|
Another idiotic Olympic editorial http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/aug/07/devaluing-greatness-gabby-douglas-olympics/?opinionfreepress quote:Devaluing greatness Uppity PC thugs. 
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 12:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2024 07:18 |
|
|
I'm constantly amazed at how important some people think Olympic medals are. But for someone to sperg with such fervour over a completely irrelevant point as that... why???
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
How dare you describe someone using their nationality in a nationalistic competition!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
Lee Harvey Oswald posted:Another idiotic Olympic editorial I bet that writer has said 'that little negro sure does well at that stuff' and has been super confused why his family got upset.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour makes doo doo all over the page for Foreign Policy. I can't imagine he even wrote it, it seems a tad bit eloquent for that troglodyte. He argues that French millionaires should move to Mississippi to get away from high taxes. He also lists a bunch of Republican talking points. Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor French Millionaires So France’s new Socialist president wants to soak the rich? My message to French job-creators fleeing the nouveau régime: Mississippi welcomes you. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/07/give_me_your_tired_your_poor_french_millionaires?page=full quote:The first European settlement in Mississippi, Fort Maurepas, was established by French explorateur Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville in 1699. With the recent announcement by France's Socialist president, François Hollande, of a tax plan to soak the rich, should Americans and others get ready for another French emigration, not of explorers but of entrepreneurs and other employers?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 08:52
|
|
|
quote:I recently visited Calgary from Michigan. As a police officer for 20 years, it feels strange not to carry my off-duty hand-gun. Many would say I have no need to carry one in Canada. The Stampede is a yearly event that apparently the two men were passing out free passes to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 10:55
|
|
|
Were the two men white? If not then I can understand his terror.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 11:17
|
|
|
Even when making fun of this guy, people defer to his authority. The last tweet mentions "officer Wawra" rather than "mister Wawra". You North-Americans are weird.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 11:24
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Even when making fun of this guy, people defer to his authority. The last tweet mentions "officer Wawra" rather than "mister Wawra". You North-Americans are weird. I think it's ingrained in some people. The few times I've talked to danish officers of the law, I didn't start adressing them as such. I asked for names like they did of me. Hell, should I ever meet our queen I think I would be weirded out and awkward, sure, but the last thing I'd call her is "Your Majesty!".
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 13:51
|
|
|
HMDK posted:I think it's ingrained in some people. Yeah same here. If I ever meet the Dutch queen I sure hope she doesn't expect pleasantries beyond those accorded to the average person.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 13:53
|
|
|
somewhere, Beatrix just signed up for the Something Awful forums, and is weeping tears onto her giant yellow cake shaped hat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 14:04
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:The Stampede is a yearly event that apparently the two men were passing out free passes to. This is a terrible window into the mindset of too many police officers and gun owners in the US. "an aggressive tone" "we ignored them." "I should have had my gun!". 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
Lamuella posted:somewhere, Beatrix just signed up for the Something Awful forums, and is weeping tears onto her giant yellow cake shaped hat. That hat rules and she seems much warmer in that picture than in any footage or pictures I've ever seen of other royalty like Queen Elizabeth II. Soap Bat Derby posted:This is a terrible window into the mindset of too many police officers and gun owners in the US. "an aggressive tone" "we ignored them." "I should have had my gun!". It's funny how they are more disturbed that they aren't allowed to be armed at all times to respond with lethal force to any perceived threat instead of being alarmed at living in a society where being armed is perceived as a necessity to remain safe. Imagine if a fraction of the effort, time, and resources spent on gun rights and advocacy was expended on actually reducing crime, recidivism, violence, and other problems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:That hat rules and she seems much warmer in that picture than in any footage or pictures I've ever seen of other royalty like Queen Elizabeth II. From the Canadian politics thread: Huge Liability posted:I instantly thought of this Heritage moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:That hat rules and she seems much warmer in that picture than in any footage or pictures I've ever seen of other royalty like Queen Elizabeth II. Eh, people really like her but in politics she has a reputation of being a real hardass who wants to be kept up to date on many of the goings on in the country's politics. She's way too involved with it for a democracy, but people don't care. Her son the heir apparent is currently lobbying hard to get the 2028 Olympics to the Netherlands 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:It's funny how they are more disturbed that they aren't allowed to be armed at all times to respond with lethal force to any perceived threat instead of being alarmed at living in a society where being armed is perceived as a necessity to remain safe. Imagine if a fraction of the effort, time, and resources spent on gun rights and advocacy was expended on actually reducing crime, recidivism, violence, and other problems. I can't get over that, even if this was some kinda bizarre shakedown (is 'stampede' white-people-version-of-black-people-slang for something now?) he's thinking that two people walking to him saying something in an 'aggressive, disrespectful, tone' means he should be able to just blow them away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
If that cop had gun those two people handing out free tickets would be dead right now. I assume aggressive is code for black?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 07:44
|
|
|
katlington posted:If that cop had gun those two people handing out free tickets would be dead right now. I assume aggressive is code for black? Yea basically 'aggressive and disrespectful' is the new way to say 'uppity minority'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 08:08
|
|
|
I don't know if I'd necessarily ascribe any racial element without anything tangible to back it up. There are just some people that are so high strung and insecure that they can take offense for virtually any interaction, no matter how innocuous or friendly. It generally doesn't matter who the other person is or what their race is, they can find some way to turn even a compliment into an insult. That's probably a big park of why this guy is so adamant about carrying guns all the time, he's so amped up and insecure that he needs the weapons to not feel vulnerable to all these potential "attacks" both physically and emotionally threatening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 08:31
|
|
|
katlington posted:If that cop had gun those two people handing out free tickets would be dead right now. I assume aggressive is code for black? Given Calgary's demographics, Chinese is about four times as likely, followed by Indian and Filipino. Of course, now we're apologizing for him, as Canadians are incapable of not apologizing for anything: http://www.canada.com/news/calgary/Give+Walt+Wawra+break+comments+about+Nose+Hill+gentlemen+some/7067730/story.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
Prism posted:Given Calgary's demographics, Chinese is about four times as likely, followed by Indian and Filipino. I'm not sure if these people are apologizing for that moron because they generally sympathize with his position or because they're offended by those two Canadian guys not being as polite as they think Canadians should be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2012 11:40
|
|
|
I agree that race needn't be a factor in these sorts of things and don't possess any strong conviction that it does in this case. It's just, you hear enough fantasies about pulling guns in noble self defence against crazed thugs etc. For all I know, Wawra himself is black, not to suggest that would make race being a factor an impossibility. Ugh so many caveats. I'm the worst poster, it took me 20 minutes to type this, the main point is if he have gun I don't like their chances.Prism posted:Given Calgary's demographics, Chinese is about four times as likely, followed by Indian and Filipino. That's sad, I don't think anybody should apologize to or for a strange man for not letting him carry around his precious. The way it looks to me is that, even if the two people who approached him and his wife were not working for the Stampede giving out tickets, nothing happened. The point of a "if he have gun" story is that something horrible happened to somebody that could have been prevented by somebody having a gun but nothing happened in this story (unless you count being momentarily bothered by another person while walking in a public place), but it very well might have if Wawra had been armed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2012 12:38
|
|
|
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/165790326.htmlquote:America, please get out and vote in your primaries. Vote for Democrats or Republicans, but most important, vote moderate. We have tried the experiment of my-way-or-the-highway political extremes. Now is the time to do what works. Keep the moderate candidates on the ballot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
I hate moderates; a few of them have genuine, thought-out beliefs which put them in the middle of the road, but most of the self-proclaimed "moderates" I've talked to look at two sides and choose the position they perceive to be "between" them because they think that makes them smarter and more reasonable than everybody else, when really what it makes them is shallow and smug about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:I hate moderates; a few of them have genuine, thought-out beliefs which put them in the middle of the road, but most of the self-proclaimed "moderates" I've talked to look at two sides and choose the position they perceive to be "between" them because they think that makes them smarter and more reasonable than everybody else, when really what it makes them is shallow and smug about it. Otherwise known as "South Park Republicans," who are loving dumb as hell. More importantly, that letter displays the fundamental problem with the perspective towards Obama, that he's some kind of leftist when he's actually a moderate conservative.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2012 23:35
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:I hate moderates; a few of them have genuine, thought-out beliefs which put them in the middle of the road, but most of the self-proclaimed "moderates" I've talked to look at two sides and choose the position they perceive to be "between" them because they think that makes them smarter and more reasonable than everybody else, when really what it makes them is shallow and smug about it. Well when it's Far-Right vs the Right, the middle ground is pretty lovely. Then again I had a relative tell me that thanks to Obama's new bureaucracy it's impossible to fire hired employees which is why all new hires are legally temps, this was ignoring the fact that I was laid off from UPS as a teamster in both 2009 and 2010.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2012 09:12
|
|
|
I don't know if college editorials are kosher here, but I figure this is awful enough to share. Background; this is the Catholic University of America, which back in the nineties (I think, not entirely sure on the timeline) disbanded its only LGBT organization because of politics or whatever. So what was founded back in the seventies was disbanded, and it wasn't until 2008 that another organization started up. They've been trying to get university recognition ever since, and this past semester they've turned up the heat a bit since the founders of this group were graduating. There were articles in the school newspaper, editorials, and the administration has yet to give a yes or no despite promises to have an answer months ago. Anyway, this guy is a first year master's student who's writing against an editorial by a guy I know which basically said "this group is needed on campus and it's part of our Christian love to do so." Also the group is called CUAllies because everything on that campus had to have some kind of pun on CUA in it. quote:In the 125th Anniversary edition of The Tower, an article entitled “A Time for Reaffirming CUA’s Mission at 125 Years” argued basically that for us to truly live our mission as a Catholic university we should allow the recognition of CUAllies, “the unofficial LGBTQ/Ally student organization” on campus. The implication of this article was that the University is not providing a “safe, welcoming and affirming environment for LGBTQ students” because this group is not officially recognized. It was further implied that it is unloving and unchristian to not affirm this group. If you could get through that you are a better person than me. Here's a link to the site in case anyone cares; http://www.cuatower.com/quill/2012/04/26/a-call-to-love-like-christ-support-for-cuallies-is-not-best-expression-of-christian-love/ EDIT: Fixed the formatting. Also as a side note this guy I'm pretty sure is in the philosophy program, not the theology. I was a theology student and noticed that theology was pretty laid back compared to philosophy, and most of the really conservative people were philosophy majors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2012 09:31
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:I don't know if college editorials are kosher here, but I figure this is awful enough to share. Background; this is the Catholic University of America, which back in the nineties (I think, not entirely sure on the timeline) disbanded its only LGBT organization because of politics or whatever. So what was founded back in the seventies was disbanded, and it wasn't until 2008 that another organization started up. They've been trying to get university recognition ever since, and this past semester they've turned up the heat a bit since the founders of this group were graduating. There were articles in the school newspaper, editorials, and the administration has yet to give a yes or no despite promises to have an answer months ago. I like how he quotes Jesus speaking to the woman accused of adultery but fails to mention that Jesus never actually condemned homosexuality, nor does he cite any statistics about Catholic acceptance of homosexuality. quote:On the issue of marriage, the report [pdf], compiled by the Public Religion Research Institute using past polls and studies, showed “nearly three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (43%) or allowing them to form civil unions (31%). Only 22% of Catholics say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.” Right-wing Catholics seem to be the ones most likely to cite Church authority in matters that affirm their preexisting beliefs and biases, especially since the hierarchy tends to be quite conservative, but they purposely ignore and downplay how the vast majority of Catholics live their actual lives, like 98% of sexually active Catholic women having used contraceptives at some point despite the Church being completely against them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:I like how he quotes Jesus speaking to the woman accused of adultery but fails to mention that Jesus never actually condemned homosexuality, nor does he cite any statistics about Catholic acceptance of homosexuality. I really feel bad for Catholics, because when you see stuff like Liberation theology in South America, or look into the American Nuns, you realize that there's a lot of good that comes from it. It always seems that the further people in the Church are from actual contact with the poor and marginalized, the more hateful and bigoted they are (not that this is surprising).
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 03:11
|
|
|
colonelslime posted:I really feel bad for Catholics, because when you see stuff like Liberation theology in South America, or look into the American Nuns, you realize that there's a lot of good that comes from it. It always seems that the further people in the Church are from actual contact with the poor and marginalized, the more hateful and bigoted they are (not that this is surprising). Most Catholics get by by just not paying attention to what the Vatican has to say about anything. Heck 98% of American Catholics support rights for transgender people, a percentage higher than any other religious group AND higher than mainstream support. The Catholic Church has a really strong social justice tradition which has somehow managed to filter down to the congregations, and the sexually repressive stuff is just ignored because these people are able to note the inherent hypocrisy of it. Still, anyone interested in fixing the hierarchy is looking at a battle so uphill you might as well be rock climbing. In Europe they still haven't quite gotten the kinks out of "if someone molests a child then you need to call the police." Questions about ordination of women, acceptance of homosexuality, and even the acceptance of transgender people (official Church position is that they are mentally ill and that transition is harmful to them, and they have tried to block UN attempts to promote transgender rights abroad) will get you blackballed at Catholic universities if you're a theologian, banned from teaching theology if you're a priest, and if you're not in academia and you're a priest you might as well say goodbye to any sort of advancement. A bishop was investigated for heresy in Australia when he said that if the Catholic Church would ever allow ordination of women he'd be perfectly fine with ordaining a woman. Basically right now the Church is going to go into a major struggle between the hierarchy and what the majority of Catholics actually believe. The conservatives have no idea how fragile everything is right now, and the liberals are a little too "time heals all wounds" if you ask me. I might be biased but personally I think if the Church keeps moving the way it's been moving the past thirty, forty years we won't have much of a Catholic Church by the end of the next century.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 07:40
|
|
|
To be quite honest, I'm amazed that there hasn't been a schism considering how radically different much of the Catholic population in the Americas is when compared to the overwhelmingly European higher ups in the Vatican.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 08:02
|
|
|
The pastor emeritus of our local mission (before he died at age 89 a few years back) was very insistent that love was the most important thing in the universe, and so long as you love yourself and your fellow man, you are doing right by God. And if you were literally giving the loving to a fellow man, that was awesome too. Every single person deserved respect, and everyone's religion deserved respect too, because to him they were all simply different but equally valid angles of view into the spiritual realm (and again, to love your fellow man was all you needed; he fully expected to be rubbing elbows with Hindus and atheists after he died). He also thought women should be priests. He wasn't much for believing official Church doctrine but of course the whole town loved him (including us atheists). I'd be happy to see him resurrected and installed as zombie pope...
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 10:06
|
|
|
LP97S posted:To be quite honest, I'm amazed that there hasn't been a schism considering how radically different much of the Catholic population in the Americas is when compared to the overwhelmingly European higher ups in the Vatican. Honestly that was my thought as well. I think the more liberal Catholics are simply lacking a leader to rally around. If priest with a little charisma was motivated I don't think it would take to much for them to pull a Martin Luther.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 10:24
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:Honestly that was my thought as well. I think the more liberal Catholics are simply lacking a leader to rally around. If priest with a little charisma was motivated I don't think it would take to much for them to pull a Martin Luther. It's because liberal Catholics are very committed to keeping the hierarchy in place and the succession of Peter intact. This is because those things are important to Catholic Eucharistic theology. The ones who get fed up with the idea of reforming either stop going to church entirely or join a church more to their liking (usually Anglican or some mainline protestant church) Choadmaster posted:The pastor emeritus of our local mission (before he died at age 89 a few years back) was very insistent that love was the most important thing in the universe, and so long as you love yourself and your fellow man, you are doing right by God. And if you were literally giving the loving to a fellow man, that was awesome too. Every single person deserved respect, and everyone's religion deserved respect too, because to him they were all simply different but equally valid angles of view into the spiritual realm (and again, to love your fellow man was all you needed; he fully expected to be rubbing elbows with Hindus and atheists after he died). He also thought women should be priests. There's a lot of people like that these days, it's just the Catholic Church does its best to either keep them out of the hierarchy or, failing that, crush their spirit with just how awful it is being inside the Holy See. Sometimes you get the rare "Vatican insider goes to Ireland and ACTUALLY REFORMS THE MESS and forces several bishops complicit in covering up child abuse to retire" but that pretty much never happens except for the one time. I should probably stop posting, this is a bit of a derail. I basically went from an orthodox Catholic convert to a liberal Catholic seeking to reform the church to "gently caress it I'll just join a church that isn't this backwards and afraid of change."
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 10:38
|
|
|
I fully expected the media to rally around their BFF, Tony Perkins, but Dana Milbank's latest column takes the loving cake.Dana Milbank posted:Human Rights Campaign isn’t responsible for the shooting. Neither should the organization that deemed the FRC a “hate group,” the Southern Poverty Law Center, be blamed for a madman’s act. But both are reckless in labeling as a “hate group” a policy shop that advocates for a full range of conservative Christian positions, on issues from stem cells to euthanasia. Honestly, I should post the entire thing and bold every word. It's not even just a matter of false equivalency, he cherry picked one example from a long list to mislead readers into thinking that the SPLC labeled the FRC a hate group based on statements from more than a decade ago which is a lie. It's also ironic that he would harp on comparisons to white supremacist groups when it was Tony's dealings with David Duke and the Council of Conservative Citizens that helped tank his 2002 Senate run. Dana Milbank posted:Late Thursday, the law center fired back at Perkins, defending its categorization of the FRC as a hate group because it “has knowingly spread false and denigrating propaganda about LGBT people.” The center said that Perkins should stop putting out “claims that are provably false” about gay people. So the FRC can continue to incite fear and hatred of LGBT people without consequence but the "reckless" Southern Poverty Law Center and the Human Rights Campaign must stop labeling them a hate group this instant. Oh, and those decades where the Ku Klux Klan were considered a "mainstream Christian advocacy group" apparently never happened. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
samurai slowdown posted:I fully expected the media to rally around their BFF, Tony Perkins, but Dana Milbank's latest column takes the loving cake. It's bullshit false equivalency to criticize the SPLC like that, especially when Milbank notes that the Westboro Baptist Church has the same designation and I'd say that the FRC is pretty much the same as the WBC. You also have to actually go to the SPLC website to see how and why they label groups the way they do, because they generally included well-sourced details on why each group is on the list, which is nuance that Milbank is completely ignoring.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:It's bullshit false equivalency to criticize the SPLC like that, especially when Milbank notes that the Westboro Baptist Church has the same designation and I'd say that the FRC is pretty much the same as the WBC. You also have to actually go to the SPLC website to see how and why they label groups the way they do, because they generally included well-sourced details on why each group is on the list, which is nuance that Milbank is completely ignoring.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:I don't think it's so much that Milbank is ignoring a nuance - he's creating a new one out of nowhere. "Well, you see, the FRC does do some pretty lovely things in relation to gays, but that's not all they do, so they shouldn't be called a hate group". I mean, that's the point he seems to be getting at with the whole "full range of conservative Christian positions" thing, at least, like you can't call a group a "hate group" unless that's all they do. He's not creating nuance, he's obfuscating the nuance that is there. As I already wrote, the SPLC does more than simply labels a group or organization as a "hate group" it actually details why it did so and supports it with extensive citations and sources. Milbank is minimizing this nuance by acting as if the SPLC takes one event from over a decade ago as the single deciding factor for the "hate group" label and never updates or revises its database. He's also creating a strawman by by characterizing the SPLC as equating the KKK with the FRC, which they aren't doing. Sure, both groups get the "hate group" label, but that doesn't mean the SPLC is asserting that they have committed similar levels of crime and violence, which Milbank and his readers would know if they honestly read the SPLC website. Maybe the SPLC could benefit from creating new labels like "non-criminal hate group" vs. "criminal hate group," but it's just patently disingenuous for Milbank to be apologizing for the FRC as if they are some kind of victims who are only promoting a benign conservative Christian philosophy that doesn't tangibly harm people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:He's not creating nuance, he's obfuscating the nuance that is there. As I already wrote, the SPLC does more than simply labels a group or organization as a "hate group" it actually details why it did so and supports it with extensive citations and sources. Milbank is minimizing this nuance by acting as if the SPLC takes one event from over a decade ago as the single deciding factor for the "hate group" label and never updates or revises its database. He's also creating a strawman by by characterizing the SPLC as equating the KKK with the FRC, which they aren't doing. Sure, both groups get the "hate group" label, but that doesn't mean the SPLC is asserting that they have committed similar levels of crime and violence, which Milbank and his readers would know if they honestly read the SPLC website. Maybe the SPLC could benefit from creating new labels like "non-criminal hate group" vs. "criminal hate group," but it's just patently disingenuous for Milbank to be apologizing for the FRC as if they are some kind of victims who are only promoting a benign conservative Christian philosophy that doesn't tangibly harm people. I think we're arguing the same point from different angles, and I didn't see that at first, and I apologize. You're saying he's ignoring the SPLC's criteria, in that he's saying that the FRC shouldn't have been classified as a hate group solely based on the cherry-picked things he mentioned. I'm going from the other angle - that Milbank is trying to say that the group shouldn't be classified as a hate group solely because it's done anything other than anti-gay hate speech.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 08:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2024 07:18 |
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:I think we're arguing the same point from different angles, and I didn't see that at first, and I apologize. You're saying he's ignoring the SPLC's criteria, in that he's saying that the FRC shouldn't have been classified as a hate group solely based on the cherry-picked things he mentioned. I'm going from the other angle - that Milbank is trying to say that the group shouldn't be classified as a hate group solely because it's done anything other than anti-gay hate speech. Ok, I see where you're coming from now, but I think it's further evidence that Milbank is disingenuous because he's not taking into account how groups like the FRC use their speech for tangible harm against gays and lesbians, such as direct lobbying against the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, lobbying for changes to a congressional resolution that condemned the infamous anti-gay legislation in Uganda which would have given life imprisonment or the death penalty for being homosexuals (the FRC wanted the bill to lose language declaring homosexual orientation as a human right), and repeated claims that homosexuality should be criminalized because of the false correlation between homosexuals and pedophilia. FRC can't even pull that "I'm not anti-gay, I'm just in favor of traditional marriage" bullshit because many of their top leadership directly condemns homosexuality and frequently vilifies the homosexual community with pseudoscience and abuses of real science.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 21:30
|
|