News that An international outcry has greeted the news that an American university is trying to “cure” gay sheep of their homosexuality… reminded me of an old joke.
I hope this offends ewes.
A sheep farmer realises his prize stud ram is getting old, so he seeks to replace him. A few attempts are unsuccessful, so he forks out huge money for the best young stud ram he can find.
He takes the new ram and puts him into the paddock with the old feller and his harem.
The young ram swaggers up to the old boy and announces he’s here to take over servicing the ewes.
The old feller says “OK mate, you’re young, I’m getting on, I’m willing to go 50/50, fair enough?
The young ram says “no way, you decrepit old prick, I’m taking the bloody lot.”
The old boy thinks for a second and then replies “tell you what, I’m a gambling ram, I’ll give you a race around the paddock, winner takes all.”
The young ram laughs “silly old prick, I’ll piss-bowl you, you’re on“
The old boy replies “tell you what though, just to make things interesting, how about you give me a 20 yard head start?”
The young ram says, “yeah, yeah, you silly old prick, lets get started, I want a go at those ewes”.
The old boy takes off and after he’s got a good start, the young ram follows
Pretty quickly the young ram catches up and soon he’s right on the old boys tail.
The old boy starts bleating and squealing in panic as the young ram draws right behind him.
The farmer is watching all this from his ute and with a deep sigh of disgust, draws his rifle out of its rack.
He lines up and just as the young ram is about to catch the old boy, the farmer shoots the new ram stone dead.
The farmer stands there and mutters to himself “Un-friggin-believable…Sixth poofter ram in a row!”
20 thoughts on “I Hope This Offends Ewes”
If any group,gay or otherwise, wants me to fund their activities through the public (State raped) coffers I will oppose it.If these groups fund themselves however and I’m not forced to engage in the actions or fund it I say who cares?
The real problem is the existence of “public land”….meaning State controlled land which we are all forced to fund at gun point regardless of whether we wish to use it or not.These conflicts don’t occur when land is privately owned and the state isn’t funded by taxation.
Yes I did misunderstand you anon.
I fully agree with your analysis of the radical gay movement.
I think Harry Hay was involved with the CPUSA breakaway group the Committees of Correspondence up until a few years ago.
As a libertarian and as a social liberal, I support equal rights for all, which obviously includes gays.
I supported both the 1986 homosexual law reform bill and the 2005 civil union bill.
Those were legitimate actions to give homosexuals the same rights as everyone else.
However I’ve always opposed the “special rights” that some gay activists have proposed, just as I oppose “special rights” for the disabled, Maori etc.
These “right” are essentially socialist and more about social change than they are about liberty.
Trevor, I think you may have misunderstood my intentions.
Everybody has the right to go to hell in their own way with other consenting adults.
What they don’t have a right to do is demand from the rest of us SOCIAL ENDORSEMENT as opposed to tolerance of their private activities.
When one asks the public to tolerate private sexual acts between consenting adults, what goes on behind closed doors remains the sole business of the participants.
When one demands the public affirmation and endorsement of sexual behaviour rightly regarded by the majority as unnatural and deviant, one is also obliging the public to engage with that behaviour and with its public consequences. It is the public consequences of actively affirming homosexual behaviour that I have attempted to highlight.
Gay activists claim that homosexual partnership rights are simply a matter of justice and equality because homosexual couples deserve to be treated on an equal footing with heterosexual couples.
This egalitarian argument is something akin to an onion, with principles layered on top of principles. On the surface it seems relatively palatable, until you begin to peel away the layers; and that is when a certain something begins to burn the eyes.
The whole thing, as gay activists know well, is intended to be a slippery slope. As homosexual spin-doctors Kirk and Pill make plain in After the Ball:
“In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent–only later his unsightly derriere!”
“It’s all about love and commitment,” the activists will tell us. This is because they know full well that most of us can find nothing remotely romantic in the idea of sticking one’s tongue in someone else’s rectum.
When homosexuality was illegal the homosexual lobbyists claimed all they wanted was the lawful right to have sexual relations in private. That turned out to be an outright lie. Ever since the law was changed, their demands have not stopped.
Now that Civil Unions have been achieved they will immediately have a new lot of demands which at some stage will include adoption rights and eventually the right to legally marry.
The real reason activists argue for egalitarianism is due to their insistence that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are equally valid. While gays admit that traditional marriage will certainly remain the overwhelmingly prevalent expression of relationships, nevertheless they are demanding that our culture recognise that other legitimate forms exist.
Of course, in our relativistic age, if they exist, they must be “good.” This is the anchor of the entire appeal for state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. Homosexual relationships are equally valid because there is supposedly nothing wrong with homosexuals. Crap.
Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a contributing editor at National Review Online, says, “[T]he movement for gay marriage has little to do with an expanded regard for marriage and everything to do with an attempt to gain social approval for homosexuality.”
If a death-dealing plague hasn’t furthered the cause of homosexual monogamy, it hard to see how a bit of paper from the registry office is going to do it.
I’d have thought, Trevor, that someone so well versed in Marxist-Leninist tactics would be well across the subversive nature and history of the gay activist agenda.
Here’s something I wrote on this subject:
The shifting paradigm of sexual morality is a source of much controversy in Western culture, and homosexuals, though less than 3 percent of the population, are at the centre of this controversy.
The secular civil rights of consenting adults are increasingly coming into conflict with the traditional Judeo-Christian foundation for the family and society. This is no accident.
The three main roadblocks to the Marxist-Leninist goal of a secular and socialist world order are private property (which provides material independence from state power), the family (which affords loyalties prior to the state), and religion (which claims authority above that of the state).
Gay activism was long ago identified by the political left as a social force that could be harnessed and directed to undermine the traditional family and the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western culture, thus expanding the role of the state into personal relationships once thought to lie beyond its purview.
Marx held that individuals are the products of social and class environments, making them pawns of forces they are incapable of transcending without the intervention of an activist government. His followers (whether of the revolutionary or ballot-box variety), regard mankind as essentially stupid and wicked.
Luckily, there is a cadre of self-anointed intellectuals who are better, wiser and kinder than their fellow man. They alone possess the knowledge and methods needed to construct a planned social order. It is their right, and indeed their duty, to ascend to political power and re-order society according to this blueprint.
Socialists regard equality of condition as the only natural and morally desirable state of affairs. Inequalities, once identified, are to be minimised or eradicated through state action redistributing wealth and power. The therapeutic state is the natural instrument for the betterment of the human condition, and only the coercive power of Big Government can purge people of their greed, selfishness, prejudice and bigotry.
In meeting these objectives, rights are something to be forcibly taken from one group and doled out to other preferred groups as determined by social activists. As Lenin once said, “Freedom is so precious it must be rationed.”
Collective or group rights therefore flow not from any ethical principle, but from the political agendas of those who wanting to impose their normative world view on everyone else by force.
Since the 1960s, the West has increasingly abandoned its grounding in individual rights and shifted to a variety of “collective entitlements.” Identity politics means that anyone identifying as “oppressed” is entitled to special political representation and subsidisation at the expense of the rest of society, purely on the basis of group membership.
Marx claimed that society is evolving inexorably toward socialism through a process called dialectical materialism. An existing condition (thesis) comes into conflict with a new condition (antithesis) that is attempting to emerge. Out of the dialectical conflict between these two opposing forces a new, higher condition (synthesis) emerges. This is then put through the process again as the new thesis, until full socialism is achieved.
Lenin expanded Marx’s dialectical analysis from its early focus on economic relationships to take in social and political relationships, thus widening the role of the revolutionary as a change agent. The task of the revolutionary was now to identify and exploit pressure points for dialectical conflict, thus undermining the legitimacy of the existing social and political order, and hastening the eventual triumph of socialism.
In the 1930s, Lenin devised a strategy for weakening and subverting democratic societies that changed the nature of revolutionary politics forever, while profoundly increasing the threat that revolutionaries posed. Until then, Communist parties in non-Communist countries had openly declared their anti-capitalist, anti-Western and anti-democratic agendas. They called for the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and advocated “civil war” in the western democracies to bring this about. Because most people in free societies remained unconvinced of the need for a violent socialist revolution, Communists remained a fringe minority with little political clout.
In 1935, the Communist parties adopted a new tactic, which they dubbed the Popular Front. The agendas of the Popular Front were framed in terms of the fundamental values of the societies the Communists meant to destroy. In place of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and “international civil war,” the Communists organised coalitions for “democracy, justice and peace.”
Nothing changed in the philosophy and goals of the Communists, but by seemingly advocating “democracy, justice and peace” they were able to forge broad alliances with individuals and groups who had no inkling of their true agendas, or believed them to be less sinister and dangerous than they were.
Communists initially selected as prime targets various racial, religious and national minorities, and intellectual groups that exerted a direct effect on public opinion. Working through the Popular Front they formed with “liberal” factions, the Communists were able to hide their conspiratorial activities, form “peace,” and “human rights” movements, and greatly increase their numbers by mobilising non-Communists to do their work for them. These are the people that Lenin referred to as “useful idiots.”
The notion that homosexuals are an oppressed group or class first gained broader currency through the efforts of university professors influenced by Antonio Gramsci, one of the many disreputable Communists enshrined as intellectual icons by the academic left.
As an innovative Stalinist in the 1930s, Gramsci pondered the historic inability of Communist parties to mobilise workers to seize the means of production and overthrow the capitalist ruling classes. He saw that Western society, steeped in traditions of freedom and liberty, would never succumb to a frontal assault and its workers were too busy accumulating capital to be cannon fodder for a socialist revolution.
Gramsci responded by expanding Marx’s ranks of the oppressed from the working classes alone to include other “marginalised groups” such as women, racial minorities and homosexuals. Due to the ideological supremacy of the existing powerful groups in society, said Gramsci, these groups lacked consciousness of their own oppression. By internalising the value systems and world views of the privileged groups, they had consented to their own marginalisation.
For a revolutionary social transformation to occur, the revolution must therefore first take place at the level of consciousness. Gramsci saw intellectuals as having a key role in delegitimising and unmasking the dominant belief systems of the predominant groups to empower “marginalised groups.” He urged radicals to acquire “cultural hegemony” by which he meant capturing the institutions that produce society’s governing ideas.
Helping “marginalised groups” to an awareness of their own class oppression would be the key to controlling and transforming the society itself. Universities were to be first-line political weapons in this “war of position.”
Marxist intellectuals first slithered into the academy in the 1930s. They covertly increased their numbers over succeeding decades, and by the 1960s were a significant presence at universities throughout the Western world. After achieving critical mass in the liberal arts faculties, particularly those dealing with the study of society itself, they systematically excluded anyone holding viewpoints outside the leftist spectrum.
Many academics now see themselves not primarily as educators, but as agents of an “adversary culture” at war with the world outside the university. Their agenda is to produce students who will go forth from the academy as “agents of social change,” committed to achieving “social justice” for the “marginalised groups” Gramsci had identified.
For three decades students have been taught that rather than living in free societies, they are trapped in a wicked caste system of race, gender and sexuality crying out for revolutionary change. There are few, if any dissenting voices. Under the saturating drumbeat of this “cultural pessimism,” many intellectuals from “dominant groups” were induced to “switch sides” as Gramsci had envisaged.
After their consciousness-raising by Marxist academics, intellectuals from “subordinate groups” and those from “dominant groups” induced to throw in their lot with the “oppressed” moved from the academy directly into government, the media, entertainment, the trade unions, the churches, the education system and other opinion-shaping activities or careers. Once there, they worked tirelessly to promote the Marxist-Leninist agenda. As a result, the values of a free society have been subjected to three decades of unrelenting attack from within.
Two kinds of intellectuals are pushing the notion of homosexuals as a “marginalised” or “oppressed” group. The first is a numerically small hard-core left wing activist class that derives a sense of intellectual superiority from knowing it is manipulating the situation. The second consists of large numbers of passive enablers who have unwittingly embraced socialist doctrines, largely because their leftist professors ensured that they were never exposed to intellectual alternatives.
Friedrich Hayek describes this second group as “the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own, but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into them sufficiently loudly and often enough.” Having internalised the system of values on which their membership of “club virtue” depends, they have a strong emotional resistance to having it questioned. With people like these, you either agree with them, or you are racist, sexist, homophobic, uneducated, uninformed, or just plain stupid.
US political columnist Joe Sobran uses the metaphor of a hive of bees, united by a kind of “group mind,” to describe the informal body of leftist opinion making up this “useful idiot” class. “There’s no central direction as such, but the bees can sense an enemy, and know when to attack.”
Sobran says, “To become a bee in this hive is to surrender, voluntarily and eagerly, your own personality: to submerge the self in a collectivity; to prefer the buzzing cliché of the group to individual thought and expression; to take satisfaction in belonging and conforming to a powerful mass while punishing others for failure to conform … The similarity to an insect colony — where the individual exists only functionally, being both indistinguishable from and interchangeable with its fellows — is not superficial, it is of the essence. To be an insect is to be relieved of the burden of having a soul of your own.”
Political scientist Eric Hoffer is another who provides a penetrating insight into the collectivist mentality. Hoffer saw that mass-movements are an outlet for people whose individual significance is miniscule in the eyes of the world and –more important — in their own eyes. He pointed out that the leaders of the Nazi movement were men whose artistic and intellectual aspirations were wholly frustrated, as were the Bolshevik leaders.
Those drawn to collectivist ideologies are invariably people with a pressing need for self-inflation and ego-boosting (generally in the absence of any real claims in that direction). As Hoffer makes clear: “The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim excellence for his nation, his religion, his race, or his holy cause.”
People who are fulfilled in their own lives and careers are unlikely to be attracted to mass movements: “A man is likely to mind his own business when it worth minding,” Hoffer said. “When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people’s business.”
The person most responsible for bringing “gay rights” issues to the forefront of Western social discourse is an obscure American “civil rights” campaigner named Harry Hay. In the 1930s, Hay renounced his family’s privileged social status to become a Marxist-Leninist agitator. He married a political colleague; the couple adopted two children and for years worked together to advance the Communist cause in various parts of America.
Throughout his youth and marriage, Harry Hay fought a homosexual orientation. By 1950, he had abandoned his wife and children to fully embrace a homosexual lifestyle.
In the 1940s and 1950s, the Communist Party of the U.S.A. (to which Hay and several gay friends belonged) frowned on homosexuality in Marxist-Leninist ranks. But Hay and his friends remained unconvinced that their sexual preference necessarily represented a liability to the advancement of socialism.
Hay had read Gramsci. He had also read Alfred Kinsey’s groundbreaking Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male (1948) was struck by Kinsey’s finding that about 10% of men Kinsey surveyed had been “exclusively homosexual” for at least some significant part of their lives.
If Kinsey’s 10% figure was even close to accurate, Hay reasoned, homosexuals must represent a large and significant group that could be mobilised to advance the socialist cause. Hay soon concluded that the general public’s sympathy could be aroused for gay people if homosexuals were painted as yet another “oppressed minority” in need of liberation and government advocacy.
In 1950, Hay and a number of fellow Marxist-Leninist intellectuals founded the Mattachine Society, America’s first “homosexual activist” organization. Its ostensible goals were to educate the public about homosexuality and work for the repeal of the (at that time) 48 States’ “sodomy laws” (which viewed homosexual behaviour as a criminal offence).
Capitalising on still-unsevered social connections, Hay and his fellow Mattachines traversed America addressing various audiences while spreading their views still further through an ever-widening circle of influential publications. Inspired by the Mattachines, several lesbian intellectuals founded a “sister” organization, the Daughters of Bilitis, in 1955.
In line with Marxist-Leninist “Popular Front” doctrine, Harry Hay’s claim that homosexuals were both a sexual and a political “minority” welded together sexuality and politics. With constant repetition, Hay’s propaganda claim — “homosexuals are an oppressed minority” — has come to resonate strongly with many “useful idiots” concerned with minority “civil rights.”
But “civil rights” is just a fish hook to attract the support of respectable people, who are then persuaded that the social suffering of homosexuals can be alleviated only by the radical social change gay activists are demanding.
Gay activists regard legal recognition of same-sex partners as the first step in securing gay marriage and adoption rights, thus relegating heterosexual marriage to just another lifestyle option among many. Publications meant for a homosexual readership today openly state that the gay activist agenda is to subvert and destroy heterosexual marriage.
Behind this push is the Marxist-Leninist propaganda claim that the formative family normalises heterosexual relations, thus marginalising alternative sexualities. Gay activists (whether they know it or not) are being used as a cat’s-paw to advance the Marxist-Leninist agenda of eradicating the formative family as the basic building block of civil society.
Gay activism is therefore highly dangerous to the established social order. If gay activist demands are met, the Marxist anti-family agenda moves a step closer to completion.
Anon, while there is no question that homosexual activity is inherently more dangerous, health wise, than heterosexual activity and should be acknowledged as such, what is the point you are trying to make here?
Are you saying that because it is more dangerous, or is “abnormal”, it should be illegal?
Whatever one’s opinion of homosexual practices, or homosexuality per se, the fact remains, that if you want to live in a free society, as I do, you must acknowledge the right of others to do with their bodies as they see fit.
Homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom and has been observed in most human societies since time immemorial.
I see homosexuality as caused by a variety of factors, both biological and environmental.
I see it as part of a continuum of human activity, much as left and right handedness is.
It is not something that can be changed by legislation.
By all means avoid homosexuality and/or homosexuals if you see fit and warn of the dangers of unhygenic practices as you have done here.
You have every right to do that.
You have no right however to force anybody to change their lifestyle by law.
I hope I haven’t misunderstood or mis-represented, your intentions.
Two cohabiting gays have decided to maintain strict “gender” roles. The “butch” one goes out to work, while his “bitch” stays home to mind the house.
One day the “butch” gets home to find the “bitch” sitting in the hot tub pushing a turd around with his hand.
“What are you doing?” asks the “butch.” “Teaching Junior how to swim,” is the reply.
Jokes often illustrate simple facts. The simple fact is this: That which is normal is that which funtions according to its design. The anus is an organ of excretion, not procreation. Heterosexual intercourse creates life, while homosexual intercourse creates nothing but bacterial life. End of story.
As US columnist Joe Sobran correctly asks: “How bright do you have to be to work out the consequences of inserting a life-giving organ into the poop chute?”
Someone orally ingesting the contents of an ashtray is not “eating” any more than someone engaging in homosexual sodomy is having “sexual intercourse.”
Having conducted this argument in a variety of forums, I’m well familiar with the gay activist reponses to what I write above: “What about straights who are unable to procreate?” “Sex is mostly undertaken for pleasure, not procreation” “Plenty of straights have anal sex” and “What about straights who engage in non-procreative forms of sexual expression, such as oral sex?”
Firstly, any act of heterosexual intercourse, whether undertaken for procreation or pleasure, uses our sexual organs for their natural and intended purpose.
Outside of procreation, the purpose of sex is “good relationship. In other words, it is the “glue” that binds a couple together while they raise their children. Gays have changed the purpose of sex from “good relationship” to simply “feeling good.”
As for anal sex, most straights don’t even want to go there. Mentional anal sex to most straights and the response will be “Eeew!”
Anecdotally within my wide circle of friends and acquaintances, sodomy forms a regular part of the sexual repertoire of only a handful of what most would regards as deviant heterosexual couples. Fisting and rimming? Even more disgusting and perverted to most heterosexuals.
Yet gays routinely engage in anal sodomy, fisting and rimming. Messing with the turd pipe is the “raison d’etre” of gay sexuality.
Male homosexuals are often — in the part of their lives displayed to the public — intelligent, well educated, personable, sociable, epicures, connoisseurs and aesthetes. Many hold highly paid jobs, are financially successful and live in beautiful homes surrounded by objects d’art. Yet in the compartment containing their sex lives, it would be hard to imagine anything more unaesthetic than activities like “fisting and “rimming.”
Dr Paul Cameron correctly points out:
“Becoming a homosexual involves a tremendous amount of reverse socialisation. Almost every child is taught to avoid faeces. Potty training explicitly teaches one to regard faeces as dirty, disgusting, and unhealthy. Yet most homosexuals eventually learn to immerse themselves in faeces.”
Clearly an aberrant and pathological behaviour, as the health consequences of ongoing contact with human waste make clear.
Infection with a bewildering array of pathogens is the inevitable result of anal sodomy and its associated behaviours. The American Journal of Tropical Medical Hygiene reported as early as 1968 that certain gay communities had begun to display rates of STDs and gastrointestinal parasites equivalent to those of a third world slum in Uganda or Bangladesh.
In Surviving AIDS, Michael Callen wrote: “It wasn’t until I was officially diagnosed with AIDS that I faced squarely up to just how much sex and how much disease I’d had. I calculated that since becoming sexually active in 1973, I had racked up more than 3000 different sex partners in bathhouses, back rooms, meat racks and tearooms. As a consequence, I had already had the following STDs, many more than once: Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C; herpes simplex types I and II; venereal warts; amoebiasis including giardia lamblia and entomoeba histolytica; shigella flexnari and salmonella; syphilis; gonorrhea; non-specific urethritis; chlamydia; cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus; mononucleosis; and cryptosporidiosis.”
Anyone still think it’s normal and natural to be gay? Or are these people simply in the grip of a dangerous and pathological sexual addiction?
My point was this – Trevor is the Vice-President of Act and I thought this sort of carry on wasn’t doing the professed Liberal party any favours.
Total turn off really.
Oh what nonsense. It was a harmless joke that pales in comparison to jokes I get told by homosexuals on a daily basis.
All those who stand on soap boxes and tell others what is offensive should take a chill pill and get over it.
Dear Trevor –
You do of course have the right to say whatever you please. Indeed i’d stand up for your right to speak your mind no matter what you had to say. However there is a difference between what you describe as being PC and simple decency.
You probably won’t really care but – you are a representative of your party, and it is because of this sort of carry on that I won’t be voting for it again.
Being offensive is not an end in itself.
Jim Newman here from the university that is actually conducting the research. The article you posted is so wrong – it doen’t even get name the correct university!
In regards to the Sunday Times article which is the source of all these wild conspiracy theories, I am pleased that a writer has thoroughly investigated the article. As he reports, the Sunday Times article basically a piece of science fiction filled with major errors and false claims. His analysis also raises important questions about the timing of the article which comes almost five years after the research was actually conducted.
Here’s a link to that analysis that anyone who is interested in this topic should read:
A wolf in gay sheep’s clothing: Corruption at the London Times
To anon re Holocaust jokes. While I like to pushthings to the limit, there are some lines I choose not to cross.
Mind you, my Israeli employee has told me worse.
Q Why do Asians drive fast cars?
A So they can get to the dump before the seagulls
The suggestion that homosexuality is “genetic” is without scientific basis. It is designed to remove all moral culpability from those exhibiting this sexual preference.
For example, the oft-cited “Identical Twin” study which showed that if one identical twin was gay there was a 50 percent chance the other was too, claimed to “prove” a genetic link.
Bollocks! If homosexual sodomy was genetic there would be 100 percent concordance in identical twins.
Homosexuality is a disorder of psycho-sexual development that typically becomes a pathological sexual addiction with disastrous consequences for both the physical and mental health of the practitioner, as the links below demonstrate:
Sure, certain traits might predispose a child towards homosexual behaviour, but we need to understand the difference between “inherited” and “heritable.”
“Inherited” is something innate, immutable and inborn, like eye colour. “Heritable” is a trait that can lead an individual to behave in different ways depending upon environmental influences or modifiers.
For example, a very athletic 6′ 7″ 17 stone teenager raised in Harlem or East LA will probably be a basketballer. Brought up in Taranaki or the High Veldt of the Transvaal, he’ll probably be a rugbty lock forward. Living in a household in which sports are not encouraged, he’ll probably become a large bookwork with bruises on his shins from bumping repeatedly into library tables.
As Dr Satinover correctly identifies, thought there are heritable traits that can lead a child towards a homosexual sexual preference, response environment is the the key determinant of subsequent homosexuality.
Oh, that’s a good one! I bet the PC-hating Trevor had a good belly laugh over that one.
Here’s a good one: Hitler didn’t kill himself, he died of shock when he got his gas bill.
Know any good Jewish/Holocaust jokes, Trevor?
John I’m not surpised that some gay people might be offended by the joke.
I was hoping someone would be.
That’s my point really. We’ve become so PC in this country that many people (even as unPC as myself) think twice about having a laugh at some minority’s expense.
Part of my mission is to change the sick culture where the fear that some may take offence acts as a dampener on free expression.
Don’t worry though John, I will always try to offend all minorities equally.
It was a joke fellas….geez! Go and get your rubber sheets of the line, they might be dry now…
In fact – that sort of carry on reminds me of Garry Malletts vomiting gesture in Hamilton. So much for ACT being the Liberal party.
Being Gay myself I do actually find that fairly offensive. Tamihere type stuff you know?
I can’t think of a better use of taxpayers’ money. Unbelievable.