 |
| 1/24/11 - Click to Enlarge |
Now, when we saw a thumbnail on the front page for this article, we knew that something was up. If the Times is talking about "a beautiful life," you know that some serious deviance has to be going on.
And sure enough, after shuttling over to the New York section, our suspicions were confirmed when we saw this picture:
 |
| Mourning Webster |
A grieving negro with a funny name (Kindoo Mannion-Vanover), two dubious-looking white guys, the Times talking with hagiographic reverence of somebody's beautiful life, what was going on here, we wondered?
The New York Times takes it a bit too far sometimes, and this is a perfect example of their excessive zeal in promoting all things non-traditional, unnatural, and unGodly.
From the article:
"[The life of the aids-infested black crack baby was]...a lesson in grace and resilience, the parable of good lives and deeds outside the prescribed lines, in the remarkably long and way-too-short life of Maurice Mannion-Vanover, dead at age 20 on January 14th."
 |
| Almost NYT-Approved |
There was even a horse, and to make a perfect picture even more perfect, the horse, Rocky, was "a 4 year-old cross between a Morgan and a quarter horse."
Barf.
In the diseased minds of the criminals at the NYT, two butt buddies playing parent to an aids-infested black crack baby constitutes the ultimate ideal in "family values"; meanwhile, normal heterosexual married couples with children are to be discussed with unbridled scorn, and if said couples are white, their unearned white privilege must be exposed with contempt.
The New York Times is taking it too far. This has to stop. Please join me in telling Times communist Peter Applebome (author of the "Our Town" column - email him here) what you think about this.
The New York Times: Turning Reality Upside-Down Since Since 1964.
13 comments:
That was definitely one of the more repulsive things I have seen in the Times in a long time.
The idea that anyone but white heterosexuals are the only people fit to be decent parents must really terrify you. Some might wonder if your hysterical resentment of homosexuals reflects a fear of your own hidden sexual preference. I pray that God may open your eyes. Because anyone with such a small and spiteful soul deserves our pity.
To anon 10:38 - That is not the point you blithering idiot. We're not Nazis, we don't have anything particularly against deviants.
What we DO have a problem with is the New York Times pursuing an agenda wherein this behaviour is depicted as not only the norm, but something that is morally superior to traditional behaviour.
Don't you get it? You have been so relentlessly brainwashed by the elites that pull the strings, that you do not even realize that your reaction to this post is something that you were conditioned into.
Wipe the foam from the corners of your mouth, take a deep breath and then ask yourself: What makes me so afraid of homosexuals?
I wrote to that fuckhead Appleboner. Waiting to see if he writes me back.
Hey yer getting some great hate mail - you must be doing something right !
"this behaviour is depicted as not only the norm, but something that is morally superior to traditional behaviour"
Well, firstly it is not being depicted as the norm; the norm would not be newsworthy since it is so common. It is being depicted as something rare and therefore special.
As for moral superiority, adoption of orphans - regardless of the sexual orientation of the adopters - is indeed morally superior, as it gives a home to those in need of a home. Not all people care enough to do that, and those who do deserve praise.
It is ironic that you describe such people as "unGodly". Which God do you have in mind? Charity for those in need is a core tenet of both Christianity and Islam, so I'm guessing you are Jewish and probably a Zionist.
Oh and here I thought the article was about love and family. I'm sure God himself approved what you wrote, but I respectfully disagree. Maurice Mannion-Vanover and his family prove that love can conquer the hatred you spew so mindlessly. He touched the lives of so many people. 500 friends and strangers showed up at his funeral. I wonder if the same will be said of you when you die? As Maurice said "You can do better."
Even though I really very like to watch gay females kissing and pleasing each other on video, I do understand that there is no future in their every day relationship. Love will get gay couples very far and give them happiness, but not an offspring. Which is ok with me; since I as a heterosexual, don't want any offspring. But, now, we can't just give them kids since that would be breaking the rules of God, (or biology, or nature, if you swing that way). It doesn't work that way; they can't breed, and follow the continuum of life.
No matter how a good story it should have an ending that is open to a second season, and gays don't have what it takes. Supplementing them with children will just create problems with every other law/custom that has been shaped in the last millennium to fail. And fail will the society see if they further such feminist goals. And feminist is the NYT since conception.
To Anon 7:13: Again it is not about hate, it is about perfectly normal disgust, and not directed toward the gay couple and their v adopted aids baby, but against the elitists at the New York Times who are on a relentless campaign to make people think that this kind of behaviour is not only normal, it is morally superior.
If either of these gays happened to be friends or family members, we would roll our eyes but accept them - certainly we would not direct any hate their way.
What you don't get is that we are merely supporters of the type of tradition that made Western Civilization great, and against the type of twisted upside-down morality that it published in the pages of the NYT (and therest of the mainstream media) every day.
Clear enough?
The New York Times: turning upside down up and downside up since as long as I can remember.
"on a relentless campaign to make people think that this kind of behaviour is not only normal, it is morally superior"
They don't need to campaign. I already explained why this family IS an example of a morally superior family, and most people find this quite obvious, irrespective of what NYT says about it. Do you have what it takes to adopt an orphan, let alone one with health problems, and go through everything these people have gone through? If not, then who are you to criticize them?
"we are merely supporters of the type of tradition that made Western Civilization great"
Your condescending attitudes towards people different from yourself make you a fine example of Western Civilization and all the negative connotations it has accumulated for itself over time everywhere in the world. If you represent Western Civilization, it is no mystery why so many people despise the West.
funny !
Post a Comment