YouTube account canceled

[Nynick81]

The only gays i support are hot lesbos.

You know it's funny I have an ex that turned lesbo years later. She's always talking about how her and her partner have been trying to get pregnant for so long. I keep trying to tell her, she's doing it all wrong. Lmao

[leroy]

RE:  The Civil War wuz about slavery??!!! That's the official narrative for the masses... 

 

I say "no"; not completely...  It wuz about the usual thing that war is about. ....Control of others.... .

 

There were pretty serious differences simmering between the northern and southern states as far back as Andrew Jackson's presidency; he, unlike Lincoln, solved them without a war.  These differences were largely about the cost of goods goin south vs north and tarriffs as i remember.   It was also about "nullification" (...interestin word aint it; heard it lately?...) of federal law by the individual states ALA John C. Calhoun (...check his bio out, interestin read...).

 

Slavery was a contributor to the war because of the slave state - free state thing.   The issue of slavery was an odious thing to any free people (...it should be...) and many didnt like the idea of buying, selling, and working your brothers and sisters as private property.   It was continually wrestled with in the United States legislature, courts, churches, and culture because of its odious nature; it's the problem of "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines thing.....  Slavery was a "hot button" issue of convenience to add another dimension to the real causes of the civil war.   It was "in the news" in other places (...the British Empire...) and had been recently abolished there (...1833...); by peaceful means, i might add.   Here in the united states; the usual demigogues in politics used the issue to their collective advantage to involk some degree lo legititmacy to the union cause. 

 

The civil war wuz about the usual stuff....  Decide to impose your will on your brother while pretending to be freeing someone else (...sounds like modern times with afganistan and other places to me.....) ..... Remember this; the civil war started in 1861.  The emancipation proclamation wuz signed in 1863....  More than that; there were slaves freed in the confederacy contingent on military service to the confederacy; pretty much the same as there wuz up north; but no one talks about that.  It doesnt fit the narrative.  

 

If the civil war wuz all about slavery; how come it took so long to get around to freeing the slaves???  Two years is a long time, especially in a war....Interestin to think about aint it??    More than that, the slave thing wuz dying in the western world.  William Wilberforce (...a real Christian, by the way for you "unaffilliated" folks  -- read his bio.  You will be impressed...) was the driving force in ending slavery throughout the British Empire without firing a shot in 1833.  A much bigger slave population than that in the US was freed without any bloodshed.  Very interesting; dont you think?? 

 

Remember this:..."History is written by the victors." ... The winners always cannonize and confer sainthood on their operatives to justify their actions whether those actions are honorable or not.   Never believe the "official accounts" of anything.  They may not tell the whole truth (...imagine that!!...).

 

leroy

[reed1285]

:popcorn:

[Mdunntn]

I'm sorry but I thought everyone here was for personal freedoms..

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

[whitewolf001]

Morally I don't support gay marriage as I don't see eye to eye with some things they try to force feed us but as a constitutionalist one has the right to choose whom they marry, even if I don't agree with it. Being as the 4th is right around the corner we should keep in mind that freedom isn't limited to what the government says it is as we aren't born to follow the law, laws are meant to protect us, not deny us the freedoms which being a human grants. Freedom, like Justice, has no biases nor does it see us for what we are but rather whom we choose to be.

[daddyo]

I'm sorry but I thought everyone here was for personal freedoms..

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

I'm all for personal freedoms, but when they start waving it in my face, and then demanding "tolerance", which is just their word for "acceptance", but being completely intolerant of my views, then, I'm sorry, but I just don't feel an obligation to give two sh**s about their "personal freedom".

[Wyldk2]

You right to believe what you want. And your right to decide who you do business with regarding their support of whatever.

 

I'll keep my youtube account, basically because i do not care what Google or Youtube or Apple, etc... does. Their companies, their choices.

 

As a little guy, do you think they will care if you close your account with them? When they have millions of other subscribers/account holders.

 

All I know is as long as it dosen't affect me personally, and dosen't involve me, I don't care what gays or Lesbians or whatever decide to do with their lives. Just don't involve me.

[daddyo]

As a little guy, do you think they will care if you close your account with them? When they have millions of other subscribers/account holders.

 

No, I don't think they care, nor are they even aware that I canceled it as I did not make a big deal out of it.

 

It's very interesting that so many people want to point out that me canceling my account doesn't make any difference. It makes a difference to ME.

[maroonandwhite]

 It makes a difference to ME.

Amen brother, amen.

[TMF]

 

It's very interesting that so many people want to point out that me canceling my account doesn't make any difference. It makes a difference to ME.

 

Agreed.

[Mike.357]

I am curious, and these are honest questions to the anti gay people here.

 

If your child came out as gay how would you treat them?  

 

What if they came out and said, " Dad I am gay, I like men ( or woman if your child is a girl) and I plan on marrying my special friend"  Would you go to their wedding?

[RichardR]

I'm not "anti-gay" but I am not in favor of changing the definition of marriage.

I fully supported civil unions & thought that this issue had been settled, but now all of the sudden civil unions aren't good enough anymore, probably because it's not a big enough middle-finger to traditional moraled/religious folks.

In fact they've become so emboldened & have successfully forced their morally corrupt lifestyle on children w/the BSA, in every school's cirriculums, to the point where I've become rather annoyed by all of the pro-gay propaganda & all of the cries of "homophobe" & the constant demonization of anyone& everyone who isn't in complete lock-step with their agenda.

I'm not against everyone getting the same benifits as everyone elses partner gets, I just think they should stick to using the word "civil union" & leave the definition of marriage the #@#$ alone.

[mikegideon]

You're fighting a losing battle, but carry on if you gotta. The majority of gays aren't trying to give anybody the finger. 

Edited July 4, 2013 by mikegideon

[daddyo]

I love my child, so if he came home one day and said he was gay, that wouldn't change anything as far as my love for him is concerned. However, he would jump into that pool knowing that I simply could not support his decision to marry another man. I have made my views on the issue very clear to everyone in my family.

 

Love is a decision.

[Guest PapaB]

I'm all for personal freedoms, but when they start waving it in my face, and then demanding "tolerance", which is just their word for "acceptance", but being completely intolerant of my views, then, I'm sorry, but I just don't feel an obligation to give two sh**s about their "personal freedom".

 

As the british would say, "spot on".

 

I've known many gay people in my life. I've been friends with some and aquaintences with others. I've never cared that they were gay because it didn't matter. Gay activists are another story however. They insist you accept their lifestyle by being "tolerant" but that's a one way street to them. They don't want to hear you say love the sinner but hate the sin, they call that a judgemental homophobic view. Homophobia has nothing to do with it, that's just another liberal "shutup" word like racist. It's used to stop your point of view from consideration while labeling you as not worth hearing.

[daddyo]

I would also submit that the liberal hate terms "homophobe", "racist", and "bigot" are so overused that they mean absolutely nothing anymore.

[mikegideon]

I would also submit that the liberal hate terms "homophobe", "racist", and "bigot" are so overused that they mean absolutely nothing anymore.

 

I don't view those as strictly liberal terms. Sure, they're overused by (mostly) liberals. They still have plenty of use left.

[daddyo]

They still have plenty of use left.

 

Sure, when they want to shut down the conversation because they've lost the debate.

 

That's a well-known Alinsky tactic.

Edited July 4, 2013 by daddyo

[RichardR]

I would also submit that the liberal hate terms "homophobe", "racist", and "bigot" are so overused that they mean absolutely nothing anymore.

Agreed.

Which is unfortunate but the left has used them so often that it has essentually watered them down to mean "conservative" which of course has nothing to do with race or sexual preferences or anything other than being in disagreement with a liberal.

On another local forum to vote for a Rebublican canidate is considered racist so yea I'd say that the terms have become meaningless.

[mikegideon]

Liberals contaminate everything. I generally ignore them, unless I'm in the mood to piss them off.

[Mike.357]

liberals don't bother me, ignorance does.

[RichardR]

liberals don't bother me, ignorance does.

Contradictions in logic, are illogical.

Small picture people, rarely if ever are able to see the bigger picture, that old "can't see the forest because of all of the trees" sort of thing.

What were we talking about again? Meh something about gay trees or homo-forests or something, I'm hungry, wait, what?

[Guest Keal G Seo]

I have yet to hear any reason as to not support equal rights as far as LAW is concerned. I have heard many based on religion but the US is not a theocracy. Why is it that you feel your religious views should be considered when making laws? I bet that you would feel different if Muslims were trying to push laws or get something legalized on one of their religious views.

Why does it seem so hard for you people to separate how you live your personal life with how your country should be run?

[daddyo]

If gays get their way and start demanding that the rest of us accept it or face punishment (in the form of First Amendment restrictions) , how would that be different from a theocracy?

[mikegideon]

If gays get their way and start demanding that the rest of us accept it or face punishment (in the form of First Amendment restrictions) , how would that be different from a theocracy?

 

What kind of punishment? They're protected by the 'hate crime" BS, but I don't think it touches the first. You just get some extra punishment when you tie them to back of your pickup and drag them down the road.