Sipping the Hatorade.
Harpy Susan Estrich has a few angry questions for "Senator Wide Stance."
"An airport men's room? Couldn't you do better than that, Senator? After consistently voting against efforts to protect gay and lesbian Americans from hate crimes and to preserve their civil rights, you go into the men's room at the airport and try to pick up the guy in the next stall?"
Question: If he'd voted FOR hate-crimes legislation would it have protected him from Susan's HATE?
"An airport men's room? Couldn't you do better than that, Senator? After consistently voting against efforts to protect gay and lesbian Americans from hate crimes and to preserve their civil rights, you go into the men's room at the airport and try to pick up the guy in the next stall?"
Question: If he'd voted FOR hate-crimes legislation would it have protected him from Susan's HATE?
posted by Spencerblog at
9:20 AM
18 Comments:
Gil-
YOU are the one interjecting "HATE" into the issue. Susan Estrich's piece isn't about hate, it's about hypocrisy.
She doesn't HATE hypocrites? It sure sounds like she does.
The most blatant hate and hypocrisy in this saga has come from the Gay & Left.
It’s kinda been funny to watch them contort so as they desperately grasp to cast stones with their limp wrists.
Notice how every Lib news report on this breezily mentions how Craig has “constantly voted to deny gay ‘rights’ and protections blahblahblah” as if his voting record itself were some sort of indictment, along with their implication of hypocrisy.
When did the Gay Agenda become the mainstream standard and everyone who opposes it the villain? That’s some slick (backward & crazy) PR they’ve had working for them.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This isn’t just about Craig. The Gay Agenda gets too much friendly press from their Lib buddies in the Press. Good people who are against the Gays’ unreasonable demands have been vilified. And every time they do it they reveal their own intolerance, hatred and hypocrisy. Hardly solid footing to go casting stones, that.
And Homos already enjoy the very same equal rights and protections that the rest of us do. What they are demanding are special rights. Again, it’s difficult to drum sympathy for that.
Randal-
Your bigotry is on display for all to see. So you are the "good people"?
(You sound like that guy in the Twilight Zone episode that was going to make all the Evil people 3-feet tall.)
"unreasonable demands"? Like serving their country as translators? Like hospital visitation rights for their loved ones? Like marrying their soul mates? Benefits for surviving partner? Community property?
And Homos already enjoy the very same equal rights and protections that the rest of us do. Homos? (You picked that over fag and queer? Interesting choice.)
Ok, let’s get something clear right up front. Some of us have not been bullied into silence by you Libs and your political correctness. So long as gays call themselves “homos” and such, so too will I.
I’m assuming you’re also onea them Libs who tries to bully whites into silence from speaking on racial issues by tossing your silly labels around. That has worked to keep all discussions racial one-sided for a number of years. Times are-a-changing.
I abide by no conversation stifling double standard, calculated, contrived or otherwise.
Yes, gays already enjoy all those ‘rights’ you listed, as the rest of us do. What they want are special rights and accommodations bullied through for them by Libs wielding PC. Much like you have tried to here.
Um, Randal, your ignorance is now showing too.
You wrote: "Yes, gays already enjoy all those ‘rights’ you listed, as the rest of us do."
So, when did military hire back those Arabic translators? Oh, right, they didn't hire them back. So, they are not 'enjoying' their rights.
Sure. No one asked them if they were gay so they could have kept their jobs had they not told anyone.
That was actually a staged Gay stand that backfired on them anyway. And you Libs have been running with it ever since. And maybe some of them just wanted out of the service and that's how they elected to go about it?
Either way, such games are hardly respectable.
Randal-
Once again, the facts elude you.
The most well known of the fired translators (Op-Ed piece, interviews, etc.) made it VERY clear that he was not asked and did not tell. The military found email correspondence between him and his partner that revealed their relationship.
You are sad.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Right. And then the others came forward as some act of gay solidarity. They thought they would be able to bully their wants through, as in, “we’re so important we can force the Military to accept us openly declaring our sexual perversions”. They were wrong. But then they still got to say “see what Don’t ask/ Don’t tell has done to our efforts in the war on terror!” Either way the Gay Agenda gets good press. Crap.
Even Liberals are right once a d... What am I saying?? No they're not.
This post has been removed by the author.
"sexual perversions"?
Hate to clue you in but.... for "guys that like guys", and "girls that like girls" their activities are normal. The Supreme court even ruled on it a few years ago, striking down a Texas law against homosexual intercourse because it was "normal" activity.
Let's see how backwards (bigoted) you really are: Do you think inter-racial sex is also a perversion? Do inter-racial couples have the right to marry (or do YOU think that liberal society went to far allowing that, too)?
Normal and natural? Just because something is legal that doesn’t make it right.
Leave it to a Lib to interject race into a discussion where it has no place whatsoever. Are you comparing gay sex to inter-racial sex? That’s not very nice.
Randal-
You really are incapable of getting the point, aren't you?
The point is that it IS "normal and natural", so the court made sure that remains legal. Would have it illegal and arrest gay partners for having sex?
Actually, I was asking if YOU made the comparison. People like you used the same arguments in attempts to make inter-racial marriage illegal, claiming it was "unnatural". Fortunately, the liberals won that battle.
BTW, you still didn't answer the question on whether you support inter-racial relationships.
I get points just fine, Davey. When I see you make one I’ll let you know.
That some Lib court declared it legal does not make it normal and natural.
No, I would not outlaw homoism. I think it is disgusting but I’m all about letting people live their lives without too much intrusion. However, when it comes to the unreasonable bullying demands of the Gay Agenda, well, that’s another story.
And tell me, just why is it “fortunate” that Libs made man-on-man sex legal, anyway?? Being tolerant or looking the other way is a whole lot different than celebrating such perversion. You Libs are a mess.
I didn’t answer your question concerning race because it has no place here. And it sure looks like you were comparing the two… something you have not seen me do, by the way. That you Libs love to insert race into everything as some sort of grasp for a “gotcha!” does not make your petty efforts here valid. It was actually rather offensive.
Liberal Court? It was the current conservative Supreme Court.
It's private, legal behavior. The only "celebration" is that people's rights are being upheld. Would you rather that it was illegal?
BTW, you seem focused on man-on-man. Do you walk away (or bury your head in a pillow) when TV, movie, or porn video has two girls making out?
The race argument is VALID because the anti-gay arguments are the SAME hollow anti-race arguments. It's like the right wing did a search-and-replace of their old speeches. Before that, they tried banning inter-faith marriages as well.
It also comes down to a fundamental point, are some people born gay? If so, just like skin color, it is natural part of who people are, and should not be discriminated against.
Do you think it should be illegal to fire someone for being gay? If so, why is the military allowed to do it?
The workplace is not an appropriate setting for people to be broadcasting their sexuality. (Not that we ever see heteros publicly declaring their sexuality as gays do, btw.)
Don’t Ask/ Don’t Tell should be the standard across our society. It is a very reasonable compromise. (Not that you Libs and Gays care one stitch about reason or compromise once you’ve decided on something you want forced on our society regardless of how the rest of us feel about it.) It actually acts to protect gays from unreasonable harassment and such. If you Lefties would let go of your blind gay wants advocacy for a moment you’d see this.
Post a Comment
<< Home