Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association

6,708 bytes added, 19:27, 4 March 2013
{{protected|TK}}
----
<small>Archives: [[/archive 1|01]]</small>
----
:Equating gays with NAMBLA, though, is still incorrect, even if one guy was both.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:29, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
 
::It is not simply "one guy", it is the recognized founder of the organized gay rights movement in the US, who coincidently had been a [[CPUSA]] member since the 1930s. And if you haven't heard by now, this particularly is my area of speciality, which I can proudly assert is the cause of my banning from WP. WP:Cold War Portal carries a few articles I authored, one of which is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Soviet_espionage_in_the_United_States History of Soviet Espionage in the United States]. This is an unwritten chapter, the subversive influence of the homosexual movement on American politics and society. I am greatful to User:JeffersonDarcy, becuase I had no reason to ever pursue this on my own, but when I found the precious little nugget about how Harry Hay had been a CPUSA member since the 30s, it filled in a lot of gaps. And we see now how this socially and politically subversive organization took the leadership role in March of 2003 of the anti-War movement. We have living history here that must be documented. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
 
A lot of movements have people in their fold they're not proud of. Ted Haggart, for one. But the fact that the founder was a creepy doesn't mean the movement isn't still valid, and right.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 13:36, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:Good. I hope you see the broader picture. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:09, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
 
I have no problem with the article. Indeed, I would like to see all these guys locked up for good. However, it is shameful of you to categorize the article into the Anti-war movement and Liberal Activists. While some of these guys are probably anti-war and liberal, I suspect some are exactly the opposite. Shame on you.--[[User:Trajsmith|Trajsmith]] 13:34, 5 May 2007 (EDT)--[[User:Trajsmith|Trajsmith]] 13:34, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:The problem is NAMBLA publicly provided leadership for the anti-War movement in March 2003. Not surprising since NAMBLA trtaditionally takes controversial positions opposed by mainstream America. mainstream America needs to realize however, it has departed from the mainstream and followed NAMBLA's leadership on this issue. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
 
== Problem with a source ==
 
I can't find any connection between the Iraq war and NAMBLA. Can someone point out where this is? The only link I find is to Conservapedia. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
 
::Also, could you explain their "leadership role?" Sounds like garbage to me. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:41, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
 
:::It's on their website, and cited as such in the article. A link to it comes from their main page. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:42, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
 
::No link on the main page found. sorry. I think someone made this up for ideological gain. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:48, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
 
:::We can't link to NAMBLA. You'd have to google or clusty it and link yourself; be forewarned, you'll go on the FBI watchlist. Clusty shows two NAMBLA Editorials using these search terms < NAMBLA Bulletin, Editorial "War in Iraq?" >. This ''ABC News'' [http://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/883a24WarUpdateIV.pdf] poll shows 77% supported the War whereas 10% strongly opposed it and 7% somewhat opposed. Clearly NAMBLA was in the forefront by publicy taking a stand against the War before it even started. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:20, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
 
::Why does that merit mention in the article? Should we mention all the groups that ran afoul of the ABC poll? I think this is a lame attempt to connect liberals to this group and an intellectually dishonest attempt at that. It should be removed completely. Otherwise, all you are doing is pushing ideology and specious reasoning. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It seems like a lousy attempt to link all opposition to the war with pedophiles. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 15:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: I checked, the ABC poll ''does not mention'' NAMBLA. Please add valid content, not speculation. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:41, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
 
Many, many people opposed the war, not just NAMBLA. Your mistake is you don’t want to admit that 100’s of thousands took part in anti-war protests that month. Also, we now know, ironically, that nambla was ''right.''
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2765215.stm
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-03.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,,1111755,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,896658,00.html
 
Even the FBI believes the group only has about 1,100 members. You look ridiculous when you claim that their influence had anything to do with the ''world’s'' response to the war. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:49, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:Of course many opposed the War, NAMBLA doesn't constitute 16% of the population. The point being, the so-called "center" has now moved to NAMBLAs position, which NAMBLA has been consistent in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:56, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
 
 
 
::However, you portray it as part of the homosexual agenda to oppose the war, which it most certainly wasn't. If you can show that the ABC poll has ''anything'' to do with NAMBLA, other than your interpetation, I am all ears. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:03, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::BTW, I don't think there is room enough to list anyone else that might be affected by this study if that is what you mean to do. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:05, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::NAMBLA is not exclusively a pedophile group; it is a group which fits within other liberal activist coalitions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:14, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah. So then we can look forward to relevant notations where, say, the Klan supports conservative positions?--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 17:07, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 
==Thanks==
Despite opinions about the organisation itself or its objectives, in my view it's a well-written and objective article. I am pleasantly surprised. [[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 14:04, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
 
== Link ==
Please remove the link to pedophilia. It is a blocked page. I realize that the protecting sysop is no longer here, but I'm sure there's some way around it. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 17:52, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 
 
 
== Sean Hannity Link ==
The link on the page is no longer good. Here is another one regarding the same subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQnfVpHqhBA
609
edits