MI assistant AG speaks out against... :: Free Realms

Quote Reply

#27 Sep 30 2010 at 6:52 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

Hahaha, hoooooly crap, this guy is warped. I've read a couple of his blog posts. His world view is so out of whack...
http://chris-armstrong-watch.blogspot.com/

He refers to the "Chris Armstrong Watch" blog as a "pro-family, pro-Christian blog," claims that Armstrong has gay orgies and homosexual recruitment parties, and accuses him of... underage drinking, racism, and elitism. That's just in the first two blog posts :-P

Here's a fun quote too:

Quote:

Your time here in Ann Arbor is as much about your own self-discovery as it is about your career.

What?!?

It is clear that Armstrong's remarks constituted nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to cause sexually confused, and perhaps some impressionable, 17-and-18-year-olds to experiment sexually with members of their own gender.

Edit: The creepiest thing to me? How he's getting all these pictures and videos. Either he himself is staking out the student, or he has other people doing it. *Shudder*

Edited, Sep 30th 2010 8:53am by LockeColeMA

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#28 Sep 30 2010 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good

Elinda

View User Forum

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

MDenham wrote:

gbaji wrote:

Unless you can explain to me what his objective is here and how he can achieve it without doing precisely what I said he was going to try to do? Can you? The only way to make the gay/transgender folks not stand out when they request special housing needs is to eliminate gender based assignments for all dorms. Which means that those who want to have divided housing (options 1 and 2 from earlier) can't do so.

Because there's absolutely no way whatsoever that they could set aside one building of dorms (or any portion less than, say, half) for gender-neutral housing, and allow people into it based on a lottery from the people who specifically request gender-neutral housing, right?

Not everyone is openly unreasonable.

A gender neutral dorm or two is pretty common on campuses these days, aren't they?

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

▲ Page top

#29 REDACTED, Posted: Sep 30 2010 at 9:48 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Samy,

Quote Reply

#30 Sep 30 2010 at 9:49 AM Rating: Good

Nadenu

Gurue

16,299 posts

varusword75 wrote:

Samy,

Quote:

I don't understand how gender neutral housing, whatever it means, supports any sort of gay agenda

Gender neutral housing is a direct attack on Christianity and traditional family values. And this in itself supports the gay agenda.

You didn't answer her question.

How?

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#31 Sep 30 2010 at 9:49 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

varusword75 wrote:

Samy,

Quote:

I don't understand how gender neutral housing, whatever it means, supports any sort of gay agenda

Gender neutral housing is a direct attack on Christianity and traditional family values. And this in itself supports the gay agenda.

Ah, it's times like this that I know you can't believe the **** you spew on here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#32 Sep 30 2010 at 9:51 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

varusword75 wrote:

Samy,

Quote:

I don't understand how gender neutral housing, whatever it means, supports any sort of gay agenda

Gender neutral housing is a direct attack on Christianity and traditional family values. And this in itself supports the gay agenda.

Not really. If it's optional, which it is, it's not much of a change at all. No one is saying "YOU MUST COHABITATE!" But the option is there. The change is neutral in regards to the religion because religion doesn't enter into it at all.

Edit: I'm also finding it tough to track down the exact Biblical stance on cohabitation. Does it just mean pre-marital sex? That seems to be all I can see - nothing about men and women living together. I think that might be the issue - gender-neutral does not necessarily equate "cohabitation" as many religious folk seem to use it. Even if it did, it's optional, so it's up to the people themselves to decide... no one is being forced into it.

Edited, Sep 30th 2010 12:00pm by LockeColeMA

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#33 Sep 30 2010 at 9:56 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

varusword75 wrote:

Locked,

The creepiest thing about this entire issue is how vehemently the homosexual community/liberal media has attacked this citizen. H*ll Anderson Cooper is doing round the clock coverage on this.

I think it's silly to give it so much press time. The assistant AG is creepy as heck, and one of the most openly outspoken bigots I've seen recently, but isn't being charged*. I say move on - the SG president is obviously doing fine. Gay student triumphs over adversity! Bigotry still alive and creepy! Story over.

Then again, Fox is running a story on a Rutgers student who killed himself after his roommate secretly filmed and put online a gay sex tape of him. Condemnations all around for that - looks like even Fox is giving into the homosexual agenda! Granted, it might say something about the two news networks - one's primary story is the gay student who thrives and succeeds, and the other is the gay student who offs himself.

*Edit: One of the more distressing articles I have read recently on CNN concerned an outspoken black preacher accused of raping multiple disciples. It really feels like the condemnation came before any real trial, and I don't think that should be. Innocent until proven guilty in the courts, but it seems like people make up their own minds based off articles way too quickly.

Edited, Sep 30th 2010 12:02pm by LockeColeMA

▲ Page top

#34 REDACTED, Posted: Sep 30 2010 at 10:12 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,

Quote Reply

#35 Sep 30 2010 at 10:13 AM Rating: Excellent

Nadenu

Gurue

16,299 posts

I'm confused on this housing issue. Allowing males and females to live in the same building will lead to homosexuality?? Having gender specific housing doesn't??

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#36 Sep 30 2010 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

varusword75 wrote:

Locked,

You're insane if you think allowing men and women between 18-21 to live together on campus won't involve pre-marital sex. That's the attack on christianity. The fact that it's a homosexual who's pushing this makes me point to the homosexual community. They do these sorts of things often. They push their values, or lack thereof, on impressionable young adults who are for the first time in their lifes away from the guidance of their parents.

If they aren't Christians, or they aren't forced, there's no attack on Christianity, yo. Your argument rests on the idea that Christianity is somehow the law of the land... but it isn't. If it were a private Christian college, you'd be right - but it's not. As for the potential cohabitants, if their religious belief is not strong enough to stop them from doing it, they wouldn't be "real" Christians anyway. The entire idea is that it's optional - it's giving them more freedom of choice.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#37 Sep 30 2010 at 10:21 AM Rating: Good

Elinda

View User Forum

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

varusword75 wrote:

Of course the real issue is homosexuals attempting to criminalize certain speech they find offensive.

Clearly, the real issue is some guy has an unhealthy obsession with this other guy.

I hope the other guy has a restraining order out on the obsessive guy.

This has nothing to do with Christianity, mixed housing or even gayness except that homosexuality seems to be some sort of trigger for the whacko.

Only a fellow whacko would condone this guys behavior.

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#38 Sep 30 2010 at 10:29 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1709511392366

Sage

6,471 posts

Nadenu wrote:

I'm confused on this housing issue. Allowing males and females to live in the same building will lead to homosexuality?? Having gender specific housing doesn't??

You and me both. It's obvious to gbaji, though.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#39 Sep 30 2010 at 10:31 AM Rating: Decent

-REDACTED-

Scholar

1,150 posts

LockeColeMA wrote:

varusword75 wrote:

Locked,

You're insane if you think allowing men and women between 18-21 to live together on campus won't involve pre-marital sex. That's the attack on christianity. The fact that it's a homosexual who's pushing this makes me point to the homosexual community. They do these sorts of things often. They push their values, or lack thereof, on impressionable young adults who are for the first time in their lifes away from the guidance of their parents.

If they aren't Christians, or they aren't forced, there's no attack on Christianity, yo. Your argument rests on the idea that Christianity is somehow the law of the land... but it isn't. If it were a private Christian college, you'd be right - but it's not. As for the potential cohabitants, if their religious belief is not strong enough to stop them from doing it, they wouldn't be "real" Christians anyway. The entire idea is that it's optional - it's giving them more freedom of choice.

This. Amazing how varus rails against Islamic countries for imposing Sharia law and rails against homosexuals for supposedly imposing "their values, or lack thereof" (to quote him) on folks, but then seems to want to impose his "Christian" values on everyone else.

Edited, Sep 30th 2010 12:31pm by ShadorVIII

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#40 Sep 30 2010 at 12:07 PM Rating: Decent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

Ah, it's times like this that I know you can't believe the sh*t you spew on here.

It's been known for a while now that Varus is just a deep cover liberal trying to discredit republicans by spewing nonsense.

After all, IT'S OBVIOUS!!!!!1!1!!

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

#41 REDACTED, Posted: Sep 30 2010 at 12:15 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elinda,

Quote Reply

#42 Sep 30 2010 at 12:37 PM Rating: Good

-REDACTED-

Scholar

1,150 posts

varusword75 wrote:

Condoning is a far cry from what i'm doing. Saying he has the right to protest an elected public school official is not quite the same as saying I condone it. Just the same as saying I understand why he's doing what he's doing doesn't mean I support his methods.

But hey as long as you get the chance to scream bigot at the top of your lungs about some conservative you happen to disagree with you go right ahead.

Varus, you are so full of shit that you could fertilize the entire midwest and still be full of shit.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#43 Sep 30 2010 at 12:37 PM Rating: Excellent

Nadenu

Gurue

16,299 posts

We all know that this is coming about because the Assistant AG is afraid to come out.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#44 Sep 30 2010 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

Nadenu wrote:

We all know that this is coming about because the Assistant AG is afraid to come out.

I really would not be surprised if in a decade, after all the damage he can do is done, he ends up coming out as gay as well.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

#45 REDACTED, Posted: Sep 30 2010 at 12:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Princess,

#46 REDACTED, Posted: Sep 30 2010 at 12:47 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lmao...and so the template goes; if you say or do anything contrary to the radical homosexual agenda you must obviously be a closet ****.

Quote Reply

#47 Sep 30 2010 at 12:49 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

varusword75 wrote:

Saying he has the right to protest an elected public school official

Student body president is not an "elected public school official" position by any meaningful definition. Elected school officials are those people elected by the general public to legislatively created positions created by state or local governments. Student Body President is basically a glorified liaison with no more power than the real elected school officials choose to give him on that day.

The guy's a private citizen.

Edited, Sep 30th 2010 1:51pm by Jophiel

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#48 Sep 30 2010 at 12:55 PM Rating: Decent

-REDACTED-

Scholar

1,150 posts

varusword75 wrote:

lmao...and so the template goes; if you say or do anything contrary to the radical homosexual agenda you must obviously be a closet ****.

Yea, varus(a.k.a knoxsouthy). You proved that some time ago.

REMEMBER THIS?:

You can't run from what you are forever, varus.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#49 Sep 30 2010 at 1:10 PM Rating: Good

Elinda

View User Forum

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

varusword75 wrote:

Elinda,

Condoning is a far cry from what i'm doing. Saying he has the right to protest an elected public school official is not quite the same as saying I condone it. Just the same as saying I understand why he's doing what he's doing doesn't mean I support his methods.

But hey as long as you get the chance to scream bigot at the top of your lungs about some conservative you happen to disagree with you go right ahead.

Ctrl-f reveals that the only one who has used the b-word in this thread is you.

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#50 Sep 30 2010 at 1:15 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

Elinda wrote:

varusword75 wrote:

Elinda,

Condoning is a far cry from what i'm doing. Saying he has the right to protest an elected public school official is not quite the same as saying I condone it. Just the same as saying I understand why he's doing what he's doing doesn't mean I support his methods.

But hey as long as you get the chance to scream bigot at the top of your lungs about some conservative you happen to disagree with you go right ahead.

Ctrl-f reveals that the only one who has used the b-word in this thread is you.

Are we going with bigot?

Merriam-Webster wrote:

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Yup, stand by remark.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#51 Sep 30 2010 at 1:15 PM Rating: Good

Uglysasquatch

Soulless Internet Tiger

35,474 posts

Whatever Elinda. For ctrl-f to work, it has to be spelled correctly.

____________________________

Donate. One day it could be your family.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

▲ Page top

MI assistant AG speaks out against...Follow