angustia

What I find tasteless is some people, including some victims' families who would seek the opportunity to use the ads depicting the site of tragedy of their purported loved ones to become tools of dirty campaign smear-tactics. Sort of makes me think of the words, "cashing in"...sorry but that's just what popped in my head! And what I find tasteless is some Democrats who would take advantage of these grieving families and either induce, incite, stir or whatever to get them to see..and speak of the situation in a different...and negative perspective. The issue is about TASTELESSness and VULGARITY. And the ones I see showing these characteristics are those anti-Bush who are trying to use all the grieving families in a dirty political campaign. Kinda replace the memory of what the Twin Tower tragedy now symbolize with crass....reducing any forms of dignity and consolation a grieving widow or parent may feel to crass! Who's doing the salt-rubbing here? Gee I suddenly have an image of Kerry doing a theatrical medal-stomping jig....(not his own medal, from what I heard).... Anyway, what is wrong about Bush using the site? The tragedy happened on his watch....he responded to that situation (and whether we agree or disagree on his method of response is not the issue). Even some critics had grudgingly acknowledged that he handled that catastrophic incident well. So anyone seeking a job cannot point out his qualities on his resume if it involved any tragedy at all?

Excerpts from: Our 9/11 The attacks happened to us all. BY DEBRA BURLINGAME Monday, March 8, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST Note: Ms. Burlingame, a life-long Democrat, is the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame, III, captain of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110004787

The Bush administration is run, not on sound policy grounded in reality, but by an almost religious devotion to ideaology, perpetuated by a small cabal of appointees and puppetmasters whose goal is nothing short of acheiving total military, economic and political dominance by whatever means necessary. Who's this high-ranking eye-witness? I missed his name....

Because I posted whole articles plus no url. It goes against the copyright thingy.

You see, Angustia, you yourself have been fooled by the article in question. Have you ever heard of the famous quote from Voltaire: ":"I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." I support the right for Nazis to state their views, but it doesn't mean I support Nazis. You seem to equate supporting a group's right to free expression with supporting the goals of that group. Articles like the one you posted purposely blur the line, making it sound like someone supports the goals of the group their advocating for. It's intellectually dishonest. But luckily, most intelligent people don't fall for these simple dirty tricks any more. Well, your statement was misleading. When you say "to be a NAMBLA supporter"....that statement is all encompassing. That statement does imply that you do support the views and goals of NAMBLA. Add your very first sentence in that same post..."I'm in favour of rights for pedophilies, too" which is a confirmation and another sweeping statement. I have been fooled by your statements then.....for apparently what you stated was very much different from what you meant....or want to convey. You should have made it clear, "what's it like to support NAMBLA's freedom of expression." For then I would agree with you that they have the right to state their views...and that which you support is that right to be able to state one's view. There is a big difference in meaning between "What's it like to be a NAMBLA supporter" and "What's it like to support NAMBLA's rights to state their views." Hay, was not merely fighting for the rights of NAMBLA to be heard...he was fighting for their goals and beliefs as well, which he obviously and admittedly shared.

Gay marriage was legalized in Denmark since 1989 and much of Scandanavia shortly thereafter. First let me address this statement with this info: From:Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 10:37:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Rex Wockner <[email protected]> http://www.grd.org/grd/world/misc/worldwid...ockner-04.28.95]wockner I am very busy lately so it may take some time for me to post the other sources since it will involve searches again (I didn't bookmark them).

That still makes you a pedophile, doesn't it. Fear of being shunned, ridiculed or whatever else a gay might be afraid does not justify victimizing and hurting others. It does not justify crimes. That reasoning is too self-centered...and quite preposterous, don't you think?

Basing it on that very statement....yes. That's precisely what you're saying, isn't it? Why? Because they don't support your views? The same thing could be said for other articles that promotes, endorse, and support other issues then. These articles didn't merely spout off a claim....they've provided sources as well where they've based their claim. Will the UN issue such drastic methods if there was no proof to their allegations? To be a NAMBLA supporter means that you support their cause...and that therefore you believe in it. It means you approve, support and believe in the very meaning of the word "NAMBLA", that there should be an open season for the children to be molested by anyone. If you support NAMBLA...then that makes you a supporter of NAMBLA. If you support Nazi...tthen you''er a supporter of Nazis. If you support Communism...then that makes you a supporter of Communism. Can you please expand on that.

Giving in to homosexual's demand for marriage means opening the gates for other deviants. Once a precedent is made, there's no stopping others. THAT is the concern here.

Just for clarification... No one is saying that homosexuals are all pedophiles. No one is saying that all homosexuals are criminals. The issue here is that there is a valid cause for concern, that is, if one is not merely ignoring the issue being addressed....nor being overly protective of a group at the expense of others (in this case, the children). True that this concern means opposing the marriage demand by gays....but the issue posted above is still a valid cause for concern nonetheless. This issue of co-relation between pedophilia and homosexuality will always turn up, whether we like it or not....for there are research findings and stats that do make it factual. I would like to emphasize that these stats do not indicate that therefore all homosexuals are pedophiles. My concern does not rely on those research findings and stats alone. One of these days, I will post those sources to back up my claim.

Re: Gay Rights founder's association with NAMBLA From: Red Roots of Gay Movement by Cliff Kincaid Media Monitor From:Communists and homosexuals Accuracy in Media | February 13, 2003 | Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/845229/posts Father of 'Gay Rights' Dies; Media Ignore NAMBLA Connection 10/30/2002 By Peter J. LaBarbera http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledis...goryid=cfreport Dealing With Attacks by Homosexual Groups By Paul M. Weyrich CNSNews.com Commentary May 16, 2003 http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=...M20030516b.html

Sorry this is out of topic. How do I get the URL, or to put the link so you can click and check out the rest of the article?

Black Dog, I would gladly prove it....however, being new to this board and having had my whole topic deleted and removed....am I allowed to post articles and sources of information backing my claim? If I am allowed, I will post them on a new thread. Btw, I am a Canadian from Ottawa and the National Post is one of the leading newspapers in Ottawa, along with the Ottawa Citizen.

'Gay marriage' is not about 'rights' David Limbaugh February 27, 2004 Proponents of traditional values are making a tactical error in allowing the homosexual lobby to frame the issue of same-sex marriage merely as one of equal rights for gays. Much more is at stake. Let me raise a few questions. Do you believe that marriage is properly an institution between a man and a woman? Do you believe marriage, so defined, is an indispensable building block of our society? If you answered yes to these questions, do you believe that there is something wrong with you for wanting to preserve an institution that you believe is essential for society? Are you a homophobe? Are you full of hate? ** ADMIN -- The remainder of this post has been removed due to copyright infringment. ** The article can be found at http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?...RTICLE_ID=37331

Who sez homosexuals do not have the right to marry? Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals as far as marriage is concerned! They can marry anytime....provided they adhere to the definition of marriage...that it be a union between man and woman. If the homosexual does not want to marry an opposite sex...then that is his choice in not using his right. No one took his right to marry away from him.

I must say that I know NOT ALL homosexuals are pedophiles. And that fact had been stated in the research findings and statistics that was taken off the board. However, that doesn't alter the fact that a small group is OVER-REPRESENTED in child-molesting or pedophilia-related crimes...and obviously the statistics on those crimes are accurate for they've been reported and documented. The Gay Community should be concerned about this more than anyone else....for not only is there something definitely very wrong with this picture, but that this issue will keep on turning up like a bad penny and will hurt the image that they're trying to polish. Just the Church Scandals of the Catholic and Anglicans alone speak for itself and shows the glaring truth about the co-relation between pedophilia and homosexuality (the percentages shown that majority of child molesting were done to boys, and only a fraction involved girls)....not to mention how media is very much slanted with their reporting. I have good friends who are homosexuals while I was in college and therefore have been introduced to other gays. Some of the gays I was introduced to had "teen protegees", who were either seduced or lured with money. Therefore, we should expect a surge in male child prostitution as well when the age for sexual consent is lowered and validated and endorsed...and ultimately approved by the public. I do understand the need for legal protection among homosexual couples whose only wish is to have the same legal security enjoyed by the heterosexuals. But if that is so, why then are they opposing the term "civil union" or any other terms that they may come up with if that civil union will entitle them the same benefits and privileges? Why insist on the changing the definition of an already defined word, marriage being that it is a union between a man and a woman? Not only is that destroying an institution sacred to some religious groups....but absurd if one can just go about changing and twisting definitions. Would the Gay community perhaps acquiesced if the pedophiles would wish to be called homosexuals later on so as to enjoy the benefits one would get from being a homosexual....for the word pedophile does indeed have a very negative meaning. As a heterosexual I resent the fact that this minority group would want to play bully and take away from me.....just for the sole purpose of proving a point. For if indeed one truly feels pride over being gay....is it not only more symbolical and more meaningful for gays to come up with their own word that would aptly describe the union between same sexes?

I've got some serious concern about this: 1. The Father of the Gay Rights Movement was very much associated with NAMBLA til the day he died. He fought for NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association), which is a pedophile group. 2. The Gay Rights Movement, among other things is demanding that the age of sexual consent be lowered. Now, what does that have to do with gay rights? Who will benefit from that if not pedophiles? Are they demanding this on behalf of the pedophiles? There's also the thorny issue about the co-relation between pedophilia and homosexuality, according to research findings and stats that I posted separately....which unfortunately got deleted and taken off the board. 3. As recently as year 2000, ILGA (Inetrnational Lesbian and Gay Association) was not re-admitted to the United Nations for ILGA was not cooperative in proving to the UN that they have purged their ties with pedophile groups. 4. The use of our public schools in teaching our children that it's okay to be promiscious, commit adultery with homosexuals, etc.. (There was a commentary issued on the Nationa Post , leading newspaper in Ottawa about this) 5. The wide-swept propaganda and endorsement...and the scary thing is that, there seems to be some "censorship" in the media on anything that is said that could offend the gay community...even if the concern is valid and seeking some answers. So, there's more to this than meets the eye. I'm very much concerned that we might open up another Pandora's box.

Brace yourself. Pedophiles will want the same rights accorded to gays. The Gay Rights Movement had been associated with NAMBLA (a leading pedophile group)...in fact statistics and research findings show that there is a co-relation between homosexuals and pedophiles. The two groups may be working closely together to achieve the goal of repealing laws and thus open the gate for freedom for all kinds of perversions. Where do we draw the line?