DescentBB

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=4330

Consider Prussian Blue. They'll be featured on ABC's primetime show, which I believe airs on Thursday. If you're interested, here's your heads up. Plus some food for thought.

I think of the abuse/neglect of children that I deal with at work. There are no days without abuse/neglect. The hotline runs 24-7. It never sleeps. There are no weekends off. There are no holidays.

I think of the 12 yo girls of Prussian Blue molded to hate and to foster hatred. Born to fullfil a destiny they did not choose, but believe in wholeheartedly. Better they should have Medea for a mother than April Gaede.

I think of abuse, neglect, and Prussian Blue, and I wonder how any of you could say with a straight face that having homosexual parents is detrimental or more challenging to a child than having hetero parents.

I think having parents who love you AND each other, who are not dumba$$es matters more.

But let's get back to business as usual since this is the DBB. My book is right and yours is wrong. i get laid more than you could dream of. Also, my God could kick your God's ass any day.

I'm speechless.

Interesting. Prussian Blue may be white folks answer to the congressional black caucus and Lewis Farrakhan (sp?). I just find it whacked when white people try to promote their race, they get lambasted as being racist.
When black folk do so it is considered right and proper.
Hey Loui, maybe we should have a million white man march in Washinton.

Interesting. I'm not familiar with the bands they cover tho'..it's it pro-white the same way that 'urban' is pro-black, or is it neo-nazi-5-seconds-from wearing-the-white-hood?

An interesting choice of names the girls have; one an apex predator, the other a prey animal. Any significance to that I wonder.

As for their message, um... yeah. Hate is taught. Anything to make mommy happy.

Again, people need to pass a test before being allowed to become parents.

woodchip wrote:Interesting. Prussian Blue may be white folks answer to the congressional black caucus and Lewis Farrakhan (sp?). I just find it whacked when white people try to promote their race, they get lambasted as being racist.
When black folk do so it is considered right and proper.
Hey Loui, maybe we should have a million white man march in Washinton.

Ever hear of the American Caucasian College Fund? How about the White Entertainment Network? What about Miss White America?

As much as it pains me to agree with you, I do on this point. Our country needs to strive for color blindness, not retribution.

Iceman wrote:

woodchip wrote:Interesting. Prussian Blue may be white folks answer to the congressional black caucus and Lewis Farrakhan (sp?). I just find it whacked when white people try to promote their race, they get lambasted as being racist.
When black folk do so it is considered right and proper.
Hey Loui, maybe we should have a million white man march in Washinton.

Ever hear of the American Caucasian College Fund? How about the White Entertainment Network? What about Miss White America?

As much as it pains me to agree with you, I do on this point. Our country needs to strive for color blindness, not retribution.

Actually Prussian Blue is White Folks answer to the loss of Horst Wessel. They are Nazis. They are card-carrying members of the National Alliance. They deny that the Holocaust occurred. Their music laments the fall of the Third Reich and Martyrdom of Rudolf Hess. They yearn for the day that the race war comes so the blacks and jews can be murdered and all can then rejoice.

Nothing racist about all that though. Just good 'ol fashion common sense and pride in your heritage.

LOL! Kill the biutches!

Reverse racism... the irony tickles me to the core: "It ain't prejudice if you hate white folks"

...the irony, and the ignorance.

This neo-nazi crap is just as ironic and willfully ignorant.

Colorblindness is the only fair solution. I definately don't agree with ANY color-based agenda except for "we all bleed red so get over it".

WarAdvocat wrote:"we all bleed red so get over it".

Amen.

Pally. Is there any law over there that says these kids - because that's what they are - are being abused by their guardians, by inciting racial hatred? Or is that covered by the constitution? Free speech ect.

Iceman wrote:

WarAdvocat wrote:"we all bleed red so get over it".

Amen.

I prefer "It's all pink on the inside"

So Woody gets a Woody for black chics?

Iceman wrote:So Woody gets a Woody for black chics?

Repeat: It's all pink on the inside. A good looking black, white, yellow or red babe stimulates me the same.
I'm an equal opportunity lover.

woodchip wrote:

Iceman wrote:So Woody gets a Woody for black chics?

Repeat: It's all pink on the inside. A good looking black, white, yellow or red babe stimulates me the same.
I'm an equal opportunity lover.

Yea he goes for Oaks, Redwoods, Willows, Dogwoods....anything with a knothole works for him!

Will Robinson wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Iceman wrote:So Woody gets a Woody for black chics?

Repeat: It's all pink on the inside. A good looking black, white, yellow or red babe stimulates me the same.
I'm an equal opportunity lover.

Yea he goes for Oaks, Redwoods, Willows, Dogwoods....anything with a knothole works for him!

I'll tighten my gas cap when Woody is around.

Flabby, there is no law against being an A-hole.

Will Robinson wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Iceman wrote:So Woody gets a Woody for black chics?

Repeat: It's all pink on the inside. A good looking black, white, yellow or red babe stimulates me the same.
I'm an equal opportunity lover.

Yea he goes for Oaks, Redwoods, Willows, Dogwoods....anything with a knothole works for him!

While this is my real love:





She dropped me for this guy:

woodchip wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Iceman wrote:So Woody gets a Woody for black chics?

Repeat: It's all pink on the inside. A good looking black, white, yellow or red babe stimulates me the same.
I'm an equal opportunity lover.

Yea he goes for Oaks, Redwoods, Willows, Dogwoods....anything with a knothole works for him!

While this is my real love:


She dropped me for this guy:


Bwahahahahaha!!!

OMFG, too funny 'Woody'!!!!1111111!!!eleven

linked from the Prussian Blue forums (which btw, list 'no racial epithets' as one of their rules)...


Can I interest you in a copy of White Power ?

hell, it probably just balances out most Ice Cube albums, so it seems harmless, right?

Hatred is hatred, regardless of from whom its spewed, and to whom its directed.

I'm all for colorblindness. That way I can hate everyone equally. Equal opportunity hatred towards everyone, that's my stance.

While Palzon's link gave a more tepid view of the young ladies this may be more to the point:



Notice the nice smiley faces on their T-shirts?




Also a harsher story link:

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1231684&page=1

Songs like "Sacrifice" â?? a tribute to Nazi Rudolf Hess, Hitler's deputy Fuhrer â?? clearly show the effect of the girls' upbringing. The lyrics praise Hess as a "man of peace who wouldn't give up."

Riiight.

I'd do 'em.

I would too..., uh, eventually.

Tetrad wrote:I'd do 'em.

Dayum! Pedo tendencies eh?

Iceman wrote:

Tetrad wrote:I'd do 'em.

Dayum! Pedo tendencies eh?

I figure if they can have Hitler's face on their chest... they can have mine also.

You're a bad man chip. I like that

"But let's get back to business as usual since this is the DBB. My book is right and yours is wrong. i get laid more than you could dream of. Also, my God could kick your God's *** any day."

I think i'll keep this as a sig.

Maybe i was fishing without bait...but my main point seems to have been lost.

I wasn't trying to initiate a discussion of neo nazis.

When we last left the gay marriage debate, (and i'm paraphrasing from memory) Gooberman had conceded a point to the effect of..."All things being equal, a child is better off in a home with heterosexual parents".

I was sorry to see Gooberman concede that because firstly, I don't think it's true. Secondly, I don't think his opponents made such a strong case that it was necessary for him to make such a concession.

so what i was looking for with this thread was for people who hold that view to reconcile it with the sad truth of Prussian Blue. Or with the sad truth of the astounding prevalence of abuse, neglect, and exploitation of children by their heterosexual parents.

I'm glad that Dedman once again beat the "parent-test" Dedhorse. Though I don't agree with that position, I think it's a relevant point of discussion. It's relevant because it raises what is (as far as I'm concered) the crucial question as far as marriage and family goes: How do we address abuse, neglect, exploitation, or bad parenting?

First of all (regarding Gooberman's concession), all things are never equal. Each caregiver has different strengths and weaknesses. Consider factors such as intelligence, level of education, material resources, geographic location, family support, emotional/mental health, ability to empathize, ability to plan for the future, healthy relationship of the caregiver. Things are never equal in the first place.

Further, it is my contention that the sexual orientation of the parent is a complete and total red herring. The vast majority of abuse,neglect, and exploitation is perpetrated by heterosexual parents. And i can hardly think of a worse example of bad parenting than April Gaede, the mother of Lynx and Lamb.

If the welfare of children is the basis for disallowing gay marriage or gay adoption, then heterosexuals would fare even worse. Dedman would get his wish and a parenting license would be required. We might even have to discontinue wholesale procreation alltogether.

I hope to jump-start this discussion again with the above considerations in mind. I would therefore return to my statement in the OP and ask for replies:

Palzon wrote:I wonder how any of you could say with a straight face that having homosexual parents is detrimental or more challenging to a child than having hetero parents.

It is my contention that the ONLY basis for marriage and family should be a loving couple who can nurture and care for their children, regardless of sexual orientation.

When we last left the gay marriage debate, (and i'm paraphrasing from memory) Gooberman had conceded a point to the effect of..."All things being equal, a child is better off in a home with heterosexual parents".

I was sorry to see Gooberman concede that because firstly, I don't think it's true. Secondly, I don't think his opponents made such a strong case that it was necessary for him to make such a concession.

Well, your right, but I feel you are either making more of a deal then I did for it, or you skimmed my explination for it.

We were discussing my child, and I said yes I would prefer they be heterosexual, and white, and german/Irish-american, and be able to wiggle their nostrles and curl their tongue...

The point I was trying to get at, which I may have failed at, is that I wish the person raising my kids.....was me. If I cant be there, then on a trait-by-trait brake down, I would take someone like me over someone who is not.

Big picture, the foster parents of my child being white/hetero is a spit in the ocean. It just isn't what is important. But if I am forced, which BD asked me too, to break it down on this silly micro scale, for my kids, 'me' wins.

Alot of the points you made to me, I made to him.

Gooberman wrote:Well, your right, but I feel you are either making more of a deal then I did for it, or you skimmed my explination for it.

Point taken, but keep in mind im taking those to task who may have backed you into a corner, not you for finding yourself there.

Palzon wrote:The vast majority of abuse,neglect, and exploitation is perpetrated by heterosexual parents

Does this remind anyone else of the discussion about why the bad guys in the gospels are Jewish?

Palzon wrote:I wonder how any of you could say with a straight face that having homosexual parents is detrimental or more challenging to a child than having hetero parents.

Statistically, or in all cases?

You made the exact right observation: "all things are never equal". There are a number of factors that need to be considered in the case of adoptive families. Sexual behavior (not orientation, behavior) is one of the factors that should be considered. The presence of both a mother and a father (as compared to only one or the other, or two of one type) is another factor to consider. You listed several others that I don't immediately see any problems with. I'd also add religious and political philosophies -- these DO contribute to people's ability to raise children! When dealing with adoption, the government needs to look at as many factors as they can, and weigh them appropriately in forming the overall picture. None of these is a "trump card"; aside from actually having a high likelyhood of abuse or neglect, I can't think of anything that should instantly disqualify someone from adopting. But none of these things are red herrings, either -- they all need weighed and considered together, and the sum total of several factors might result in someone being disqualified even though none of them individually would.

In the case of birth families (that is, considering having the state take a child away from their natural parents) abuse and neglect are the only two factors that matter. A parent can be divorced, remarried (or with someone of the same sex), of any religion, of any political philosophy, whatever; it's not the state's business to get involved if the child is being cared for. I happen to think kids are worse off, on average, in homes of certain religions, political philosophies, and family arrangements, but those parents have the right to hold those religions, political philosophies, and family arrangements.

I will say, with a straight face, that on average, having two parents of the same sex is both detrimental and more challenging to the child. The same is true for having only one parent, having extremist parents of any type from Christian to Islamic to Nazi to Atheist extremists, having Marxist parents, having parents who support unlimited abortion-on-demand, having parents who smoke, and so on. Really, I think kids will be best off with parents like me and my wife but with the mad parenting sk1llz and without some of my learning disabilities. I'm sure others have different lists; many of you probably think my children will be worse off than they would be if I had different religious or political views.

I think we can all agree that some of these factors are definitely worse than others, though. Given the choice between, say, Nazis and committed homosexuals, I'd rather have children raised by the committed homosexuals any day. Given other choices, it's not so easy to say what's best -- is it better to have parents who smoke in the house, or parents who have minor issues with their temper, or parents who are mildly retarded? All I can say is, I'm glad it's not my job to try to answer that question, and I'm glad we don't have to make decisions like that on a regular basis.

i've heard these girls and i find them incomprehensible. so much so i wonder if it is a prank trying to mock wacko groups or trying to arouse anger and outrage at such a phenomenon.
their singing/playing stinks/is offkey to me.
However the best antidote to this is to let them have their say so that everyone can see how stupid and negative it is. love cannot conquer hate but laughter will drive it away.

color blindness is impossible. the only thing we can do is acknowledge each other's differences, and know that yes, we ARE different, but that doesnt make any of us less equal than the other and it doesnt mean any of us should be treated differently or unfairly.

Vertigo 99 wrote:color blindness is impossible. the only thing we can do is acknowledge each other's differences, and know that yes, we ARE different, but that doesnt make any of us less equal than the other and it doesnt mean any of us should be treated differently or unfairly.

would you legalize gay marriage then?

Palzon wrote:It is my contention that the ONLY basis for marriage and family should be a loving couple who can nurture and care for their children, regardless of sexual orientation.

I very much agree! Also with this:

Vertigo 99 wrote:color blindness is impossible. the only thing we can do is acknowledge each other's differences, and know that yes, we ARE different, but that doesnt make any of us less equal than the other and it doesnt mean any of us should be treated differently or unfairly.

nicely said!

Palzon wrote:would you legalize gay marriage then?

Well, I would. I might give it another name, though, but basically associate it with the same privileges.

Palzon wrote:

Vertigo 99 wrote:color blindness is impossible. the only thing we can do is acknowledge each other's differences, and know that yes, we ARE different, but that doesnt make any of us less equal than the other and it doesnt mean any of us should be treated differently or unfairly.

would you legalize gay marriage then?

why wouldn't i? have you mistaken me for someone else that frequents these boards?

Palzon wrote:It is my contention that the ONLY basis for marriage and family should be a loving couple who can nurture and care for their children, regardless of sexual orientation.

Please define "loving couple". What is your metric(s)?
(jump in any time, Dedman ...)

Gay marriage is now part of Canada.

and the world didn't come to an end.