Harvey Weinstein: Another Good Liberal...

[Cow Poke]

This is about me, isn't it?

You're the ......

but you knew that!

[RumTumTugger]

I think that having a different opinion on homosexuality than I have, for the christian, is the same as wanting to oppress them.

Then, Jiml we can say that atheists like you who have a different opinion then we do are trying to oppress us. That knife cut both ways.

[ke7ejx]

Run along, boy, ya bother me!

img_3508.jpg

[JimL]

Then, Jiml we can say that atheists like you who have a different opinion then we do are trying to oppress us. That knife cut both ways.

No, actually you can't say that rummytumtum, because no one trying to oppress how you live your private lives or discriminate against you, or deny you the same rights afforded to them. That knife only cuts one way, and you are the wielder of it.

[ke7ejx]

No, actually you can't say that rummytumtum, because no one trying to oppress how you live your private lives or discriminate against you, or deny you the same rights afforded to them. That knife only cuts one way, and you are the wielder of it.

You clearly have no idea. Christians get a lot of flack in this country and many are saying in editorials that Christianity should be outlawed in the United States. Educate yourself before you spout off stupidity.

[Tassman]

"We"? Anybody with a brain would take from it...

A) exactly what I have said, and proven -- that you posted a false statement, I corrected it, you pushed back, and we were off to the races!
2) you are an anti-Christian bigot who lets your hatred of evangelicals blind you to actual facts
3) you jump to idiotic and false conclusions, again, due to your extreme anti-Christian bigotry
D) you find it impossible to ever admit you made an error - a simple, "oh, you're right, I should have said...." would have ended this a long time ago
5) you are an emotional basket case who abandons all reason and logic



Answered in the very post to which you responded.



Only after external forces made it political untenable for the relationship to remain. Had those external forces not caused the separation, we have no way of knowing if NAMBLA would still be part of ILGA today.



Answered in the very post to which you responded, and probably due to the fact that you are neck deep in tar yourself.



Very much and quite often - you are developing quite a track record of being wrong. Case in point - your throwing of Rosendall under the bus even though he was one of you, because your anti-Christian bias caused you to believe that I would only bring him up if he was some kind of pervert. You're a sicko, Trumpman.



OK, Trumpman, at this point, if we were standing face to face, I'd be really tempted to punch your lights out, because you're acting like a detestable little scumbag reprobate who keeps making the same idiotic false accusation over and over, accusing me of something I have never claimed, and have already declared otherwise.

You have, indeed, become everything you hate about Trump. You think Trump is a pathological liar? You are becoming Trump.

Waiting.

[Cow Poke]

Already answered, numerous times. I can't help it if you're too ignorant to see that.

Waiting.

You gonna pitch another little walleyed hissyfit, Trumpman?

[Tassman]

Then, Jiml we can say that atheists like you who have a different opinion then we do are trying to oppress us. That knife cut both ways.

Problem is there isn't a poster in this thread like that.

CP for one!

[Tassman]

Already answered, numerous times. I can't help it if you're too ignorant to see that.

You gonna pitch another little walleyed hissyfit, Trumpman?

Charming! Gotta love the Christians.

[Cow Poke]

CP for one!

Awwwww, poor widdle Trumpman got hid widdle feewins huwt.

[Cow Poke]

Already answered numerous times - read the thread.

Am I wrong?

Profoundly and frequently.

[Adrift]

Let's nip this nearly 1400 post thread in the bud,

CP's purpose in detailing the early relationship between ILGA and NAMBLA was to correct your assertion that "The International LBGT Association rejected NAMBLA's membership" as though that were the beginning and end of the story. Nothing more, and nothing less.

My impression is that you are trying to tar homosexuals with the same brush as the despised pedophiles.

Everyone who has read this thread from the beginning is well aware that this is your impression. You've repeated it numerous times. Absolutely no one who has read this thread is confused about this being your takeaway.

Am I wrong?

CP has stated both implicitly and explicitly that, yes, you are wrong.

Satisfied?

[Cow Poke]

Let's nip this nearly 1400 post thread in the bud,



CP's purpose in detailing the early relationship between ILGA and NAMBLA was to correct your assertion that "The International LBGT Association rejected NAMBLA's membership" as though that were the beginning and end of the story. Nothing more, and nothing less.



Everyone who has read this thread from the beginning is well aware that this is your impression. You've repeated it numerous times. Absolutely no one who has read this thread is confused about this being your takeaway.



CP has stated both implicitly and explicitly that, yes, you are wrong.

Satisfied?

And all God's people said amen.

[Tassman]

Already answered numerous times - read the thread.

WHY you detailed the early relationship between ILGA and NAMBLA? Link please.

There is no

CP's purpose in detailing the early relationship between ILGA and NAMBLA was to correct your assertion that "The International LBGT Association rejected NAMBLA's membership" as though that were the beginning and end of the story. Nothing more, and nothing less.

[Adrift]

WHY you detailed the early relationship between ILGA and NAMBLA? Link please.

He explained this all the way back in post #980. He reiterated this a number of times, but in his latest post #1302 he reiterated it again, stating,

"You were unsuccessfully trying to make it sound like NAMBLA applied for membership in ILGA, and ILGA rejected that membership. Didn't happen that way."

There is no

Again, you've made this impression of yours perfectly clear. No one is questioning whether or not this is a view you hold. We've heard you loud and clear. Message received.

Tell me where I said that "The International LGBT Association rejected NAMBLA's membership".

That would be all the way back in post #497

"The International LBGT Association rejected NAMBLA's membership."

If you say so (though the beginning of this thread doesn't really bear that out). Anyhow, any more questions or are we good now? Can we move on to the topic of the OP?