before I am not a liberal and I am a man. I am a heterosexual man, so is Male Perspective, so is Feckless. I know you and Ohso do not consider anyone who disagrees with you to be Real Men but I would like to know what makes either of you worthy to decide. Oh yes, and Tera/Incognito is a woman but so what? Should we not defend her when she is right and side against her with men who are wrong just because she is a woman and they are men? Another example of feminist thinking in reverse.

You're doing a lot of assuming here. You're showing your ignorance in many areas and this argument is not even worth the time.

Ohso made petty insults to my manhood by putting the words "he", "him", and "his" in scare quotes while referring to me. He made the same childish playground insult to Male-Perspective by referring to him as "Ms.Bigotted". I thought you were doing the same when you accused Feckless of defending "liberals" instead of "male members" as if the two couldn't be one in the same (and after you determined I was a "liberal" based on my opinion on ONE issue). If that's not what you meant you should have made yourself clearer. But okay, you got me ONE assumption. Where are the others?

Quote from Billy

Are you sure you're not ST's twin? Did I ever say you wasn't a man? I don't think so but now I am questioning that. Crack user too maybe?

yep that's it.. goin back to sleep.. I woke up and signed into the twilight zone.
Please Keep it down would you!

OK. I see you're out of points that you can pretend to call logical, so now you have nothing left but ad hominems (that means personal insults Billy Joe Bubba). Don't feel too bad, Ohso never had any logical points to begin with. At least you tried, however sad the attempt might be.

BTW, who is ST? Must be a genius if he or she agrees with me!

Quote from Ohso

Scum-Conventional Thinking

Special Mention is given in the SCUM Manifesto to those (homo-anal males): "who, by their shimmering, flaming example, encourage others to de-man themselves and thereby make themselves relatively inoffensive.”

Interesting how Ohso is now getting his "facts" from Valerie Solanas, one of the few people in recent history more hateful and deranged than he is. Funny how extremist hatemongers seem to think alike despite being on different parts of the political spectrum.