Thursday, December 09, 2010

Disapointment Over DADT

As Vigilance blog readers are already well aware, Don't Ask Don't Tell was not repealed. Despite support on every side including at least sixty Senators who support DADT repeal, the bill received only 57 votes calling for debate, when it needed 60 votes to override the threat of a Republican filibuster.

Now there is talk of a standalone DADT-repeal bill. Huffington Post:
Just hours after the Senate failed to pass a defense authorization bill that included the repeal of the gay military ban known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the White House suggested there were other ways to get it through Congress.

Pointing to a standalone bill to repeal the ban, championed in the Senate by Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), Pelosi's Twitter account issued the following statement: "If new Lieberman & Collins #DADT bill passes Senate, an army of allies stands ready to pass standalone repeal in House."

White House spokesman Reid Cherlin, meanwhile, said in a statement, "The President is committed to working with Congress to achieve a repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' this year. The White House is willing to explore all legislative options to reach this goal during the lame duck session."

Of course, President Barack Obama could simply issue an executive order rolling back the ban on openly gay servicemembers, but the White House has chosen to press its luck with what administration officials argue is a more permanent solution. White House, Pelosi Signal Support For Standalone DADT Repeal Bill

There are lots of problems with all of this, but it is not hard to see what has happened. Democrats were elected into the Congress and the Presidency on promises that they would fight to end discrimination against LGBT Americans, and they haven't done it. And now you think they're going to work hard to force a new standalone bill through the lame duck session?

45 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

fortunately, procrastination is a liberal value

December 09, 2010 10:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no "t" in this bill. Why?

December 09, 2010 10:59 PM  
Anonymous RT2 said...

This is all about giving the LGBT crowd an excuse to keep voting Democrat.

Dont remember in the next election cycle that these assclowns blew you off for the 2 years they had full control of both branches ..... just remember that they made a show and "tried" during the lame duck session.

Its nothing personal, they're doing the same thing to the pro-amnesty crowd as well. They (Hispanic activism groups) we're threatening to start a third ethnocentric party ..... cant have either of y'all leaving the Leftist's big tent. Elections usually come down to a few percentage points.

Of course, where else could you go anyway?

You certainly aint welcome the Right's tent, and 3rd party is not an option for you, as that would only lead to the embarassing realization of exactly how homophobic the electorate is behind the pulled curtains of the ballot box.

No, you best just suck it up, excuse the pun, and just keep pretending the Democrats really ever had your interests at heart, and are not just playing you to get a few more votes out of you next time.

December 09, 2010 11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're living in la la land if you think that democrats were elected to end LGBT discrimination.

Most people don't vote on, or care about, the LGBT issue.

December 09, 2010 11:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Disapointment Over DADT"

I find myself strangely undisappointed

it's very strange

previous poster is right, of course

Dems don't want any of the "problems" they claim such concern for to be solved

they worry no one would vote for them then

it's all rather sick, isn't it?

December 09, 2010 11:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DADT will be repealed in the next Congress...

and replaced with a ban on homosexuals in the military and public education

December 09, 2010 11:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin will travel to strife-torn Haiti this weekend with Franklin Graham, son of famed evangelist Billy Graham, on a mission that could burnish her standing on foreign policy and with evangelicals for her 2012 presidential run.

The trip to the island nation, still ravaged by the effects of last January's earthquake and facing rising civil violence, will be part of a mission by Samaritan's Purse, the Christian relief operation.

The duo will be visiting a cholera clinic, among other stops. The former Alaska governor's husband, Todd, and daughter, Bristol will join her. Gunfire and barricades were reported Thursday in the capital city of Port-au-Prince, and the U.S. State Department reissued a travel warning to the country and recommended against non-essential travel.

Graham issued a statement saying he appreciates Palin's willingness to visit Haiti during troubled times.

"I believe Gov. Palin will be a great encouragement to the people of Haiti and to the organizations, both government and private, working so hard to provide desperately needed relief," he said.

A cholera outbreak has killed more than 2,000 people in Haiti.

Palin is considering a run for president in 2012 and any visit abroad would generate intense interest. She is also planning visits to England and Israel.

The trip could also help her win support among the Republican Party's internationally-minded evangelical base. As Sarah Pulliam Bailey wrote at Christianity Today, Palin -- despite her reputation as a conservative Christian -- has not cultivated ties to evangelical leaders, with the exception of Franklin Graham and, to a lesser extent, his father.

Franklin Graham has been a frequent critic of President Obama, and last summer declared that the president was "born a Muslim," which played into myths about Obama's religious identity. Earlier this year, Palin defended Graham over his statements about Islam.

In early 2009, as Bailey noted, Palin traveled with Franklin Graham to distribute food in Alaska. She also visited Billy Graham, who recently turned 92, right after the 2008 election.

Writing in Politico, Andy Barr said that the Haiti visit would allow Palin "to better establish her claim to evangelical voters if she chooses to seek the Republican presidential nomination," and he noted that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, one of Palin's potential 2012 rivals, was the choice of most evangelicals in the early 2008 GOP primaries and caucuses.

Billy Graham is in declining health and no longer the political player he once was. But Palin may have won his heart even before they ever met.

"He's a typical man. I don't care if he's 90 years old, he thought that she is so pretty," the elder Graham's daughter, Gigi, told Christianity Today in 2008. "He loves a pretty woman."

December 10, 2010 9:03 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

This is just another example of how routine use of the filibuster rule is destroying American democracy. Its routine use by the Republicans, and the luke-warm effots by the Democrats to call them on their irresponsibility, led to the chain of events which made the federal government look ineffectual, creating a depression in the middle of the electorate and the low voter turnout which led to the Nov. election results. The Republican tactic in the Senate was brilliant politically, but irresponsible in terms of providing leadership for an effective democracy.

Of course, the Republicans will not care, if they get a majority in the Senate, if the Democrats do unto them as they were done unto. Why? Because nearly all of the current Republican members of Congress appear not to really believe that we should have a government. So any future Democratic threats to shut-down the government via filibusters will be greeted with a, "OK, make my day."

I fear that 2011 will make 1995 look like a picnic.

December 10, 2010 9:05 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

The Senate has become a barrier to good governance. They should eliminate the 2 per state rule and elect senators by proportional representation. It's absurd and obstructionist that Wyoming's 550,000 have the same political power as California's 36,000,000; off by almost 2 orders of magnitude.

December 10, 2010 10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a better idea.
Let's just remove California from the union and then David and Robert can move there.

And when it goes bankrupt, they will be on their own, and not able to come whining to the more fiscally responsible states.

December 10, 2010 11:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the filibuster rule actually makes us more of a representative democracy

when the legislature gets out of the control of the people, responsible legislators can use these tactics to block egregious measures like repeal of DADT

they will only do so if they have the support of the people and the proof will be the next election

the answer in 2010 was that the American voter was quite comfortable with Republican tactics since 2008

December 10, 2010 11:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and Dems won't be able to use these tactics in 2011-2012 because they have no confidence that they voters in 2012 will back them up

simply put, they don't have the courage of their convictions, and for good reason

the evidence is right now when Dems still control Congress but can't bring themselves to increase taxes on the wealthy

it's because those who will still be around in 2012 are afraid how it will look to voters then

Repubs are willing to take chances, Dems aren't

a coward dies many times, the brave taste of death but once

December 10, 2010 11:55 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

The American people and the American military, both enlisted and upper brass, support repeal. Seems McCain et. al. are pandering to the worst actors in their limited, anti-democratic base. This is called a wedge issue.

December 10, 2010 6:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yawn.

It's obvious that not many people give a hoot about the DADT issue. When I bring it up to my liberal friends, expecting a strong debate, I am disappointed. They could care less -- shrug their shoulders, roll their eyes and move on to the next subject.

It's time to stop dwelling and move on.

December 10, 2010 7:37 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Perhaps your liberal "friends" are too polite to respond to your comments.

December 10, 2010 8:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nope. They just don't care about the DADT issue. They want our lawmakers focused on the economy and are annoyed by DADT taking up time and attention.

December 10, 2010 9:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's been so encouraging to see Barack Obama do a pirouette on bigotry and denounce the prejudice against the rich that he has long harbored

finally, he will do something to end the policies they are biased against those, who through no fault of their own, find themselves in the upper-upper-class

the new Obama tax cuts will make a real difference in the lives of extremely wealthy Americans

the chief bigot in the Senate, socialist Bernie Sanders, finally gave up his filibuster against the beleaguered upper crust last night after hearing that Bill Clinton had come to the White House to denounce discrimination against the monied minority by supporting the Obama tax cuts

Obama and Clinton met all afternoon so Clinton could counsel Obama on how to deal with the next two years. They then came to the briefing room together and Clinton spoke while Obama stood there, looking stupid. Then Obama left, presumably to go do some intern interviews while he still had Clinton's advice fresh on his mind.

Clinton stayed and fielded more questions from reporters:

"I'm glad to be here because I think the president made a good decision and because I want my country to do well."

The well-to-do are rejoicing that years of bigotry and hatred against them seems to be coming to an end.

btw, it's good news for lunatic fringe gay advocates that Sanders gave up his filibuster since that increases the odds that the tax breaks for the super-rich can pass quickly and they'll be time to vote on ending DADT

still, it's a long shot though since the Senate also has to pass a spending bill and the START treaty before adjourning for Christmas shopping next Friday

plus, we have some surprises lined up

wink-wink

December 11, 2010 9:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clinton and the big O are now among the rich!

December 11, 2010 11:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so that explains why Obama is pushing tax cuts for the ultra-rich elite

he wants more money to travel after he is kicked out of the White House in 2012

did we ever talk about that luxury hotel on the Riviera, costing thousands a night per room, that Michelle took over with all her friends last summer?

or the posh hotel Obama took over in India right after his "shellacking"?

these two have a luxury addiction that will need to be fed after they no longer control the treasury of the richest country in the world

December 11, 2010 2:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With the clock ticking on tax increases unless Congress acts this month, President Obama insisted Saturday that the tax bill he planned with his new Republican friends is essential to the nation's economic health. He called on liberal Congressmen to "do the right thing" and pass legislation keeping federal tax rates for the rich at the low levels they've been since 2001.
"All told, this will not only directly help wealthy families and businesses," the president said in his weekly radio address. "By putting more money in people's brokerage accounts, and helping companies grow, we're going to see them being able to spend a little more on luxury items, we're going to spur hiring – we're going to strengthen our entire economy."

In a meeting of the minds, the Republican radio address sounded the same themes, a harmonic convergence that is likely to only further inflame disgruntled Democrats.

"It's certainly encouraging to see that President Obama has proposed a potential agreement to stop the tax hikes scheduled to take effect on January 1," Kristi Noem, a Republican congresswoman-elect, proclaimed in the GOP weekly address. "While stopping the tax hikes is a good first step, this alone won't eliminate the job-killing uncertainty hanging over our employers and entrepreneurs. That's why we need to focus on cutting spending and reducing the size of government."

Obama taped his speech Friday, the same day socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders was filibustering the tax deal in an eight-hour talkathon – and on the day Bill Clinton backed the president in a fascinating news conference of his own from the White House press briefing room. Obama served mostly as a prop for Clinton, albeit a prop that exited stage left on its own power -- leaving the former Democratic president to defend the current Democratic president over sniping from members of their own political party.

As he has for the past week, Obama pointed out that if Democratic Party intransigence resulted in gridlock, the Bush tax cuts would lapse on Dec. 31, leaving rich Americans with a significantly larger tax liability in the new year.

"If Congress doesn't act, tax rates will automatically go up for just about every wealthy person in our country," the president said. "That's unacceptable to me," the president continued. "We know that is exactly the wrong thing to do to get our economy growing faster. Economists tell us that this tax hike on entrepreneurs could actually cost us well over a million jobs."

Obama said that this specter is why he brought Democrats and Republicans together to the negotiating table. "So we hammered out a deal that reflects ideas from both sides," Obama said. "It wasn't easy, and it's by no means perfect. But this is a good deal for the American people."

"Now, I recognize that many of my former friends in my party are uncomfortable with tax cuts for the wealthy," Obama added. "But we cannot allow this country's future to be caught in the political crossfire of Washington. People want us to find solutions, not score points. And I will not allow our most productive citizens to be treated like pawns on a chessboard."

December 11, 2010 3:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the first trickles of the coming flood have appeared:

"Two African-American Democrats on Thursday announced that they were joining the Republican Party.

Ashley Bell and Andre Walker of Georgia said the Democratic Party had grown too liberal and they are finding a new home with the Republicans.

The state GOP touted Bell as the first black elected official in modern times in Georgia to leave the Democrats for the GOP.

Bell was introduced as a Republican at a news conference Thursday at party headquarters.

“My district is pretty Republican as it is,” Bell told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “My wife and I have been thinking about this for six months.”

He said they are both conservative “and the Democratic Party has been our home. The party had conservatives and liberals both in the party. [But] this election showed us the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is very, very strong. If your’e a conservative, it became more difficult to be in the Democratic Party.”

Bell, a former national president of the College Democrats of America, was a 2004 delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

Bell has two more years left on his term and said he was switching now to make his intentions known. He said he plans to run for re-election as a Republican.

Walker, who runs the political blog Georgia Unfiltered, resigned from the Democratic Party’s state executive committee. Walker was a delegate to the 2004 Democratic National Convention and is a former president of College Democrats of Georgia."

next up: Barack Obama

December 12, 2010 2:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damned, "Anonymous" your screeds are so B-O-R-I-N-G! Like most of the readers (excepting yourself, of course), I stopped reading your crap a long time ago.

What is particularly objectionable is your egotistical use of TTF to expound on whatever itches you at the moment and the taking up of thousands and thousands of words space to stroke that humongous ego of yours.
Get a life!!

December 12, 2010 1:31 PM  
Anonymous this is fascinating! said...

how many Dems across America are kicking themselves that they didn't nominate Hillary Clinton?:

"President Obama has lost support among Democrats and liberals, resulting in this lowest job approval rating yet in polls conducted by the Marist Institute. One consequence of the ratings drop: Republican Mitt Romney beats him in a hypothetical 2012 match-up.

Fifty-eight percent do not approve of Obama's performance in the poll, conducted Dec. 2-8, while 42 percent approve. In November, 55 percent did not approve of Obama's performance while 45 percent approved.

The poll was conducted during a week in which Obama announced a freeze on federal workers' pay and also struck a deal with Republicans to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, an agreement that drew protests from Democratic congressional leaders and spurred anger among liberals."

December 12, 2010 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I find it sort of interesting that after this massive spending spree that took place over the last two years, the creation of two new health care entitlements, now there's concern about deficits -- when they have a chance of raising taxes," Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) said on "FOX News Sunday."

Rep. Ryan also slams Democrats for using class warfare tactics when it comes to extending current tax rates.

Rep. Ryan appeared opposite the huge failure, Rep. Chris van Hollen (D-MD).

“Fire in My Belly” was removed from the exhibit by the National Portrait Gallery some 10 days ago with the full approval, if not instigation, of its parent institution, the Smithsonian. The incident is chilling because it suggests that even in a time of huge progress in gay civil rights, homophobia remains among the last permissible bigotries in America. “Think anti-gay bullying is just for kids? Ask the Smithsonian,” wrote The Los Angeles Times’s art critic, Christopher Knight, last week. One might add: Think anti-gay bullying is just for small-town America? Look at the nation’s capital.

The Smithsonian’s behavior and the ensuing silence in official Washington are jarring echoes of those days when American political leaders stood by idly.

The war over Wojnarowicz was triggered by an incendiary Nov. 29 post on a conservative Web site. The post was immediately and opportunistically seized upon by William Donohue, of the so-called Catholic League, a right-wing publicity mill with no official or financial connection to the Catholic Church.

Donohue is best known for defending Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitism by declaring that “Hollywood is controlled by Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.” A perennial critic of all news media except Fox, Donohue maintains the church doesn’t have a “pedophilia crisis” but a “homosexual crisis.” Such is the bully that the Smithsonian surrendered to without a fight.

Donohue’s tactic was to label the 11-second ants-and-crucifix sequence as “anti-Christian” hate speech.

But of course Donohue was just using his “religious” objections as a perfunctory cover for the homophobia actually driving his complaint. The truth popped out of the closet as Donohue expanded his indictment to “pornographic images of gay men.” His Republican Congressional allies got into the act. Eric Cantor called for the entire exhibit to be shut down and threatened to maim the Smithsonian’s taxpayer funding come January. Jack Kingston, of the House Appropriations Committee, rattled off his own list of exaggerated gay outrages in “Hide/Seek,” from “Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts” to “naked brothers kissing.”

December 12, 2010 5:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

POLITICO Breaking News

A federal judge in Virginia struck down portions of the Obama administration's health reform law Monday. District Judge Henry Hudson ruled the individual mandate to buy health insurance to be unconstitutional. The case, brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, is expected to go to the Supreme Court.

December 13, 2010 12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So a Virginia District Court judge appointed by George W. Bush and part-owner of a Republican consulting company that worked to oppose health care reform has ruled that a key section of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. This is neither a surprise to anyone who has been following the GOP's legal assault against reform nor is it anything close to a deathblow.

Judge Henry Hudson specifically ruled that the "individual mandate" requiring Americans to buy insurance or pay a fine "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power." But he did not grant a stay halting implementation of the law, and he did not, as some crusaders against reform had hoped, throw out the entire law altogether.

The real danger to health-care reform is not that the individual mandate will be struck down by the courts. That'd be a problem, but there are a variety of ways to restructure the individual mandate such that it doesn't penalize anyone for deciding not to do something (which is the core of the conservative's legal argument against the provision). The danger is that, in striking down the individual mandate, the court would also strike down the rest of the bill. In fact, that's exactly what the plaintiff has asked Hudson to do, yet Hudson pointedly refused.

Conservatives, either from confusion, or for the sheer fun of taking a political bite out of Democrats, are fighting the one measure that's essential if private insurance is to retain its central role in American health care, but be careful what you wish for. By fighting the mandate needed to make private insurance solutions work, and doing nothing to ease the health cost burden on everyday Americans, you'll hasten the day when the public throws up its hands and says, "Just give us single-payer and price controls." Don't think the anti-government wave this fall won't reverse itself on health care if the most private sector-oriented health care system on earth keeps delivering the world's costliest, most inefficient care.

December 13, 2010 5:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gee, if the judge is an evil Republican who's acting in a partisan manner and is ignoring his judicial duties, then why oh why didn't he just throw out the entire healthcare law?

Could it be that he's just plain correct, whether he's a Republican or a Democrat? Could it be that this is the first time that all Americans have been forced, by the government, to buy a product and that smart judges will see that it's clearly unconstitutional?

December 13, 2010 6:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So a Virginia District Court judge appointed by George W. Bush and part-owner of a Republican consulting company that worked to oppose health care reform has ruled that a key section of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. This is neither a surprise to anyone who has been following the GOP's legal assault against reform nor is it anything close to a deathblow."

no, the death blow will be when it gets to the Roberts Court and they decide that, yes, we still are free and no one can force us to buy anything

and Obamacare will have to go without the mandate

we can't afford it

"By fighting the mandate needed to make private insurance solutions work, and doing nothing to ease the health cost burden on everyday Americans,"

oh, Republicans have many ideas

for starters, let's double the number of medical schools in America, cap malpractice awards and close down gay bars

that would do a lot to bring down healthcare costs

December 13, 2010 7:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A strong majority of U.S. adults say they support the tax cuts devised by President Obama and his Republican allies.

Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they support the agreement announced last week by the president that would extend expiring tax cuts on the wealthy, allow for a one-year payroll tax holiday and increase the level of exemption from estate taxes, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found Monday.

Twenty-nine percent of Americans say they oppose the deal, while 2 percent had no opinion.

The poll is the first to test the popularity of the bill as it's been crafted. Previous polling has suggested that individual elements of the compromise are popular, but no poll appears to have tested whether the legislation that ties those all the elements together is popular on its own.

The survey comes as the Senate is set to vote this afternoon in a key procedural test for the legislation. The House might act later this week.

There appears to be no time left for the repeal of DADT.

Ho-ho-ho!

Merry Christmas!

December 13, 2010 7:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this global warming is freezin' me arse off

we need Congress to create an incentive for people to get some carbon emissions in the atmosphere and warm this planet up!!

maybe we can make a mandate to force 'em to buy big ol' American Caddies!!

we'll pass a law forcing Obama to buy one too!!

December 13, 2010 9:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've been doing my part to increase carbon dioxide emissions!

You see, every time I exhale, carbon dioxide comes out!

I tested the "poisonous gas" theory last night by putting a blanket over my head and breathing out my carbon dioxide.

Guess what? I didn't die!

December 14, 2010 9:06 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“I've been doing my part to increase carbon dioxide emissions! … You see, every time I exhale, carbon dioxide comes out! … I tested the "poisonous gas" theory last night by putting a blanket over my head and breathing out my carbon dioxide. … Guess what? I didn't die!”

What else have you learned from you child’s textbook?

December 14, 2010 9:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alas, that's the problem. Children don't seem to learn good, basic science anymore. They learn politicized, fictional science.

We've got to take the science textbooks from the 40s, dust 'em off and start teaching kids the basics again! Plants take in carbon dioxide; people exhale carbon dioxide. Without carbon dioxide, we wouldn't exist.

December 14, 2010 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that's sad

imp can't even get a short one right

and he keeps coming back

hey imp:

have you had enough?

or are you thirsty for more?

December 14, 2010 10:25 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“for starters, let's … close down gay bars”

Why stop there? Let’s prevent gays from even owning the property that those bars sit on. Then we should start a campaign vilifying any business that a gay person owns, and sequester their property as well. In celebration, we can all gather ‘round a big cozy fire of books burning that have been deemed “not anti-gay” enough. And just to be safe, we better sterilize the parents of gay children (you know, just in case there is a gay gene).

And we certainly shouldn’t allow homosexuals to be seen in public, after all, isn’t the sight of a gay person, in reality, just a visual indoctrination tool used by the gay agenda to recruit children into the homosexual lifestyle?

Fortunately, with the advent of color tattooing, a simple pink triangle on the forehead can now let all passers by know just what they’re up to.

God bless America.

December 14, 2010 10:57 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

We've got to take the science textbooks from the 40s”

Again, why stop there? Let’s go back to when the Earth was flat.

December 14, 2010 11:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The implication being that we've learned that the earth is no longer flat and that carbon dioxide is no longer necessary for plant and animal life?

Flawed analogy. Try another....

December 14, 2010 5:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually, imp's thought process is even more flawed than that

he assumes that the most recently accepted is right and "going back" is automatically wrong

people in ancient times were aware the earth is round- they could see a ship disappear on the horizon before its sail

in medieval times, some apparently forgot this

but it's not an automatic chronological progression

the only thing automatic with time is that imp gets stupider

December 14, 2010 8:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why stop there? Let’s prevent gays from even owning the property. Then we should start a campaign vilifying any business that a gay person owns, and sequester their property as well. In celebration, we can all gather ‘round a big cozy fire of books burning that have been deemed “not anti-gay” enough. And just to be safe, we better sterilize the parents of gay children.

And we certainly shouldn’t allow homosexuals to be seen in public, after all.

Fortunately, with the advent of color tattooing, a simple pink triangle on the forehead can now let all passers by know just what they’re up to."

we don't need to do all that stuff, imp, you friggin' Nazi

all we need to do is close down the gay bars like we do with casinos and bordellos

that will directly lower overall health costs by preventing random homosexual promiscuity

December 14, 2010 9:31 PM  
Anonymous real genius said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

December 14, 2010 10:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting comment, nutty "anonymous" ("all we need to do is close down the gay bars like we do with casinos and bordellos")

Seems like we are working mighty hard to open up casinos (what century do you live in?)... and close down bordellos(?) It'll be a cold day in hell when that happens. Your heterosexual compatriots would never consider shutting off the valves to the $$$ flow. Besides, where else could you and your kind go to engage in unBiblical sex?

December 16, 2010 3:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

gay bars have provided the opportunity for the introduction and perpetuation of the AIDS epidemic

closing them would have immediate public health benefits

we could replace them with reparative therapy clinics

and mandate, under the commerce clause, that gays have to purchase their services

December 16, 2010 3:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"gay bars have provided the opportunity for the introduction and perpetuation of the AIDS epidemic"

Please address the issue of the huge growth of HIV/AIDS among your own heterosexual cohorts (did they frequent gay bars?) and the seismic growth of the disease in African, Asian, and South American countries (I guess they have been overrun with gay bars, too).

Also...please address the issue of heterosexual bordellos and casinos instead of throwing a pail of sand in our faces.

You don't like it when your bigotries and hatred are exposed, do you?

December 16, 2010 9:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Please address the issue of the huge growth of HIV/AIDS among your own heterosexual cohorts (did they frequent gay bars?) and the seismic growth of the disease in African, Asian, and South American countries (I guess they have been overrun with gay bars, too)."

in countries with a Christian heritage, homosexuality is widely tolerated and AIDS is disproportionate among that population

third world countries, especially with a recent pagan heritage, have zero tolerance for gays and AIDS is not primarily a homosexual disease

I don't if you've ever been to Africa but prostitution is ubiquitous; it's hard to find a hotel without whores hanging around

random promiscuity causes AIDS

gay bars promote random promiscuity

"Also...please address the issue of heterosexual bordellos and casinos instead of throwing a pail of sand in our faces."

could you be more specific?

what's the issue?

"You don't like it when your bigotries and hatred are exposed, do you?"

gee, I don't know

when did that happen?

December 17, 2010 5:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

once again...you sidestep, and refuse to recognice any SINS of the heterosexual population. You can't expect to throw stones without having any thrown back at you.

December 18, 2010 9:48 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home