PDA

View Full Version : More On Republican Gays in Closet & Hypocracy!



Gayle in MD
10-18-2009, 07:49 AM
And Linsey GraHAM! Gee, who woulda thunk it? ME! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j0poqrQo08
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/outrage/synopsis.html

http://www.akawilliam.com/outrage-docume...-film-festival/ (http://www.akawilliam.com/outrage-documentary-on-closeted-politicians-to-premiere-at-tribeca-film-festival/)

http://www.akawilliam.com/outrage/

http://www.akawilliam.com/dc-newscaster-tells-outrage-journalist-he-wants-to-beat-him-up/


Quite a List available here:

http://www.blogactive.com/

Amazing to me, that I just saw this documentary yesterday on HBO, hadn't even heard about it til then, and now I see they include Sen. Graham! It must be true that women are better at determining when men are gay. Most of these guys on this list, and the list on the left of the page, I had said to my hubby over the years, "If he's not gay I'll eat my hat!"

Graham, Christ, Shepard Smith, Craig, Foley, Ken Melman, Ed Schrock, David Dreier, Dan Gurley...

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Christians who are gay, hiding in the closet, while voting against gay rights!

If that isn't the ultimate in political hypocracy, what is?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

I'm all for gay rights, but this isn't about gay rights, it's about people voting against gay rights, when they are themselves gay, and hiding it.

llotter
10-18-2009, 09:06 AM
Your always too long posts demonstrate tactic number two, after attack, attack, attack... throw enough garbage and hope it stinks enough to raise questions about what is real. Invariably, the sources are suspect enough to be worthless and now those unreliable sources often include the MSM. Confusion provides the Left the temporary foundation until it gets the police state installed. Maybe what the Right should be thinking about is a 'preemptive' strike.

LWW
10-18-2009, 09:26 AM
Awwww ... sweetheart, that was so nice.

Confirming again that you read my posts.

And, as is typical, to prove you aren't a gay bashing partisan parrot you parrot some partisan gay bashing.

LWW <--- Outsmarting the far left haters with half my brain tied behind my back.

pooltchr
10-18-2009, 09:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I had said to my hubby over the years, "If he's not gay I'll eat my hat!"

</div></div>

So, you are admitting that over the years, you have made it a point to determine certain individual's sexual orientation?????

Sounds a bit homophobic to me.

Personally, I don't give much thought at all to whether someone is gay or not. You obviously have a different take on the world.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

LWW
10-18-2009, 09:34 AM
It is difficult to understand the mind of the hater.

But, as I've always said, when it comes to haters, racists, sexists, homophobes, hypocrites, fascists, communists, statists, and tools of the state ... if you can keep them talking they will expose their true nature.

LWW

llotter
10-18-2009, 09:38 AM
She is a fascist hypocrite.

LWW
10-18-2009, 09:39 AM
I was thinking hypocritical fascist ... but, close enough.

LWW

Qtec
10-18-2009, 10:41 AM
What G is saying is that IHO, Graham was gay.....and I agree.
When challenged he refused to answer.
I ask you, how many straight guys would have difficulty saying to a camera they are hetro?
[Lets face it, he is pretty effeminate.] More to the point, if a Senator or Congressman is concealing their sexual preference from the public, they are open to blackmail.
Ask yourself, if you exclude the closet gays,those who are cheating on their wives or visiting hookers, how many Republicans are left over?

Q

Gayle in MD
10-18-2009, 11:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What G is saying is that IHO, Graham was gay.....and I agree.
When challenged he refused to answer.
I ask you, how many straight guys would have difficulty saying to a camera they are hetro?
[Lets face it, he is pretty effeminate.] More to the point, if a Senator or Congressman is concealing their sexual preference from the public, they are open to blackmail.
Ask yourself, if you exclude the closet gays,those who are cheating on their wives or visiting hookers, how many Republicans are left over?

Q </div></div>

Thanks Q.,...

I think it's pretty obvious why their actions are so hypocritical and disgraceful, pretending to be the "Family values" Christians, while hiding the truth about themselves, lying to their wives, putting them at risk for aids, it's a disgrace.

As Barney Frank said, people should have to live by the legislation they create.

The documentary includes plenty of people, witnesses, who have been with these men, named witnesses. None of them appeared with revealing their identities, and since this is now ariing right on HBO, and has also been on the above website, for months before that, it should be obvious to all but the nutty right, that is it all true.

No one has filed any law suit against the man who produced this documentary, I notice. Hell, they don't even answer when asked.

Makes them look pretty stupid, IMO, after all the slander they threw out at the Clintons.

Wonder how all those RW bible thumpers are going to justify these revelations.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

pooltchr
10-18-2009, 11:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As Barney Frank said, people should have to live by the legislation they create.


</div></div>

Does that mean Barney will be signing up for the public option if HCR passes?????????????

Steve

Sev
10-18-2009, 11:35 AM
And who's business is it to be investigating an individuals sexual orientation???

Seems to be the ultimate invasion of an individuals privacy.

I suspect the same people that do this find entertainment in tormenting children afflicted with downs syndrome.

As far as there votes go. Perhaps they view what nature has placed upon them in a different light than you do.

wolfdancer
10-18-2009, 01:58 PM
it seems that by posting about Republican pols hypocrisy....you
are being charged with being a hypocrite????
This is an acceptable debating tool, but usually saved for when all other viable options have been exhausted....in other words, when one hasn't a f**ken clue on how to respond.

pooltchr
10-18-2009, 02:39 PM
It's not about hypocracy. It's more about the original poster being obsessed with the sexual orientation of one group of politicians, as was admitted in a post where it was noted that the poster has been profiling their sexual orientation "for years."

Steve

Gayle in MD
10-18-2009, 05:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it seems that by posting about Republican pols hypocrisy....you
are being charged with being a hypocrite????
This is an acceptable debating tool, but usually saved for when all other viable options have been exhausted....in other words, when one hasn't a f**ken clue on how to respond.
</div></div>


Well, it's their usual illogical approach. obviously, it makes no sense at all, just their usual twisted viewpoint.

I have always been for gay rights, and hence, that's one reason why it makes me so mad what the closeted gay Republicans are doing. I don't blame these other gay men for setting out to expose them, since they view it as Republican closeted gays, voting against supporting legislation to ban discrimination against gays, block federal money to fight aids, keep them from having a right to marry, etc, and all of them voting against gays serving in the Military, when some of them have done just that while being in the closet.

There is no defending these Republican P's OS for what they have done, and hence, attacks, attacks, attacks.

They did the same thing when we exposed George Bush, for all his lies and incompetence.

Look at the mess he made in Afghanistan! Totally neglected where the real enemy was, and allowed the radical element to regroup, now Obama has to fix that too, along with everything else.

Who cares what they think, they've already proven how stupid they are, eight damn years of defending the worst president in history.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Sev
10-18-2009, 05:33 PM
I would assume that a gay individual has the right to dissent should he or she decide???

Or is that not acceptable in the land of the free??

wolfdancer
10-18-2009, 05:50 PM
A second Bill of Rights ?
To get a sense of just how radical Roosevelt was (compared with the politics of today), consider the State of the Union address he delivered from the White House on Jan. 11, 1944. He was already in declining health and, suffering from a cold, he gave the speech over the radio in the form of a fireside chat.

After talking about the war, which was still being fought on two fronts, the president offered what should have been recognized immediately for what it was, nothing less than a blueprint for the future of the United States. It was the clearest statement I've ever seen of the kind of nation the U.S. could have become in the years between the end of World War II and now. Roosevelt referred to his proposals in that speech as "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed."

Among these rights, he said, are:

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.

"The right of every family to a decent home.

"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.

"The right to a good education."

I mentioned this a few days ago to an acquaintance who is 30 years old. She said, "Wow, I can't believe a president would say that."...

Right to Adequate medical care...we're still opposed to that it seems???

Sev
10-18-2009, 06:13 PM
Unbelievable.

FDR was an idiot in many ways.

Gayle in MD
10-18-2009, 06:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A second Bill of Rights ?
To get a sense of just how radical Roosevelt was (compared with the politics of today), consider the State of the Union address he delivered from the White House on Jan. 11, 1944. He was already in declining health and, suffering from a cold, he gave the speech over the radio in the form of a fireside chat.

After talking about the war, which was still being fought on two fronts, the president offered what should have been recognized immediately for what it was, nothing less than a blueprint for the future of the United States. It was the clearest statement I've ever seen of the kind of nation the U.S. could have become in the years between the end of World War II and now. Roosevelt referred to his proposals in that speech as "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed."

Among these rights, he said, are:

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.

"The right of every family to a decent home.

"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.

"The right to a good education."

I mentioned this a few days ago to an acquaintance who is 30 years old. She said, "Wow, I can't believe a president would say that."...

Right to Adequate medical care...we're still opposed to that it seems???
</div></div>

Great post, Wolf,
Well, you know we're being destroyed by the corporate fascist lovers of the greed ethic. Hey, they're all for it. They want to do away with Social Security, &lt;edicare and medicaid. they're far prefer having our seniors liveing in the streets, where Bush had all of them heading when he left.

They'd prefer no public schools, at all. Educated people are their enemies, you know, and the only thing they hate more than the ducated, is their books!

They'd prefer it if every woman who is at deaths door, and unable to deliver a baby without losing her own life, to just be strapped down and cut that baby right out of her, and roll her out in the street. They don't care for women's rights. They prefer it if the state owns women's bodies.

They'd prefer it if the federal government stepped into every family bedside meeting, like Bush tried to do, and take over the entire debate. Brain dead? To bad, they're pro life deal.

They'd prefer no regulation on their buddies, the corporations, two thirds of which don't pay taxes, and most of the CEO;s hidng their money off shore. YEAH! How they lover those CEO's. Only thing is, nothing trickles down, another total myth they subscribe to, well, you know, their God, Reagan, told them that. You remember him, right, the man who allowed two hundred dead marines, slaughtered in their sleep, and just picked up and left! Never responded! Remember him? the president who led the closeted gays donw Pennsylvania Avenue, stright into the Senate and the Congress.

Well, now, how could we expect a streling group like the radical right wing of the Republican pary, to grasp anything at all that Roosevelt said?

He was one of the greatest presidents this country ever had, if not THE greatest. As was Teddy. But you know, they liked Bush, who was trying to chop off the mountain tops for coal!

We should just ignore all of them. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Sev
10-18-2009, 06:40 PM
Poor thing. The constitution was a limiter on the government. No writ of what the government is allowed to do.

Its a shame you people cant comprehend that.

pooltchr
10-18-2009, 10:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Poor thing. The constitution was a limiter on the government. No writ of what the government is allowed to do.

Its a shame you people cant comprehend that. </div></div>

They have never understood the limits the constitution places on the federal government, and have no understanding at all of why they were placed there in the first place.

Steve

wolfdancer
10-18-2009, 11:09 PM
who be they, oh wise one?
Say, you don't live in an elevated part of Helmsburg do you?
XXX (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8062143145810653416#)
I almost posted, by mistake this old video of the then young
"Rocky"
Rocky (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8062143145810653416#docid=-6996602887252648621)

LWW
10-19-2009, 07:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What G is saying is that IHO, Graham was gay.....and I agree.
When challenged he refused to answer.
I ask you, how many straight guys would have difficulty saying to a camera they are hetro?
[Lets face it, he is pretty effeminate.] More to the point, if a Senator or Congressman is concealing their sexual preference from the public, they are open to blackmail.
Ask yourself, if you exclude the closet gays,those who are cheating on their wives or visiting hookers, how many Republicans are left over?

Q </div></div>

No, what Gayle is saying is that she was busted for making homophobic remarks in another thread about her blind acceptance of democratic racism in combo with her parroting moonbat crazy lies told to her by the party ... so she starts a separate thread in a vain attempt to deflect from her message of hate, her tolerance of racism when it fits her statist agenda, and her willingness to spread what she knows to be lies to advance her statist agenda, and her homophobic statements.

But, you already knew that.

LWW

LWW
10-19-2009, 07:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Poor thing. The constitution was a limiter on the government. No writ of what the government is allowed to do.

Its a shame you people cant comprehend that. </div></div>

They have never understood the limits the constitution places on the federal government, and have no understanding at all of why they were placed there in the first place.

Steve </div></div>

I think they understand it, it's just that they despise it.

LWW

eg8r
10-19-2009, 04:06 PM
LOL, she would post such a stupid statement wouldn't she. Much like she thinks the rich should be paying their fair share of taxes yet she probably takes ever single legal deduction.

eg8r

pooltchr
10-19-2009, 07:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What G is saying is that IHO, Graham was gay.....and I agree.

Q </div></div>

And just what business is it of yours and Gayles, and why are you so fixated on someone's sexual orientation.

What does it matter? Neither of you seems to have a problem with Barney.

Or is it just something else you can use to run down a Republican?

Do you hate all gays, or just the Republican gays?

Or maybe the question should be, do you hate all Republicans or just the gay ones?

Steve

LWW
10-19-2009, 07:09 PM
I think she just hates.

LWW

Sev
10-20-2009, 08:16 AM
Perhaps wolfi and Gayle are just sexually frustrated and this is the manner in which they deal with unfulfilled desires and needs???

pooltchr
10-20-2009, 08:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps wolfi and Gayle are just sexually frustrated and this is the manner in which they deal with unfulfilled desires and needs??? </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

I think you may have hit on something here.

Steve

LWW
10-20-2009, 12:43 PM
I guess being a sock puppet does allow for fringe benefits ...

LWW

wolfdancer
10-20-2009, 01:37 PM
Judging from the negative replies to your original post on this thread, from the "peanut gallery"....apparently they can't seem to understand that you were just commenting on Republican politicians hypocrisy, and not the fact that these nice folks strayed a bit from the RNC approved "Missionary position"
The RNC endorsed Motto:
"Procreation, not Recreation!!!"
My idea of being hypocritical,is to be calling oneself a Christian, and then denying health care to a sick child because his parents were poor.
Checking through my Catholic Bible,(Douay-Rheims) I just ran across the reason
why the Christian Conservatives here, are so vehemently anti union. From Titus, Ch 2:
9 "Exhort servants to be obedient to their masters, in all things pleasing, not gainsaying"

Bobbyrx
10-20-2009, 05:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it's about people voting against gay rights, when they are themselves gay, and hiding it.
</div></div>
What gay rights legislation did Shepard Smith vote against?

Sev
10-20-2009, 06:32 PM
Ahhhh those Christians. Some interesting stuff in that bible.

LWW
10-21-2009, 12:15 AM
Here's a riddle ...

Who hates people of one sex but swears they aren't sexist, belittles gays but swears they aren't homophobic, supports racial discrimination policies but swears they aren't racist, and want's all other parties silenced but swears they aren't partisan?

LWW

wolfdancer
10-21-2009, 01:44 AM
Do I get 3 guesses?
1. you
2. ed
3. steve
Did I hit the trifecta?

LWW
10-21-2009, 07:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do I get 3 guesses?
1. you
2. ed
3. steve
Did I hit the trifecta? </div></div>

Nope.

Two people come to mind.

One starts with a "G" and the other with a "W" ... want to by a vowel?

G _ _ _ _

W _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

LWW

Gayle in MD
10-21-2009, 08:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it's about people voting against gay rights, when they are themselves gay, and hiding it.
</div></div>
What gay rights legislation did Shepard Smith vote against? </div></div>

Obviously, the point is, that if gays in the RW press, intentionally do not report on it when gay Republicans are voting agaist their own rights, then they are as culpable as the Representatives who are gay, and hide it, or deny it when exposed, while voting against gay rights. although they are gay, themselves.

That is the point, and that is WHY another segment of gay men who have had affairs with these same representatives, or are also in the media, are trying to out them. It has to do with the phenomenon, of people with the power to stand up for themselves, and all others, who are gay, like themselves, failing to do so, and being hypocritical, and hence hurting others, as they are also hurting themselves.

IOW, they actually woudn't seek to hide their true sexual preference if they weren't living in a country, where a segment of our society demonizes the act of being gay, now would they. Is that not voting against their own best interests? Is that not hypocracy?

That is the POINT! Saying that, or writing about it, as I have done here, has nothing at all to do with one's own personal opinions about homosexuality, in general. To suggest such a thing, is proof of one's own effort to twist things around to make some ridiculous accusation, and attack, with lies, my post.

It's much like saying that, for example, that I think the Israeli Lobby in Washington D.C. is far too powerful, and that our foreign policy should not revolve around the best interests of Israel, but the best interests of the United States, which obviously, are not the same, and then someone accusing me of being anti-semite. A completely ridiculous assertion.

This is the main reason why I have no interest in trying to debate with certain people who post here. There is no real opportunity to actually debate anything, when their only goal is to twist everything that others, such as I, write, and which they choose to deny, or disagree with, into some illogical, unreasonable assertion. They dsiplay that their only form of debate, is to attack, or condescend to the point where one as no desire to read their posts.

That tactic, is in fact, THE effort to escape debate with facts. That is not only the method of RW pundits, but is parroted by RW nuts around this country who listen to their illogical attacks, lies, drama, exaggerations, and twisting of factual information, either through intended efforts to skew reality, or through the inability to admit to their own failures of logic.

There is no one who writes on this forum who has consistantly defended gay rights, for example, and have I, and can you see how this thread has been taken completely out of it's original context, for the sole purpose of attacking the messenger, and denying and avoiding the reality of the actual information which I have posted?

Hence, attempting to debate any issue, is a waste of time, when one knows that the cherry picking will begin, and the overall truth, of any given post, will be burried.

Example, Limbaugh has made numerous racist statements, hence, football players, and other owners, did not want him owning a team.

That is a fact.

The Little Weenie Wonkie, then scurried around and picked out two or three accusations against Limbaugh, and tried to expand them into a complete denial of the overall fact, that Limbaugh, HAS IN FACT, made numerous racist statements over the years.

It's called muddying up the waters. It's what people do when their main goal is to discredit, deny, and avoid reality, and proves no ability to debate, and win, on any truly credible level.

Hence, we read such idiotic assertions, as someone stating that they know who is defaulting on their mortgages on the national level, because they took a walk around their neighborhood. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif then that same person accuses others of having no common sense. Or they write the moast sexist statement that has ever been writting on this forum, beginning with the words, "when a woman spreads her legs" and then accuses me, a person who has a history of defending gay rights, of being homophobic, because I have posted about a documentary. Completely insane.

They say they understand the Constitution, when it obviously states that CONGRESS is to vote, with factual information, on the issue of launching war. When it states that government is to step in and address threats, which induviduals cannot address, alone, as individuals, without government assistance. When it clearly offers legal remedies and punishments, for those who seek to decieve the Congress, as Bush certainly did do, and particularly in the case of sending our people to war, or decieiving the Congress about the need for warm which is to be entered into only when all other methods of diplomacy have been exhausted, and only and act of war will protect this country.

Bush threw the inspectors out of Iraq, WHEN they were asking for more time, and had found NOTHING!

The realities are a world apart, from the responses which are written here, by the right, who then attempt to wear the mantle of intellect, where none exists.

Just as you are doing, right now, with this question, which is illogical, in and of itself. Show me where I state that Shepard has voted against gay rights? He, and others, in the press, are obviously part of a conspiracy among some, or proably more accurately, most gay people, who are a part of the media, to overlook gay affairs, with congressmen and Senators, who are also, representatives who have the power to rule on gay rights, and who are themselves living a lie, hiding the fact that they are gay, and apparently, suffering from self hate, or just incredibly opportunistic, or cowardly, and hence, they vote against gay rights, although, because of their positions, in the government, and their decision to stay in the closet, they are able to be gay, without having to suffer from their own vote against gay rights, as other gays in this country suffer from discrimination.

Then, when one looks at their history of voting agaisnt gay rights, one finds that they have consistantly made life more difficult for other gays in our country, while they themselves are able to indulge in their own chosen lifestyle, without having to suffer from their impact of their own votes against gay rights, with the colusion of certain gay men, and even straight men, in the press.

How much more hypocritical can one be? And how much more hypocritical could any RW poster on here be? The right has consistanly made anti gay slurs over the years, for example, attacked Democratic gays, who are out of the closet. Attacked Myself, who has consistantly defended gay rights, over the yeasr. Then, these same people, turn around and accuse me of being homophobic, because I have posted information from a very well documented documentary? A documentary which was actually promoted and produced, by GAY people, IN THE MEDIA, who got fed up with what Republicans have been doing, and decided that since Republicans are against gay rights, they probably should not be voting on them, when they, themselves, are closeted gays, obviously, with emotional problems, of self-hate.

How, also, is there any logic in bringing up Barney Frank, in the midst of this discussion, when Barney Frank, is NOT in the closet?

IOW, there comes a point, when it is pointless, responding to the right. A point when reading their own undocumented assertions, and addressing their own failures of logic, is just a bore, irrelevant, and a waste of one's time.

Hence, total ignore.... Which through their vast appetite for ego gratification, they twist, yet again, into their illogical version of a conquest. They remind me of North Korea! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Absolutely hilarious. A commentary to that little short circuit which goes on inside their brains, non stop, as they accuse others of being partisan.



Should be very simple to understand why people like that are truly pointless hubris, in terms of debate, and why my reaction is one of complete indifference to their opinions. Simple to grasp, even for an average mind. No?

G.

LWW
10-21-2009, 09:13 AM
Please list these gay rights which they have been deprived of?

LWW

pooltchr
10-21-2009, 10:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please list these gay rights which they have been deprived of?

LWW </div></div>

That's not fair. We know there are no rights given to straight people that are not also given to gays.

Trick question!!!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Steve

pooltchr
10-21-2009, 10:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
IOW, there comes a point, when it is pointless, responding to the right.
G.

</div></div>

And yet, here you are, writing a small novel trying to defend the garbage that you are being fed on a daily basis.

Steve

wolfdancer
10-21-2009, 04:20 PM
Actually, this "garbage" that you claim is being fed to her on a daily basis, is just news reports from the various media. Those reports may differ, and be biased somewhat, depending on if one reads them in the Huffington Report, or watches them on Fox News.
AND then, we can still judge for ourselves about the veracity of that news.
Your claim then, seems to be that her sources are flawed, and she is not intelligent enough to realize that; while at the same time your source!!! Fox facts, is impeccable, as verified by your superior intellect.
Isn't that the message that you are trying to put across, but were too much of a southern gentleman, and far too modest, to qualify your reply by stating the obvious? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

pooltchr
10-21-2009, 04:40 PM
No. But you do make some good points!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
Steve

Gayle in MD
10-21-2009, 05:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, this "garbage" that you claim is being fed to her on a daily basis, is just news reports from the various media. Those reports may differ, and be biased somewhat, depending on if one reads them in the Huffington Report, or watches them on Fox News.
AND then, we can still judge for ourselves about the veracity of that news.
Your claim then, seems to be that her sources are flawed, and she is not intelligent enough to realize that; while at the same time your source!!! Fox facts, is impeccable, as verified by your superior intellect.
Isn't that the message that you are trying to put across, but were too much of a southern gentleman, and far too modest, to qualify your reply by stating the obvious? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
</div></div>

Obvious after reading your post, what is in his. Problem with his, is that this thread, and the links, are about a documentary movie, which is being shown on HBO, was produced by an award winning producer, includes real people, who reveal their adentities, and have other witnesses to back up their statements, who are all making statements of fact, about Republican gays, who remain in the closet, while voting against every bill that would provide gays in this country with the same rights as everyone else enjoys.

Aside from that, anyone who listens to Limpballs everyday, is irrelevant at the outset.

In fact, the Republican Party, is irrelevent.

In fact, their bahavior makes them even more irrelevant every day.

In fact, the basis for the arguements of the RW blowhards proves them also irrelevent.

The fact is, that Republicans, and George Bush, f-ed up this country, ROYAL!

That's a fact.

Was Bill Clinton perfect? Hell no, he made some mistakes for sure, and one of them was trusting Greenspan's intelligence and judgement, as is proven by Greenspans OWN WORDS, when he testified about the crash, why it happened, and how his own judgement was WAY OFF. But, the fact is, Bill Clinton left this country far better off than George W. Bush left it, and that is a FACT!

The fact is that Greenspan, a former coheart of Ayan Rand, and her faulty philosophy, has since admitted that her philosophies were flawed, that regulation is paramount, and that corporations, as I have tried to pound through the right's thick skulls on here for nearly ten years, CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO REGULATE THEMSELVES.

They are corrupt, with greed!


The fact is, the right lives in la la land.

HENCE, we got into the mess we're in right now, in Iraq, Afghanistan, energy costs, health care costs, and on Wall Street~! ALL ON BUSH'S WATCH! AND SIX YEARS OF WHICH REPUBLICANS WERE RUNNING THE HILL!

Opinions of the right are pure Hubris.
The current FACTS have proven that.
G.

wolfdancer
10-21-2009, 06:04 PM
Ain't that the God's honest truth !!!
I'd have more respect for the right, if it wasn't for their main spokesman..Rush Limpdick, and Ann Nodick. Or their media propagandists ...G.Baulk, B.O'Really, S. Handirty
or, their group of Fox news acolytes here.
Running out of anything "clever" to report....they had to dig up poor Ayn Rand, and try to parade her as a visionary. Unfortunately for them......Greenspan was a former fan, and now admits that using her guidelines....he done more wrong then Reagan's misguided tinkle down economic plan....
Perhaps instead of relying on the outdated theories of Ayn, Reagan,and GWB, for guidance, they should be reading a possible future Nobel Prize winner, William Baumol. (not claiming that I read Baumol....)

pooltchr
10-21-2009, 06:08 PM
That is so cute...pretending you didn't read my post...but deduced what I said simply by reading Wolfie's knee-jerk (minus the knee) response.

You are pathetic.

But I will give you credit for trying to keep up the facade of having some of us on ignore!

E for effort.

Steve

Gayle in MD
10-22-2009, 11:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ain't that the God's honest truth !!!
I'd have more respect for the right, if it wasn't for their main spokesman..Rush Limpdick, and Ann Nodick. Or their media propagandists ...G.Baulk, B.O'Really, S. Handirty
or, their group of Fox news acolytes here.
Running out of anything "clever" to report....they had to dig up poor Ayn Rand, and try to parade her as a visionary. Unfortunately for them......Greenspan was a former fan, and now admits that using her guidelines....he done more wrong then Reagan's misguided tinkle down economic plan....
Perhaps instead of relying on the outdated theories of Ayn, Reagan,and GWB, for guidance, they should be reading a possible future Nobel Prize winner, William Baumol. (not claiming that I read Baumol....) </div></div>

They're irrelevant, just like their political party, is now irrelevant.

Whoppie!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Bobbyrx
10-22-2009, 01:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Show me where I state that Shepard has voted against gay rights? </div></div>

From your original post:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Graham, Christ, Shepard Smith , Craig, Foley, Ken Melman, Ed Schrock, David Dreier, Dan Gurley...

Christians who are gay, hiding in the closet, while voting against gay rights!

If that isn't the ultimate in political hypocracy, what is?



I'm all for gay rights, but this isn't about gay rights, it's about people voting against gay rights, when they are themselves gay, and hiding it.
</div></div>

Gayle in MD
10-22-2009, 02:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Show me where I state that Shepard has voted against gay rights? </div></div>

From your original post:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Graham, Christ, Shepard Smith , Craig, Foley, Ken Melman, Ed Schrock, David Dreier, Dan Gurley...

Christians who are gay, hiding in the closet, while voting against gay rights!

If that isn't the ultimate in political hypocracy, what is?



I'm all for gay rights, but this isn't about gay rights, it's about people voting against gay rights, when they are themselves gay, and hiding it.
</div></div> </div></div>

Oh for heaven's sake. I don't know which of you two is the biggest nit picker, you or Sack. Read the whole post. The list was a list of people that I always though were gay.

Twisting again?

Also, notice that someone is gay, is not the same thing as punishing them in some way, for being gay.

Oh, and BTW, Ken Melman was not a representative, either, he was the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, you know, the family values people? the anti-gay marriage party, the anti gay's serving in the military party, the ones that believe that God is on their side, and Gays are degenerates, only Gays run the party, and pretend to be straight.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Now I know whyh they hate everyone else, because they can't accept themselves, and have to pretend to be something other than what they actually are.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Bobbyrx
10-22-2009, 02:19 PM
I did read the entire post, it just hit me as odd that you included him in your list. Why do you think Shepard Smith is gay?

Gayle in MD
10-22-2009, 02:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I did read the entire post, it just hit me as odd that you included him in your list. Why do you think Shepard Smith is gay? </div></div>

It is common knowledge, now. Watch the movie. It's on HBO, now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9CiXoxccmc

eg8r
10-22-2009, 02:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh for heaven's sake. I don't know which of you two is the biggest nit picker, you or Sack. </div></div>Don't you all remember gaylio telling us she does not have a photographic memory? I think it is unfair for you to actually quote her specific words to prove her wrong. She is 109 years old for goodness sakes. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Bobbyrx
10-22-2009, 02:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The list was a list of people that I always though were gay.

</div></div>
I don't care about HBO, I wanted to know why you always thought he was gay.

Gayle in MD
10-22-2009, 03:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The list was a list of people that I always though were gay.

</div></div>
I don't care about HBO, I wanted to know why you always thought he was gay. </div></div>

Just my instincts.

And basically, if he weren't the public face of a hypocritical a news group which consistantly bashes gays, and gay rights, among other legal choice that Americans have very right to make, knowing that he's gay would have absolutely no impact on my opinion of him, and even under the circumstances of his gross hypocracy, being gay, while bashing gays, I just feel sorry for the man, that he is, or was, living a double life.



G.

pooltchr
10-22-2009, 03:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The list was a list of people that I always though were gay.

</div></div>
I don't care about HBO, I wanted to know why you always thought he was gay. </div></div>

She has been obsessed for years, according to her own posts, with trying to find out who is gay and who is not.

I'm starting to wonder if there might be a reason for this obsession.

Steve

Deeman3
10-22-2009, 03:48 PM
Just a question. As our president does not beleive in gay marriage does that make him a gay basher?

I agree, if a man is gay and is bashing homosexuals, he is a hypocrit, not doubt. I don't particilarily trust the sources about who is gay and who is not as they have an agenda for "outing" people they disagree with. I agree with Obama on the marriage thing and also think don't ask, don't squeel should probably be abolished. One question is if the ones who may not want to be outted have any rights to privacy?

Now if you are a guy playing footsies with a policeman in a public bathroom, can't remember the clowns name or Barney, who only came lcean after being outted, there may be real different standards especilly if bathroom buoy was abusing gays Ad Nasium. I don't know his position, outisde the bathroom. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

It is sort of like the trails of family values politicians like the South Carolina Governor and the Democratic Senator, John Edwards, if you play and get caught, you should be pounded.

I am not as comfortable with the accusations of a guy who may benefit from saying he bent over for a politician just like the tons of minority girls who claim rape and then after the damage is done, recant after people's reputations have been ruined.

Now, if these Brokeback Mountain guys would secretly film Senator Graham or Senator Boxer munching down on a gay, they should be outted. Of course, you may argue that if they want to keep their reputation intact, they should not have selected public office. However, if we are to use hypocracy as a test of politicians these days, the scores of tax evaders who are now in the cabinet and in the Congress probably did not pass the test as well.

Bobbyrx
10-22-2009, 04:59 PM
I don't ever remember Shepard Smith bashing gays.

Gayle in MD
10-23-2009, 02:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't ever remember Shepard Smith bashing gays. </div></div>


He works for an organization which is against gay rights, and does bash gays, regularly. Fox.

Their pundits regularly come out against gay rights.

They are, after all, (Fox) just an arm of the Republican Party, a propaganda channel, and we all know, that Republicans, vote consistantly against gay rights. christian leaders, also many of them gay, are also out there non stop, bashing gays, demonizing them for what they have no control over, as being gay, is NOT a decision, it is their inferitance when they are born.

Given his salary, in the multi millions, I suppose the gay men who have outed him think he could be using his position and money to help them work for gay rights, instead of pretending to be straight.

Hence, he is rather hypocritical, to be gay, and be working for that particular station, IMO. Gay people have seen many of their friends die with aids. Lose their jobs, because they are gay. They see one another thrown out of the military, because they are gay. they read news stories, about young gay people, being murdered, simply because they are gay. Yet, as we say recently, the "Family Values Party, for example, just ranted and raved on the Senate floor against including gays in hate crim legislation, to protect them from being murdered by ignorant hateful people, who think they have a right to kill someone else, because they are different from themselves. Republicans, the party which has 90 percent of the closeted gays withint it, blocking any legislation to protect gays from being murdered.

I suppose that is a good reason why the gay men behind this movement, are tired of the gay people with power, influence, and money, refusing to acknowledge that they are themselves, gay, when they could be helping the cause of gay rights, instead of living in the closet, and hiding the truth, while working with and for the very people who foment all the misery which gay people must absorb throughout their lives.

G.

Gayle in MD
10-23-2009, 02:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just a question. As our president does not beleive in gay marriage does that make him a gay basher?

I agree, if a man is gay and is bashing homosexuals, he is a hypocrit, not doubt. I don't particilarily trust the sources about who is gay and who is not as they have an agenda for "outing" people they disagree with. I agree with Obama on the marriage thing and also think don't ask, don't squeel should probably be abolished. One question is if the ones who may not want to be outted have any rights to privacy?


<span style="color: #000066">Does anyone in the news, political, or entertainment industry have any rights to privacy?

Personally, I think the world was a far better place in which to live, when media and politicians respected one another's privacy. That unspoken "gentleman's agreement" which lasted until the Republicans threw it out during the Clinton Administration, was far better left in place, IMO. But alas, Republicans destroyed that, too.</span> [/color]

Now if you are a guy playing footsies with a policeman in a public bathroom, can't remember the clowns name or Barney, who only came lcean after being outted, there may be real different standards especilly if bathroom buoy was abusing gays Ad Nasium. I don't know his position, outisde the bathroom. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

<span style="color: #000066">His name was Larry Craig. His voting record is anti-gay. Barnie's is not. that was the point of the documentary, hypocracy.

I can tell ya one thing, if I wrote that may typos, Sack would be right on my arse. Of Course, mine are the only ones that catch his eye, but then, he only nit picks my posts.</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

It is sort of like the trails of family values politicians like the South Carolina Governor and the Democratic Senator, John Edwards, if you play and get caught, you should be pounded.

<span style="color: #000066">And they were. </span>

I am not as comfortable with the accusations of a guy who may benefit from saying he bent over for a politician just like the tons of minority girls who claim rape and then after the damage is done, recant after people's reputations have been ruined.

<span style="color: #000066">I think the truth usually comes out, one way or another, don't you? </span>

Now, if these Brokeback Mountain guys would secretly film Senator Graham or Senator Boxer <span style="color: #000066">Boxer is a woman, and she isn't gay.</span> munching down on a gay, they should be outted. Of course, you may argue that if they want to keep their reputation intact, they should not have selected public office. However, if we are to use hypocracy as a test of politicians these days, the scores of tax evaders who are now in the cabinet and in the Congress probably did not pass the test as well. </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">I'm for seeing anyone who breaks the law, pay the price, regardless of their party.

I can also see why gay men, who are in the field of journalism, or the media, have decided to out the hypocrites who are themselves, gay, and who vote consistantly against gay rights, while claiming to be Family Values Christians.

It should be obvious, that such men, find the Christian demonizing viewpoint of homosexuality, very offensive, for example.

I think, one would have to be very partisan, to fail to see the gross hypocracy involved, in a gay man, hiding in the closet, and joining the very party which has consistantly adopted that very damaging "Christian" philosophy, which demonizes homosexuals, and votes against gay rights, while being gay himself, don't you?

G.</span>

LWW
10-23-2009, 02:55 AM
One thing I have noticed over the years is that everyone who is a serial gay basher has later been found to have serious and repressed sexual identity issues.

LWW

Qtec
10-23-2009, 07:10 AM
All the RW guys, you know then, will tell you they want less Govmunt but they want the Govmunt to tell women what they can and can't do with their own body!!!
Now they claim they want less Govt in HC but they wanted Govt to tell the Doctors what to do in the Terri Schiavo case.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Politicians inserted themselves into the fray. The case was the catalyst for Florida's controversial "Terri's Law", which gave Gov. Jeb Bush the authority to have Schiavo's feeding tube re-inserted when a court ruled that her husband could have it removed. It was a tremendously sad family situation, undoubtedly painful for everyone involved (except, of course, the vegetable Terri Schiavo).

This circus continued for years, co-opted by the pro-life movement. Many who never met Terri Schiavo argued passionately about her fate, protested court decisions, published newsletters or websites. Among the loudest hysterics, many argued in a fundamentally dishonest way, using tactics such as referring to Schiavo as Terri Schindler (maiden name), or Terri Schiavo-Schindler (a form she never used).

Terri's doctors opinion was that Schiavo's coma had been caused by a potassium imbalance triggered by her bulimia. Nutball "save Terri" activists knew better, and claimed she suffered a violent beating at her husband's hand. Her parents eventually agreed, and said that her husband often beat Schiavo when she was healthy -- but Schiavo never called the police, apparently never mentioned it to anyone, and her parents never mentioned it either until years after Schiavo was hospitalized. There is no evidence to support such claims.

As the insanity moved to the federal level, Schiavo's feeding tube was finally removed on March 18, 2005, and her heart stopped beating 13 days later. The Schindlers claimed that as the tube was withdrawn, Schiavo blurted, "I want to live!" But just this once, they had apparently forgotten to bring the video camera.</div></div>


Hypocrites? You bettcha.

Q

Deeman3
10-23-2009, 07:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just a question. As our president does not beleive in gay marriage does that make him a gay basher?

<span style="color: #FF0000"> No answer? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span>



<span style="color: #000066">Does anyone in the news, political, or entertainment industry have any rights to privacy?

Personally, I think the world was a far better place in which to live, when media and politicians respected one another's privacy. That unspoken "gentleman's agreement" which lasted until the Republicans threw it out during the Clinton Administration, was far better left in place, IMO. But alas, Republicans destroyed that, too.</span> [/color]

<span style="color: #FF0000">The Republicans, for all their faults, did not throw out privacy during the Clinton child molestation thing, they did use it but the news, back when they were not so committed to a party, all were on this story. </span>

Now if you are a guy playing footsies with a policeman in a public bathroom, can't remember the clowns name or Barney, who only came lcean after being outted, there may be real different standards especilly if bathroom buoy was abusing gays Ad Nasium. I don't know his position, outisde the bathroom. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

<span style="color: #000066">His name was Larry Craig. His voting record is anti-gay. Barnie's is not. that was the point of the documentary, hypocracy.

<span style="color: #FF0000">Barney did not "come out" but was forced out by a lover. I am not sure he was such a friend of the gays before this. </span>

I can tell ya one thing, if I wrote that may typos, Sack would be right on my arse. Of Course, mine are the only ones that catch his eye, but then, he only nit picks my posts.</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

<span style="color: #FF0000"> I don't recall calling any of your typos out as I have always made and admitted to my many, many transgressions. I look at content. </span>

It is sort of like the trails of family values politicians like the South Carolina Governor and the Democratic Senator, John Edwards, if you play and get caught, you should be pounded.

<span style="color: #000066">And they were. </span>

I am not as comfortable with the accusations of a guy who may benefit from saying he bent over for a politician just like the tons of minority girls who claim rape and then after the damage is done, recant after people's reputations have been ruined.

<span style="color: #000066">I think the truth usually comes out, one way or another, don't you? </span>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Yes, it does. Aside from the hypocracy on both sides, this is probably one fo the least important thngs about a politician, I think we would agree. The wholesale stealing of our taxes and waste are much bigger issues. </span>

Now, if these Brokeback Mountain guys would secretly film Senator Graham or Senator Boxer <span style="color: #000066">Boxer is a woman, and she isn't gay.</span> <span style="color: #FF0000"> I know she is a woman but if you cal feel Smith is gay, I can feel like Boxer is as well.</span> munching down on a gay, they should be outted. Of course, you may argue that if they want to keep their reputation intact, they should not have selected public office. However, if we are to use hypocracy as a test of politicians these days, the scores of tax evaders who are now in the cabinet and in the Congress probably did not pass the test as well. </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">I'm for seeing anyone who breaks the law, pay the price, regardless of their party. <span style="color: #FF0000">Me too. </span>

I can also see why gay men, who are in the field of journalism, or the media, have decided to out the hypocrites who are themselves, gay, and who vote consistantly against gay rights, while claiming to be Family Values Christians.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Again, legitimate if they are not just agenda driven and using less than reliable witnesses to "prove" a man is gay. </span>

It should be obvious, that such men, find the Christian demonizing viewpoint of homosexuality, very offensive, for example.

I think, one would have to be very partisan, to fail to see the gross hypocracy involved, in a gay man, hiding in the closet, and joining the very party which has consistantly adopted that very damaging "Christian" philosophy, which demonizes homosexuals, and votes against gay rights, while being gay himself, don't you?

<span style="color: #FF0000">Certainly, it would be as if a politician on either side, took advantage of young women while pretending to be a happily married family man. Happens all too often. </span>

</span> </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> As I have said before, every year more and more hypocracy is exposed in the political ranks of both parties. MOst of us are rapidly losing all faith in any of them. The current administration while running on open and honest government have done nothing to change this as the polls on both them and congress are starting to show.

It is funny, almost, that we all pretend to value character and require that our favored politicians have smoe form of character when, in relaity, most from both sides, have very little. Unfortunately, those who do stand up for something they see as right are often belittled or allow themselves to be overcome by lobbiests, for instance. Good character is no longer a requirement for political life but a hinderance. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

pooltchr
10-23-2009, 08:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
They are, after all, (Fox) just an arm of the Republican Party,
G. </div></div>

I did not know this. Does Fpx receove fomamcoa; support from the RNC? What exactly is the connection? Can you document this for me?

Steve

Gayle in MD
10-23-2009, 11:52 AM
Deeman, in the documentary, the statement is made that 90 percent of the closeted gays, are in the Republican Party.


That is probably because they find the "Christian" cover, more suited to their corrupt underpinnings of deceit. IMO, that "Christian" connection that Republicans use, and yes, I do mean, USE, was chosen as a screen over loads of corruption which Republicans are famous for being involved in, and always have been.

I am for Gay rights, and happy to announce that the very first legislation gay rights legislation passed, yesterday, I believe, to include crimes against Gays, Lesbians and Transgender people, in the federal hate Crimes Protection Bill.

They wrapped it in the defense spending bill, and many Republicans voted against it. Now, tell me, when a party votes against defense spending, while the country is caught up in two unfinished wars, because they are so unwilling to accept other people, who are different, or in their case, probably not so different, what kind of people are they, when they know damn well, that most of their aides and many of their collegues, are gay?

Completely repulsive. IMO. They don't want the hate mongering Churches to be silenced while they demonize gays? Give me a break!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Deeman3
10-23-2009, 12:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Deeman, in the documentary, the statement is made that 90 percent of the closeted gays, are in the Republican Party.

And how do they determine that? By biased reporting or careful data collection? That is the same problem we have with Moveon. org and Huffingtonpost. No real data and clearly, if they have told you 78% of Americans favor a public option how can you take any of thier assertions seriously much less pass it on as factual? Look for polls without the left bias, made outside a liberal party group.


That is probably because they find the "Christian" cover, more suited to their corrupt underpinnings of deceit. IMO, that "Christian" connection that Republicans use, and yes, I do mean, USE, was chosen as a screen over loads of corruption which Republicans are famous for being involved in, and always have been.

<span style="color: #FF0000">Gayle, that is simply not true as there are more Democrats across the nation as well as in Washington under corruption investigation than Republican and you know that, Chicago, N.J. and Washington are only the tips of the iceberg.

Get away from those left blogs a little and stop looking at the exclusionary data they provide. You'll not feel better but will come to understand who the party of corruption is, they just try to avoid prosecuting as long as possible. </span>

I am for Gay rights, and happy to announce that the very first legislation gay rights legislation passed, yesterday, I believe, to include crimes against Gays, Lesbians and Transgender people, in the federal hate Crimes Protection Bill.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> I think it may be good policy as no one should do hate crimes against any group. </span>

They wrapped it in the defense spending bill, and many Republicans voted against it. Now, tell me, when a party votes against defense spending, while the country is caught up in two unfinished wars, because they are so unwilling to accept other people, who are different, or in their case, probably not so different, what kind of people are they, when they know damn well, that most of their aides and many of their collegues, are gay?

<span style="color: #FF0000">Again, wild unporven assertions against a large group that you have no real evidence for. I smell a hate c rime in the planning stages here. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif JK

The issues some of them have with the law has to do with free speech, not that they want gays battered. You know that. </span>

Completely repulsive. IMO. They don't want the hate mongering Churches to be silenced while they demonize gays? Give me a break!

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Churches should be able to demonize gays or at least say they are perverted and not normal. That is, of course, different from inciting violence against them.

Gayle. To many of us, perverted anal sex is wrong as is child sexual abuse and we should be able to say so. That is not the same as saying Gays should be lynched or beaten. That is the Iranian military's job. JK, JK ,JK </span>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

</div></div>

Gayle in MD
10-23-2009, 01:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Deeman, in the documentary, the statement is made that 90 percent of the closeted gays, are in the Republican Party.

And how do they determine that? By biased reporting or careful data collection? That is the same problem we have with Moveon. org and Huffingtonpost. No real data and clearly, if they have told you 78% of Americans favor a public option how can you take any of thier assertions seriously much less pass it on as factual? Look for polls without the left bias, made outside a liberal party group.


That is probably because they find the "Christian" cover, more suited to their corrupt underpinnings of deceit. IMO, that "Christian" connection that Republicans use, and yes, I do mean, USE, was chosen as a screen over loads of corruption which Republicans are famous for being involved in, and always have been.

<span style="color: #FF0000">Gayle, that is simply not true as there are more Democrats across the nation as well as in Washington under corruption investigation than Republican and you know that, Chicago, N.J. and Washington are only the tips of the iceberg.

Get away from those left blogs a little and stop looking at the exclusionary data they provide. You'll not feel better but will come to understand who the party of corruption is, they just try to avoid prosecuting as long as possible. </span>

I am for Gay rights, and happy to announce that the very first legislation gay rights legislation passed, yesterday, I believe, to include crimes against Gays, Lesbians and Transgender people, in the federal hate Crimes Protection Bill.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> I think it may be good policy as no one should do hate crimes against any group. </span>

They wrapped it in the defense spending bill, and many Republicans voted against it. Now, tell me, when a party votes against defense spending, while the country is caught up in two unfinished wars, because they are so unwilling to accept other people, who are different, or in their case, probably not so different, what kind of people are they, when they know damn well, that most of their aides and many of their collegues, are gay?

<span style="color: #FF0000">Again, wild unporven assertions against a large group that you have no real evidence for. I smell a hate c rime in the planning stages here. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif JK

The issues some of them have with the law has to do with free speech, not that they want gays battered. You know that. </span>

Completely repulsive. IMO. They don't want the hate mongering Churches to be silenced while they demonize gays? Give me a break!

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Churches should be able to demonize gays or at least say they are perverted and not normal. That is, of course, different from inciting violence against them.

Gayle. To many of us, perverted anal sex is wrong as is child sexual abuse and we should be able to say so. That is not the same as saying Gays should be lynched or beaten. That is the Iranian military's job. JK, JK ,JK </span>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

</div></div> </div></div>

No, Deeman, there are not more crooked Democratics, at all. In fact, the worst, and the most convictions in the top levels of the Government, have been Republicans.

Also, I know for a fact, that most of the gays on Capital Hill, are either Republican representatives, or Republican aides to Republican Representatives. It's been a standing joke for three decades because of their "Christian Family Values" BS! The gay bars in Washington D.C. are chock full of gay Republican Aides! It's been that way since the Reagan Administration.

Ask any Capital Hill Policeman... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Good God man, where have you been these last nine years?
How many went down in the Abramoff scandal alone, on corruption! Too many to list.

How many Republican Gay's are in there right now, who refuse to answer a simple question, are you gay.

I had no idea, how much in denial you actually are.

Turn off Fox! You're really out of it! I'm actually surprised, just how far out of it you are.



You need to see this documentary....

Deeman3
10-23-2009, 02:10 PM
I am not about to start cruising DC gay bars to seek party affiliation so if that is how you have done your investigation, I have no choice but to buy it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

We have a much more serious concern here in Luverne Alabama right now. Scores of our citizens are disappearing while we speak. I was the first to latch onto this as I was browsing the sidebar Ads on my MSNBC browser (I guess that is what browsers are for?).

Anyway:

It appears the criminal who is abducting these folks are looking at the same info I am. The internet ads!

Example:

Luverne Alabama woman loses 57 lbs in a month!

Unemployed Luverne man makes $77 an hor stuffing envelopes at home.

Luverne Alabama woman has secret method to whitten teeth for little or no money!

Luverne Woman makes $6,000 to $10,000 a month just filling in internet quesionaires!

Seems wonderful on the surface but, of course, they gave their names and on many ads pictures of the people who are now so successful in Luverne. I first tried to find them in the phone book, after all, I know almost all the families in this small town. That's whan I got suspicious but figured making all that money and having such bright teeth they may be unlisted. A quick check with the county records found not one of those names in the entire county and, as all can't be Democrats and not pay their taxes, something terrible must have happened to them!

A quick check with my buddy the Chief of Police who does know everyone solidified my suspicions, they have all been kidnapped. I first thought of calling 48 Hours to do a Crime show but now believe there must be some sexual component to all this, remember the ultra bright teeth and large sums of money...

For some odd reason I can't get the law enforcement people on board with me here to mount a search and rescue????

I'll let you all know how this turns out.

I have to give my little sister away at her wedding on Saturday in Destin, Florida so you can rest assured I'll be checking the ads and the population down there for the next couple of days. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Have a nice weekend....

LWW
10-24-2009, 12:29 AM
I wonder what Gayle's opinion of Larry Sinclair's story is?

LWW

Sev
10-24-2009, 07:19 AM
You've got the instincts of a squirrel that finds itself in the middle of a busy street.

Could it be Gayle is a closet lesbian and is angry about it???

Got rug????