If true, this makes me sad.

I am not a liberal. I am a proud member of the We're All ****ed party.

He must have momentarily forgotten what a stupidasso you are and assumed you would actually get the obvious.

Stu,

You make that gay marriage thread in any other forum, say OOT, you are permabanned pretty damn quickly.

You even said this twice:

Funnily enough you didnt actually say why this is better given how many orphans are in the care system right now. To be fair you did cite one article that is based on a summary of a study that hasnt been released which sort of claims gay parents have gay children slightly more often than straight parents do, you just happened to ignore that the article even said that the studies conclusions could be faulty. When called out on it you ignored the criticism and moved on.

You also have this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

When pressed on why it is important to show straight marriage is 'more valuable' than gay marriage, or significantly why that is even important he ignored the criticism and moved on.

To risk using a poker example you may have shown that folding is better than raising but you refused to factor in calling.

His last exchange in that thread he started is about whether he is allowed to call gay people inferior:

The funny thing is i dont want to have these conservatives go away and fwiw to some degree they probably have a point about moderation. But it IS worth noting that the last ATF thread on politics was about Soul being bigoted about Muslims and got a one day ban, then Stu makes his thread where he is bigoted about homosexuals and he got exiled for a couple weeks for something entirely different but imo certainly deserved one for that thread.

If the forum was moderated fairly maybe i would rack up more than my one ban but it isnt like these super awesome conservatives wouldnt get banned for other stuff and they get a lot more rope in Politics than in a forum like OOT.

The idea of banning people for "attacking the views" of people when using terms like "invisible sky man" really cuts both ways when i can quickly pull together the above quotes. If using that term is worth a ban, what is the response to calling gay people inferior and arguing against them adopting children solely because of their sexuality? While 48% of Americans may agree with him as he claims, they are equally as wrong as him.

The purpose of the thread was to discuss freedom of the press. The OP asked if freedom of the press protected the paper from civil or criminal action for its blatant discrimination. Here is the Original Post.

The purpose of the thread was re-iterated in post 18.

This is the exchange were the thread became a thread about gay marraige.

So if I should be banned for making it then so should FlyWF and MrWookie. Because I made a thread about freedom of the press and those two insisted on making it a thread about gay marriage.

I hope you recognize that this isn't about me being exiled. I haven't once asked for a reprieve from that. This isn't about me being mad that I got exiled and immeadiately running to this forum to bitch. I got exiled on the 27th and started this thread on the 29th.

What this is about is the witchhunt and the abuse of conservatives that you allow to happen. Go read your ban list sticky...after I was pushed out your cabal started to circle around Nick...which is total B.S. You should be called out on it.

Fine, rephrase that from:
to:

Wow, aren't you hilarious.. Is the "T" silent?

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/10/29...-28-2010/70188

Well its obv true, look at these numbers. Its not even close. There is not one show on any other channel that even holds a candle to them, so every time I hear somebody bash it just makes me laugh - I mean most of the twice as many Americans are watching Fox that any other channel.

It simply proves liberals are louder, but when you see the numbers its shows what side Americans are really on. Cant wait till Tuesday, weeee!

I did get a good laugh from this thread: it was the part where Stu said in the "freedom of the press" thread that a person could at the same time think marriage is between a man and a woman and not hate gays.

it's not elliot's fault that liberals and libertarians are generally not bigots but many mainstream conservative tea party types are.

this is funny

So there was just as many racial slurs at this weekends liberal gathering as at the Tea Party meeting a while back?

How is this funny, last time I checked most Americans felt this way, I mean the liberal machine we call California did forcefully vote gay marriage down by wide margins, Are you telling me all those Californians hate gay people???? I somehow find that hard to believe

Why did this make you laugh?

It is entirely possible, imo.

Why is hatred assumed?

Liberals are always the ones who are obsessed with racial/ethnic diferences, the hate comes from your side partner!

And yet your side is always the one apologizing on the news about a few unfortunate slips.

hmmmmmmm, typical conservative bias in play here. I was ignorant of the fact that only real Americans watch FOX cable channels? Now if your claim is indeed true, then you should be able to post a link where your fav cable channel is THE most viewed of all, with higher numbers than the over the air broadcasters.

From what I could see, O'Reilly (the only FNC show) was the only one on the top 25 list. He does have a way with the white haired old ladies, or "the folks" as he calls them.

Right. Each of the network newscasts individually get triple the ratings of OReilly and something like 60 Minutes gets more than all of those newscasts combined.

Lol, of all the cable news channels FOX is in total domination, Every time slot all day everyday. Comparing network broadcasts? Thats lol, try comparing apples to apples bud, not everybody has cable hence the higher numbers of the network broadcasts overall.

Cable reaches something like 80% of households. That comes nowhere close to accounting for 10 times as many people watching a network newscast as watch O'Reilly.

Since when is it appropriate to compare network news vs cable news, Many many Americans dont have cable. Of the ones that dont they have nothing else to watch but network news as its on all channels across the board. However if they have cable they have nearly 100 channels to choose from. Of the cable news companies FOX dominates there competitors, its not even close in any time slot sir, not even close. The liberal channels MSNBC and CNN dont even hold a candle to FOX, to say they do is....... well........ funny

dude, your entire premise was valid 10 years ago. When people connected online using baud modems and telephone lines. For most a decision needed to be made whether to disconnect the connection to accept an incoming call. The "wealthy" had a second dedicated twisted pr phone line.

now almost everyone has cable, and not just basic cable. The ability to view ANY channel is almost limitless. The proof is in your conservative base, those who would be most inclined to not splurge on the wasteland that is 500 channel of stuff. They specifically subscribe to upper tier FNC, yet still most watch more network programming.

In my mind that's pretty close to saying, "Well, I don't hate black people, but I certainly shouldn't have to drink out of the same water fountain as they do."