General Chat (Non-Music-Related)

What happens in San Francisco stays in San Francisco, if Pravda has anything to say about it. Bomb Baby Auschwitz and Pravda screams. Bomb a church... Nada, Zip, Zilch from Pravda. No bias in the Liberal camps for sure. I hadn't heard about this before this morning. Nice article below.

When Gays Fire-Bombed a Church: 'Gay Rights or Gay Riots.'
Posted 2 hours ago by Gary DeMar Filed under 1st Amendment, Christianity, Constitution, Crime, Free Speech, Freedom, Homosexuality, Liberal Bullying, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberalism, Marriage, Propoganda, Religion, Sex

http://godfatherpolitics.com/21548/when ... gay-riots/

What you are about to read is a little known history of the violent side of the gay rights movement. Very few people have ever heard this story.

It all started when Pastor Charles McIlhenny, pastor the First Orthodox Presbyterian Church in San Francisco, started a church. In March 1978, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a law that stated that no one could be discriminated against on the basis of "sexual orientation."

In August of that same year, the church learned that their organist, Kevin, was a practicing homosexual. The young man was approached by Rev. McIlhenny on the basis of Matthew 18:15-20. After several hours of fruitless debate over what the Bible said about homosexuality, Kevin was fired. Based on the anti-discrimination law, Kevin sued Chuck, the church, and the entire Presbytery consisting of ten other churches in northern California at the time. And what was the response of the homosexual community and the always compliant media?

“The media attention stirred up a spiteful homosexual population in San Francisco. As a result of the news articles and radio interviews, we received obscene phone calls, dozens of threatening letters, pornographic materials mailed to us, and death-threats, some of which described the children in detail -- their names, ages, what they looked like, where they attended school, and what sexually deviant acts were going to be performed on them before they killed the children. More than once we had to leave the city for safety.”1

Through the legal efforts of John W. Whitehead, who heads up the legal advocacy group the Rutherford Institute, Chuck and his church won the first round of their legal battle. Judge John Ertola stated in the April 3, 1980 ruling that the church was within its rights to fire its organist who was unrepentant:

The framers of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights wrote the Free Exercise Clause to protect religious beliefs that may not be followed by the majority, to allow every person to obey his own conscience without interference from the government. Freedom of religion is so fundamental to American history that it must be preserved even at the expense of other rights which have become institutionalized by the democratic process.

How times and legal opinions have changed.

As a result of the favorable court ruling, the McIlhenny family “continued to be terrorized by death threats over the phone and through the mail.”2 Homosexual protestors attended Sunday morning worship services. Some defaced pew Bibles and psalters. Others would stand up, walk around, slam windows, and verbally protest while Chuck was speaking. Keep in mind that when homosexuals do not get their way, they riot.

Prior to controlling politics in San Francisco, homosexuals exerted their influence through intimidating violence. “On the night of 21 May 1979 hundreds of angry homosexuals stormed city hall, set fire to trash cans and parts of the building, set police cars on fire, broke windows, and injured scores of policemen” because they did not like a jury's decision concerning the murder of a homosexual. (McIlhenny, When the Wicked Seize a City, 81.))
Chuck

Things got worse for the McIlhennys. Three years after the lawsuit, things heated up once again. Literally. "Rocks, beer bottles, beer cans were thrown through the church windows on many occasions. Swastikas were carved in the church doors and drawn on our house. A window in our car was smashed out. Graffiti was spray-painted all over the church, house, and sidewalk. Anti-Christian, pro-homosexual leaflets were scattered around the neighborhood calling us Nazis, bigots, anti-gay, etc.”3 Their children were once again threatened.

The daily threats and harassment continued for a full three years after the court decision. On three occasions the death threats were of such a serious nature that the McIlhennys flew their children down to Los Angeles to stay with relatives for protection. “Then on 31 May 1983 at 12:30 a.m., someone actually attempted to follow through with their threats to kill us.”4 In the alleyway next to their house, someone lit two cans of gasoline. Donna McIlhenny describes it this way:

“The church and the house are right next door to each other, attached by a small alleyway. Our bedroom was right next to the alleyway. As I lay down, I was looking toward the alleyway window. I saw something flicker, and before I could even wonder what it was, a huge ball of fire roared up the alleyway wall and burst through the window into the bedroom, breaking the quarter inch pane of glass.”5

God spared the McIlhenny family that night. The fireman on the scene told the McIlhennys, “The intent was to kill. It's as if someone pointed a gun in your face and pulled the trigger . . . only, in this case, the gun misfired!”6 As of the writing of When the Wicked Seize a City in 1993, “nothing has been turned up by the police and fire department investigations as to who may have set the fire. No leads, no clues, and no person has ever been questioned!7 The McIlhenny=s were attacked again on March 22, 1990.

Homosexuals are one of the most mean-spirited and violent groups in America when they do not get their way. Since they no longer fear God, they certainly do not fear man. When Governor Pete Wilson vetoed a homosexual rights bill in 1991, the homosexual community literally went wild. Homosexuals hounded Wilson at political events and showed their violent side in a pro-homosexual demonstration.

“As the protestors reached the old state building where Pete Wilson maintains an office, ‘[a] break-away group of about 400 people suddenly ran toward the building, which was being protected by fewer than 20 San Francisco and State Police officers. Grabbing metal barricades, news racks and other objects, some among the 400 began smashing the $60,000, multi-colored, lead-glass entrance doors. . . . Others hurled missiles that shattered windows, then tossed large wads of paper and ignited flares inside. The resulting fires destroyed office equipment, including costly computers, before the blazes were extinguished.’”8

The homosexual rioters did not care who they hurt so long as they got their way. The pro-homosexual establishment in San Francisco protected the rioters. “In spite of the fact that the gays had set fire to a government building, graffitied the new state office building one block away, threatened the lives of dozens of police and state employees, and caused $250,000 in damages, no arrests were made that evening.”9

At another protest gathering, Crystal Mason of ACT UP/San Francisco told the crowd, as reported in The San Francisco Sentinel, “Let violence speak. Why should we allow straight society to jam their justice down our throats.”10 The tables are now turned. Homosexuals have jammed their perverted view of justice and morality down our throat.

Through fear and intimidation, the homosexual community has beaten back the opposition. They no longer have to riot and bomb since they have friends in high places who have given in to their outrageous demands. But just below the surface of the genteel facade often displayed by homosexuals in movies and comic acts resides a dark and foreboding evil that will surface when the need arises. “All of this violence, vandalism and rage is to be expected from the gay community. One protestor's placard said it well, ‘Gay Rights or Gay Riots.’ They have shown time and time again that if they don't get their way, they will resort to any kind of civil disobedience that they consider necessary to achieve their goals. The gay political movement is not kind and gentle; if you oppose them, you can expect to have your life and family threatened, your job security threatened, your property vandalized, and your character vilified.”11

So I've rambled long enough....and I've only asked you for one example to back up your accusation. Speak now or I'll consider it an admission of factual error.

That gets a hard slap on the pinky finger of your choice hand, according to Bandmix Sharia.

.

you want an example of the right wing conservative media lying to further their agenda and incite the villagers to light their torches and storm the castle????

here's FIFTY such examples.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQXK3g3qO6E

THAT is the best you can do??? really???? You have proven my point very well then.


1. Every single frame is about a destructive POLICY that has become a news story, not an attack on a person.

2. Every single STORY in this video clip is simply an attempt to discuss the facts of an issue, usually accompanied by an honest interpretation of what their opposition says/does; as opposed to mischaracterizing the opposing view & ridiculing people who have opposing views (as the leftists paint all conservatives). They are not seeking an emotional response, but rather an intellectual response that leads to a decision of the viewer based on evidence.

3. Every single FACT of those issues are then avoided and instead the messenger is treated with ridicule by the left. The left could choose to address those issues with an intelligent response of fact and reason, but instead want us to "get the joke" that these people are not credible ONLY because these people have been ridiculed in the media.

Well I'm sorry, but humiliation of the messenger does NOT equal discrediting of the facts. It only gives the left an appearance of being an opposing viable viewpoint. Unfortunately, the only viewpoint expressed is ridiculing the messenger of FACTS that they simply can't deal with in an honest way. This misdirects the debate into an attack on a person.

From Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" - the confessed and exalted playbook of the DNC/Obama/Hillary
Rule #12 - Attack a person because they are easier to defeat than an institution (or fact)

They then tell people like you that there is a reason to fear people who simply have reason and fact on their side, and send you out to silence, bully, and intimidate their political opposition, instead of having an honest conversation to discern the truth. They are turning folks into violent perpetrators of their agenda. Yes, ridicule sometimes happens on the right also...but it isn't the primary and singular tactic to destroy people as the first tool in the box; and any conservative who advocates for violence will be shouted down by other conservatives. We don't see this on the left at all. No, those who advocate violence on the left are given a meeting at the White House to discuss how to use this for political manipulation.

4. The people in this video are making debate which has factual and historical merit that those on the left are unwilling to even consider, much less actually address, and you have accepted the defilement of their ridicule as if it is a credible response to facts, instead of thinking for yourself. Why do you allow your emotions to be so easily manipulated by the DNC and their financial/political supporters in network broadcasting when the facts are easily available? Is it simply intellectual laziness? Is it that you want to believe their spin & stereotypes so much that you're unwilling to test what they tell you? I know you are better than that, so I'm puzzled why you won't show it?

5. NONE OF THEM ARE SUPPORTING, ENDORSING, OR ADVOCATING VIOLENCE AGAINST POLITICAL OPPOSITION AS A SOLUTION. Nor do they give the violent any approval, as if it is an acceptable form of protest.


#5 is what you accused, and what I asked you to prove. Since this response doesn't make any attempt to do that, I will accept it as an admission that you CAN NOT.


Unless you'd like to try again??

5. NONE OF THEM ARE SUPPORTING, ENDORSING, OR ADVOCATING VIOLENCE AGAINST POLITICAL OPPOSITION AS A SOLUTION. Nor do they give the violent any approval, as if it is an acceptable form of protest.

and your example of Jelani Cobb, the blogger on the PBS interview show who erroneously stated Zimmerman's 46 police calls were all about blacks though he either lied or was unclear on the fact...AT NO TIME did he make a call "SUPPORTING, ENDORSING, OR ADVOCATING VIOLENCE AGAINST POLITICAL OPPOSITION AS A SOLUTION."

what he did was EXACTLY the same as those 50 examples of FOX misstating the facts.

1. either an honest mistake (unlikely in either case)
2. a deliberate lie or exaggeration to stir their base group into action.

but stating for a fact that either he or those FOX's 50 inaccuracies (lies) were made w the intention of encouraging violence is a subjective conclusion at best.

#5 is what you accused, and what I asked you to prove. Since this response doesn't make any attempt to do that, I will accept it as an admission that you CAN NOT.


Unless you'd like to try again??

actually i was responding to your inaccurate statement that it is the LEFT who abuse ridicule and sarcasm far more than the right.

when i pointed out that Rush, Hannity, Miller, et al all use those same tactics i mistakenly copied and pasted your phrase about how the uses "ridicule and violence"

i don't believe that's true and you still haven't shown an example to back the "violence" part of your statement.

what i see in the FOX 50 is one example after another of them reporting and STATING for FACT outright falsehoods and lies. they were not presented as "editorial opinions". and everyone of them when fact checked is out and out wrong.

so, shall we go the same subject conclusion route that you choose to go when the left misstates something??? that they are advocating violence?

....because let's face it, you know there IS some anti gov't whacko out there who's been stockpiling weapons and waiting to hear about that next real or invented (see the FOX 50 above) example of one thing or another presented as a horrific slight against his views and values.

using that kind of subjective conjecture...who's to say that the yahoo who flew his plane into the IRS Offices in Austin wasn't motivated by some "editorial opinions" (presented as fact) by the "newscasters" on FOX????

yeah, lemme guess....that was waaaaaaaaaay back in 2010. and it was only ONE guy who did it. none since. christians were in an uproar.....that's why it hasn't happened since. rinse/repeat. rinse/repeat.

Mark, we are not talking bout "misstatements" of uninformed reporters here. Human error is forgivable.

Clearly I stated the known evidence of how a phony narrative was created by NBC, then perpetuated and enflamed by Al Sharpton, a known race-baiter and proven fraud, who has increasing access to the White House and funded by the Justice Department to initiate racial discord under false pretenses in several places now. People are being paid to go physically intimidate their political opposition by a Federal Agency for the FIRST time. Nothing there, really?

I also stated that it was simple for me to find the facts of the case in a few minutes, so that blogger was guilty of repeating a lie because it suited his prejudice. He did not actually research for facts, and was easily defiled by people who knew the narrative wasn't true. He is the perfect example of what the original propaganda was supposed to produce.

If the New Black Panthers with billy-clubs at a polling place in Philadelphia threatening voters is not violence, I don't know if you understand the meaning of the word. They were given a pass.....all charges dropped...by this Justice Department.

How can you say that isn't supporting violence with a straight face?



And so far you can not name even ONE time that any of those you accused created a false narrative that led to violence. Though this can be demonstrated as FACT in several cases on the left.

So you instead want to make the case that FOX 50 promoted some false narrative in that clip....but you have offered no evidence why their statements are factually incorrect. You've only implied they are worthy of ridicule.

Care to expose even one that is a provable false narrative? When you do that, go ahead and state how that led to violence, or even slightly endorsed one act?

We can go down the whole list, and for most of them I can offer a factual reason why they hold a position because they've stated the evidence publicly. In return, you can show whom they've ridiculed or humiliated while doing so, right?

NO, He HAS NOT. For someone that is so busy arguing... After I read all of this... This is purely about EGO. Typical bass player.

Poor Mark... The more he twists and turns the more distorted his logic becomes.

That was a good discussion except that there seems to be way to much support in violation of the law. Mark may never understand that concept. Ted and Strat... I will say KUDOS.

Hey, stop picking on my friend! Bass players need love too. I'm still trying to figure out his debate though...so I'm going down that list of FOX 50



1. Tucker Carlson said:
more children drowned in bathtubs than killed accidentally by guns

• From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents.

• About one in five people who die from drowning are children 14 and younger.2 For every child who dies from drowning, another five receive emergency department care for nonfatal submersion injuries.1

Drowning is responsible for more deaths among children 1-4 than any other cause except congenital anomalies (birth defects).1 Among those 1-14, fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death behind motor vehicle crashes.1

--------------------------
FROM THE CDC *http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm

In 2011 there were 1311 gun deaths in the 0 through 17 age group

That is the total in 26 industrialized nations of the world. The USA had a huge percentage of them. Half of them were suicide, then half of what remains were intentional, and the rest accidental. That would make somewhere between 100-200 accidental shooting deaths of all children under 17 in that year.

Any number is too high....but that number seems to about the same the number of death by drownings that occur in less than two weeks of any year. Where do you get that more children die by accidental gunfire than by drowning in any year?






I don't know, Mark. Looks like Tucker could be right? Did you think it was false only because he is being ridiculed in this video made by "Liberals in America"?

Looks like you got a swing and a miss....but we will ridicule him because he wears a bow-tie and looks like a virgin!

Shall we move on to ridiculed person #2 now?

#2 - NASA fudged the data to make the case for global warming"


OK, I see what you mean, this is obviously wrong!

It was NOAA

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e ... -data.html


He was right on the substance but what an idiot!!! Doesn't know the difference between NASA and NOAA??? Worthy of ridicule is he!

And I concede that point on a technicality. "Liberals in America" has won the point about this horrible lie!

But if it was designed to make people angry enough to take up violence, who would they attack?

Judge Napolitano says: Washington lacks Constitutional right to own any property in the western states"


If you read the Constitution, you will find that the Federal Government wan't explicitly given that right.
The original language of the "Constitution" gives all rights to the States except for printing money and the common defense.

It's open to interpretation how and why the Fed can just annex State land, and many States agree with the Judge. We just had the BLM try to annex some land between Texas and Oklahoma illegally. More States are standing up to this illegal grab lately, no doubt what the Judge was referring to.

So no proof of any false narrative that was intended to start violence. Simply a Judge giving his interpretation of law.
Looks like that one went foul on ya....so giving you a technical base hit on the NOLA mistake, we'll start the count back at strike one.

OH STOP with that bass player stuff. Everyone knows bass players can be replaced by a computer and a KORG N1.

Then the whole band is happy because the N1 will help setting up a gig far more than any bass player.

I am glad he is your friend. HEY... Did you know that in Texas and Washington state... If you intend to cross state lines with the intent to commit a crime.... YOU MUST NOTIFY THE POLICE...

Next: "Someone earning 250,000 a year pays half of it in taxes" (don't know this guy's name but I think he's on the Fox morning show?)

The Fed income tax rate on that is 33%

Subtract as much as 11% for State Income Tax

Subtract up to 8.5% sales tax on almost every purchase.

Subtract fees, tolls, licenses....



I dunno Mark.....seems like a reasonably close guesstimate to me. Wouldn't be as bad if "the producers" money wasn't being given to people who aren't even trying to work.

I'll wait for you to challenge this analysis if you want to do some homework.....but that sure looked like it went foul at first base to me.

This game is getting boringly one-sided, and it's just too easy to knock those pitches out of the park. Can you prove ANYTHING that "liberals in America" implied is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but true? Or do you just believe them because they are good at ridiculing Fox reporters?

Ridicule is not hard to do...but....c'mon.

Next: Elizabeth Hasselbeck - who was ridiculed right off of the View

"census worker lied to lower unemployment rate"


I had forgotten this one but vaguely remember hearing.....

"The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census."

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-fak ... bs-report/

And the follow up
http://nypost.com/2013/11/23/cooked-cen ... -and-rahm/




Problem is that this story relied on the testimony of one unnamed witness and can not be verified. Therefore, blondie should have been more careful about repeating what is basically gossip.

Point conceded....though it seems obvious that she simply ran with bad information from a nobody, which is a sharp contrast to a major network creating a false narrative.

Census numbers don't cause rioting in the streets (though lefties will use any excuse) so you really can't make the case that she was condoning violence, or ridiculing any persons. If you think she was, please tell me who I should attack because it's too cryptic for me to figure out.

But OK....count is back to even.

Another one I just thought about (there are so many!) How about the cover up of the Justice Department for selling guns to drug cartels that killed an American border agent?

Would you consider that promoting violence?

.

Can't remember this guy's name either...think he is their main anchor after Shep

"Obama is sending more forces to combat Ebola than ISIS"


This seemed like obvious hyperbole to me...but NYT says we sent up to 3,000 troops to fight Ebola (and it happened really quickly). Many months later, we have sent 1,500 troops to train the Iraqis to fight ISIS.

Since 3,000 is twice as many as 1,500...and it does appear that Ebola got a much more intense response than ISIS has yet, I'm going to have to say he is technically right.

After that previous base hit with Hasselbeck, the count goes back to o-1

Next: Megan Kelly

"Colorado voters are allowed to print ballots at home and give to collectors"



Well there are certainly many strange things about elections in Colorado

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_25201490/roll-your-own-elections

How do Democratic Party proponents expect Colorado voters to maintain any confidence in elections?
House Bill 1164, rushed through the legislature on strict party lines despite citizen protests, shamelessly attempts to wreck all accepted standards for local elections involving tax increases and board candidates.
The new election law even allows the very candidates up for re-election and proponents of tax increases to determine the election rules after the fact and control the election through a private, for-profit contractor.


I can find intimidation and corruption of the process from the Dems again, but I can't find where anyone is allowed to print a ballot. Point conceded about her veracity (though I could be wrong, simply not going to take any more time to dig)

However, either way this doesn't show any attempt to ridicule a person, or to promote violent action against someone...and that was the challenge.

So far, NONE of these support your accusation that reporters on the right condone violence, or have tried even once to
facilitate violence. No false narratives, but a couple of people who made stupid mistakes. Yes, lets publicly humiliate them and make sure they are forever ridiculed for daring to oppose the left on a political issue!!

Yet that is still very different than a major network in collusion with the White House, the Justice Department, and a known race baiting fraud, cooking several false narratives and blasting a very dangerous lie designed to manipulate racial anger through government sponsored propaganda.

.

I am not going to make FOX's reputation my battle ground. We all know that every news outlet has it's own bias, which is why it is my practice to check every angle on a story before I believe any of them. I can tell you which outlets are conservative and which are liberal because I study them all.

My experience is that those on the right are more likely to use sensationalist headlines to get my interest; while those on the left have become nothing more than government approved propaganda even in the fine print.

I'll take sexy chicks that are goofy over clever liars any day, if you're wondering....but I don't believe any of them until I've heard all perspectives available.

OK, I'm done.

and i'm almost done...you say you check facts first but when you were checking on bathtub drowning vs deaths from guns for children you seemed to have missed this from TAMPA BAY PUNDITFACT

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... thtubs-do/

please check the link the below that this comes from to see a clear graph of the actual stats ( i couldn't get it to format correctly here).

Gun safety advocates are pushing laws to make it harder for children to play with guns kept at home. A bill in the New York Legislature, for instance, would require gun owners to secure their weapons by either keeping them locked up or installing a trigger lock. Failing to do so could warrant fines, loss of a firearms license or potentially jail.

Behind the New York proposal lies the tragic story of a 12-year-old boy who was accidentally killed by his friend when he went over to the friend’s house. Fox News discussed the New York story on Fox and Friends Weekend on Aug. 9, 2014.

Tucker Carlson, show co-host and editor of the Daily Caller, a conservative news website, challenged the basic premise behind the bill. While the death of a child is "the worst tragedy imaginable," Carlson said there’s a deeper truth.

"Far more children died last year drowning in their bathtubs than were killed accidentally by guns," Carlson said. "I’d like to see a package on ‘Do you have a bathtub at home because I want to know before I let my child go over to your house.’ A little perspective might be helpful."

We reached out to Carlson to learn the source of his claim about deaths in bathtubs and deaths from guns. We didn’t hear back.

We went to the federal government’s Center for Health Statistics to get some of that perspective that Carlson recommended. The data we found undercuts Carlson’s assertion.

As the following table shows, total deaths for children 17 and under due to drowning in a bathtub were 95 in 2011, the latest year the numbers are available. Total deaths from accidental gun shots were 102. The one age range where Carlson might be able to make a case is for children 0 to 4 years old. For that group, 73 died in a bathtub and 29 were killed by guns. But in every other age group, guns are more deadly than bathtubs.



Carlson didn’t say what age children he had in mind, but in the context of the story he was responding to — and his rhetorical question about something "I want to know before I let my child go over to your house" — this is not about children under 4 years old. Parents don't let toddlers "go over" to a friend’s house.

For that age range, Carlson’s comparison is off by a factor of three. Bathtubs caused 22 deaths for kids 5 and older and guns caused 73 deaths.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a 2012 report on bathtub drownings. From 2006 to 2010, total deaths were 434 for an average of 87 per year. The bulk of those deaths, 348, involved children under 4 years old. Most of the time, 62 percent, the immediate cause was a parent or other caretaker leaving the room.

Our ruling

Carlson said far more children died last year drowning in their bathtubs than were killed accidentally by guns. First, there is no data for last year. The most recent data is from 2011.

What that shows is that children 17 and under are more likely to die from accidental gunfire than from drowning in a bathtub, although the difference is small.

However, for children 5 years old and up, government data show that guns are three times more deadly than bathtubs. Carlson was not just wrong, but with his phrase, "far more children died," he was emphatically wrong.

We rate the claim Pants on Fire.