Censorship at National Review Online – NRO – all my comments deleted re “More on Houston’s Harassment of Pastors/Annise Parker”

Here are the comments that the moderator deleted on the threads of a couple of articles related to Mayor Parker (or should we say Porker?) at National Review Online – NRO. All my comments at NRO are being systematically deleted.

More on Houston’s Harassment of Pastors

======================

on National Review Online

Alessandra 3 days ago Removed

I’d prefer ppl spent their time and energy initiating the legal procedure to impeach the nasty Parker from office, since she is clearly unfit to be Houston’s mayor.

===========

The Real Victim of Houston Pastor Story: Annise Parker

Alessandra 3 days ago Removed

Niyol
‏@niyol_biligaana

@Alessandra_Ref – we shall not stand 4 gov control of our churches. Parker must resign. Contact mayor mayor@houstontx.gov, call 713-837-0311

=================

Alessandra 3 days ago Removed

Aside from venting on the Internet, conservatives need to ask themselves
what can they do concretely to culturally slap back this disgusting
perverted woman who is now mayor of Houston and anyone else who
normalizes homosexuality. The problem many conservatives have not
realized is that LGBTs don’t want tolerance, they want domination and
control of society – and they will destroy our fundamental rights, and
will not bat an eye in the process, while claiming it’s more than
justified. So, 1) political action of all kinds to fight against liberal
politicians and political action 2) work to defeat new “sexual
orientation discrimination” bills and to repeal all such laws across the
US 3) do not employ any LGBT or person who is adamant about normalizing
homosexuality – you are only giving power and money to people who wish
to destroy you, your rights, marriage, a sexually healthy society, and
who will force you to submit to their nasty homosexuality agenda -or
suffer persecution – legal, social, financial, religious, cultural, and
personal.

===========

Alessandra 3 days ago Removed

Every LGBT pervert is normal in their own mind

=============

Normalization of homosexuality or freedom of conscience/religion – choose one

=============

Alessandra 3 days ago Removed

Does it have to do with thinking that homosexuality is normal in Denmark and electing a homosexual pervert for mayor?

============

 

Advertisements

CENSORED – all my comments about the UK Rotherham scandal censored at the National Review Online

AT the time the scandal broke (so around Sept 2014), I read and commented about the scandal at several sites. NRO was one of them. They deleted (censored) all my comments. Here are the comments copied from disqus, which doesn’t post the exact date of the comment, but the date relevant to today (stupid way of doing it!):

You commented · a month ago   Removed:

A point made by Christopher Booker in The Telegraph:
“Two years ago I reported on how Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for
Rochdale, disclosed in the Commons something of the horrors that had
been going on in his constituency, where social workers had encouraged
the mass-rape of underage girls in “care”, on the grounds that it was
merely their “life choice” to become prostitutes.”

At 11, 12, and 13 years of age! Having come from broken homes and
de-stabilizing environments, and all sorts of abusive histories.

These workers are the same garbage of people who think homosexuality,
pornography, and loveless sex is normal and who want to shove this
horrendous liberal ideology down everyone’s throats. And who now control
most social work and psychology/psychiatric institutions. They are
corrupt to the core. It is a disgrace how degenerate and smug and snotty
they have become at the same time.

And let us not forget England’s favorite homosexual pedophile activist, Peter Tatchell, who has fervently campaigned,
along with all his other monstrous homosexual and liberal pals, for
lowering the age of consent laws in the UK to 14, before they eliminate
limits all together. And why? Because he says that’s “how society will protect children from abuse.“

Look at what this liberal discourse has done to lives of hundreds of
children: it’s profoundly contributed to and often ensured their
neglect, their abandonment by workers and police when they were being
terrorized, exploited, and abused, who dismissed it all as these kids
making “choices” and having greater “sexual freedom.”

What kind of a society even listens to such a grotesque individual as
Tatchell? Why isn’t he branded and shunned for what he truly is? A
vile, homosexual pedophile piece of crap.

===========

 

 

  • And let us not forget England’s favorite homosexual pedophile activist, Peter Tatchell, who has fervently campaigned, along with all his other monstrous homosexual and liberal pals, for lowering the age of consent laws in the UK to 14, before they eliminate limits all together. And why? Because he says that’s “how society will protect children from abuse.”

    Look at what this liberal discourse has done to lives of hundreds of
    children: it’s profoundly contributed to and often ensured their
    neglect, their abandonment by workers and police when they were being
    terrorized, exploited, and abused, who dismissed it all as these kids
    making “choices” and having greater “sexual freedom.”

    What kind of a society even listens to such a grotesque individual as
    Tatchell? Why isn’t he branded and shunned for what he truly is? A
    vile, homosexual pedophile piece of crap.

  • You commented · a month ago   Removed:

    Why doesn’t the public in England put pressure on its politicians to take harsh action in this matter?

    Laws can be changed (as in mandatory reporting, safeguarding for
    whistle blowers, harsher penalties for abusers, building shelters and
    special police departments for abuse victims, etc), many more direct
    perpetrators could go to prison if re-investigations were done, and all the politicians, police, and care workers who somehow covered up or colluded with the perpetrators could also go to prison.

    And even if the current English law structure doesn’t allow for the
    imprisonment of civil servants – and what kind of a country is England
    if that is the case ? – than at least these people could remain
    unemployed for the rest of their lives and shunned from society – as
    their punishment for willingly cooperating in the abuse and destruction
    of countless, vulnerable young lives.

    There is a lot that could be done legally, politically, and socially –
    but it seems that England is so corrupt that no one stands up for
    anything, even in the face of what is most evil about the country.

    You commented · a month ago   Removed:

    Let us not forget that England is the country where Owen John and his wife Eunice were denied by the state to be foster parents because they had a decent, moral, and healthy view of sexuality and were therefore painted as unfit human beings by the liberal childcare system – this while atrocious liberals who think homosexuality and porn are normal and are involved in this scandal let children be abused right and left while doing nothing.

    If any of these 1,400 Rotherham children had been placed with the
    John’s, they would have found a safe, loving home, and would have never
    been exploited or abused. But no, the Johns were branded criminals and
    horrible people by these disgusting liberal “social workers” with their
    nasty and destructive homosexuality agenda.

    What was the John’s crime? Having decent and have wholesome minds
    about sexuality. Providing a safe and loving home to needy children,
    giving them a moral and ethical upbringing, teaching them a healthy
    outlook on sexuality and relationships, exemplified by their own
    lifelong behaviors.

    This is what is wrong with the UK today. These are the garbage,
    irresponsible, fanatical people who infest the social work and
    psychology fields.

=============

 

  • You commented · a month ago   Removed:

    How can people ask for the mere resignation of police and child care
    services chiefs, when what they did deserves long prison sentences?

  • You commented · a month ago   Removed:

    modern Britain is all about exacerbated individualism and most people
    don’t care about anyone but themselves (or their immediate family), they
    have no sense of responsibility towards anyone else, and they will turn
    their backs on every social problem

  • You commented · a month ago   Removed:

    I wonder if the homosexual pedophiles who abused the smaller number of
    boys in Rotherham will be marching down the next Pride Parade in
    England… and how many liberals will clap at them

  • You commented · a month ago   Removed:

    C. Booker from The Telegraph wrote : “Two years ago I reported on how Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for Rochdale, disclosed in the Commons something of the horrors that had been going on in his constituency, where social workers had encouraged the mass-rape of underage girls in “care”, on the grounds that it was merely their “life choice” to become prostitutes.”

    These are the same garbage of people who think homosexuality, pornography, and loveless sex is normal and who want to shove this horrendous liberal ideology down everyone’s throats. And who now control most social work and psychology/psychiatric institutions. They are corrupt to the core. It is a disgrace how degenerate and smug
    and snotty they have become at the same time.

  • You commented · a month ago   Removed:

    Let us not forget that England is the country where Owen John and his
    wife were denied by the state to be foster parents because they had a
    decent, moral, and healthy view of sexuality and where therefore painted
    as unfit human beings by the liberal childcare system – while the dung
    of liberals who think homosexuality and porn are normal and are involved
    in this scandal let children be abused right and left while doing
    nothing.

  • You commented · a month ago   Removed:

    Does England have a single individual who is not corrupt to the core and thus willing to put in prison the various politicians, police chiefs and staff, and child care workers who allowed this abuse to happen and who tried covering it up for years? Because so far, all I see is a lot of talk but no consequences.

    The British media is also highly to blame. Most editors censor and dismiss such investigations and articles – because they are so progressive, you know? Like the BBC, the Guardian, they sit there all day calling themselves “progressives” while colluding in silence with just about every sexual abuse perpetrator.

    Where was the liberal media on this? Printing articles promoting porn,
    homosexuality, and casual sex as normal for the past 30 decades, that’s
    where. And attacking social conservatives as h8ters.

    garbage of people.

    ===================

     

 

CENSORED: We are unable to post your comment because you have been blocked by The Salt Lake Tribune

I just went to post a comment at TSLT and I got a message. I have been completely censored by the Salt Lake Tribune. Thought crime? I would guess non-PC speech crime of the first degree.

Here’s the comment I couldn’t post:

Alessandra Reflections blog – my latest post that reveals the little reported fact in the media on Mozillagate: it was a vindictive homosexual couple (Hampton and Michael from rarebit) that started the witch hunt against Eich. Hampton wanted to bring Eich down because he wrongly blames Eich for not being able to let him start a business with his homosexual partner. It’s not only very, very personal, but very much about money, money.

Hampton just spinned a ridiculous woe story trying to blame Eich for all the problems in his life. It’s clueless, it’s vindictive, and it’s nasty.

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/little-reported-fact-in-the-media-it-was-a-vindictive-homosexual-couple-hampton-and-michael-from-rarebit-started-the-witch-hunt-against-eich/

=========================

And here’s another one:

We are unable to post your comment because you have been blocked by Mercury News.

=========================

And: http://thewilderness.me/mobzilla/

CENSORED: Very nice article. Any person with an ounce of a brain is appalled at what happened here. The good this is that this episode clearly showed the true ugly colors of LGBTs who want to normalize homosexuality. They are a mafia and they won’t stop with Eich. Especially because many social conservatives never react against them.

=========================

We are unable to post your comment because you have been blocked by Raw Story.

=========================

Time Magazine censors my comment. Why? We can only guess they have a liberal moderator.

The Eich/Mozilla debacle has brought the censors out. Very active they were, but not in all sites.

Here’s my censored comment at Time Magazine (Mozilla’s Culture War Is a Bad Model for Business by April 8, 2014).

(Actually, I’m pretty sure this is it, but since I didn’t save the comment with the link, I’m not 100% sure. But by the order of the comments I saved, this is what I’m guessing. It never got posted, so it doesn’t appear elsewhere as deleted (like in disqus), because it was queued for moderation. And it died there).

=================================
A healthy society does not normalize every kind of deformed and dysfunctional sexual psychology and behavior that can be produced inside the warped mind of its individuals.

Thus it does not normalize homosexuality, bisexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, porn, promiscuity, adultery, etc.

If LGBTs resolved their profound psychological problems and twisted minds, they could live out their heterosexuality like they were born to do. Having a deformed mind doesn’t give you any rights.

American culture has lost the fundamental notion that many people have all kinds of deformed and dysfunctional mindsets regarding sexuality.
The healthy answer is not to normalize psychological dysfunctions like homosexuality but to treat it.

Everyone is born heterosexual (except the intersex, but these are not homosexuals) and only after a
baby is born, can the mind be distorted and deformed any which way (homosexuality, bisexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, porn, etc)
Until society starts telling people with a homosexual problem to go treat their problem, you can only expect the persecution of decent social conservatives to get worse and worse. Thus all the articles in the media associating what happened to witch hunts, McCarthyism, and last but certainly not least, the increasingly hardened anti-semitic measures in Germany and the
expulsion of Jews first from their positions, and shortly later, society itself. Liberals are doing nothing other than to firmly declare  “Decent social conservatives are our misfortune.”

The goal is to make all social conservatives shut up and they won’t stop until they get there.

This case is like a bunch of Nazis objecting to having a Jewish CEO, or a bunch of slimy NAMBLA supporters wanting the scalp of a decent conservative CEO, or a bunch of pimps wanting to oust someone because they uphold a law against prostitution.

Fundamental democratic rights or normalization of homosexuality – choose one

Harvard Business Review censors some of my comments. Why? Because “diversity and openness.”

Saved here (for posterity) is my part of the debate with the censored comments – the horror – speech crimes, every one of them! Although I am surprised they didn’t delete all my comments – that’s usually the gaystapo tactic used.

But here, it was just a couple. Read the moderator’s “explanation” for shutting down the debate at the end. Truly Mozillian/Orwellian!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
dan828 • 3 hours ago

According to Mozilla’s official response on this issue, only a handful of employees that were not in the same organization as Eich complained. The pressures were almost entirely from external sources.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Alessandra replied to dan828 • an hour ago

right, including a dating site!!! and lots of Twitter people!! LOL

As we can see, Mozilla is an organization that bases its important business decisions on the scientific findings of OKCupid! Rationality! Knowledge!
I’m surprised they didn’t take Eich down based on some piece on the National Enquirer!

================

rulierose  replied to Wize Adz • 4 hours ago

it’s obvious why it happened: the gay nazis would like to stifle dissent.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MElastiGirl replied to  rulierose • 3 hours ago

The gay community had nothing to do with this. Prominent gay activists (Andrew Sullivan, Dan Savage) have made a point to speak out against it–noting it actually sets back the gay rights movement. This happened because the leader of Mozilla was out of step with those under his employ. But it hurts full equality for gay people because of bigots like you. The right side is winning–get over it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Alessandra replied to MElastiGirl • an hour ago

These LGBT louts have been for decades attacking every single social conservative they can malign and destroy. This includes the grubby Sullivan and Savage. They have everything to do with this.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alessandra • a day ago

Vilifying perfectly good people and engaging in character assassination is nothing new either. But it is rather new for employees to do that to their own CEO because the former have such a warped ideology.

Thus all the articles in the media associating what happened to witch hunts, McCarthyism, and last but certainly not least, the increasingly hardened anti-semitic measures in Germany and the expulsion of Jews first from their positions, and shortly later, society itself.

This case is like a bunch of Nazis objecting to having a Jewish CEO, or a
bunch of slimy NAMBLA supporters wanting the scalp of a decent
conservative CEO, or a bunch of pimps wanting to oust someone because
they uphold a law against prostitution.

Fundamental democratic rights or normalization of homosexuality – choose one

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually, it’s more like the allied forces coming in and waging war against nazis for denying rights based on how people are born, but keep with your embarrassing argument. I’m sure you would have been defending the nazis in the 40s for just expressing their beliefs (with horrible actions.)

/godwin

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      CENSORED:    This comment by Alessandra was deleted.

Alessandra replied to MosquitoControl

Complete ignorance.

If LGBTs resolved their profound psychological problems and twisted minds, they could live out their heterosexuality like they were born to do. Having a deformed mind doesn’t give you any rights.

American culture has lost the fundamental notion that many people have all kinds of deformed and dysfunctional mindsets regarding sexuality.
The healthy answer is not to normalize psychological dysfunctions like homosexuality but to treat it.

Everyone is born heterosexual (except the intersex, but these are not homosexuals) and only after a baby
is born, can the mind be distorted and deformed any which way (homosexuality, bisexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, porn, etc)
Until society starts telling people with a homosexual problem to go treat their problem, you can only expect the persecution of decent social conservatives to get worse and worse.

The goal is to make you shut up and they won’t stop until they get there.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
J replied to  Alessandra • a day ago

What an embarrassing argument
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
T62 replied to J • a day ago

Why embarrassing??!! What if he had supported LGBT cause would have he been removed. Why one is right and the other is wrong? This is typical discrimination in reverse.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ev replied to T62 • 12 hours ago

Andre basically covered everything that was wrong but “Fundamental democratic rights or normalization of homosexuality – choose one” is what appalled me the most, basic human rights should include normalisation of homosexuality.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        CENSORED:    This comment by Alessandra was deleted.

Then we fundamentally disagree that porn, promiscuity, bestiality, S&M, pedophilia, and homosexuality are natural phenomena, if you mean by “natural” that these are healthy sexual psychologies and behaviors.

It clearly shows your lack of knowledge however, not mine. And what’s more, if your side had any knowledge, it wouldn’t want to shut down debate and silence people who question your views. But this is exactly what’s happening in society, take academia and the Internet as two perfect examples.

All your side does is call people who don’t agree with you a bigot and a hater (i.e., the same thing as a Nazi) and you don’t want us to voice our views.

Normalizing every dysfunctional and deformed sexual attitude and behavior that is produced in the mind of an individual is not knowledge – it’s just running away from facing how deformed, unethical, and dysfunctional sexual psychology can be and is for many people.

Shouting “I’m normal” doesn’t make one normal. Persecuting people who object to your notions of normality doesn’t make you normal either.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
grannybunny  replied to Alessandra • 2 hours ago

Of course, you are entitled to hold and express your unusual opinions, but surely you know that homosexuality is not considered — by medical professionals — to be either “deformed,” “disfunctional,” “warped,” a “psychological problem,” or any other of the inaccurate, pejoritive terms you choose to lob at it. Nor are homophobes — or others who, self-righteously, preach hatred, whether clothing themselves in Nazi uniforms, Klu Klux Klan robes, or other such garb — in any respect entitled to be considered “decent.” Please get some professional help for the hostility that is eroding your eternal soul.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1
Ev  replied to Alessandra • 10 hours ago

So, by your logic, you shouldn’t have any rights? And before you jump on the ad hominem bang wagon, I’ll be clear by saying that I’m basing my assumptions on how you’ve used your own subjective viewpoint to call a natural phenomenon “deformed.” I can also never agree with a person who places homosexuality in the same set as bestiality or pedophilia. That clearly shows your lack of knowledge on the subject and makes your TLDR post moot. This is what’s wrong with the world’ people who don’t know about a subject, which also doesn’t concern them, actively advocate against it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                   CENSORED: This comment by Alessandra was deleted.

A healthy society does not normalize every kind of deformed and dysfunctional sexual psychology and behavior that can be produced inside the warped mind of its individuals.

Thus it does not normalize homosexuality, bisexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, porn, promiscuity, adultery, etc.

If LGBTs resolved their profound psychological problems and twisted minds, they could live out their heterosexuality like they were born to do. Having a deformed mind doesn’t give you any rights.

American culture has lost the fundamental notion that many people have all kinds of deformed and dysfunctional mindsets regarding sexuality.
The healthy answer is not to normalize psychological dysfunctions like homosexuality but to treat it.

Everyone is born heterosexual (except the intersex, but these are not homosexuals) and only after a baby is born, can the mind be distorted and deformed any which way (homosexuality, bisexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, porn, etc)
Until society starts telling people with a homosexual problem to go treat their problem, you can only expect the persecution of decent social
conservatives to get worse and worse.

The goal is to make you shut up and they won’t stop until they get there.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ev  replied to Alessandra • 10 hours ago

We wouldn’t want to shut down a debate? Ok fine, please do provide the links of peer-reviewed journals (not blog posts/articles) which testify your “supported” viewpoint. Share your knowledge since I’m clearly lacking of it. I’m open to be challenged.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alessandra  replied to Ev • 10 hours ago

Why do you want a peer-review journal? Do you believe that you are going to get the Truth in a peer-reviewed journal? Who told you that? Let me guess, you read in a peer-reviewed journal that only peer-reviewed journals are capable of stating the Truth! I must read this declaration – which journal established itself as the “Truth and nothing but”? Peer-review journals are like the Ministry of Truth, are they? Interesting!

Do you believe that peer-reviewed journals have a monopoly on the Truth? When did peer-reviewed journals become the only source of Truth in your opinion, was there a particular year in history when this happened? I’m unaware of this momentous event, so please fill me in.

Meanwhile, you can read a little of what I think here:

http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/not-born-lgbt/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

grannybunny  replied to Alessandra • 2 hours ago

What an ignoramus! It’s a waste of time to try to intelligently debate with these anti-science bigots. What’s next? Book burning?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alessandra  replied to grannybunny • an hour ago

Because blind Faith in Authority is so scientific!

Just call people “ignorant” and be done with it. You’ve won the debate by name-calling.

Well done! Your superior intelligence on display…

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ev  replied to Alessandra • 10 hours ago

Then what is the point of this debate if you only want me to agree with you by only having Faith in your words or words of others.
Peer reviewed journals are not the Only source of truth, but they’re far more trust worthy than blog comments because experts (notice the use of plural) in the respective field have seen and conceded to the study conducted. Now would you like me to tell you about primary and secondary sources of information as well? How else would people form opinions, if not by judging the credibility of information. I’ve already got a gist of what you think, I wanted to know how you came to think what you do, what proof did someone give you to come to this conclusion.
And I wouldn’t have asked you if you hadn’t clearly mentioned that you, in fact, do have the knowledge.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alessandra  replied to Ev • 9 hours ago

Where did I say you needed to a) agree with me, b) agree with me by only having Faith in my words?

You completely made that up. Let me be clear: nowhere did I say you need to agree with me, much less by only having Faith in my words.

But what I see is that you don’t even want to read what I think. You may not want to silence me, but you surely cannot engage with what I think.

How do you know if what I think is correct or not? You don’t.

On the other hand, you have a blind Faith that anything that is ever printed in a peer review journal is the Truth! Apparently you are completely unaware of how many peer review articles have been shown to be complete lies, to have very harmful ideas and corrupt studies – and which get debunked over time.

So much for your peer review Ministry of Truth! Not that much Truth after all. And yet, for you, it’s what you put all your blind Faith into.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ev  replied to Alessandra • 9 hours ago

a) You mentioned debate, I wonder what you thought of achieving with a debate otherwise b) if not faith in your words, please provide me with someone else’s words. But oh, since we have absolutely no way to get correct information, well… we’re in a pickle. Maybe I’ll just flip a coin and decide my stance. Also, can we start a campaign to dump all academic textbooks used in schools because they’re also based on peer-reviewed scientific studies?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alessandra  replied to Ev • 9 hours ago

You are in a pickle indeed, not me.

So far the only thing you have going for your “debate” is: a) I’m not going to read what you think because without reading, I have already declared it all wrong.

That’s not debate. You haven’t argued a single point. You haven’t shown that anything I have written is wrong. Where is your knowledge? Nowhere. By your own standards, you’re not an expert, therefore, you are incapable of having knowledge. You only have blind Faith in the people you call Experts – which you even grudgingly admit have a history of publishing lies and incorrect information in peer review journals. Blind faith in lies and distortions? tsk tsk!

“You must be wrong because I say so” is not debate. And it’s not knowledge.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ev  replied to Alessandra • 8 hours ago

Ok, we’re going round and round. The thing is, you said I don’t have knowledge. I said ok, fine, I know nothing. Just show me yours. Now you’re just arguing how I’ll perceive knowledge. How about some actual facts though? Just say you have nothing supporting you and I’ll stop asking, have faith in me.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Alessandra  replied to Ev • 8 hours ago

I did post a link and you said “that’s all wrong because I said so.” Without reading it and debating it.

So we are going round and round, but it’s not because I don’t have any knowledge, as you claim.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Andre  replied to Ev • 8 hours ago

OP can’t process basic facts without muddling them and doesn’t understand proportion.

Arguing is pointless against a position that relies of faith and is immune to facts.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alessandra  replied to Andre • 7 hours ago

That’s exactly why your position and Ev’s is wrong: it relies on blind faith and is immune to facts.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Andre  replied to Alessandra • 7 hours ago

What’s the difference between a witch hunt, a lynch mob, and a protest?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Alessandra replied to Andre • 7 hours ago

The first two are always wrong whereas a protest can be about anything, wrong or right. In Eich’s case, it’s certainly a witch hunt by a lynch mob who is protesting a healthy view of society that he holds.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Andre  replied to Alessandra • 6 hours ago

Like I said, an ignorance of basic facts. They are all different, and the employees’ protest most certainly was not a witch hunt (there’s no such thing as witches), nor was it a lynch mob, no matter how many times you say it. Nor are they Nazis.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Andre  replied to T62 • a day ago

The argument is embarrassing because it’s a clear-cut case of argumentum ad Hitlerum, i.e., if you disagree with someone, call them a Nazi.

OP is calling those who are *for equal rights* Nazis, while defending a bigoted viewpoint. Only here, one side IS right and the other wrong. The employees didn’t want a bigoted boss, and spoke up.

And no, if the CEO had supported the LGBT cause, he wouldn’t have been removed. Because that’s not a bigoted position, so the employees wouldn’t have complained.

I’m not sure why OP claims “democratic rights” were lost here. This “stifling” of free speech is a red herring. Everyone had their free speech. The CEO in question exercised his right to back a bigoted effort, and employees at his new company squealed that they didn’t want a bigot at the helm. Looks to me like everyone got their democratic rights, and that there was a normalization of homosexuality, as it should be.

It was a case of AND, not OR.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alessandra  replied to Andre • 11 hours ago

The argument is embarrassing because it’s a clear-cut case of argumentum
ad Hitlerum, i.e., if you disagree with someone, call them a Nazi.

================

How embarrassing to call people who are thinking and behaving like a lynch mob “Nazis”! So embarrassing! I’m glad you don’t have any self-awareness because that guarantees never being embarassed, even when you participate in your nasty witch hunts.

Furthermore, isn’t it plain to see that in everyone’s minds “Nazis” are exactly “haters” and “bigots”?

And what is the first thing that liberals call decent social conservatives to stifle debate and to smear them? “Haters” and “bigots” – these are just synonyms for the very same concept of “Nazis.”

We’re just witnessing a repeat of history here: “Decent Social Conservatives are our misfortune” say people who have a perverted sexuality ideology.

“I’m not sure why OP claims “democratic rights” were lost here.”

In a society that normalizes homosexuality, the only way to enforce such a baseless, deformed ideology is by force and persecution. Decent people must be suppressed and driven from the public square, if not society itself. Everyone who does agree to their deformed homosexuality agenda will be labeled the equivalent of a filthy Jew in Germany – and there goes the market place of ideas and participation in civil society, while they usher in professional and personal persecution, the destruction of religious and ideological freedom, etc.

That’s the choice to be made.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MosquitoControl  replied to Alessandra • 14 minutes ago

Haha, Alessandra. “Those people are trying to protect equal rights, they must be nazis! That guy is trying to deny rights to someone based upon their birth, he must not be a nazi!”

Don’t you see how ridiculous your analogy is?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++                •
                Sarah Green Mod  replied to Alessandra • 40 minutes ago

                Alessandra, unfortunately, several of your comments violated our comment policy (below), and I’ve had to delete them. I believe you have made your views clear, and I would ask that you refrain from monopolizing the conversation further. Thanks for weighing in.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                    Alessandra  replied to Sarah Green • 11 minutes ago

                    No worries. I’m sure that like Mozilla, your site/organization values a “culture of openness that extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public.”

                    And that’s why you’re basically telling me to shut… I mean, not post anything.
                    Excluding views and censoring comments is all about openness and diversity. As Mozilla made it so perfectly clear, so must you!

I have been censored and banned at ABCNews sites

I went to post my quick comment on the Arizona freedom of religion bill in an article published on ABC News (Arizona Governor Returns Home Amid Furor Over Bill PHOENIX February 25, 2014 (AP)) and…

We are unable to post your comment because you have been blocked by ABC News. Find out more.

 

When clicking on the “find out more” above, I got the following from Disqus:

 

“We are unable to post your comment…” error

This message indicates that you’ve been blacklisted from commenting on the site in question, you can contact the website for more information on why you were blocked. Note that while Disqus offers many moderation tools, we do not moderate comments ourselves.

My comment CENSORED on ABC News:  

Watch liberals throw the 1st Amendment down the toilet live this week in Arizona. My prediction is that Brewer will cave in to the gay/liberal-stapo. The 1st Amendment has been buried. It exists only as a joke and as a  reminder of a bygone era where it once was taken seriously and had any real meaning.

Predictably, all the CINOs jumped on the opportunity to kiss the gaystapo’s behind to get them some pink/center votes for upcoming elections (Gingrich, Romney, both Arizona senators: John McCain (R) and Jeff Flake (R) – with Republicans like these, who needs liberals?)

Predictably as well, and equally disgusting, were the usual gaystapo corporations trying to twist Brewer’s arm to veto the bill with all kinds of threats  (Apple, Delta, the NFL – the NFL? Talk about the power of homosexuals to corrupt institutions). I do not want Apple deciding what is religious freedom in this country – and who can and cannot have it – or any other entity that thinks they can dictate law (and trample on the most fundamental freedom rights) simply because they have a pile of money.

I still don’t understand why people don’t grasp that refusing to serve or work with people who have a destructive sexuality agenda is a refusal to support a political ideology – a right which can never be banned and which can never be equated to refusing service to a person because they have dark skin.

Conditioned people simply can’t think outside what they have been conditioned to think.

Another day, another banning: this time at “The Other McCain.”

I have been too busy to write here, but just wanted to drop off some quick notes.

Another day, another banning: this time at “The Other McCain.”

I admire Robert McCain’s work very much – and he is a great example to other journalists concerning his writings related to deviant and predatory sexualities.   And I also like several of his regulars quite a bit. I had meant to do a summary of many of these child exploitation cases he has written about, to also keep a reference on my blog, but I haven’t yet gotten around to it. So much to write about, so little time!

However, it’s unfortunate that part of his followers are stuck seeing the world through the most narrow-minded 1950′s Cold War blinders and we also have some hysterical people regarding total denial of abuse in industrial farming, something I am also very critical of. Aside from McCain’s ultra-simplistic and twisted constructions of “patriarchy” and “feminism” that miss the mark as often as they hit it. And that’s not mentioning immigration issues.

But despite these drawbacks, McCain’s work on perverted sexualities and how much the LGBT and liberal populations do harm in the area of sexuality is truly an example.

I, however, wrote some comments that challenged the aforementioned ridiculous views on other issues and… I got banned.

Amusingly, more or less at the same time he banned me, he published a post called none other than:
Dissent Must Be Abolished! ( February 16, 2014)

where he criticized liberals for suppressing dissent, criticism, and debate. Not content with that, he wrote in another post: “Demonizing and marginalizing dissent is what liberals do routinely.”

Ah, as McCain well shows, not only liberals – alas, on his blog, dissent  must also be abolished.