(06-28-2015 09:32 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 09:08 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  SJWs and #BlackLivesMatter interrupted a Chicago gay pride parade. The pics are hilarious.

http://therightscoop.com/pandemonium-at-...ts-people/

ROFL when the gun shots sound, and the police at 2:05 "get the fuck out of here!!"

(06-28-2015 09:08 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  SJWs and #BlackLivesMatter interrupted a Chicago gay pride parade. The pics are hilarious.

http://therightscoop.com/pandemonium-at-...ts-people/

My first thought was "this has to be an onion article"...its not. This is one of the funniest true things I've seen in a while. All it needed was a white girl to cry rape and all hell would have broken loose like the dueling news teams in anchorman.

Major props to Roosh and everyone else that predicted this SJW cannibalism.

Me asleep tonight:

(06-28-2015 11:24 PM)Veloce Wrote:  Major props to Roosh and everyone else that predicted this SJW cannibalism.

Steve Sailer's been predicting this. He calls the rancor towards white heterosexuals the "KKKrazy glue" holding the Obama coalition together (i.e., disparate groups that hate each other - e.g., blacks and homosexuals).

http://takimag.com/article/the_kkkrazy_g...z3eON0bHiq

Quote:We are constantly told that the GOP is doomed because it’s the party of straight white men. That may well be true, but few have asked: How can the diverse Democrats hold together? How can special interests as different as blacks and gays be kept in sync?

The answer appears to be: The Obama coalition can stay together only by stoking resentment—and, indeed, hatred—of straight white men.

Guns going off and that fat bastard didn't lose one drop of that ice cream.

(06-28-2015 09:08 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  SJWs and #BlackLivesMatter interrupted a Chicago gay pride parade. The pics are hilarious.

http://therightscoop.com/pandemonium-at-...ts-people/

Credit to the photographer who managed to capture everything wrong with America in a single frame:

- Fat lesbian
- U.S. passport-holding transvestite Mestizo peasant
- Short haired, white guilt feminist
- Cuckservative in the cowboy hat, knee bent in submission
- Doppelganger fan gathering of the hit film Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire

Lovely people.

It's really too bad. San Francisco is such a beautiful city. There's no place like it really. But it wasn't always so whacked out. It used to be more or less a military town. And all that beautiful prewar and Victorian architecture most certainly wasn't built by the hands of fat SJWs with tattoos and purple Skrillex hair. They swarmed in later.

Gay marriage supporter in an argument with feminist actually spits men's rights talking points:

(06-29-2015 05:38 AM)Roosh Wrote:  Gay marriage supporter in an argument with feminist actually spits men's rights talking points:

This is very interesting.

A question for you Roosh:

If I read you correctly, you've been abundantly clear that the pushing of gay marriage rights by SJWs is a part of a larger agenda to marginalize and discriminate against healthy, heterosexual men.

I think there's ample reason to conclude that SJWs are dangerous and their tactics must be countered.

However, based on examples like the one above, do you think that it's possible that actual gay men (who just want to lead everyday lives and buttfuck other men in private or at the bathhouse) could potentially be a future ally for heterosexual men facing increased gender based discrimination?

As a larger question, do you think it's possible that SJWs will eventually seek to marginalize gay men as well, to such a degree, that we see a large number of gay men subscribing to red-pill or their own gay version of neomascalinity and starting blogs and engaging in activities the more or less mirror many of ours?

What do London, Gay Pride, Dildos and ISIS have in common - why CNN of course:

Just can't make this shtuff up:

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/28/8857415/cnn...pride-flag

Can't see ISIS with their proclivity of beheading "infidels" especially deviant degenerate infidels being invited to a London dildo day parade - CNN jumped on this one hard (multiple puns intended).

Quote:However, based on examples like the one above, do you think that it's possible that actual gay men (who just want to lead everyday lives and buttfuck other men in private or at the bathhouse) could potentially be a future ally for heterosexual men facing increased gender based discrimination?

No, because a society of gay men will push their value system upon others, and this will include attacks on masculinity and traditional life.

It's like asking million of radical Muslims to move into New York because they will make the city less liberal. Their value system will still be different than yours, enough that it encroaches on your way of life.

I got on Facebook over the weekend to find out which social events to go to, and was bombarded with rainbows, pinks and all kinds of faggotry. Had to log off immediately to preserve my sanity.

Today I checked again for the aftermath. It turned out that the biggest thing is SJWs viciously attacking their own - some are very well known SJWs and even a couple of real faggots in my social circle - for NOT using the rainbow Facebook profile photo generator.

Big one - American College of Pediatricians came out calling gay marriage a tragedy for US children:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...-children/

Quote:AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PEDIATRICIANS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RULING: ‘A TRAGIC DAY FOR AMERICA’S CHILDREN’

Quote:In a statement released Friday, the president of the American College of Pediatricians said the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage will have a significantly negative impact on children in the United States.

Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the College, said:

[T]his is a tragic day for America’s children. The SCOTUS has just undermined the single greatest pro-child institution in the history of mankind: the natural family. Just as it did in the joint Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton decisions, the SCOTUS has elevated and enshrined the wants of adults over the needs of children.

The College, which has members in 44 states and in several countries outside the U.S., joined in an amici brief in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that has led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in all 50 states of the nation.

In the brief, the amici stated what is often the case when sound research is ignored by the left when it fails to support their causes:

Despite being certified by almost all major social science scholarly associations—indeed, in part because of this—the alleged scientific consensus that having two parents of the same sex is innocuous for child well-being is almost wholly without basis. All but a handful of the studies cited in support draw on small, non-random samples which cannot be extrapolated to the same-sex population at large. This limitation is repeatedly acknowledged in scientific meetings and journals, but ignored when asserted as settled findings in public or judicial advocacy.

The College itself has maintained that a significant body of research has demonstrated that “same-sex marriage deliberately deprives the child of a mother or a father, and is therefore harmful.”

Here the official statement:

http://www.acpeds.org/same-sex-marriage-...r-children

In five years, there aren't going to be gay pride parades in London. The Muslim population will stone them.

----------------------------------------

I heard an interviewer question Donald Trump on “What do you say to a lesbian who’s married or a gay man who’s married who says, ‘Donald Trump, what’s traditional about being married three times?'”

He did a great job of avoiding the question, but I'm not sure how he didn't respond with something like...

It's still a marriage between a man and a woman, besides the fact that divorce has been around for thousands of years.

Now that gay marriage has been legalized in the US, what do you think is the chance of polygamy being naturalised? I searched RVF there is stuff from 2013 and 2014, but since the political climate has changed, I’d like to know your thoughts on it.

Gay marriage is unnatural and has never existed as a mainstream marriage in all of human history.

Polygamy has always been around in various countries and it still exists legally in many parts of Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

Sharia law allows a maximum of four wives, as long as you can prove you're able to look after them equally. It would be intolerant to not allow this.

If polygamy is eventually allowed in the US, it will be the women having multiple husbands instead of the other way around.

No, they will not because the main people pushing for it in the US are Mormon fundamentalists, who they hate.

Plus they know damn well it would lead to massive fraud in people marrying in order to pay less in taxes, criminals marrying to avoid being compelled to testify against one another, etc. etc.

They know they are hypocritical on this but don't care.

I think bans on incestual marriage will go, though, if they're not already legally invalid. How can they muster any argument against gay incestual marriage since the two involved can't produce mutant children?

They opened the pandora's box for the legitimization of degeneracy the likes of which the world has only rarely seen.

So who will win?

SJWs on the side of;

1: blacklivesmatter
2: LGBT
3: Muslims

The last paragraph of the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage is an open invitation to legalice anything: polygamy, pedophilic marriage, zoofilic marriage, extra-terrestrial marriage... You name it. However, don't expect the media to give the same attention to polygamy as that given to gay marriage because polygamy is a horrendous patriarchal institution.

There are multiple issues of significance wound up, interconnected, overlapping and confused in this one topic. Just a few of them include:
* The morality/immorality of homosexuality.
* The social impact (or non-impact) of homosexuality.
* The political agenda(s) driving the homosexual agenda.
* Individual rights versus governmental authority.
* States rights versus federal authority.
* The impact of the Supreme Court's actual decision in this case.

The discussion/argument cannot advance until everyone understands what it is they are arguing about. This guy is arguing individual rights, that guy is trumpeting morality and the guy over there is talking about the slippery slope, so it's all just noise and the "discussion" goes nowhere.

To me, one of the most important pieces of this is that the Supreme Court has made the definition of "marriage" subject to the whim of any federal judge on any bench anywhere. If your response to that is, "well, two guys getting married doesn't really affect me or my life," then you (a) we aren't discussing the same thing and (b) can't see anything past the "feels" (i.e., talking points) that the TV is babbling at you.

This and the Obamacare decision mark the open acknowledgement of a significant shift of power in this country, and I'd argue that the three-branch system of government designed by the Constitution has now been reduced to two branches, with the judicial no longer serving as an arbiter of rights but now firmly ensconced as an arm of the legislative branch. The executive branch has been sucking up legislative authority left and right as well, so we're not too far from a one-branch system of government.

Gentlemen, we are the animals in the barn, and we're watching the pigs in the house put on pants and decide how they are going to split up the cigars. The horse is on the way to the glue factory and, yeah, we're all equal, only they are much, much more equal than us.

But I'm sure whatever Planet Ham tweeted out about what someone else Facebooked her that TMZ reported last night about what Kim Kardashian said about gay rights is what we really should be focused on...