Periodical Political Post *192

Queer News

Other News

  

51 thoughts on “Periodical Political Post *192”

  1. Once again, I will await the comment(s) of Horselips.

    He always makes me laugh… and THINK

    1. “Once again, I will await the comment(s) of Horselips.”

      How about offering us YOUR opinion(s) instead of just waiting for someone else to do the work?

      1. OK. I will.

        I wish you would quit your relentless trolling.

        You are one of the reasons why these comments will be discontinued by Josh in the near future.

        Hopefully that will be the case, and we will no longer have to endure your incessant and mindless attempts at making a point.

        Get a life.

        1. Everyone here KNOWS who the TROLLS are …. you, “devil” and that UK idiot that continues to use DIFFERENT monikers. All you do is agree with ANYONE who says something against me.

          And, NO, it won’t be ME as the reason the comments close, but the likes of YOU, “devil”, and the above mention UK idiots.

          And, “… endure your incessant and mindless attempts at making a point” would apply to YOU since you have NEVER offered anything of substance, either here or on the board (your HIGH NEGATIVE count proves that).

        2. “How about offering us YOUR opinion(s)”
          “OK. I will.”

          OBVIOUSLY, I meant your opinions regarding any of josh’s original post — which you STILL HAVEN’T.

          As I pointed out correctly, you never offer any substance.

  2. Periodical Political never fails to make me sad for living in this world. Why don’t we gay people form a country for ourselves, without mindless breeders???

    1. “Why don’t we gay people form a country for ourselves, without mindless breeders???”

      Coz if it wasn’t for the mindless breeders you wouldn’t exist!

      1. @ rokker
        “Coz if it wasn’t for the mindless breeders you wouldn’t exist!
        Tee-hee you’re funny ;) !

  3. I remember that speech Mr. I’m A Dirtyshirt made in 2007 and said there were no Homosexuals in Iran. I fell out of my chair laughing so hard.

    1. It did sound like nonsense, but then again the US propaganda machinery was still on its all time high and most things he said got translated in the wrongest possible way, so I would not be surprised if he said something completely different.

      1. If you’re referring to his speech ag Columbia University in September 2007, I’m quite sure any interpretor would have been totally honest in his translations (back and forth). A major university anywhere in the USA would have no reason to not be truthful in translations (and I’m sure they would have picked very good translators — fluent in both languages).

        You’re just channeling more of your fairly obvious anti-Americanism in that comment.

        1. Yes, of course the moment someone dares to critisize the holy united states of the untouchable america some moron starts crying about antiamericanism. Which by the way is nonsense, because I did not ay anything about Mexico, Brazil or other nations which are at least as american as the USA.
          It is fairly obvious that you like bullying – in all of your comments – and that you are completely ignorant to the fact that your are doing it. All the time. So I am not surprised that you are completely ignorant towards the bullying of your whole nation as well and think it is your natural right.
          But just turn off your nationalism for a second and imagine you would be interested enough into the non-US part of the world that you learned to speak a second language. I know – it must seem strange and scary to someone like you. But it would become rather obvious to you that the moment you translate things, you have to stick to some form of interpretation. Unlike converting kilometers into your unscientific system of miles or Celsius into nonsensical Fahrenheit, there is no formular for translating words and sentences.

          And even after translation, especially into english, there still can be multiple interpretations possible. In this case Ahmadinejad never said, that there are no gays in iran, he said something which got translated into “In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country”. So does he mean the homosexuals behave different in iran? Or is he refering to the number? Or does he indeed claim that there are none of them?
          His next sentence got translated into “In Iran we don’t have this phenomenon” which makes even less sense on its own, as he never defined what exactly he meant with phenomenon. Add some more of such quotes and it is possible to find any meaning you want to find in such words.

          Or just keep whining.

          1. “… but then again the US propaganda machinery was still on its all time high and most things he said got translated in the wrongest possible way, so I would not be surprised if he said something completely different.”

            By those words, it’s obvious you injected your own anti-Americanism into that reply. That was in OBVIOUS insinuation that everything in America (U.S.A.) leans against
            all others but us.

            And the above drivel is pure bullshit about “bullying” by me and you know it, but you’re too fucking arrogant to understand what you are even trying to say. You are just like that idiot jc/indra* troll and I’ve read so many other posts you’ve made demonstrating the same anti-Americanism. You seem to think that Germany does no wrong. I don’t need to point out the flaws in that thinking.

            I don’t bully anyone — just like him, you obviously don’t know what “bullying” really is ….. someone comments something against you and you immediately whine, “bully!”. Get over yourself.

  4. re: Welcome to the real world: Iran admits it has gays after all, and lots of them

    “An 82-page report which has just come to light draws on figures compiled by the Iranian Ministry of Education in 2007 and 2008. They show 17.5% of male and female high school students across Iran admit to ‘being homosexual’. That’s 24,889 of a survey of 141,552 young men and women even though homosexuality can be punished by death in the country.

    This is interesting that they find in their survey a 17.5% population being homosexual in Iran, but no one [report] in America will admit to having a similar number of gays here — they always keep insisting that our gay population is no more than 10% (and that’s a very liberal number to them) and even try to insist that our gays are even LESS than 8% (usually).

    I have always stated that the number of gays in any particular society is much closer to at least 15% and probably even closer to 20% — much more in line with this Iranian report.

    Also interesting that in such a controlled society such as Iran, that so many would actually (it appears) tell the TRUTH about their sexuality when in America where it is much more “free”, we can’t get even anywhere close to that figure who would tell the TRUTH without any possible repercussions. Very interesting contrasts regarding this between a religious state and a supposedly “free” state.

    1. Thanks for the interesting post Penboy, like yourself I have always felt the official figures (based in large part on the flawed Kinsey report) were way under the real figures; as you say more like 15–20% . It is always interesting to see how many supposedly heterosexual men, often with wedding rings, turn up at gay clubs, saunas, cinemas etc…

  5. @Penboy. I do agree that there is more then 10% gay in this country, but I find it hard to believe the 17.5% in Iran. With a punishment of death hanging over their heads I can’t see to many admitting to being Gay.

    1. “With a punishment of death hanging over their heads I can’t see to many admitting to being Gay.”

      What I think you may fail to understand about, for example, islamic states is that there are TWO “different” ways of looking at homosexuality. First, there is the law and punishment that you refer to if the person ACTIVELY ENGAGE[D] in a PHYSICAL homosexual act/relationship. TWO, you can declare yourself a homosexual and (assumedly) NOT ENGAGE in the actual ACT. For the second, they really don’t care as long as they don’t know/have knowledge of you actually DOING ANYTHING about one’s homosexuality. That’s the way I’ve read about how they “dish out” the laws and punishments for this.

      But, it’s well known that ALL islamic states turn a “blind eye” towards any ADULT MALE that engages in homosexual acts with young boys — that is, as long as the ADULT does not assume any “feminine/submissive**” role (or at least doesn’t get caught doing it) and he acts out his MANLY duty “with his equipment” that “allah gave him” [**cough, cough**].

      ** The most hypocritical part of this entire “scenario” is the meaning of the word, islamit means: to submit/submission/to be submissive.

      Don’t you just love that? /sarcasm

  6. As we are all members of the human race it would be logical to assume there is little or no difference between the percentage of homosexuals in one country than another.

    An old survey in the UK (1990’s) came up with figures of approximately 8-10% of the MALE population being gay. However it was interesting to note that in another survey of the time almost 2/3 of 13-17 year old boys surveyed had a same sex experience. In girls the figures are almost half that of the boys.

    Labelling according to sexuality is inherently wrong and (to me at least) irrelevant. I would suggest that both gay and straight are minorities as most people are at least a little bit bi.

    1. “Labelling according to sexuality is inherently wrong and (to me at least) irrelevant.”

      We as societies have labeled EVERYTHING that we create and do and … ARE (as personalities). There is nothing wrong with “labeling” as long as we don’t punish people for what’s being “labeled”.

      We “label”: blonds, red-hair / blue, brown, green eyes / tall, short, fat, skinny / conservative, liberal, normal intelligence, geniuses / different animals / different plants / different climates / different terrains / etc., etc., etc. And no one is calling these labels “inherently wrong and irrelevant.”

      It’s all about what is done with said labels, not the act of labeling.

    2. The whole gay – bi – straight issue seems to me like a water tap: you have a warm side, a cold side and everything in the middle is somewhere between. Depending on the room temperature the middle sometimes seems already hot or still cold. Is admiration already enough to be bi? Or attraction? Or really just sexual attraction? So after the first defintion, most people are be, while the last one reduces the number a lot and I’d doubt we would end up with anything close to a majority.

      Also there is a huge gray zone between “trying things out” and actually being gay.
      While I think labelling is necessary for scientific and statistical purposes, one should always have in the back of one’s mind that some numbers can never be the hard evidence one wants them to be as the labels just stick worse than on other numbers, depending on how much they are influenced by other social norms or simply a lack of scientific standards. So the figures depend very much on how the question is asked and what people consider gay.
      For example it would be likely that in a repressed society sexually abused boys would claim to be gay because of having sex with a man, which would significantly raise the figure. The boys are kept away from women much more than in western countries, so on that level it is likely that they consider themselfs as gay simply for having the only sex possible and when asked just a few months later would not feel gay at all. Maybe there is even a number of young people just feeling missmatched in their society and therefore feel queer, but due to a lack of ways to express that they just come to the conclusion that they must be gay.

  7. There is seldom any validity in applying logic to human emotion, just as it is ridiculous to poll a cross-section of people and expect results to be pertinent to the whole. For that reason I offer this observation circumspectly.

    Discrepancies in alleged percentages of homosexuality within nations, emphasises how flawed these ‘guestimates’ are. Logic would dictate that as a species, no one nation is likely to have a higher percentage of homosexuals than any other. It may appear so due to cultural differences in acceptance of homosexuality, but there is no scientific rationale for one nation to be ‘gayer’ than another. Generally figures of 1 in 10 to 1 in 12 seems to be the accepted global figure and with people I know (have known) I would tend to agree this is reasonable.

    A contributing factor in arriving at the statistics being bandied around, is what exactly constitutes homosexuality. Engaging in homosexual behaviour does not necessarily mean the person is homosexual. Perhaps this ‘grey area’ goes some way to explaining the unexpectedly high statistics from Iran. Research in the UK in 1990 stated that almost 2/3 of MALES surveyed stated they had at least one same sex experience between 13-17 years of age (the figure for females was approximately half that). On that basis if everybody who engaged in homosexual acts was then labelled homosexual, heterosexuals would be in a very small minority and the human race would be doomed. The Kinsey Scale IS flawed in some respects but I feel it is more accurate than anything else anybody has devised to assess such things.

    1. “Logic would dictate that as a species, no one nation is likely to have a higher percentage of homosexuals than any other.”

      Well, yes and no. I generally agree with you and that’s why I posted my above comment comparing Iran and USA (as an example) and the contrast of each country’s survey results.

      But, I also say, “no” because I do think that smaller population societies would not have as many homosexuals — I think science (biology) would bear this out. The larger the population, I think it stands to reason, that there would be more “variants” (homosexuality, for example) of behaviors and emotional conducts of said populations.

      That is my feelings toward this idea.

      .

      “Engaging in homosexual behaviour does not necessarily mean the person is homosexual.”

      Just as engaging in heterosexual behaviour does not necessarily mean the person is heterosexual. And we can go on and on about that. Suffice it to say (and there is ample proof of this), for hundreds (or even thousands) of years, actual homosexuals would not engage in anything even remotely “homosexual” and would, to the opposite sex: court, marry and have any number of offspring to “prove to family and society” that they were “normal” heterosexual and not “deviant” in any way.

  8. Polls/Surveys like this one, no matter where it’s taken and used, will ALWAYS be flawed — they ALWAYS HAVE, and ALWAYS WILL.

    As long as there are ANY repercussions — whether legal, physical, psychological or emotional — there will be a huge portion of society that will NOT admit to anything to even possibly cause such — whether in their family, neighborhood or societies in general. Some societies are more open about this, but none are so totally open that such a specific survey would result in any positive and all-truthful/all-honest responses. This is just human nature.

  9. @Penboy. On your comment #9 about Islam being submissive, you are correct., but of course you know that. What I am saying is aren’t we all submissive to something or other. We have laws that we must submit to or if we don’t we well be punished in some form or other. Now a great many people well submit to laws no matter if its laws of City, State, or Government because they fear the punishment. As for those who believe in God’s laws the same fear applies. Now Islam is not my cup of tea, but I don’t put those down who do believe in Islam. Now those crazy’s that take to killing those around them who don’t believe in this corrupt version of Islam should be put down. Some Christians have killed those who didn’t think the Christian way and it was wrong then, just as it is wrong for some Muslims to kill now.

    1. Michael R:
      “What I am saying is aren’t we all submissive to something or other. We have laws that we must submit to or if we don’t we well be punished in some form or other.”

      Would YOU want to live in a country where ALL females: Mothers, Sisters, ALL females in “schools” who could be your potential ‘mate’ (silly me, I’m trying to assume that women could/would be taught equally and you could even select your own mate — slap my face for being so “liberal”) — MUST walk around in their own CAGE with only a SLIT to view life when in public?

      Would YOU want to be in a country where the government would HANG YOU WITHOUT EVEN A HINT OF A TRIAL just for being homosexual and acting on your instinctive urges?

  10. CROATIA: Ban marriage, approve civil unions. Geezus fucking kee-rist. Pick my pocket with one hand, pat me on the back with the other.

    ROME PRIDE: Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come. March on!

    GAY IRANIANS: Lo & Behold! Iranian boys and girls all fool around with each other, but only while mommy is out hooking. Who’da thunk it. Hmmm, mixing politics and religion is counter-intuitive. The more repressive the society, the more libertine it becomes. Hey, teacher, leave them kids alone!

    TRANNNIES GOING POTTY: Most of us make do having one set of genitals between our legs. However, some have a second, alternative set between their ears. Sounds like a head problem to me. See your shrink and then maybe your surgeon. Until then, you are what you are, don’t believe what you think, and pee accordingly.

    PITTSBURH BEAT DOWN: Gotta love camera phones. They’re the greatest instrument of democracy and accountability since the pen. The government has its ways and means of surveillance, and we the people have ours. And we get to vote on the results of both. Guess who wins in the end!

    AUSTRIAN ACID ATTACK: Glad she’s alright. If she had 2nd Amendment rights, she could have capped that mofo.

  11. NSA & CIA KILLING: At least they base their assassinations on something. In a situation where the customary rules of evidence don’t apply, metadata is as good as can be hoped for. Keep those drones flying!

    GERMANY & NSA: What? Germany spying on Germans? Has that ever happened before (LOL)? No agency of the German government with a name over 3 syllables long can ever be trusted.

    TERRORIST REPORTER: I was all ready to go postal here about freedom of the press until the story noted he was on private property. Trespassers who don’t cease and desist, or leave when asked, are terrorists. Shoot the bastard. A minor flesh wound with a very small caliber will do – just enough to get his attention-and off private property.

    US POLICE MILITARIZATION: Nothing new here. Remember the tanks at Waco, the sniper teams at Ruby Ridge, and the masked and jack-booted thugs who kidnapped Elian Gonzales? Cops went full-retard-Rambo about 20 years ago, so be careful out there. As to the ACLU’s race baiting – this ‘limey-kraut-wop’ says “fugetaboutit.”

    CIVIL UNREST RESEARCH: Nothing new here. The few have incited, infected, and inflamed the many for centuries. From the Gracchi to ISIS, all unrest, civil, political and military, has been directed by the movement’s elites. If the feds want to know, the answer is yes. A small incident can expand into a full blown riot – even revolution if the issue is powerful enough.

    LAW & ORDER SVU: This gentleman esquire squirts on/in 5 different babes over a sixteen year period and nobody reports it until now? WTF? Oh well, better late than never. “Book him, Danno.”

    1. Ah yes, it was worth the wait.

      Insightful and witty as always Mr. Lips.

      “full-retard-Rambo” an “Book him, Danno” had me laughing out loud!

      Well done sir.

    2. The Schutzstaffel just had 3 syllables. It did not make them more trustworthy.

  12. It was well worth the wait for Mr. Horselips to make his comment and did he ever do so. He hit the ball out of the park, not once, but twice. Your words of wisdom had me thinking and also laughing. I love the “Book him, Danno” bit. I guess that back dates me a bit also.

  13. COME ON penboy. In your comment#22 you speak as if I would like to live under Muslin Rule. Read my comment #21 again and you well see that Islam is not my cup of tea. This means that no I would not like living like that. but a good many do. When I was working as a Housing Inspector I had to good to some houses that had Muslin women in it. I could tell before they came to open the door what was on the other side. They always took their time because they had to put that cage on and I as some what nerve racking because you never could really tell what was behind that cover. You did read my comment way wrong.

    1. “As for those who believe in God’s laws the same fear applies.”

      No, you read my response wrong. But you will never understand this because of your incessant believing in TOTAL FICTIONAL CHARACTERS called, “god’, “allah”, “moses”, “muhummed”, “jesus christ”, “mary” (especially the “virgin”), and a few hundred more. And you continue to believe in all that crap even when someone like me can and has readily shown you PROOF (assuming you have the requisite common sense and logic to understand and accept) that there has NEVER BEEN ANY “god”. (And that bible even shows it’s LYING.)

  14. @ Penboy Yes I do believe in all that crap as you put it, because you or someone like you has never shown me any PROOF because you have none. Tell me how did the Universe start and why did it start and from where did it start.

    1. “Tell me how did the Universe start and why did it start and from where did it start.”

      I’ll assume that’s a question. I don’t know …. and NEITHER DO YOU …. and NEITHER DOES THAT “god” YOU BELIEVE IN. In fact, NO ONE KNOWS and that most certainly includes ANY RELIGIOUS PERSON/SOURCE.

      But, from what science (you know, all about DISCOVERY AND LEARNING) says so far, it may appear to be some sort of “big bang” that essentially exploded into the multitude of stars, planets, comets and other celestial bodies that we can (and cannot) see in our night skies (and days with powerful enough telescopes).

      But, WHAT I DO KNOW BEYOND ANY DOUBT is that your “god” DID NOT CREATE ANYTHING and because he didn’t “create” anything, he sure as hell can’t “offer” any
      “everlasting life”.

      Want PROOF of that? Just LOOK IN THE MIRROR AT YOUR FACE. It’s no coincidence that YOU LOOK LIKE PRIMATES (just like I do …. and every other HUMAN DOES) because of EVOLUTION. I’ve told you already the LINK between the TRUTH of Evolution and the LIES of “creation” and “resurrection” and “everlasting life”.

      If you can’t accept that, then it shows just how IGNORANT you are towards that BULLSHIT called ‘religion” and “god”.

      1. “It’s not what you don’t know that gets you into trouble, it’s what you know for sure, that just ain’t so.” – Mark Twain

        Be careful, my dear Penboy.

        1. That’s sweet of you to be “poetic” with a nice political correct statement by Mark Twain.

          But what I say about “god” and “creation”, I KNOW to be facts ….. and wonderfully enough, your bible even confirms this (if you know how to really read that book).

          After all, an “all-knowing god” [in that bible] isn’t so damn smart after all, is he? Not to mention the stupidity of those humans writing all that crap down — but I do have to give them some credit — they have been incredibly successful in perpetuating the greatest Ponzi / pyramid scheme known to humans throughout all of history.

  15. @Penboy, You are dancing around the question again and again. I have the faith to believe in a God or Allah, and you seem to have the faith of a BIG BANG theory that caused even the smallest cell to come about. You still have not proven your theory. I myself would like to go with my belief. I can’t tell you where God came from any more then you can tell me where this Big Bang came from. Maybe God caused the Big Bang and started the ball rolling. I have trouble with your theory of a Big Bang and let the planets, stars fall where they may, some what like the throw of dice. As for the lies of “creation”. Can you just put your self back thousands of years and you tell these people that they where in a natural evolving process they would most likely stone you. Even you say that no one knows for a fact how it all came about, but those who do believe that this is God’s handwork do so because they have faith that this is true. You say that you know beyond any doubt that my God, { He can be your God also] did not create anything. Did you have a debate with God? If so how did it turn out. I put my money on God.

    1. “I put my money on God.”

      Then you put your money on ignorance.

      .

      “You are dancing around the question again and again.”

      No, YOU DO. You say I am dancing, but what do you do when asked, “Who made “god”? … and … “Where did god come from?” See, you dance a whole lot more than we Atheists do. All that you can and know how to do is say, “it’s in the bible”. And, quite literally, that bible actually PROVES YOU WRONG …. assuming that you know how to read and have comprehension of what you read. You people keep saying that your “god” is … ALL KNOWING, ALL POWERFUL, etc. Yet, in the very first line of that bible in genesis, “your god” GETS IT WRONG. All-knowing? More like all-STUPID.

      .

      “You still have not proven your theory.”

      NEITHER HAVE YOU. And, you (and your ilk) will NEVER PROVE ANY “god” EXISTED OR EXISTS. PERIOD.

      .

      I can’t tell you where God came from any more then you can tell me where this Big Bang came from.”

      That statement is quite correct. But, here’s the difference: Many scientists with far more intellect than either you or I (put together) have come up with more plausable explanations that that childish, and idiotic “god”. Why do I say this? Easy, look up into the sky — with telescopes and anything else you can get your hands on and you can actually SEE what some of these scientists are talking about — at least their remnants, if nothing else.

      How about doing yourself a favor and get your head out of your ass and that religious text and actually THINK FOR YOURSELF for a change? “god” was FABRICATED, as was “moses”, “noah” and “jesus christ” — and that bible PROVES EXACTLY THAT, but you’re too stubborn, brainwashed and just ignorant to accept THE FACTS.

      .

      “Can you just put your self back thousands of years and you tell these people that they where in a natural evolving process they would most likely stone you.”

      But, WE’RE NOT IN THE STONE AGES ANYMORE and the EVOLVEMENT of humans has made us more intelligent (well, some of us anyway) to not just accept the ramblings of some church just so they can CONTROL SOCIETIES and GRAB THE POWER and STEAL OUR WEALTH. And, THAT, is exactly what the purposes of churches and religions are all about. Pull your head out of your ass and try to think for a change — you’re not Cro-magnon or Neanderthal anymore …. STAND UPRIGHT AND THINK FOR YOURSELF.

      1. Just wondering – when you write your opinion bold and in capital letters – does it feel more like fact to you than your opinion just written bold? Is there something like a concept behind it or do you just throw those in everytime you feel helpless because you simply cannot grasp the philosophy of science at all, sometimes one, sometimes both, depending on you level of cluelessness?

        1. “or do you just throw those in everytime you feel helpless because you simply cannot grasp the philosophy of science at all, sometimes one, sometimes both, depending on you level of cluelessness?”

          And where do you get any intelligence? Really. When ignorants like you resort to how a comment is formatted, then we all know you have nothing to say that’s worth any weight.

          1. The reasons behind formating your comments in fact seem indeed more interesting than their content. It is the same gibberish you usually write, you get the same answers, which aren’t much more interesting – there is simply no point in trying to discuss the content, as it is boring and apart from you, Michael and some poor moderator who has to wade through that pseudo-intellectual wankfeast you are celebrating nobody reads it anyway.

            As an agnostic I stand on the sideline, watching this special olympics of scientific misunderstandings. Michael is able to express himself in a less trollish way and actually thinks about the answers, but you are more convinced of your opinion, so there should be some bonus points for those touching efforts in it. Especially the formatting adds a nice touch. One can easily see that it must be an original Penboy and ignore it.
            But in the end its just about playing anyway and everybody is a retard as much as a winner.

  16. @Penboy; I must say that for a person as yourself who professes to be so intelligent, why be so crude in your comments. First of all I be lucky to kiss my testis, let alone have my head up my butt. I have not used the Bible as any reference when making my comments. If I have a Bible in the house I have not a clue where its at. I would say you most likely have been reading more Bibles then I have ever come across. I don’t believe that because I have not indulged in the Bible that makes me a lesser person then you. I have always thought for myself even when I was in grammar school. That’s the way my father brought me up, and he was Religious and very intelligent. I really don’t much care if you don’t want to believe in a higher power. That’s is really up to you. There is an old saying,[You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink] I like to believe that there is more then just a six foot hole in the ground when my time runs out. By the way I live in Philly and its pretty tough to see any stars with or with out a telescope. I hope that in some way I may have convince you that I believe this way because I am very peaceful with my belief. Not because I am brainwashed or stubborn or ignorant. You have over the years made your choice and I have done like wise. Its time for me to hit the sack, so you all have a good day now, youhear.

    1. @ Michael Regan
      “Penboy; I must say that for a person as yourself who professes to be so intelligent, why be so crude in your comments.”
      No more now than before yet you still chose to tangle with him after all this time as if half expecting he could possibly change but as you see it didn’t take long for the real penboy to resurface.
      Such a shame as you sought to remain even keel throughout your comments not snapping back even here where’d you’d be well justified but instead you use humor and courtesy for your kind response.
      Only thing I can figure is that milkboys administration must condone this man’s hateful rhetoric and constant rants against any mention of organized religion or god. Why he’s not chastised or barred from these pages and allowed to continue can only mean that they approve. Not like it’s something totally new and they just weren’t aware of it.

      Good luck to you Sir and do stay healthy.

  17. @Luvuguys! Thank you for your generous comment. As for why I converse with Penboy. We you see its like when I had my Hybrid Wolf, I would take him out for his walks and he always was pulling on his leash. No matter what I did I could not get him to stop this pulling. He always had to be up front. Somewhat like Penboy. He always has to be up front. I still had a good time with my dog and Penboys fun to comment with. Thanks again.

    1. @Michael Regan
      “He always had to be up front.”
      Excellent, each to his own but I’d take the wolf any day of the week!

  18. You are so right Luvuguys! I had that Hybrid { Roman was his name} for 15 1/2 years. When he died a big part of me died with him.

    1. @Michael Regan
      Sorry to hear that.
      Knew a guy in S.L.Tahoe back in the 80’s who bred them; really cool animals but they never lost that touch of wild within them even after each new generation.
      Shame I’ve always been a cat person but I’d not have minded a couple of those big guys patrolling my property if I had any left today!
      Good day to you ;)

  19. @Luvuguys! Thanks again for your comment. Roman was not that big. Only weighed in about 85 lbs. I guess he was what we call the runt of the litter. I would walk down the sidewalk and anyone walking towards or behind me would make a wide pass around. He was a one man dog and I am lucky I was the man. I could leave the gate open in my yard and he wouldn’t go out unless I went first. I like to get another one, but Philly don’t take kindly to these dogs. I was pretty lucky to have him, so my Vet said. I had a black cat for about 17 years. He came in to the house when I had my Black Lab [ Rebel ] Rebel died at 14 years old and the cat still went on for about 2 more years with Roman. I learn that animals learn to get along much better then humans do.

    1. @Michael Regan
      “No Roman did not eat the cat. He just got old like me.”
      The above posted before your longer comment that was still in mods; didn’t know how to respond to that!

      Seems like your animal crew lived good long happy lives and hopefully you’ll too. Maybe it’s time now that you adopt some lonely little guy in the shelter in dire need of a human pet; I hear some animals get along better than humans, huh?
      TC, LYG’s ;)

Comments are closed.