Why the Founders of America would have supported banning Stone-Eater, Jeff Michka, James Travil, and Opher Goodwin from WB

My Recent Posts

While it is sad to see Fernando Alcoforado leave WB, yet, his devious stratagem was to whip up popular sentiment against me, get me banned, and then continue to propagate his socialism and totalitarianism to the admiring and naïve masses on WB.  So, it's hard to mourn the departure of a man who refuses to honestly discuss ideas, and insists that he is too elite to be bothered with 'commoners'.  He is just like the Emperor who walked around without a stitch of clothing on, and no one wanted to say anything, for fear of not being thought 'enlightened'.  The charlatan tailors of Anderson's wonderful tale had convinced everyone that if you couldn't see the Emperor's "New Cloths", you were stupid and ignorant.  Same ruse is used today with the left's immigration, climate change, socialism, big government, birth control, abortion, overpopulation, homosexuality, and the thousands of other lies the 'enlightened ones' tell us we are stupid if we don't believe.  It took a child to say, "But he hasn't got any cloths on".  The left tries to control the media and schools, so no child can sing that out today.   Alcoforado is just like Nero, who was a very wicked and despicable man, yet, when he committed suicide, sat and said "What an artist dies in me".  Self pity is a huge problem with criminal types and many on the left. They refuse to acknowledge their present predicament is because they will not submit to God, and they insist on blaming other humans, when they themselves know more evil about themselves than anyone else does, and far more than the evil they know about any other human on earth.


When the Founders gave us Free Speech and the First Amendment it was to allow virtuous speech to prevail.  They knew of two stories and they didn't want these stories to ever happen in America.  Those two stories were of Socrates and Christ.  Socrates told the truth to the Sophists of Athens, and they hated him for it, and had him put to death.  Those on the left today, are all sophists, the problem is, 90% know nothing about Sophism.  Jesus told the truth and lived a blameless life, and yet was killed.  He was told he had a devil along the way, and all manner of other falsehoods.  Those who are in power, and who have others who admire them HATE losing that, when their ideas are exposed.  If preserving the admiration of others and their wealth, means other humans have to die, they will do that.  Same thing goes on here, where I am continually cursed at by the WB filthy foursome mentioned above, and have the most obscene charges laid at my feet.  The Founders wanted to ensure the wicked forces present in every society would never be allowed to silence the virtuous and wise voices, because the former make it their business to wage unceasing warfare on the latter.   


They never intended filthy and degenerate men to use the First Amendment to justify malicious and depraved lying and profanity.  Yet, in America today, we are constantly lectured that we are Fascists if we try to silence the very evil people who spread their evil ideas everywhere, and try to silence anyone who objects.  The Founders had no problem silencing these wicked charlatans.  All four of the men listed above would have been in jail in all of the Thirteen original colonies if they dared to open their mouths to say the things they say on here in a Public Forum. That is why their societies were peaceful and well ordered, as they worked to get rid of the plague of slavery which had ever devastated humanity. 


Let the reader judge.  First, hopefully as grown adults we all agree that profanity should be something grown adults avoid, as you'd be a hypocrite to talk that way around adults, and avoid it around children.  Second, let the reader examine the handiwork of all three authors.  Can anyone please inform me how this adds to a reasonable debate?  Since this site is devoted to the exchange of ideas, why are obviously sewer level comments tolerated.  90% of the population would agree these ideas are  unimaginably wicked.  Not one person on here would be happy to have them aimed at them, and I never aimed anything remotely close to profanity or lies at these four.


James Travil:


-I don't take orders from fake Christians lying Ryan. You are not my master, I have none. Still waiting for you to tell us all how God f****** up when he created cannabis you f****** FAKE! 


-F*** you and your commands you devil f***! I don't take orders from anyone, especially fake Christians!


-F*** off and die lying Ryan MassAnal. You are a powerless worm I laugh at you and your false "god" of hate.




-Btw: Put another avatar in, Ryboy. The current one has a homo touch to it. Do you intend to find a partner here ?
Could be diff :))



No examples needed, practically every comment is full of it.



Has plenty of examples that the reader can find by going over his past five pages of comments.


What are the advantages and disadvantages of banning the aforementioned four.

The disadvantages are you'll rile up the naïve and gullible on here, who will listen to these four's frantic shout's of "Nazi's", "Muh Free Speech", and a lot of other nasty epithets.  These four are rabble rousers and the disorder they allow within themselves translates into disorder into the societies and communities they inhabit.  The best way to deal with them is to quarantine them to let them learn to behave well, then allow them back in when they reform.  Other disadvantages are you risk them going off the deep end.  If any of them are armed, it's a very dangerous thing.  Every one of them has extensively used drugs, and is unstable.  I've already established that. 


The advantages are you'll have an environment free of their disgusting and profane language where great ideas can be discussed.  It would pave the way for a WB Renaissance.  Other advantages are the virtuous and wise will be attracted here, and they have great ideas they'd like to share.  When wise men rule and deal with evil types, the people rejoice and prosper.   When evil men rule, the people are silent and fearful.  Other advantages are it will send a lesson to those who are on the fence, and be useful instruction to them to maintain virtue in their lives.  The greatest advantage is that chastisement makes chaste, so these four would get the greatest love they've ever been shown in their lives.  Discipline for their filthy mouths, so that they can learn self control, and come back and be virtuous and wise contributors themselves.


All four have good attributes.  But none of those attributes mean a thing when their wicked language and ideas are considered.  Open rebuke is better than secret love. 


Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?


Abraham Lincoln.


So, in conclusion, banning the four until they promise not to lie or use profanity any more would benefit them and WB.  Tolerating them harms themselves and WB.  The choice is simple.  Love requires them to be banned.




Ryan Messano Added Jul 10, 2018 - 4:37pm
I’m practicing what I’m preaching, Jeff.  Your comments will be deleted until we can be assured you will no longer lie or use profanity.  If you don’t like that, tough.
You’ll thank me for it later.
While you avoided profanity with your last comment, which is awesome, you had at least three lies.
Evil surmising is another problem with you.  Never doing anything about your evil, but constantly assuming others are up to evil.
Same goes for Opher.  Your comments will be deleted as well.  Same for Travil and Stone. 
You all form your own destinies.  Make bad choices, face the music.
target="_blank">The Founders would have violently opposed allowing the Filthy Foursome to be on WB. 


Jeff Michka Added Jul 10, 2018 - 4:39pm
I'd rather urinate on your face, Lyin Ryan.  It's okay, I slipped your husband Vinny a $20 so he'll do it.  He says your like to swallow.  See, I don't have a guilt complex, not an Xtain or believe in "Sky Guys" like you, and don't have whisper sessions with the foundering fathers hearing about their secret desire to be like England and have a state church.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 10, 2018 - 4:49pm
I'll leave that comment as an exhibit of why we should ban you.  No more will be allowed.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jul 10, 2018 - 5:11pm
Ryan you seem to be more combative then necessary and seem to try to create enemies by making personal attacks.   Abe Lincoln I understand similarly as a young man in arguments personally attacked.  As he grew older he realized that he was harming himself.   
Abe changed to understand that opposition is not a reason to personally attack someone.  And an enemy for one subject maybe a supporter on another subject.  Personal attacks would prevent this.  He became the candidate by following this new approach.  Ryan like Abe your a good story teller that can create image of your views for others.   
Ryan Messano Added Jul 10, 2018 - 5:27pm
Thank you for that, Thomas.  I wonder what Abe would do if faced with Jeff, who says the most vile and repulsive things.  I don't see any record of Abe confronting that nonsense at all. People in his day didn't behave that way. 
Bill H. Added Jul 10, 2018 - 5:33pm
Ryan, you are a sad person. I hope you seek help soon for your own good.
Here on WB, most of us spar without resorting to the level of hate, slander, and defamation that you practice. I don't agree with many on this site, but I would never stoop to your level.
I suspect this will also be deleted shortly.
Dino Manalis Added Jul 10, 2018 - 5:41pm
 They're radical extremists, what do you expect?  Centrist pragmatists?
Neil Lock Added Jul 10, 2018 - 5:48pm
Bill H: I often disagree with you on issues discussed here, but like you I try to keep what I say here at least reasonably polite. Ryan does not.
Don't worry about him deleting stuff, Bill. Autumn already has a copy :-)
Ryan Messano Added Jul 10, 2018 - 5:48pm
Bill, you are a radical apologist and a modern day Vidkun Quisling.  Very sad.
When are you going to read more than you talk?
Once again, don't criticize me for hate, and ignore the filthy and debauched types above.  You make yourself look silly in doing so.  It's so apparent to everyone but you that you have no values and are biased.  If someone treats you nice, you like them.  If they strongly disagree with you, you develop a vendetta.  So petty and childish.  All you liberals have this issue.
All 12 of you liberal men on this site need the Fear of God put in you.  When that happens, you'll be better.  But, the way you are going, I don't see it happening anytime soon.  Seems like you are pretty content with mediocrity and failure.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 10, 2018 - 5:48pm
I don't mind that, Dino.  What I do mind is the vile things they say, as every sane human should.
Mustafa Kemal Added Jul 10, 2018 - 7:35pm
It seems this article is full of profanity.
Morgoth Added Jul 10, 2018 - 8:31pm
Ryan, I'm struggling to find the words.....
I told you once that while I disagreed with pretty much everything you say I oppose any attempt to suppress you.  I sincerely mean that.  I'm against even silencing Holocaust deniers even though I find much of what they say vile.
I noticed you never answered what I said.  Is this the answer?  You would suppress members who you disagree with because of their views and language?  Call for their banning?
Thomas Sutrina Added Jul 10, 2018 - 8:35pm
As I said you harm yourself when you dip down to their level.  Trump creates a caricature, try that approach.  I added a few words to a put down of me in high school that turn the table and seem innocent.  Your smart enough to find an approach that doesn't place you at their level of insults.
Can not put the fear of God in someone that doesn't believe in God.  Socialist place their leader, master minds, at or above God.  As you can see the fear of applying the laws they ignore puts the fear of punishment in them.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 10, 2018 - 8:44pm
Thank you, Jeffrey, it’s well explained in the link included in the first comment on the thread.  I’d be interested in your thoughts on it.  
I cant create a caricature, Thomas,  and Trump goes too far. I’m actually restrained in my attacks, and I get more resistance.  Your last sentence is spot on.  
Atom Rider Added Jul 10, 2018 - 10:31pm
That headline made me laugh hard, too funny. But sadly, no, they wouldn't have banned them. The founding fathers believed in free speech. Besides, its fun to make fun of idiots. Someone actually said to me, they wished that humans were all one race. Which makes them haters of diversity, ironic, and short sighted. Some of them might be still be saved. #walkaway. They hear their own words, and being trapped by them, they realize where they are wrong. Libtards numbers are getting smaller and smaller, they're nothing to worry about. We won't be seeing libtards in power again for a very very long time.
Morgoth Added Jul 10, 2018 - 10:54pm
Humans are all one race, Atom Rider.  Some are just more evolved.
I don’t think us “libtards” are going anywhere.  Trump was a blessing in disguise.
Atom Rider Added Jul 10, 2018 - 11:07pm
Jeff K, Trump is a blessing, this country was almost lost to the lesser evolved of other races. Thanks for the clarification. But you need to look up the definition of race. Humans are not one race. Not even one species, as most think. Some races have other species in them. Right monkey boy.
Pardero Added Jul 11, 2018 - 6:50am
Ryan Messano,
The people, that you name, have all contributed valuable articles and ideas to Writer Beat. I have had pleasant and informative exchanges with each of them, including Jeff Michka, who can be difficult sometimes. I have great differences with some politically, but am actually pretty closely aligned with James Travil on many issues. 
Bill H. explained exactly why these people have had unpleasant exchanges with you. 
Bill H.> "Here on WB, most of us spar without resorting to the level of hate, slander, and defamation that you practice."
I have gotten a bit ugly, myself, when I perceived that some other writers seemed to be promoting war, intervention, or a police, surveillance, and military state, but nothing approaching your extremes.
You chose to make each of these personalities an enemy. 
You showed up and started throwing stones at these people, but are indignant and outraged that some dip the stones in dung before casting them back at you. 
You have had some well received articles when you stuck to history and ideas. I will be disappointed if this personal attack on named writers gets much support. 
I am all for you promoting virtue, more power to you, but I am not comfortable with you judging and condemning people. 
Bill Kamps Added Jul 11, 2018 - 7:03am
I think we are all better off when we restrain ourselves from personal attacks and name calling.
Jeff: I'd rather urinate on your face, Lyin Ryan. 
Ryan: Bill, you are a radical apologist and a modern day Vidkun Quisling.
Ryan: I wonder what Abe would do if faced with Jeff, who says the most vile and repulsive things?
The answer is, we should ignore them, difficult as that it may be to do.  Ignoring them takes away their audience, engaging with them, is what they want.  Better to criticize people's ideas, rather than calling them names, or suggesting they are ignorant. 
As for the actual article, my biggest problem with Fernando, is that he often failed to engage with comments that disputed his articles.  That and his articles were far too long and ponderous.  Reminded me of some of the Castro speeches. 
Nobody's Sweetheart Added Jul 11, 2018 - 8:13am
HAHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! Good work Ryan! You got people writing hit posts on you and at least one quitting! I'm jealous! Where's Marilyn French when I need her! Ryan, I'm forced to agree with others here in that you're being over-the-top of your already over-the-topness. Actually, I wouldn't mind Gopher Badlose (I coined that one, lol!) and Stone-Head so much if they would park their strident anti-Americanism on occasion (for being against "labeling", they spend a lot of time doing just that). Good thing that I'm too busy elsewhere, otherwise I would leave no Stone-Head unturned in my quest to eradicate certain subterranean rodents such as gophers, lol.
Stephen Hunter Added Jul 11, 2018 - 9:53am
Ryan, there are many who wish that you would go away too. I do not mind that you express whatever views and values you have. But I do find it irritating when you call people names and bully people. I just wish that more would not stoop to this level. While you do not use profanity, you do hit hard at people psychologically, as a bullying tactic, by saying and judging others on personality traits that you have no idea about. This is childish behavior on your part. 
James E. Unekis Added Jul 11, 2018 - 12:07pm
Michka is worth debating, as practice if nothing else, except when he is drinking.  He is actually quite funny when drunk as his insults are incoherent.  I leave his, and others, comments in place and let the readers judge.
I tend to be conservative but really am a topic by topic person.  I have learned from everyone on this forum, even those I disagree with.   The only exception is Mitchka. They have helped me look at things in a new perspective and I appreciate it.
I know when I want to swear or result to personal attacks it is because I'm losing a debate, so I am trying to keep my tongue in check.
I would suggest the following guidelines:
- Let's not mangle each other's names
- Can we agree to limit personal attacks?  We don't know each          other in person, nor can we understand their life experiences.
- Try to limit our use of profanity, especially directed at another -      for example calling someone a "homosexual-gay-bastard-                faggot-toe-sucking moron-bitch" is akin to an assault.  Saying "I      can't understand what the hell you are getting at", or "saying            that something hurt like shit" is really not such a big deal.                  Accusing someone of having a "drug addled brain" in my                  opinion  is  worse.
- Let's stick to debating a person's ideas instead of assuming what  they believe.  For example, I've always been a free markets              person but first hand experience with the greed of what is called    capitalism today has me looking for alternatives.  I don't like            socialism but am growing more interested in incentivising                employee owned business.  But once someone hears I am a            Christian they assume I'm nothing but blind follower of                    capitalism.
- No more calls for banning anyone, OK?  I don't like it when the PC police try to control what I say nor do I like it when it comes from the right.
As far as Fernando goes it appears that some people enjoyed his posts and others did not.  I did not like his writing style, nor his ideas, however, I was sorry he left just because he resonated with others.  If I know I react to some writer I will just ignore their posts.
Any thoughts? 
Leroy Added Jul 11, 2018 - 12:10pm
"I have gotten a bit ugly, myself, when I perceived that some other writers seemed to be promoting war, intervention, or a police, surveillance, and military state, but nothing approaching your extremes."
No, you haven't.  You are the epitome of politeness and restraint, a model for all of us.
Morgoth Added Jul 11, 2018 - 12:25pm
@Atom Rider:
”Jeff K, Trump is a blessing,”
He’s a curse right now, he will be a blessing.
“this country was almost lost to the lesser evolved of other races. Thanks for the clarification.”
Really?  Which ones?
“But you need to look up the definition of race. Humans are not one race. Not even one species, as most think.”
Yeah, we are.
“Some races have other species in them. Right monkey boy.”
Seems like you have a bit of a jackass in you.
Mustafa Kemal Added Jul 11, 2018 - 12:41pm
re:" Can we agree to limit personal attacks? "
Such reasoning only works with people who actually want to communicate. For those that want to vent, they are not interested.
Morgoth Added Jul 11, 2018 - 3:42pm
Here, Ryan:
My Answer
I couldn’t adequately express myself in a comment here.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 5:19pm
Stay off, Michka.
You are nearly universally spurned, and if it weren’t for your rabid pride in your filth, you’d have left Long ago.  
You are a depraved devil, and are a slave of your master, Satan.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 5:20pm
Mustafa, shouldn’t you be at the library?
What are you cluttering up my thread with your malignant and uninformed opinion for?
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 5:27pm
Apathy is no excuse, Jeffrey.  
Anyone who has actually taken the time to learn the First Amendment, knows it’s not for everyone.  
Those who haven’t, have filled this thread with their nonsense.
It is impossible to understand the Creation, without understanding the Created and the Creator.
So those who try to interpret the COnstitution without learning the Founders, are blind. 
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 5:30pm
Badlose, you lazy stumblebum, go take your happy self to the library, and don’t discuss America until you do.  It really is hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
Morgoth Added Jul 11, 2018 - 5:30pm
Apathy?  No, I simply understand the dangers of silencing those who I disagree with.
You can Police your articles however you want, delete who you want.  That’s your choice.  It should never extend to WB.  It should certainly never extend to society as a whole.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 5:31pm
Mustafa Kemal Added Jul 11, 2018 - 5:36pm
re:"target="_blank">May I recommend"
 Recommend away dude!
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 5:45pm
Stone, Badlose, Michka, Mufasa, Flying Jester, and Travil will no longer be permitted to comment on my post, nor will I be responding to them.  All six have never read five biographies of the Founders of America, but they comment ceaselessly on America, the First Amendment, and 2nd Amendment.  This willful ignorance, after having been warned many times, will not and should not be tolerated by anyone. 
All six either lie and use filthy language, or they tolerate and love it.  They are disgraceful wretches, who are unfit to be listened to at all by any sane person. 
By exposing them, they can be wonderful teachers to the rest of WB and other liberals.  Some of them will learn, perhaps none will, and the wise will profit from their example. 
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 5:46pm
Thank you, Michael, LOL!
Morgoth Added Jul 11, 2018 - 5:50pm
I read your article, Ryan.  The author is right, there are no provisions in the Constitution or Bill of Rights concerning “civil behavior.”  
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 5:57pm
Sorry, wrong article, Jeffrey.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1874, 1876--83, 1885--86
§ 1874. . . . "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." That this amendment was intended to secure to every citizen an absolute right to speak, or write, or print, whatever he might please, without any responsibility, public or private, therefor, is a supposition too wild to be indulged by any rational man. This would be to allow to every citizen a right to destroy, at his pleasure, the reputation, the peace, the property, and even the personal safety of every other citizen. A man might, out of mere malice and revenge, accuse another of the most infamous crimes; might excite against him the indignation of all his fellow citizens by the most atrocious calumnies; might disturb, nay, overturn all his domestic peace, and embitter his parental affections; might inflict the most distressing punishments upon the weak, the timid, and the innocent; might prejudice all a man's civil, and political, and private rights; and might stir up sedition, rebellion, and treason even against the government itself, in the wantonness of his passions, or the corruption of his heart. Civil society could not go on under such circumstances. Men would then be obliged to resort to private vengeance, to make up for the deficiencies of the law; and assassinations, and savage cruelties, would be perpetrated with all the frequency belonging to barbarous and brutal communities. It is plain, then, that the language of this amendment imports no more, than that every man shall have a right to speak, write, and print his opinions upon any subject whatsoever, without any prior restraint, so always, that he does not injure any other person in his rights, person, property, or reputation; and so always, that he does not thereby disturb the public peace, or attempt to subvert the government. It is neither more nor less, than an expansion of the great doctrine, recently brought into operation in the law of libel, that every man shall be at liberty to publish what is true, with good motives and for justifiable ends. And with this reasonable limitation it is not only right in itself, but it is an inestimable privilege in a free government. Without such a limitation, it might become the scourge of the republic, first denouncing the principles of liberty, and then, by rendering the most virtuous patriots odious through the terrors of the press, introducing despotism in its worst form.
Morgoth Added Jul 11, 2018 - 5:57pm
I agree with this article:
Conservatives have rights
Universities need to remember academic freedom isn’t limited to liberals.
(Watches as TexasLynn faints in shock...LOL)
Morgoth Added Jul 11, 2018 - 6:11pm
Ryan, there are restrictions on speech.  No one disputes that.  The Supreme Court ruled on what is acceptable and what is not multiple times.  I’ll add the legal stuff to my article.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 6:35pm
SCOTUS has been dead wrong many times.  They don't determine what is right and wrong morally. 
The First Amendment was never created to allow the filth that is spoken today.  The Founders would have had a heart attack if they learned that their ideas were perverted to support this degeneracy.
Pardero Added Jul 11, 2018 - 6:46pm
Thanks, Leroy, that is kind of you.
I didn't get a chance to remark on your anecdote at another thread. 
It should have been an article! I'd like to see you submit it to the new site, which didn't seem to have many articles.
Morgoth Added Jul 11, 2018 - 7:16pm
The SCOTUS interprets law through filtering it through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  I take their word over anyone else.  I don’t have to agree with them.
Pardero I’m waiting for the kinks to get worked out.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 7:18pm
Dred Scott, Roe, Griswold, Stanley, Lawrence, and Obergefell, are all cases of Judicial tyranny, Jeffrey.  The Supreme Court decided they were going to make up laws instead of interpreting them. 
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 7:18pm
An unjust law is no law at all.
Morgoth Added Jul 11, 2018 - 8:07pm
SCOTUS is made up of humans, Ryan.  I just said I don't have to agree with them.
Pardero Added Jul 11, 2018 - 8:13pm
Jeffrey Kelly,
Likely a wise course. It is kinda buggy, but holds a lot of promise.
I will try to keep an eye out for you at both places.
I disagreed with Kennedy a few times, but he remained my favorite. 
Morgoth Added Jul 11, 2018 - 8:19pm
I learned my lessons at work, Pardero.  Never trust an IT person when they tell you everything will be fine.
Pardero Added Jul 11, 2018 - 8:32pm
Morgoth Added Jul 11, 2018 - 8:34pm
Decided to try, we'll see how it goes.  I hope we can transfer articles over.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 8:36pm
Martin Luther King Jr's Letter from a Birmingham Jail shows what one should do when unjust laws are in place.  
Pardero, Anthony Kennedy had no business being on the Supreme Court.  He was Reagan's third choice to replace Justice Louis Powell in 1987.  Robert Bork, a brilliant legal mind, was rejected because of that Degenerate Ted Kennedy's identity politics guerrilla warfare against him.  This destroyed the Supreme Court for decades. 
Morgoth Added Jul 11, 2018 - 8:39pm
I admire Kennedy for his bipartisanship but good grief he's gonna retire now?????
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 8:45pm
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 9:25pm
Atom Rider, The Founders certainly would have favored banning them.
Pardero, all their good is negated by their lies and vile language.  I've never resorted to their level, though I am accused of some on here of doing so.  Some on here are disappointed I'm not crude and carnal like them (Hello Leroy). 
Also, how on earth can you judge that I incited their lies and vile language, when I never engaged in either behavior myself?  Exactly how does that work?  Also, no one forces anyone to do anything.  Life is 90% how we respond, 10% what happens to us. 
Virtue is it's own reward, It is the duty of the wise to judge and condemn wicked behavior.  They don't have to keep choosing that behavior. 
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 9:27pm
Bill K. my two statements are true, however harsh. 
Does anyone on WB not agree that Jeff says the most vile and repulsive things?   Would you raise your hand please?
Ryan: Bill, you are a radical apologist and a modern day Vidkun Quisling.
Ryan: I wonder what Abe would do if faced with Jeff, who says the most vile and repulsive things?
I agree with this.
As for the actual article, my biggest problem with Fernando, is that he often failed to engage with comments that disputed his articles.  That and his articles were far too long and ponderous.  Reminded me of some of the Castro speeches. 
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 9:29pm
LOL, Michael, a man after my own heart.  While we differ on some ideas, at least you don't take leftists sitting down, and you aren't a pansy about it.
Its disgusting to see grown men making excuses for degenerate lefties.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 9:30pm
James, you have a kind heart, and I appreciate your sentiments.  Solomon said, "There is a time for war, and a time for peace".  I prefer the latter, but don't shirk the former.
Leroy Added Jul 11, 2018 - 10:03pm
"Some on here are disappointed I'm not crude and carnal like them (Hello Leroy)."
You don't want to grow old and then realize your mistakes.  You can't go back to your youth.  Make your mistakes now and beg for forgiveness later, if necessary.
As in the Billy Joel lyrics, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints; The sinners are much more fun".  My aunt asked me if I went to church regularly.  I answered, "No," to which she responded, "You're going to hell."  That's when I quoted Billy Joel.  She said I was going straight to hell.  I'm still trying to understand the difference.  Maybe you can explain.  The way I see it is that I will be in good company.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 10:27pm
Been there, done that, Leroy.
Actually, I waited until my thirties to make my big mistakes.  I didn't need to, and knew better.  That said, I'm really not trying to repeat them anymore. 
All that glitters is not gold.  The road of virtue gives the greatest happiness in this life and in the next.
"Fire is the test of gold, adversity of strong men".
Per ardua, ad astra
Through difficulties to the stars.
Morgoth Added Jul 11, 2018 - 10:34pm
I doubt God (if one exists) takes attendance, Leroy.  
Of course the Democratic Party changed, Ryan.  Some things I agree with, other things I don’t.  I do know my beliefs more closely align Democrat than it does Republican.  
As for gay marriage, it doesn’t bother me if two men or women want to get married.  But the SCOTUS got it right with the baker case.  You see, I’m all about religious freedom for everyone.  That’s about conscience so, the baker refused to bake a wedding cake for the gay couple.  There were circumstances with him that indicated he didn’t target the two men unfairly.  
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 10:48pm
At some point, Jeffrey, you have to make a choice.  Keep going in the same direction, and you'll be in the fix Keanu Reeves was in in "The Devil's Advocate". 
The Kinsey Report was junk science, IMO, Jeffrey, and it's behind the normalization of homosexuality.  In reality, it's a crime against nature.
I'm glad we agree on the Baker, but when you look at homosexuals, virtually every one has one or more of the following three factors in common:
1) no father or a poor father
2) porn use that escalated
3) molested as a child.
So they need healing, not celebrating.
Bill H. Added Jul 11, 2018 - 11:01pm
Ryan - Are these traits true for all of the homosexual creatures in nature?
I suppose you are going to deny that homosexualism exists in many of natures creatures, such as fish, herding animals, and social animals.
Do you suspect that homosexual schooling fish had no father or a poor father? Maybe they viewed too much porn?
Or, most likely they were molested as a child, Right?
Morgoth Added Jul 11, 2018 - 11:07pm
I’ll leave your comment on my thread, it’s fine.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 11:23pm
If we are into imitating animals, Bill, then I hear there is  nutritional value in profiting from the Dog's example of eating feces. 
The vast majority of studies favorable to homosexuals are rigged.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 11:23pm
I did, Pardero, no problem.  I responded to it on Jeffrey's thread.
Bill H. Added Jul 11, 2018 - 11:28pm
I wonder where you sourced that one??
Ryan Messano Added Jul 11, 2018 - 11:36pm
Dr. Rupert Green Added Jul 12, 2018 - 8:19am
I wonder the reaction to deal with those who call for the banning of the Second. Can one who resorts to the deleting of critical posts be seen as honest and virtuous regarding the advancement of dialogue? To see each responder as a nail calls for response with a hammer. Seeing that they now have edible bouquets, perhaps if nail like responders are  seen as cholate-mouse, then they may be delectable fare, which you could try eating with garnishing words. 
Leroy Added Jul 12, 2018 - 8:39am
"1) no father or a poor father
2) porn use that escalated
3) molested as a child."
I was homophobic when I was young.  Along the way, I encountered two gay men at different times in my life who showed me great kindness and understanding at a point when I needed it most.  It helped change my mind.  Currently, my neighbors to the left are gay.  They are the best neighbors that I have.  When I was unable to mow my lawn, they did it for me.  They have shown my wife and son great kindness.   One has a grown daughter and an ex-wife.  They both visit regularly.  I suppose it takes a lot of courage to end a fake marriage and announce to the world that you are gay.  Your items one and three don't apply to any gay person that I know.  For item 2, I have no idea.  All I can say is that I admire the female form.  One person's porn is another person's beauty.  
If it doesn't bother you, then get over it.  As long as they don't try to force their values on me or my family, I don't have a problem with it. 
Ryan Messano Added Jul 12, 2018 - 9:56am
Green, don’t think too hard, you have an amazing knack for coming to sophisticated sounding,  blatantly wrong conclusions.  The gullible and naive types fall for it, but you are an intellectual fraud.  I knew that as soon as I saw your profanity.  
Your latest doozy would get a gold medal at a Sophist competition.  Saying I’m not virtuous for objecting to filthy speech and lies is a hilarious and absurd proposition but you unblushingly pull it off.  
Also, your comments and posts are confusing and poorly written.  The logic is extremely obtuse and circuitous.  And not because you are some intellectual titan either.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 12, 2018 - 10:01am
Leroy, it would be a good idea for you and all the other naive types on here to stop using the word “homophobic” thus identifying yourselves as mindless drones of the left.  
Please read “Sexual Sabotage”.  Calling those of us who oppose the public health disaster of homosexuality ‘homophobic’ is a hilarious farce, and would be funnier if you weren’t in earnest.
Also, you are repeating the common logical fallacy of the “Appeal to Anecdote” thinking because you know some nice people who are homosexuals, that must make it alright. It doesn’t.  You actually hate them by approving their debauched choice.  Love corrects.  
Please wake up, Leroy.  They are already teaching homosexuality to kids in school. How much longer will you remain blinded to this insidious evil?
Leroy Added Jul 12, 2018 - 11:36am
"Please wake up, Leroy.  They are already teaching homosexuality to kids in school. How much longer will you remain blinded to this insidious evil?"
That is evil and I oppose it as I stated above. 
What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is none of my business, just don't impose those values on me or my family. 
Today, one-third of Gen Z don't know what gender they are.  That is a failure of our schools and the nonsense they teach. 
Homosexuality, especially among men, has health consequences which many choose to ignore.  But, it in of itself is not a disease.  Perhaps for some it is a mental disorder.
Morgoth Added Jul 12, 2018 - 12:39pm
@Ryan Messano:
target="_blank">At some point, Jeffrey, you have to make a choice.
What, do you think the Republican Party has clean hands??????
Yeah, no thanks.
 “Keep going in the same direction, and you'll be in the fix Keanu Reeves was in in "The Devil's Advocate".”
That would mean more to me if I was a practicing Christian.  I’m not.

target="_blank">The Kinsey Report was junk science, IMO, Jeffrey, and it's behind the normalization of homosexuality.  In reality, it's a crime against nature.”
What, do you think this is some sort of new phenomenon?  Like people just started to become gay recently?
Homosexualty is a long standing human practice.  The Greeks and Romans practiced it as have many other cultures throughout the history of mankind.  
It’s a crime against nature?  Maybe you should clue nature in on that fact.  Scientists have observed same sex behavior in many animal species.  Apparently nature didn’t get the memo.
“I'm glad we agree on the Baker,”
Well, we gotta agree on something now and again.  I think in this case the SCOTUS got it right.
“but when you look at homosexuals, virtually every one has one or more of the following three factors in common:
1) no father or a poor father
target="_blank">2) porn use that escalated
3) molested as a child.”
Really?  I’m sorry, I don’t believe you.

“So they need healing, not celebrating.”
I think you need some therapy.  
Morgoth Added Jul 12, 2018 - 12:41pm
” Homosexuality, especially among men, has health consequences which many choose to ignore.”
So does good old fashioned heterosexual sex.  The problem is promiscuity.
Pardero Added Jul 12, 2018 - 12:59pm
Ryan Messano,
I did not see Leroy approving of homosexual education in schools, though you insinuate that his "blindness" leads to such outcomes. I am not quite as tolerant as Leroy on this issue, but believe that all people should be treated with dignity and respect.
I did not see an "Appeal to Anecdote." I saw an anecdote that was for illustrative purposes. You purposely conflated, to imagine that you earned 'debate points.' That is disingenous. That may work for your semi-literate supporters, who have yet to weigh in, besides their 'likes.' I believe that there is a big difference.
No one can tell a down home country style anecdote, that reveals profound thoughts on the human condition, like Leroy. You could take a lesson there.
What does your intolerant attitude suggest? Shunning? Disapproving looks? That Leroy finds value in those with mental defects, certainly does not indicate a weakness of character or ignorance. 
That Leroy accepts these people the way he found them, does not necessarily indicate "approval," though that is also a reasonable choice, since it is none of our jobs to judge and correct others, who have not broken statutory laws.
I did not wish to be adversarial with you, since my morals and values are not so dissimilar to yours, but you slander and defame writers, left leaning and right, that I value highly. Some of us conservatives will never accept the cold and grim world that you and your Taliban-like followers would impose on us. 
How long until you find fault with TexasLynn because he enjoys movies, sports, or other entertainment? I imagine that you could find fault with all of your supporters, and suspect that you would, once you drove everyone else out of here. You offer a world without joy. Ultimately, you would have morality police, as some Muslim countries do, if you became a majority in America. 
I have managed to be a party to your hijacking of other threads, but no more. I made an effort because I believe that you, potentially, have much to offer. I have only succeeded in cluttering threads. I wish you well, though we likely have different ideas of "well."
Ryan Messano Added Jul 12, 2018 - 1:02pm
Where does the Constitution give the Supreme Court the right to make up laws, as the SCOTUS did in 2003 with 'Lawrence Vs. Texas', legalizing homosexuality, Leroy? 
55 million Americans voted against homosexual marriage, and the vast majority would vote against legalizing homosexuality.  Our laws come from we the people, not nine black robed judicial activist tyrants.
Leroy Added Jul 12, 2018 - 3:02pm
Well stated, Pardero.
Ryan, I do not believe in judicial activism.  Has it affected me or my family or my community? No.
"So does good old fashioned heterosexual sex.  The problem is promiscuity."
Jeffrey, promiscuity is a separate issue.  Anal sex, even among heterosexuals, is associated with health issues even in the absence of promiscuity.
Morgoth Added Jul 12, 2018 - 4:05pm
So is oral sex for straight couples.
The problem is multiple partners and not using protection.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 12, 2018 - 4:22pm
It requires foresight, Pardero.  Histories lessons never change. It will cause devastation.  It shouldn't have to affect you personally for you to oppose evil.  That was the same logic of Niemoller when the Nazi's came to power.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Not true, Jeffrey.  Sex outside of heterosexual marriage is the problem.  No one should be doing it.  Homosexual sex is the worst.   It's disgusting to think about, and it's downright dangerous to engage in.  It destroys the spirit and the body.
Leroy Added Jul 12, 2018 - 5:09pm
"So is oral sex for straight couples."
It can be true.  Type 2 Herpes that is associated with sexual disease.  A large percentage of the population (~80%) have either Type 1 (cold sore and the like) or Type 2.  With the prevalence of oral sex today, there is little distinction between the two.  Both can infect the genitals.  If you are one of the lucky 20% who doesn't have herpes, oral sex can certainly send it your way.

The problem is multiple partners and not using protection.
Promiscuity brings its own set of problems.  Even protected anal sex can cause health issues such as hemorrhoids and anal tears--not the crying type, although that might happen too.  Your anus simply wasn't designed to have something stuff up it.  If a woman doesn't clean herself well after pooping, she can infect herself.  Even if a man wears a condom, he can infect his partner (and himself) with their own poop.  Condoms weren't designed for anal sex.  Even if used, a condom can break and, I imagine, there is a higher probability with anal sex.
Leroy Added Jul 12, 2018 - 5:14pm
Many religions have condemned homosexuals.  Many religious tenents evolved around disease.  I'm not suggesting this is the case, only a possibility that someone recognized it was a dangerous practice and used religion to discourage it.   Marriage may have been implemented to avoid the spread of disease through promiscuity.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 12, 2018 - 5:51pm
Completely agree, Leroy. 
Pardero Added Jul 12, 2018 - 9:23pm
Interesting comment. 
I have had cold sores since I was a little kid. I was told that cold sores create a partial immunity to Type II. I have never looked that up, but am glad to have only the single type, and only in the original location, for that matter.
I may have mentioned it before, that the only haplogroup that survived in the pre-Columbian Americas, was the one which bestowed a partial resistance to syphilis.
In high school, I was fascinated with Desmond Morris's The Naked Ape. He theorized that 'pair-bonding' was an important and ancient development. I believe that it was Morris who suggested that the purpose of the hymen was to make the female resistant to sex until a strong emotional attachment had developed, making it likely that the male would stick around to care for the family.
I tend to believe that some sort of marriage long pre-dated the present religions. Many rules do seem to come from health concerns, but the rule requiring women to live separately and not prepare food while menstruating, may only be based on superstition.
Besides STDs, which may mostly be historic and pre-historic imports to Europe, I believe that marriage would have also been a necessary development to have stable clans, tribes, and societies.
No doubt, virtuous societies have little problem with STDs.
Interestingly, the Romans described the Germans as extremely chaste, and the Celts prone to celebrations, in which the women would go wild. The Romans commented on the Celts' blended families of various fathers.
If I recall, the Church banned green, as it was the color of debauchery in Ireland
Pardero Added Jul 12, 2018 - 9:48pm
Modern medicine, the pill and other contraceptives, minimal stigma, safety nets, and minimal resistance of men to pre-owned females, even those with children from multiple fathers, has removed most of the objections to casual sex.
Last year, a younger trucker hooked up with a gal that had 3 and another just placed in the oven. Years ago, that would have made for an awkward courtship, but we seem to have dispensed with courtship, except when it comes time to settle for some chump. The chump must earn the key to the barn door, which heretofore had never been closed.
I don't see any relief in sight, unless the youngsters rebel against the debauched attitudes of their parent(s). Or a new syphilis shows up. 
Leroy Added Jul 12, 2018 - 10:16pm
Pardero, I have never been diagnosed with Type 1.  I get a sore on my tongue now and then and I wonder if it might be Type 2.  It is near a chipped tooth, so I may just be biting my tongue.  Many people don't know that it can occur on the tongue and fingers.  IIRC, there are six types.  We all have at least one of them.
Syphilis was the Native American gift to the Europeans.  It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Interesting theory about marriage.  Perhaps it was like some of the animal kingdom where there is a dominant male who controlled as many females as it could.  I suppose we will never know w for sure. 
I remember Julius Caesar describing the Gauls (Celts) being obsessed with cleanliness and with dyed-blonde hair.  They didn't write much about their culture.  That was beneath the higher educated, as I understand it.  It would seem strange that they would not have monogamous relationships.
Your description of blended families reminds me of how Viking culture was depicted on the series Vikings.  The woman was free to change her man anytime.  I think that was more modern culture interjected to make it more interesting. 
I guess that is why we see so much green on St. Paddy's day...lol.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 13, 2018 - 8:38am
re Michka: He is no more a socialist than you or I are.
Thomas is right, as usual, except when it comes to the JQ. I think you should take heed to his advise. I was going to say the same thing. Others have said it as well.
I agree that the founding fathers ideas around free speech and expression pertained to the political sphere, not the sexual one. They had clear ideas wrt sexual behaviours, as all successful societies have. They did not depend on the governments for cultural guidance, for that they had the separate and wise power of the churches and pastors.
  Where are the vikings now?
  Personally, I see homosexuals the same way I see someone in a wheel chair. I don't hold it against them, but do not want to see it spread. It seems so foreign to me, and an idea that is contrary to life.
Pardero Added Jul 13, 2018 - 10:09am
Doug Plumb,
I had a stronger aversion than you, but have mellowed to an attitude that your description could also work for me. 
I an resistant to calling them anything but the accurate term 'homosexual,' but that term has the connotation that you are anti-homosexual. I am debating the use of the preposterous euphemism 'gay.' I need to think about it some more. I refuse to be PC.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 13, 2018 - 3:04pm
PC is just to drive us nuts and separate our thought patterns from reason. I think at least 4 of us see that very clearly. You, myself, Mefobills and Gerrilea are probably the only 4 that can agree on almost everything, we have the clearest picture. Also Tom is not far off.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 13, 2018 - 7:27pm
20% are on the Right.  TexasLynn, Mike Haluska, Thomas Sutrina, and myself.
20% are on the left.  Opher, Michka, Flying Junior, and Stone
And 60% are in the middle.
Thomas Napers Added Jul 14, 2018 - 5:08am
Our fore founders have a reputation for banning individuals?  What specifically did they ban people from?
“When the Founders gave us Free Speech and the First Amendment it was to allow virtuous speech to prevail.”
There is nothing in the First Amendment that bans speech deemed not virtuous enough.  Do you think Ben Franklin invented a virtuous speech measurement device before going out to fly a kite? 
Stated differently, this article is a farce.  You either support free speech, meaning people like Fernando are free to say whatever they like about you or you’re against free speech.   After reading this, I have no idea on which side of the free speech debate you fall.  As for the rest of us, barring a few wackos, we all side with the ability to speak freely and not ban anyone from this platform.   
Ryan Messano Added Jul 14, 2018 - 1:42pm
This is what happens when you know the letter of the law, and not the spirit.  Please read five biographies of the Founders. They took it for granted, all of them being Christians, that you and others would figure it out.  Apparently, they were wrong.
What is the worst part about it, is when you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, Thomas, you come on an article, and you start impudently strumpeting your nonsense.  Do not comment on my articles again until you've read five biographies of the Founders.  Thank you!!  Enough of your impertinence!
Ryan Messano Added Jul 14, 2018 - 1:58pm
trumpeting your nonsense works better, but strumpeting works as well, since a strumpet is a prostitute, and your wisdom and common sense has been prostituted out for groupthink.
Pardero Added Jul 15, 2018 - 4:59am
Ryan Messano,
I read the Mercer article on Syria and was pleased to find myself in full agreement with her, i.e. opposing the support of terrorists in Syria, or put another way, supporting Assad's secular government which protects the Syrian Christians. Although Mercer is Jewish, she is an independent thinker, and not just another neocon.
I have corresponded with her, and got her extremely upset once, with my unkind criticism of what I felt was her blind support of Israel. She is highly intelligent, and although I never expect her to be particularly critical of Israel specifically, her support of Assad is most welcome, and close enough. She is an uncommonly good wordsmith.
I was pleased to see a Pat Buchanan article, although I am already a direct subscriber to Pat Buchanan's articles. Anti-war.com also features his articles, as does WND. Although you wouldn't expect Buchanan to be especially homosexual tolerant, he has a good working arrangement with anti-war.com's Justin Raimondo, who is homosexual.
Your website has improved content-wise since the first time I checked it. I didn't notice anything that would offend a paleoconservative, although I am aware that you favor neocon and Jewish pundits. Too bad the owner and promoter has to be such an abrasive and petulant fellow, otherwise he could attract more viewers.
Spartacus Added Jul 15, 2018 - 3:35pm
Whomever the morons were who upvoted this article . . . 
While it is sad to see Fernando Alcoforado leave WB, yet, his devious stratagem was to whip up popular sentiment against me, get me banned, and then continue to propagate his socialism and totalitarianism to the admiring and naïve masses on WB.
This has to be the narcissistic quote of the week on WB.  Good lord.  What a psychonutjob.