Americans, We Need a Butt Pirate in The White House!

mxguy01 wrote:

jimbo_xix wrote:...My point... <- are you referring to the one at the top of your head. Is it wrapped in tinfoil?
... silly fags ... <- I am what I enjoy eating.
... we are still second class citizens <- actually you realize that here and in many other developed countries, being gay makes you a "protected class"?
...the breeder's jack boot <- Dude, at least update your vernacular to the 90's. It's really hard to take you serious in the first place but with these kinds of phrases it's impossible.

Oh please, spare me the superficial ad hominem attacks because you can't address what I'm saying.

Jack boots are outdated? They're on sale at Nordtsroms right now. Lol.

jimbo_xix wrote:

mxguy01 wrote:

jimbo_xix wrote:...My point... <- are you referring to the one at the top of your head. Is it wrapped in tinfoil?
... silly fags ... <- I am what I enjoy eating.
... we are still second class citizens <- actually you realize that here and in many other developed countries, being gay makes you a "protected class"?
...the breeder's jack boot <- Dude, at least update your vernacular to the 90's. It's really hard to take you serious in the first place but with these kinds of phrases it's impossible.

Oh please, spare me the superficial ad hominem attacks because you can't address what I'm saying.

Jack boots are outdated? They're on sale at Nordtsroms right now. Lol.

I wouldn't know as I googled it and they look fag-ish to me. I guess that explains your liking them. Queens like you are why gay stereotypes exist while The Man is after us all trying to take us down.

^ - in case you didn't catch it, I'm mimicking your interactions with others. See, sounds just pain moronic right?

jimbo_xix wrote:Oh please, spare me the superficial ad hominem attacks because you can't address what I'm saying.

Dude, your go-to is to ridiculously and wrongly denigrate the people who disagree with you as ditzy fems.

jimbo_xix wrote:

Brenden wrote:I thought you were a socialist.

I'm a realist first.

You're a "realist" who prefers a representative candidate who stands no chance of winning? Over an actually socialist candidate who does stand a chance of winning, for the first time in American history?

Brenden wrote:

jimbo_xix wrote:Oh please, spare me the superficial ad hominem attacks because you can't address what I'm saying.

Dude, your go-to is to ridiculously and wrongly denigrate the people who disagree with you as ditzy fems.

I've been on this site for a couple of months. I've tried to discuss political issues of importance to the gay community. There is a little crew here who just display bored apathy every time I try to talk politics. That's what the Brazilian guy tried to do on this thread, as he has on every thread where I try to discuss politics since I've been here. I was even told by one poster who used the imperial "we", that "we" will not tolerate my views on certain issues. Gay people are not a monolith. It seems as if they're saying there is only one correct gay opinion on these issues. My thread on whether asexuality is relevant to LGBT rights was moved to the "Wasteland".

I don't live in Nome Alaska. I'm in LA/Hollywood, one of the most progressive cities for queer rights. I've been active in the movement since college in the 1970's. I know that many gay males are apathetic and apolitical. We have to get off our asses and stand up for our community.

jimbo_xix wrote:I'm in LA/Hollywood

So you’re telling me we share the same oxygen? Goddamnit.

poolerboy0077 wrote:

jimbo_xix wrote:I'm in LA/Hollywood

So you’re telling me we share the same oxygen? Goddamnit.

Yeah, you sucked my dick through a glory hole once.

All the old gays in Chicago—and there are lots—have his placards and lawn signs.

It's really shaken my belief that we're brighter than the heterosexuals.

Sullivan wrote:All the old gays in Chicago—and there are lots—have his placards and lawn signs.

It's really shaken my belief that we're brighter than the heterosexuals.

It's identity politics. He doesn't have a chance of winning the nomination. But he's important in that he's the first out gay man to seriously seek the nomination.

I know what it is. Which is why

Sullivan wrote:It's really shaken my belief that we're brighter than the heterosexuals.

You were welcome to read between the lines.

jimbo_xix wrote:

Brenden wrote:

jimbo_xix wrote:Oh please, spare me the superficial ad hominem attacks because you can't address what I'm saying.

Dude, your go-to is to ridiculously and wrongly denigrate the people who disagree with you as ditzy fems.

I've been on this site for a couple of months. I've tried to discuss political issues of importance to the gay community. There is a little crew here who just display bored apathy every time I try to talk politics. That's what the Brazilian guy tried to do on this thread, as he has on every thread where I try to discuss politics since I've been here. I was even told by one poster who used the imperial "we", that "we" will not tolerate my views on certain issues. Gay people are not a monolith. It seems as if they're saying there is only one correct gay opinion on these issues. My thread on whether asexuality is relevant to LGBT rights was moved to the "Wasteland".

I don't live in Nome Alaska. I'm in LA/Hollywood, one of the most progressive cities for queer rights. I've been active in the movement since college in the 1970's. I know that many gay males are apathetic and apolitical. We have to get off our asses and stand up for our community.

Disagreement ≠ apathy. Your asexuality thread wasn't a discussion. You rarely want to discuss topics so much as spew ridiculous vitriol.

Because Los Angeles gays are totally representative and what you "know" about them totally applies to us on this forum.

Buttigieg came out in the debates. I’m now compelled to vote for Kevin Hart just to own the Hollywood gays.

Sullivan wrote:You were welcome to read between the lines.

A disdain for blacks who fawned over Obama? Got it.

American Women's suffrage started in 1890 and it took 40 years for them to get the right to vote.

I agree jimbo_xix and others hear that we need to support gay "identity politics".

NvM wrote:American Women's suffrage started in 1890 and it took 40 years for them to get the right to vote.

I agree jimbo_xix and others hear that we need to support gay "identity politics".

What events occurred in 1890 and 1930 that give you this timeline?

poolerboy0077 wrote:A disdain for blacks who fawned over Obama? Got it.

I'm white and, in the US, have only ever lived in Boston and Chicago.

I think that makes me racist by default.

Derek wrote:What events occurred in 1890 and 1930 that give you this timeline?

try that google or wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s ... ted_States

NvM wrote:

Derek wrote:What events occurred in 1890 and 1930 that give you this timeline?

try that google or wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s ... ted_States

From that article:

The first national suffrage organizations were established in 1869 […]

Women's suffrage in the United States of America, the legal right of women to vote, was established over the course of more than half a century, first in various states and localities, sometimes on a limited basis, and then nationally in 1920.

So that's 51 not 40 years and it began in 1869 not 1890.