I don't understand. Part of the heterosexual agenda is to enforce poor spelling standards?

I'm for anybody who is against the Liberal Good-Ol-Boys in a rural Oklahoma County Courthouse!

also keep in mind, this was drawn by the candidate hisself.

I have one question, does the woman he's talking to have someone else brain attached to her head as a hat?

Last edited by orangeplus (2008-07-17 16:05:10)

I like that the good ol' boys are gay.

Also, it seems that his typeface was inspired by some original good ol' German boys, to wit:



and


(Die Brucke manifesto)


This is in no way meant to be read as a tacit endorsement of the gays and the buttfuckery and whatnot.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Last edited by ah297900 (2008-07-17 16:15:30)

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

This is in no way meant to be read as a tacit endorsement of the gays and the buttfuckery and whatnot.

OpenYourMouthandSayAh...if you're going to fit in around here you'll have to live with certain tacit ass(fuck)umptions...otherwise pENIx and the rest of the High-Street Lavender Mob will take you out behind the side panel and expand your consciousness. (And by "expand," of course, I mean "bugger," and by "consciousness" I mean "ass.")

Have at it.



And by the by, as a trained art historian, I'm well aware of the Lavender Mafia.

jesusluvspegging wrote:

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

This is in no way meant to be read as a tacit endorsement of the gays and the buttfuckery and whatnot.

OpenYourMouthandSayAh...if you're going to fit in around here you'll have to live with certain tacit ass(fuck)umptions...otherwise pENIx and the rest of the High-Street Lavender Mob will take you out behind the side panel and expand your consciousness. (And by "expand," of course, I mean "bugger," and by "consciousness" I mean "ass.")

Actually, I think this board could use a good vocal homophobe.

Hey, can I be both pro-homo, and have a personal distaste for buttsecks?

I can has distaste for buttsecks plz?

ah297900 wrote:

Does it involve bright red moist rectal tissue sliding through the anus?

Shit, brb. Have to beat off.

Milk your prostate while you're at it.

ah297900 wrote:

Milking the prostate is a myth, much like the female orgasm. For $25, this site will show you how to put your finger in your asshole. Unfortunately, I don't have $25, nor the desire for shitfinger.

You're in luck!

jesusluvspegging wrote:

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

This is in no way meant to be read as a tacit endorsement of the gays and the buttfuckery and whatnot.

OpenYourMouthandSayAh...if you're going to fit in around here you'll have to live with certain tacit ass(fuck)umptions...otherwise pENIx and the rest of the High-Street Lavender Mob will take you out behind the side panel and expand your consciousness. (And by "expand," of course, I mean "bugger," and by "consciousness" I mean "ass.")

Actually, I think this board could use a good vocal homophobe.

Sorry boys - I've already claimed the title of board "homophobe"

you can try for:  "idiot homophobe" or "nit-wit homophobe"


but to be the true homophobe you can't rely on just hating fags, you have to truly believe that the entire lifestyle is counter-evolutionary and that they are effectively throwing bleach in their own gene pool.

Emmeran wrote:

but to be the true homophobe you can't rely on just hating fags, you have to truly believe that the entire lifestyle is counter-evolutionary and that they are effectively throwing bleach in their own gene pool.

And I only use the bleach for clean up after all that fluid-flinging, cock-spurting, buttsecks we're so fond of.

My ma, God bless her, has a theory about the hommashexuls which I rather like. 

Since the "gene pool" has gotten so large that it's slopping out over the sides and the runoff is flooding the planet, could it be that same-sex attraction is a way to cut down on our species' runaway breeding?

All human beings have the near-uncontrollable need to fuck, so perhaps Mother Nature, or the Intelligent Designer or whoever, is programming a higher percentage of humans to fuck in a non-procreative way to reduce the number of offspring that would otherwise result from het fucking.

I found that rather elegant.

George Orr wrote:

My ma, God bless her, has a theory about the hommashexuls which I rather like. 

Since the "gene pool" has gotten so large that it's slopping out over the sides and the runoff is flooding the planet, could it be that same-sex attraction is a way to cut down on our species' runaway breeding?

All human beings have the near-uncontrollable need to fuck, so perhaps Mother Nature, or the Intelligent Designer or whoever, is programming a higher percentage of humans to fuck in a non-procreative way to reduce the number of offspring that would otherwise result from het fucking.

I found that rather elegant.

The Mattachine Society propagated this theory in the 60's.  Nothing new under the sun.

Emmeran wrote:

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Every time someone questions your choice of lifestyle, you lash out like scientologists...

don't you mean "lash out like Canadians" ????

Could we agree on "Canadian scientologists" as a compromise?

Come hither and yawn #1

pALEPHx wrote:

Its elegance--not to mention its actual provenance as an old wives' tale--is somewhat in debate. I won't say Dusty's call on the Mattachine Society (for which I cannot quickly find a supporting reference, but will take him at his word) is spurious, but there's a lot more to it than that, and social psychology has progressed considerably since the 1960s.

Come hither and yawn #2

pALEPHx wrote:

The yawn, as it were, is that you recall the evolutionary/biological theory of why homosexuals exist, which does little to explain their presence in pre-overpopulation periods. Nor does it adequately explain the existence of homosexual activities in other species even when their population is not at a stopgap or otherwise threatened. I've always been a sucker for visibility, but there are not likely more homosexual and/or bisexual persons present in this world, per capita, than there were 50, 100, or even 1000 years ago.

Come hither and yawn #3

pALEPHx wrote:

Put simply, if the ratio keeps pace with population, then it may not necessarily be a means to control said population. If someone could prove that there were more gays in, say, China or India than anywhere else (when they're not being killed, driven from the village, or otherwise cudgeled into hetero compliance), then the theory would have more weight.

Come hither and yawn #4

pALEPHx wrote:

I am not saying that the concept is illegitimate or worthless, only that it must be considered with a constellation of other factors in order to explain a bigger picture. At least it was nice of your mother to come up with a personal understanding that didn't place blame or curry favor to the "deviance" crowd. ALL characteristics that do not match current norms are deviations, which include blondness, blue-eyedness, left-handedness, and--according to at least one other point made on HS recently--external genitalia-ness (since the latter is still needed for sexual reproduction, it's not really counted with the rest).

Eight More Yawns To Go!

pALEPHx wrote:

I am not saying that the concept is illegitimate or worthless, only that it must be considered with a constellation of other factors in order to explain a bigger picture.

I'd rather just avoid the whole bio-social discussion and write it off as errors in manufacturing or an improper genetic response to a life drama.

I think we can all agree that the stat's on homo/bi behavior are skewed according to the speakers preference and that stats rarely tell the whole truth.

it's fairly safe to assume (among the males):

5% of the population are genetically fags
5% have had a faggish incident or period
20% will fuck anything (including traffic signs)
69% prefer pussy of one sort or another.
1% are Canadians

I've personally never managed a faggish incident or period, and probably never will now that Lurker has gone missing.

Emmeran wrote:

I'd rather just avoid the whole bio-social discussion and write it off as errors in manufacturing or an improper genetic response to a life drama.

I think we can all agree that the stat's on homo/bi behavior are skewed according to the speakers preference and that stats rarely tell the whole truth.

it's fairly safe to assume (among the males):

5% of the population are genetically fags
5% have had a faggish incident or period
20% will fuck anything (including traffic signs)
69% prefer pussy of one sort or another.
1% are Canadians

I've personally never managed a faggish incident or period, and probably never will now that Lurker has gone missing.

Well, you've already implied you're some kind of homophobe, so I wonder why I'm bothering, but wot teh hey...

Congrats on never faggin' out. Godsknow, if you'd ever so much as idolized a football player or looked up to an uncle, this male affiliation would have to end at intercourse.

You can't write off the biopsychosocial model. It's what predominates the field. If you're not IN the 'field,' then you can say whatever the fuck you want. I would agree with you, and Samuel Clemens, about statistics, but scientific study would be useless in all areas of endeavor if we didn't accept processed numbers. I would further agree that what they mean to one observer may be different to another, but "science" tries to level that distinction a lot more often than you might give credit. F'rinstance, saying "God had a fondness for beetles" is a statistical argument, and nobody could argue with the numbers. With other populations, and certainly with behavior, what George was discussing was an interpretation of the data, not a weird re-jiggering of the data themselves.

8-10% of the population are genetically predisposed to same-sex behavior.
12-25% beyond this group may have a same-sex experience.*
13-15% of this group are functionally bisexual, whether they exercise this option or not.**
The rest must have the vajayjay or their world will collapse.

* This experience does not infringe on gender identity, orientation, or life-term behaviors.
** Sexuality does not reside in mere practice or demonstration.

We live in a world that socializes people to be straight. I don't have a problem with this; it's an obvious biological necessity. Fags that DO have a problem with it are of the kind who think that everybody's gay, just with the right person or the right amount of alcohol, and they're not entirely off the mark, despite their frivolousness. More people would seek, desire, and be satisfied by same-sex behaviors if there was less of a social stigma associated with it, but not even the Ancient Greeks found the practice--as a life-long activity--acceptable. The term "homosexual" didn't even exist a hundred and fifty years ago, yet the behaviors obviously did.

There. I have used up my additional 8 yawns and Wilber can have control of your Saturday evening. Hope you're happy with such a staunch supporter of heterosexuality. His desire to have his mind masturbated by other men of equal or greater intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with his genitals.

Last edited by pALEPHx (2008-07-19 21:14:06)

Emmeran wrote:

I think your stat's are off a little as you've left out the Canadians, and obviously you care far more about this than I do. I'm just queer baiting to amuse myself while the wort cools.

and where does the guy who fucks traffic signs for thrills fall into your analysis?

If you're making St. John's Wort tea, then I really can't help you.

Guys who fuck traffic signs are true deviants. Their sexual pleasure no longer resides in other forms of their own species. However, since we've seen seals fucking penguins, the mere pleasure of the act is hardly restricted to humans at all. These are called paraphilias. The majority [of this minority] are recognized but, for the rest, Rule 34 applies. You didn't think those people would keep it to the internet, did you?

Emmeran wrote:

I think your stat's are off a little as you've left out the Canadians, and obviously you care far more about this than I do.  I'm just queer baiting to amuse myself while the wort cools.

Queer and Canadian baiting - both at the same time. Impressive. By the by, pENIx would love to watch you sparge your wort...it could be the start of something beautiful....

Emmeran wrote:

and where does the guy who fucks traffic signs for thrills fall into your analysis?

He was here this morning, left two identical cakefart posts and fucked off back into ignominy.

jesusluvspegging wrote:

It bears pointing out that evolution isn't about survival and procreation of the individual, it's about survival and procreation of the species.  Fags can contribute to society and thereby increase the statistical probability of other people's offspring surviving to successfully reproduce.

Plus, perhaps the queers are part of some twisted evolutionary attempt to build human immunity to e. coli infection via generations of rimjobbing.

Okay, now I just feel like I'm one of those old science-y films with the jagged soundtrack and the jumpy frames. Fags, for lack of a better word, DO contribute to species survival. Despite popular belief, they are--at literal least--not aggressively destroying anyone else's offspring. It has been posited before (not on HS) that our position as caretakers or ancillary parents has been diminished. I'm not just talking about our ability to coordinate throw pillows or throw-away therapy.

Gay men (and WOMEN, who have somehow been omitted in the general discussion) don't have to serve an obvious purpose to be human, to be regarded as equals. With your Pitt-Jolies and your Spears-Federlines, you've certainly proven that heterosexuality can be as watered down and self-abnegating as any other form of sexuality. There's always the "sanctity of marriage" to discuss.

Regardless, I'd rather not think rim jobs were a deliberate evolutionary diversion. Purposefulness is not the sole antecedent to evolutionary biology...but I do appreciate that folks around here regard life as having a few more forms than their own.

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Paid in full - please feel free to die now.

Funny. I don't recall your screenname at Cruel. Who are you again?

jesusluvspegging wrote:

It bears pointing out that evolution isn't about survival and procreation of the individual, it's about survival and procreation of the species.  Fags can contribute to society and thereby increase the statistical probability of other people's offspring surviving to successfully reproduce.

Species don’t mean shit; it’s the genes that matter.  Then the gay uncle makes sense.

phoQ wrote:

Species don’t mean shit; it’s the genes that matter.

I'm trying to comprehend the ignorance of that statement in its entirety, but I'm having trouble thinking of an analogy ridiculous enough to model it.

I'll assume you were just trolling.

as if Cake Farting wasn't bad enough - now we have gay animal porn on here.  This place is awesome.

phoQ wrote:

opsec wrote:

I'm trying to comprehend the ignorance of that statement in its entirety, but I'm having trouble thinking of an analogy ridiculous enough to model it.

I'll assume you were just trolling.

Yes, but with the gay animal porn

jesusluvespegging was suggesting some species benefit for homosexuality and I was suggesting a more strongly supported hypothesis.  Homosexuals share a lot of information with their siblings.

Linnaeus was to Biology as Archimedes was to physics.  Carl von Linne’s (his real name) 18th century artificial construct is fine in a Peterson Field Guide to Birds of North America sort of way.  But the map is not the territory, and species just gets in the way in many situations.

OK, and I take your point. Frankly it's amazing how well Linnaeus did considering.  Speaking as an Austrian (which I'm not) I think he earned his von.

However your statement without context is nonsensical and  tightened my sphincter to the point of shitting diamonds.  It was early this morning, the bleeding has stopped.

phoQ wrote:

Species don’t mean shit; it’s the genes that matter.

Species are expressions of stablized genomes.  How can you seperate the two, much less put them in a cage match?!  I mock your .edu.

I admit the gay monkey sex threw me off for a moment.

phoQ wrote:

Linnaeus was to Biology as Archimedes was to physics.

I've always failed to understand what this genetically inferior Swede contributed and the usual gloss never helps. I'll bet his daughters were hot, though.

opsec wrote:

However your statement without context is nonsensical

Sorry.  My bad.  Saturday night and all.

opsec wrote:

Species are expressions of stablized genomes.  How can you seperate the two, much less put them in a cage match?!  I mock your .edu.

You mock me, sir.

Bacteria live inside all of our cells while their genes slowly migrate into the human genome.  Viruses, transposons, retrotransposons and other mobile genetic elements hop in and out of your DNA.  And that’s just human instability.  The microbial world is driven by horizontal gene transfer.  Evolution is not a ladder, it’s not even a tree, it’s a fucking mess.

Then and Now