Sunday, June 10, 2012

The GOP's Quiet Gay Strategy


I think of this blog as a place for people to talk about how to accept and even enjoy the differences among all of us.  Since there was a minor outbreak of anti-LGBT excitement in our Maryland county a few years back, which pops up again occasionally under various pretexts, the blog has mostly focused on questions regarding prejudice against gay, lesbian, and transgender people.  A lot of straight people find it a little hard to understand someone who feels differently from them, probably most of us do at some level, but you don't have to understand everything about a person to accept them.  There is no danger to you if someone sees the world differently, or if someone looks different or dresses differently from you.

Interestingly the comments section tends to break down along political lines.  It seems that almost all our Republican-leaning commenters advocate a startlingly hostile attitude toward LGBT people, talking about a sinister "gay agenda" and referring to them as "deviants" and so on, while almost all of our Democratic-leaning commenters defend tolerance and acceptance and equal rights.

I don't see what this has to do with ideological differences of opinion regarding government spending, interpretation of the Constitution, or civil liberties, but for some reason conservatives, at least in our comments section, mostly advocate prejudice, and liberals advocate tolerance.

The New York Times has an interesting feature this morning about a movement within the GOP to support the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry.
OVER the past year, the main story line in the push for marriage equality has been the ardor and success with which leading Democratic politicians have taken up the fight. The Democratic governors of New York, Maryland and Washington all promoted and signed same-sex marriage laws, for which President Obama expressed his support last month.

But the progress within Republican ranks has also been pivotal, not to mention fascinating. And a compelling character in that subplot just added a new twist to the narrative, one that suggests the rapidly changing political dynamics of this issue and its potential import to a party dogged by an image of being culturally out of touch.

That character is Paul E. Singer, 67, a billionaire hedge fund manager who is among the most important Republican donors nationwide. In just one Manhattan fund-raiser last month, he helped to collect more than $5 million for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.

He steadfastly supports conservative candidates. He also steadfastly supports gay rights in general and marriage equality in particular. Along with a few other leading Wall Street financiers, he contributed and helped drum up the majority of the money — more than $1 million — that fueled the campaign for same-sex marriage in New York.

He has given nearly $10 million of his own money to gay-rights initiatives, including the same-sex marriage efforts not only in New York but also in New Hampshire and New Jersey. And that figure doesn’t include his assistance in tapping a broad network of donors for individual candidates. He was pivotal in rounding up about $250,000 apiece for the Republican state senators in New York whose votes for same-sex marriage provided its margin of victory in the Legislature.

Now, Singer says, he’s providing $1 million to start a new “super PAC” with several Republican compatriots. Named American Unity PAC, its sole mission will be to encourage Republican candidates to support same-sex marriage, in part by helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it.
The G.O.P.’s Gay Trajectory
Who benefits if gay and lesbian couples are prevented from marrying?  Does anybody profit from that?  Is anyone's life better in any way?  I can't think of any benefit to such a prohibition.  There is just no point to it -- oh, you can say that they are trying to "redefine marriage" blah blah blah, but in reality it does not affect any straight person in any way if gay and lesbian American citizens are permitted to marry the person they love.  It only means there will be more happiness in the world.

Most people are smart enough to see that.  As gay people have come out over the past half century and have become more visible in public life, straight Americans have realized they are ordinary people with the same feelings and concerns as anybody.  The shock has long worn off, the jokes have stopped being funny, the stereotypes are hollow now that everyone knows better.  Anti-LGBT bigotry is a losing platform for a political party.


88 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I think of this blog as a place for people to talk about how to accept and even enjoy the differences among all of us"

all differences?

hardly

the only "difference" that this blog is interested in gaining acceptance for is same gender sexual deviance

any other way a commenter might differ from a TTFer is a welcome recipient of bigotry

"bigotry" negative views of a group without basis

think of the attacks here on people who send their kids to religious or other public schools or, even, gasp, homeschool their children

no basis when you consider that most of leaders of our society didn't attend public school

it's just bigotry

think of the attacks here on people who believe there exists a reality beyond that which is perceived by our five senses

yet, evidence suggests that those hold to religious belief, overall, are happier, healthier and more virtuous

no basis for saying that materialism is a superior worldview

it's just bigotry

how about the attacks on those who think government is not the answer to our problems

yet, there is no evidence that increasing the size of government has any beneficial effect

it's just bigotry

we could go on and on

but why?

it's obvious what "difference" you're referring to

June 10, 2012 12:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Since there was a minor outbreak of anti-LGBT excitement in our Maryland county a few years back,"

minor?

the way you guys carried on, you would have thought it was the end of civilization as we know it

"which pops up again occasionally under various pretexts, the blog has mostly focused on questions regarding prejudice against gay, lesbian, and transgender people"

"pop up"?

there has been a consistent commitment to traditional values and a resistance to propaganda advocating the normalization of same gender sexual deviance

"A lot of straight people find it a little hard to understand someone who feels differently from them,"

and by "understand", you mean agree with your view of this matter

"Interestingly the comments section tends to break down along political lines. It seems that almost all our Republican-leaning commenters advocate a startlingly hostile attitude toward LGBT people, talking about a sinister "gay agenda" and referring to them as "deviants" and so on, while almost all of our Democratic-leaning commenters defend tolerance and acceptance and equal rights"

actually, virtually everyone in our society tolerates same gender sexual deviance, and homosexuals have not been denied any right that other have because of their affliction with same gender attraction

"acceptance" is open to multiple definitions but those who have religious beliefs that oppose certain practices should not feel they don't have the right to argue for their views

there's a lot more to say here but the weather is too glorious to linger on the laptop

maybe later guys

time to mix up a mojito and hang around the pool

June 10, 2012 1:03 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Isn't it just that one anonymous who refers to lgbt people as deviants?

Youth aren't like that. Even my politically most conservative students don't see lgbt people in that way, or at least don't express themselves thus in my presence.

rrjr

June 11, 2012 5:40 AM  
Anonymous frobert said...

so, they don't sound like they need the schools to teach them how to think, Robo

you've just proved my point- there is no siginificant anti-gay bullying taking place

don't you think, regardless of your sexual preferences, that the gay agenda is really a bunch of propaganda?

June 11, 2012 8:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Since 1991, the Boy Scouts of America has barred openly gay individuals from participating in its program at any level. Scouts for Equality will lead a respectful, honest dialogue with current and former Scouts and Scout Leaders about ending this outdated policy. By embodying the values of the Scout Oath and Law, we believe we can restore the social relevancy of one of this country’s great cultural institutions: the Boy Scouts of America.”

June 11, 2012 8:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this story was already posted last week

the Boy Scouts have certain standards, one of which is a commitment to traditional morality and another is belief and worship of the Creator

neither of these standards is dated but the Woodstock sexual vibe certainly is

the Boy Scouts won't be changing any policies

why don't you try starting your own male youth group that embraces homosexuality?

oh, that's right

no one would join it

so why should the group that is indeed relevant change their standards in a way no one wants and shove it down everyone's throat?

they could wind up like Barack Obama

going downhill ever since he became the first gay President

June 11, 2012 8:57 AM  
Anonymous chortle-chortle said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

June 11, 2012 8:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marriage Became A Basic Civil Right 45 Years Ago

June 12, 2012 4:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Loving didn't make marriage a civil right

it simply overruled forbidding mixed-race couples from marrying based on their race

for example, eliminating the segregation of lunch counters didn't make lunch a civil right

"Who benefits if gay and lesbian couples are prevented from marrying? Does anybody profit from that? Is anyone's life better in any way? I can't think of any benefit to such a prohibition."

anyone who benefits from society having an institution called marriage is hurt by society calling gay couples a marriage

saying gay couples qualify as possible marriage partners contradicts the idea of marriage, which is the union of both genders

there is no more effective way to attack an institution than to take away its meaning

henceforth, after gay agendists get their way, the idea of marriage will cease to be an idea that is passed down from generation to generation because there will be no word that refers to it

"There is just no point to it -- oh, you can say that they are trying to "redefine marriage" blah blah blah, but in reality it does not affect any straight person in any way if gay and lesbian American citizens are permitted to marry the person they love. It only means there will be more happiness in the world."

so, having the government called you "married" to anyone you love is now happiness?

I thought the Beatles said happiness is a warm gun

this idea that no straight person will be affected blah blah blah is a bunch of happy horse crap

the losers will be future generations who live in a society where there is no marriage

but this is all a bunch of hot air

two thirds of states have already confirmed that marriage is a union requiring the participation of both genders, that marriage is about how the two genders complement one another

this fall, Maryland and Washington join the list of states where marriage is protected

June 13, 2012 4:53 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon ranted / blathered / annoyed English teachers with poor grammar:

“anyone who benefits from society having an institution called marriage is hurt by society calling gay couples a marriage

saying gay couples qualify as possible marriage partners contradicts the idea of marriage, which is the union of both genders

there is no more effective way to attack an institution than to take away its meaning

henceforth, after gay agendists get their way, the idea of marriage will cease to be an idea that is passed down from generation to generation because there will be no word that refers to it

this idea that no straight person will be affected blah blah blah is a bunch of happy horse crap

the losers will be future generations who live in a society where there is no marriage

but this is all a bunch of hot air”


No Anon, none of this will happen. It just won’t. Marriage isn’t going to go away just because a bunch of gay people all over the planet have gotten married in the last decade or so. Marriage will still be around for a long, long time. Especially as long as Larry King is around – is he on his 7th or 8th marriage now? It’s hard for me to keep track.

Society isn’t going to suffer because gay people have gotten marred. They never have, and they never will. And you have yet to provide a single example of a straight marriage that was destroyed because loving gay couples were finally allowed to marry.

None of this will happen for the same reasons that “tens of thousands” of soldiers didn’t leave the armed services when DADT was repealed, despite the fact that Christians like yourself warned us of this until you turned blue in the face. It won’t happen for the same reasons that “men pretending to be women” didn’t dress up and start assaulting women in the restrooms when Bill 23-07 was passed, despite dire Christian warnings of that very thing. Marriage won’t be destroyed by gays getting married for the same reason that Harold Camping’s prediction of the rapture didn’t come true, despite his pointing out that gays were a sure sign that it was coming.

None of these horrific things ever happen because they are all just paranoid fantasies swirling around in your mind. There are doctors and medications that can help. Please seek them out. At the very least, add a couple more layers of tin foil to your hat. It may help keep the government from controlling your mind.

The only thing gay marriage will destroy is the fantasy that some Christians have that they are somehow better than gays and deserve special protections with the force of the state and federal governments keeping gays as second class citizens.


Have a nice day,


Cynthia

June 13, 2012 10:05 AM  
Anonymous empirical proof: Bush better than Obama said...

"WASHINGTON -- A critical document from President Barack Obama's free trade negotiations with eight Pacific nations was leaked online early Wednesday morning, revealing that the administration intends to bestow radical new political powers upon multinational corporations, contradicting prior promises.

The leak follows substantial controversy surrounding the secrecy of the talks, in which some members of Congress have complained they are not being given the same access to trade documents that corporate officials receive.

"The outrageous stuff in this leaked text may well be why U.S. trade officials have been so extremely secretive about these past two years of trade negotiations," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch in a written statement.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has been so incensed by the lack of access as to introduce legislation requiring further disclosure. House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has gone so far as to leak a separate document from the talks. Other Senators are considering writing a letter to Ron Kirk, the top trade negotiator under Obama, demanding more disclosure.

The newly leaked document is one of the most controversial of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. It addresses a broad sweep of regulations governing international investment and reveals the Obama administration's advocacy for policies that environmental activists, financial reform advocates and labor unions have long rejected for eroding key protections currently in domestic laws.

Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.

The terms run contrary to campaign promises issued by Obama and the Democratic Party during the 2008 campaign.

"We will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors; require the privatization of our vital public services; or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications," reads the campaign document.

Yet nearly all of those vows are violated by the leaked Trans-Pacific document.

"Bush was better than Obama on this," said Judit Rius, U.S. manager of Doctors Without Borders Access to Medicines Campaign, referring to the medication rules. "It's pathetic, but it is what it is. The world's upside-down.""

June 13, 2012 11:49 AM  
Anonymous cinco is warped said...

Wow! Obama is negotiating a treaty to set up an intenational tribunal to overrule American laws and is keeping it secret from Congress?

I guess we shouldn't be surprised that the first modern President with a father who isn't an American citizen is the most anti-American President ever.

I think it's become clear that Obama believes he is managing the decline of America.

We need to update his resume in November.

Even the Dems are coming around to this inconvenient truth.

"None of these horrific things ever happen because they are all just paranoid fantasies"

paranoid?

once you change the definition of marriage, the next generation is taught that marriage is when you find some person of imdeterminant gender and share your life with them exclusively

society will no longer benefit from the assumption that a union of complementary genders is the most desirable goal

which, of course, as I've said many times is the goal of the gay agenda: the normalization of homosexuality so that it is not considered qualitatively different from heterosexuality

we'll settle this at the polls, what we think marriage is

that's fine, just stop acting like it's a rights issue and trying to get judges to impose your warped view on the rest of us

June 13, 2012 12:14 PM  
Anonymous oh yeah said...

that's right

warp us

June 13, 2012 12:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

here's a thought:

maybe he wasn't born in America

June 13, 2012 12:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

new poll numbers of LIKELY VOTERS out today from Ramussen:

Romney leads by four nationally

of swing states Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Missouri and Pennsylvania:

Obama leads in PA

Romney leads in Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina and Missouri

VA and FLA are toss-ups

and this is before news was released today that Obama is negotiating away our sovereignty

you do the math

June 13, 2012 12:56 PM  
Anonymous traitorgate whistleblower said...

OK, first he tells the Russians that he can be flexible after he's fooled the American public into voting for him

then, the FBI begins investigating because it looks like he leaked national security information to make himself look good for re-election

now, he is negotiating giving an international tribunal the authority to overrule American laws

can you see now why this guy must go?

June 13, 2012 1:16 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

From a letter I received this week from a graduating senior:

"Mr. Rigby

The fact that I respect you so much is what made me reconsider what I previously believed about gay rights. Since I went to a Catholic school my whole life, I had been taught that homosexuality is wrong. I carried that belief into high school, but one day when I was thinking about why I believed what I did, I immediately thought of you and wondered if you lifestyle could be wrong. My immediate response was "no" because I view you as setting a perfect example for other in terms of leading a life filled with kindness and love. Basically, you have all of the virtues that my church teaches, so I see you as someone who would definitely go to heaven, due to the fact that you treat everyone with fairness and respect, and that you have impacted so many people positively. This made me conclude that I could do nothing but honor any given person's sexual orientation."

June 13, 2012 2:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Wow! Obama is negotiating a treaty to set up an intenational [sic] tribunal to overrule American laws and is keeping it secret from Congress?"

During VP Cheney's first year in office, he hosted CEOs of energy companies in the White House to be part of his energy task force. To this day, Cheney refuses to tell anyone who even attended those meetings at the White House, let alone what advice they gave him. Why did Cheney feel he could keep who came and what they said secret? It has to do with the Office of the President as follows:

"The president can keep any such government deliberations entirely secret from Congress and the public, Addington asserts, in order to guarantee the “candor” of the advice he receives."

If it was OK with today's SUPREME COURT APPROVED ANONYMOUS RICH GOP SWIFT BOATERS for former VP Cheney to be entitled to keep secret his energy deliberations to guarantee the "candor" of the advice he received, then it must also be OK with those same SUPREME COURT APPROVED ANONYMOUS RICH GOP SWIFT BOATERS for this President to be entitled to keep his trade deliberations secret in order to guarantee the "candor" of the advice he receives.

Why I even bet some of those SUPREME COURT APPROVED ANONYMOUS RICH SWIFT BOATERS were at Cheney's meetings and are enjoying all the profits that have been swamping big oil companies ever since. See Top Five Oil Companies Made $1 Trillion in Profits from 2001 Through 2011. These outrageous profits are probably due to Cheney's secret energy task force meetings we'll never know about.

"The leak follows substantial controversy surrounding the secrecy of the talks, in which some members of Congress have complained they are not being given the same access to trade documents that corporate officials receive. "

Reminds me of when the Bush Administration's DOJ Refuses to Turn Over Bush/Cheney CIA Leak Transcripts to Congress

"The Justice Department has said it will not comply with a subpoena demanding that FBI transcripts of interviews with President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney regarding their possible roles in the exposure of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson be turned over to a congressional committee investigating the matter."

I don't remember Rep. Issa ever complaining about the lack of documents being turned over to Rep. Waxman's Congressional Committee investigators.

All these GOPers are marching in lockstep with one goal in mind, trying to make sure Obama is a one term president.

The GOP members of the House don't care about jobs. If they did , the bipartisan Boxer-Inhofe transportation bill, which passed the Senate 85-11, would not have been denied a House vote by the House GOP Leadership. The bill would pass the House with wide margins like it did in the Senate. This bill would create about 2.9 million new jobs for idled construction workers facing 14.2% and rising unemployment.

Apparently it's more important to the House GOP leaders to dither than to vote for this bipartisan job creating bill.

June 13, 2012 3:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's beautiful, Robert. Thank you.

And Romney is dead wrong. We *do* need more police officers, firefighters, and teachers just like you.

June 13, 2012 3:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That's beautiful, Robert. Thank you."

yes, narcissism is a gorgeous thing

thanks for let us know how wonderful you are

yes, all virtue there is, or ever could be, is embodied by this glorious endorser of Gay-Straight Alliance Groups, who once threatened to kill me on this blog, so we must "honor" his deviant "orientation"

yeah, makes sense

"And Romney is dead wrong. We *do* need more police officers, firefighters, and teachers just like you."

we may, but they shouldn't be paid for or controlled by by the Federal government, the head of which Romney will soon be

we could actually free up a lot of time for cops if we'd eliminate laws against victim-free crimes like not wearing your seat belt, smoking a joint or drinking a Big Gulp in Manhattan

don't know if there's a shortage of firefighters

in any case, it's properly the responsibility of the local government

no need to borrow any more money from the Chinese for this

as for teachers, yeah, we need more of them, but not the public school unionized members of the NEA who have degraded our educational system

we need to funnel money to parents who can choose to spend it on private, religious or home schooling groups, all of which have, based on empirical evidence, an actual aptitude for educating children rather than advancing the liberal agenda through propagandizing the next generation

June 14, 2012 7:14 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Did I really threaten to kill you, darling? My apologies, I didn't mean it.

June 14, 2012 8:01 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Thank you for sharing your letter, Robert. I’m sure that you’ll cherish it for a long time.

Anon claimed:

“once you change the definition of marriage, the next generation is taught that marriage is when you find some person of imdeterminant (sic) gender and share your life with them exclusively”

I don’t recall ever being “taught” about marriage in my schools – 7 years of which were at Catholic institutions. Do they have marriage classes in schools these days? If not, I suspect the next generation will come to their own conclusions about marriage based on the lives of the married people they see around them. Statistics being what they are, they are bound to see a lot more divorced heterosexual couples than married gay couples. Not sure what they’ll conclude from that.

“society will no longer benefit from the assumption that a union of complementary genders is the most desirable goal”

As you just stated, that is only an assumption, and it doesn’t take too much hunting around the internet to find numerous examples of where that is clearly NOT the case:

Here are just a few examples – feel free to google them:

From Newsfeed: “Adolf Hitler Campbell Custody Battle: Parents Who Gave Kids Nazi Names Lose Custody”

“A New Jersey couple has lost a three-year custody battle over their four children, three of whom are named after Nazi figures.

Last week a superior court in New Jersey ruled that Adolf Hitler Campbell, 4, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, 3, Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell, 2, and Hons Campbell, 7 months, would remain in the care of the state, reports the New Jersey Star-Ledger. Officials say they had evidence of abuse by the parents Heath Campbell, 37, and Deborah Campbell, 27. Court documents indicate that “the children were being strapped into their booster seats for unusually long periods of time amid ongoing domestic violence,” reported ABC News.

Ironically, no one is disputing these parents’ right to be married, or even have more kids.

From the Independent (UK)

“A mother and father have been charged with the murder of their six children who died after a fire at their home in Derby.

Mick Philpott and his wife Mairead were arrested in Derby city centre on Tuesday in connection with the blaze at the house on 11 May. Last night, they were charged with six counts of murder, a spokesman for Derbyshire Police said. They were due to appear before Southern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court this morning.

Five of their children – Jade, 10, John, nine, Jack, seven, Jessie, six, and Jayden, five – died in the fire. A sixth, Duwayne, 13, died of his injuries in Birmingham Children's Hospital two days later.”

Whether these folks are ever convicted of these murders or not, their ability to stay married, or get divorced and marry someone else will never be challenged.

I could go on with many more examples, but I have a dental appointment to go to.

With heterosexual parents setting the bar for bad behavior so high, it’s hard to see how gay parents could ever achieve such horrific heights.

“which, of course, as I've said many times is the goal of the gay agenda: the normalization of homosexuality so that it is not considered qualitatively different from heterosexuality”


That’s just your paranoia again Anon. The goal of the LGBT community is to have the same marital, employment, and other legal rights and protections that heterosexuals enjoy in our country.

The chance that homosexuality may suffer some “normalization” is just a side effect.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

June 14, 2012 9:00 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I suspect they teach about marriage as part of the "Family Life Education Curriculum," which has strands for each grade, in Virginia.

rrjr

June 14, 2012 11:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i wasn't really talking about that, Robert

Cinco is part of the warped segment of our society that hears "teach" and thinks "public school"

actually, as i'm sure you realize, being a teacher, not much of one's total learning in life happens in the dreary public school system

"Did I really threaten to kill you, darling? My apologies, I didn't mean it."

no need to apologize, sweetie

you did mean it, and if someone feels like they want to kill me, I definitely would prefer they tell me so

and I'm sure you've calmed down now but the point is you are not exactly the patron saint of lost causes

and that kid that wrote that worshipful ode to you, don't you think you should suggest counseling rather than post the note online to make yourself look holy

let's look at that again:

"I view you as setting a perfect example for other in terms of leading a life filled with kindness and love. Basically, you have all of the virtues that my church teaches, so I see you as someone who would definitely go to heaven, due to the fact that you treat everyone with fairness and respect, and that you have impacted so many people positively. This made me conclude that I could do nothing but honor any given person's sexual orientation."

this sounds like a perfect example of Stockholm Syndrome

being stuck in school with you all day and under your control, the kid becomes overfully grateful

and, even if you are the second coming of Mother Theresa, how that lead to a conclusion about "any given person's sexual orientation"?

kind of reminds me of when our first gay President said he was "the one" the world had waited for

the messiah who could roll back the oceans

of course, now he blames the economy on the Bush, Europe and China

it's out of his control

wonder if he can still roll back the oceans?

or are the oceans now under the evil control of Bush, Europe and China?

I do remember when oil poured into the Gulf of Mexico for months and Obama couldn't do a damn thing about it

"Thank you for sharing your letter, Robert. I’m sure that you’ll cherish it for a long time."

I'm sure he will

cherish is the word he uses to describe how he feels about himself

"If not, I suspect the next generation will come to their own conclusions about marriage based on the lives of the married people they see around them."

and when people are calling couple of guys in leather making out on a park bench married, what will be the conclusion?

"Ironically, no one is disputing these parents’ right to be married,"

even gays have the right to get married

but they don't want to be married

they want to live in a sexual relationship with someone of their own gender and have the rest of us treat the relationship as marriage

nice try at twisting the English language though

"I could go on with many more examples, but I have a dental appointment to go to"

that's what happens when you go around french kissing rabid Dobermans

"With heterosexual parents setting the bar for bad behavior so high, it’s hard to see how gay parents could ever achieve such horrific heights."

gay parents?

by definition, one of them is not the real parent

the rest of us aren't obligated to endorse the artifice of homosexuality

"That’s just your paranoia again Anon. The goal of the LGBT community is to have the same marital, employment, and other legal rights and protections that heterosexuals enjoy in our country.

The chance that homosexuality may suffer some “normalization” is just a side effect."

you're wrong

they don't even really want to be married

they just want the meaning of marriage destroyed as part of their normalization agenda

June 14, 2012 1:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"this sounds like a perfect example of Stockholm Syndrome"

And your comment is a perfect example of "sour grapes."

No kid you ever taught anything has written you a
note to tell you "you have all of the virtues that my church teaches" or "I see you as someone who would definitely go to heaven, due to the fact that you treat everyone with fairness and respect."

Kids today know calling people "deviants" is not virtuous, fair or respectful and is sure not going to get you inside the pearly gates.

June 14, 2012 4:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually, I refer to a behavior as deviant

if we get the point where all behaviors must be endorsed if someone, anyone, has engaged in them, we'd be in trouble

but, let's face it, we're not at that point because you'd be fine calling something deviant as long as it wasn't homosexuality being thus characterized

somehow, the lunatic has convinced itself that homosexuality is a sacred behavior, no open to discussion

it's positive endorsement is simply non-negotiable

"No kid you ever taught anything has written you a
note to tell you "you have all of the virtues that my church teaches" or "I see you as someone who would definitely go to heaven, due to the fact that you treat everyone with fairness and respect.""

are you kidding?

children everywhere I go are constantly writing me letters saying just that

btw, why do you think some kid actually wrote that to Robert?

do you really think that happened?

what did the Easter Bunny bring you this year?

June 14, 2012 7:34 PM  
Anonymous lunatics are loose said...

A school board in Erie, Ill., is sending ripple effects nationwide after daring to listen to local parents rather than yielding to pressure from national gay activist groups.

Responding to parental concerns, the board of Erie Community Unit School District 1 voted 5-2 not to use materials from the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in its elementary school, which goes from pre-kindergarten through fourth grade.

Now GLSEN and liberal media outlets are trying to pressure the school board to reverse course.

“We asked the School Board to reconsider,” GLSEN said on its website. “Unfortunately, the school board won’t budge. So now we need your help to force them to use our material.”

But local parents have a different perspective.

The controversy began when a news flyer unveiled plans to introduce GLSEN’s new elementary-level “toolkit” called “Ready, Set, Respect!” The kit encourages teachers to “invite students” as young as kindergarten to “draw pictures of favorite TV or storybook characters and dress them in clothes that are different … from what they would typically wear,” such as “Cinderella in a knight’s armor” or “Spiderman wearing a magic tiara.”

It also suggests teachers incorporate examples of homosexual relationships into classroom activities, such as writing math problems including “a variety of family structures and gender-expressions. For example, ‘Rosa and her dads were at the store and wanted to buy three boxes of pasta…’ ”

The kit encourages educators to use storybooks that familiarize young children with same-sex marriage and transgender or cross-dressing behaviors. Suggested books include Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, which features two male guinea pigs who get married.

When parents objected, the school board voted to remove the materials.

“Many parents contacted me. That’s kind of how I got involved,” explained Aaron Sweeney, a youth minister at Erie Christian Church. “The parents want the right to choose how to talk to their kids about sexual issues. They want to hold on to that right.”

One book specifically at issue, also recommended in the toolkit, is The Family Book, geared for kids in prekindergarten through second grade, which promotes same-sex relationships. This raised both religious-freedom and parental-rights issues for Ann Schipper, a mom with three kids in the district, including a 9-year-old daughter.

“It takes away completely the sanctity of marriage. God has designed that,” she said. So “to say that some have two moms and two dads, that completely wipes away what my kids have learned at church and at home, and it creates confusion in them.”

June 14, 2012 8:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama is doing the only thing he's good at: running for President

"Tonight is the Obama campaign’s “New York Night” of star-studded fundraisers, with an event at actress Sarah Jessica Parker’s home and a ritzy gala-concert at The Plaza Hotel featuring a performance by Mariah Carey.

Both President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama will attend. The Parker event, which is co-hosted by Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour, will raise an estimated $2 million for the Obama Victory Fund from ticket sales — plus millions more from an online grassroots sweepstakes, campaign officials said.

50 wealthy donors each paid $40,000 to attend the reception inside Parker’s home.

The Obamas will spend close to three hours mingling at the event, according to their public schedule. Later, the first couple will headline a 250-person gala at the Plaza Hotel on Manhattan’s East Side. Tickets were $10,000 per person, a campaign official said. Pop star Mariah Carey will entertain guests ahead of the president’s arrival.

Obama tonight will net at least $4.5 million for his campaign, the Democratic National Committee and several state Democratic parties, according to figures provided by his campaign.

The president tops 166 re-election fundraisers for his campaign and the DNC with tonight’s events — another new record; nearly double the amount of time spent fundraising by George W. Bush."

this guys apparently really wants to win the Presdiential election in November

but why?

he could be President now if he wanted to be

and we could use one!

June 14, 2012 8:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pentagon plans to hold Gay Pride month event


The Pentagon is planning to hold an event celebrating Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Pride month.

The move comes less than a year after the Defense Department’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward gay and lesbian service members was repealed.

Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said the Pentagon is planning its first event for LGBT Pride month, which will be held later in June. Details about the event had yet to be finalized, she said.

The event for Pentagon employees comes after the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, the 1990s policy wherein gay service members could be kicked out of the military if they disclosed their sexual identity, was repealed last year.

The repeal, passed by Congress in the 2010 lame-duck session, has been implemented thus far with few reported issues from the U.S. military.

The repeal of DADT was one of President Obama’s biggest policy victories for the gay-rights community.

Obama issued a presidential proclamation at the start of the month declaring June LGBT Pride month, where he talked about the repeal of DADT.

"Because we repealed ‘Don't ask, don't tell,’ gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans can serve their country openly, honestly, and without fear of losing their jobs because of whom they love," Obama wrote.

June 14, 2012 8:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Forbes Exclusive: Adelson's Pro-Romney Donations Will Be 'Limitless,' Could Top $100M
Steven Bertoni, Forbes Staff

Forbes has confirmed that billionaire Sheldon Adelson, along with his wife Miriam, has donated $10 million to the leading Super PAC supporting presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney–and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. A well-placed source in the Adelson camp with direct knowledge of the casino billionaire’s thinking says that further donations will be “limitless.”

Adelson, who has built Las Vegas Sands into an global casino empire, will do “whatever it takes” to defeat Obama, this source says. And given that Adelson is worth $24.9 billion–and told Forbes in a recent rare interview about his political giving that he had been willing to donate as much as $100 million to his initial presidential preference, Newt Gingrich–that “limitless” description telegraphs potential nine-digit support of Romney....

...Adelson, ironically, has made more money during the Obama administration than just about any other American, based on Forbes tabulations. He had previously told me that just because he made money under Obama, it doesn’t mean he thinks the president is doing the right thing.

Does Adelson feel guilty about one American potentially steering the fate of the presidential election? “I’m against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections,” Adelson told me in February. “But as long as it’s doable I’m going to do it..."

June 14, 2012 8:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon says:

Now GLSEN and liberal media outlets are trying to pressure the school board to reverse course.

“We asked the School Board to reconsider,” GLSEN said on its website. “Unfortunately, the school board won’t budge. So now we need your help to force them to use our material.”


In reality, if you go to the GLSEN web site, it says:

"Unfortunately, the school board won't budge. So now we need your help." Then it goes to a section that says "Here's what you can do," and suggests signing a petition.

It does not say "we need your help to force them to use our material.”

This is a lie, plain and simple. Whether anon made this up himself or herself or copied it from somewhere else, it is a lie.

What kind of person does this?

June 14, 2012 8:48 PM  
Anonymous some are stupid but how much? said...

"Does Adelson feel guilty about one American potentially steering the fate of the presidential election?"

money really doesn't make a difference in a Presidential with so many no-cost opportunities to speak to the American people

sure there is critical sum needed to compete but both candidates have long ago reached this point

the real point is that Obama is spending most of his time trying to get re-elected instead of just being a real President now and letting the record speak for itself

but that's what he's always done

he really was never a U.S. Senator

as soon as he was finished his orientation, he started travelling the land talking people into voting for him as President

"It does not say "we need your help to force them to use our material.”

This is a lie, plain and simple."

when GLSEN said the Board "wouldn't budge" and "we need your help", what did you think they were talking about?

they clearly want to force the school board to use their materials

how stupid are you?

June 14, 2012 9:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They want people to sign their petition. That does not force anybody to do anything.

Your quote was a lie, they did not say that, and you are a liar.

June 14, 2012 9:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"actually, I refer to a behavior as deviant"

Actually, you are lying.

The truth is that you use the term to refer to people, not behavior and you've done it for years. Here are a few examples of your use of the term "deviant" referring to people, not behavior, complete with links to the blog threads where you did.

deviants tend not to be self-critical so, naturally, they view anyone who opposes deviancy to be a threat

In this case, they were protesting the decision of the government to name a high school after a sexual deviant.

free speech is absolute even if a deviant doesn't like it

to treat crimes against deviants as more serious than those against normal citizens is actually unjust

not when deviants are constantly trying to draw attention to themselves

June 14, 2012 9:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

when someone is not budging and you're trying to change that, it's called "force"

GLSEN lost out by usual rules and they want to start some trouble

btw, Adelson said his 10 million contribution to Romney is only the beginning

he is the eighth richest man in the world and said his support for Romney will be unlimited, even if it reached 100 million

looks like Barry will be spending a lot more time in Hollywood

before and aft the election

Dancing with the Stars, baby!!

June 14, 2012 9:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You put it in quotation marks and it was not a quote. You said they said it and they did not. You lied.

And I see you were caught in another lie, about calling people deviants. You said you didn't do it but there are lots of examples of you calling people that.

You are a liar.

June 14, 2012 9:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TTFer rejoices:

"The Pentagon is planning to hold an event celebrating Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Pride month"

inconvenient truth:

"There is a part of life in the armed forces that hardly anyone talks about: male-on-male sexual assault. In the staunchly traditional military culture, it’s an ugly secret, kept hidden by layers of personal shame and official denial. Last year nearly 50,000 male veterans screened positive for “military sexual trauma” at the Department of Veterans Affairs, up sharply."

June 14, 2012 10:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And what does the 2011 article by Daily Beast say about rape and sexual assaults in the military?

"....But last year more than 110 men made confidential reports of sexual assault by other men, nearly three times as many as in 2007. The real number of victims is surely much higher. Even among civilians, sexual assault is a vastly underreported crime. In the military the silence is nearly complete. By the Pentagon’s own estimate, figures for assaults on women likely represent less than 20 percent of actual incidents. Another study released in March found that just one in 15 men in the Air Force would report being sexually assaulted, compared with one in five women."

The New Yorker reports:

More than three thousand of those women reported last year that other service members had sexually assaulted them. The Pentagon estimates that, since only a fraction of these crimes are reported, that there may actually have been nineteen thousand attacks.

So what is the Pentagon doing about it?

Pentagon outlines plan to crack down on sexual assaults in US military

And what is Congress doing about it?

House GOP Blocking Abortion Access For Soldiers Who Are Raped

June 14, 2012 10:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Daily Beast: The Military's Secret Shame, Apr 3, 2011

June 14, 2012 10:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Last year nearly 50,000 male veterans screened positive for “military sexual trauma” at the Department of Veterans Affairs, up from just over 30,000 in 2003.

Those 20,000 more veterans can thank George W. Bush.

June 14, 2012 11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

point is, there is already a tremendous problem with gays in the military raping weaker guys

letting them in openly can only have exasperated the problem

and don't give us the crap that there has been no reported problems

such problems are unlikely to be reported

right now, there is the gay Jerry Sandusky on trial for raping vulnerable boys

went unreported for years

and there are gays that infiltrated the Catholic priesthood and preyed on boys for decades without being caught

June 14, 2012 11:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Those 20,000 more veterans can thank George W. Bush"

why?

he wasn't President last year

obviously, letting gays in the military can't be helping, now that they don't even have to hide anymore

June 14, 2012 11:41 PM  
Anonymous no demonstrations said...

obviously, the way to stop the epidemic of 50,000 male-on-male rapes in the military is to go back to the policy before Bill Clinton, of banning gays from military service

it's just not appropriate to have potential sexual partners working in that close an environment

"You said they said it and they did not. You lied."

what a wordsmith!!

anyone who says that GLSEN is not trying to force the school board of Erie, Ill. to use their material is a real liar

"Parents in a small Washington State community are infuriated after their 11-year-old children were given graphic descriptions of oral and anal sex during a sex education class led by an elementary school principal.

Fifth-graders at Onalaska Elementary School were supposed to get a lesson about HIV-AIDS, but the class discussion turned graphic when the principal, who happened to be teaching the class, then told the children about oral and anal sex.

“I’m one pissed off cowboy,” parent James Gilliand told Fox News Radio. “I didn’t appreciate them teaching my daughter – who is innocent of that – at all.”

Gilliland and his wife, Kadra, were among the moms and dads in Onalaska, about 73 miles south of Tacoma, demanding answers from their local school system – and so far – they are still waiting.

“I was just shocked because I trusted my little country school,” Kadra Gilliland said. “I didn’t think they were going to talk about such things. I trusted by school – that’s the bottom line and they crossed the line.”

School officials did not return calls seeking comment.

However, Superintendent Scott Fenter defended the principal’s action to local media and said that the lesson did not go too far.

“I think the principal handled it appropriately at the time; she only gave factual information, no demonstrations,” Fenter said."

I guess we're supposed to be grateful for that

June 15, 2012 6:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anyone who says that GLSEN is not trying to force the school board of Erie, Ill. to use their material is a real liar

You are free to interpret it that way, anon, you can say that citizens expressing their opinions by signing a petition is the same as "forcing" the schools to do something.

But the fact is, you lied by putting the words inside quotation marks, by telling us that GLSEN had said something they did not say.

It is telling that you do not seem to understand what a lie is.

June 15, 2012 6:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You are free to interpret it that way"

it's not an interpretation

there was a process for considering the appropriateness of the GLSEN material

GLSEN was respectively allowed to make their case

the Board did not like what they saw in the GLSEN material

now, not getting the result they want, GLSEN says the Board won't budge and they want help to force the Board to use their material

calling me names doesn't change that truth

calling people "liars" is not virtuous, fair or respectful

June 15, 2012 7:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""Those 20,000 more veterans can thank George W. Bush"

why?

he wasn't President last year"


Not only are you a liar, but your reading comprehension and analysis are infantile.

In 2011, the Daily Beast reported:

Last year nearly 50,000 male veterans screened positive for “military sexual trauma” at the Department of Veterans Affairs, up from just over 30,000 in 2003.

In 2003, there were over 30,000 veterans who screened positive for "military sexual trauma." "Last year, nearly 50,000 veterans screened positive for" it.

That means those additional 20,000 veterans who screened positive for "military sexual trauma" suffered their trauma during the years Bush's regime change actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were in full swing.

Perhaps you were just confused by the lousy source you cited, which wrote:

"Last year nearly 50,000 male veterans screened positive for “military sexual trauma” at the Department of Veterans Affairs, up sharply."

But I suspect this is another example like your lying GLSEN quote, where you changed the words but leave the quotation marks in anyway and don't understand what a lie doing so is.

Show us the source for your supposed quote --"Last year nearly 50,000 male veterans screened positive for “military sexual trauma” at the Department of Veterans Affairs, up sharply," -- a quote "the Google" cannot find.

If not, we'll all know that was another lie you told.

My Google search did find another version of the quote from the Daily Mail on April 4, 2011:

"But nearly 50,000 male veterans screened positive for ‘military sexual trauma’ at the Department of Veterans Affairs last year – up from just over 30,000 eight years ago."

Here's some relatively good news for male soldiers -- they are sexually assaulted at a much lower rate than female soldiers are, and they don't have to face the risk of being forced to bear their rapist's child.

June 15, 2012 8:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ah, the TTFer concerns about quotations and sources

and yet, you don't seem to dispute that 50,000 men in the military have been sexually assaulted by gays they were forced to live in close ranks with

and you don't think that's a problem

interesting sense of priorities

well, it is a problem and the solution is obvious

gays should not be in the military

June 15, 2012 8:20 AM  
Anonymous sharpie said...

WOW!!

50,000 victims of society's tolerance of homosexuality in the military alone

sounds like a "sharp" increase to me

June 15, 2012 8:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's a question that's been begging for months now:

is there, in truth, no reason to have gays in the military?

June 15, 2012 8:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, you have been caught telling serious lies here, three times in the past day. A normal person would be embarrassed by that.

You could say that gay people give you the creeps or something and it would not be lying, you could make an argument based on your private feelings, and that is fine. But when you have to make up quotes and facts to support your belief, you should realize that there is something wrong with your reasoning.

People are not persuaded by a liar.

June 15, 2012 8:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lots of blather, trying to hide from your lies.

Cute.

June 15, 2012 8:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

blather?

nice way to hide from the truth

far from blather, these are significant issues:

-whenever GLSEN doesn't get its materials approved by a school board, it starts a campaign to force school officials to use it

-50,000 males in the military have been sexually assaulted by homosexuals in the military

-a principal in Washington explained oral and anal sex to fifth graders without their parents' permission

these are substantive issues and NOT blather

oh, you're making some accusation of misquotes, that aren't substantial in any case, and calling them lies

are you saying anything substantive has been lied about here?

if so, let's hear it

go ahead

further embarass yourself

June 15, 2012 9:37 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon claimed:

“-50,000 males in the military have been sexually assaulted by homosexuals in the military”

Um no, they weren’t; but the claim is consistent with your persistent attempts to blame everything on the gays.

From Daily Beast article in which the “50,000” claim was made:


“While many might assume the perpetrators of such assaults are closeted gay soldiers, military experts and outside researchers say assailants usually are heterosexual. Like in prisons and other predominantly male environments, male-on-male assault in the military, experts say, is motivated not by homosexuality, but power, intimidation, and domination. Assault victims, both male and female, are typically young and low-ranking; they are targeted for their vulnerability. Often, in male-on-male cases, assailants go after those they assume are gay, even if they are not. “One of the reasons people commit sexual assault is to put people in their place, to drive them out,” says Mic Hunter, author of Honor Betrayed: Sexual Abuse in America’s Military. “Sexual assault isn’t about sex, it’s about violence.”

According to Hunter and others, the repeal of the military’s policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” might actually help the institution address the issue. Under that rule, being gay meant being fundamentally unfit to serve; it meant you didn’t belong. It also meant that victims were even more reluctant to report their attacks. “I wouldn’t say that the repeal is going to make it safe,” says Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a think tank on gays in the military. “But male victims will be a little bit less reluctant to report their assaults.”

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

June 15, 2012 10:11 AM  
Anonymous free lunch for everyone said...

"Um no, they weren’t; but the claim is consistent with your persistent attempts to blame everything on the gays.

From Daily Beast article in which the “50,000” claim was made:

“While many might assume the perpetrators of such assaults are closeted gay soldiers, military experts and outside researchers say assailants usually are heterosexual. Like in prisons and other predominantly male environments, male-on-male assault in the military, experts say, is motivated not by homosexuality, but power, intimidation, and domination."

laughable

by definition, a male-on-male act is homosexual

the attacker, who willingly participates, is committing a homosexual act and is thus a homosexual

just like a person who steals money is a thief and a person who eat in a restaurant is a diner and a person who argues for the gay agenda is a moron

gay apologists use this same convoluted argument to argue that those who have sex with minors of their own age, like Jerry Sandusky and your average Catholic priest aren't homosexuals

it's very convenient

apparently, in you eyes, it's basically impossible for a homosexual to rape anyone, statutorially or otherwise

btw, I've been reading accounts of Sandusky's trial

he was having a "power domination" thing

he was sending the guys romantic letters and telling them he "loved" them and, other than the sexual assaults, treated them like they were royalty

he was obviously attracted to guys and it led him to do this stuff

btw,now, Sir Barry thinks he doesn't have to pay for his meals at restaurants

he must be royalty

"President Barack Obama left a D.C. barbecue restaurant hanging on Wednesday, when he and his entourage left the establishment without paying the check.

As the group chatted about fatherhood, the president enjoyed a steaming plate of pork ribs with hot sauce, collard greens, red beans and rice and cornbread.
The bill for the president and his four guests was $55.58, but was left unpaid at the point of sale, according to pool reports.

Obama was holding the early Father's Day luncheon with members of the military and barbers to tout a new parenting initiative called "Fatherhood Buzz." The program is meant to provide dads with child rearing advice at local barbershops.

While the White House was quick to rectify the mistake after he found out reporters had learned of it, as just a day earlier the president sought to make a restaurant analogy to criticize Republicans.

“It’s like somebody goes to a restaurant, orders a big steak dinner, martini, all that stuff,” Obama told a crowd gathered in Baltimore. “And then, just as you’re sitting down, they leave, and accuse you of running up the tab!”"

hoo boy, this guy....

June 15, 2012 11:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama was holding the early Father's Day luncheon with members of the military and barbers to tout a new parenting initiative called "Fatherhood Buzz." The program is meant to provide dads with child rearing advice at local barbershops."

oh, I do so hope the Chinese gave us a loan to pay for this valuable program

maybe the government should just stay out of the parenting business

they screw up everything they get involved in

June 15, 2012 2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the attacker, who willingly participates, is committing a homosexual act and is thus a homosexual"

Look who thinks rape is a sexual act rather than an act of violence, the infantile liar who can't produce a link to his supposed quote.

Here's more of what the Daily Mail article said since the liar is apparently too lazy to read it unless spoon-fed.

"...Before joining the Army, in a previous career as an actor he had appeared in films such as Braveheart and King Arthur, but arrived at Fort Benning, Georgia, in May 2009. [DADT was repealed in 2010]

Mr Jeloudov - laughed at for his Russian-Irish accent, acting background and New York address - was labelled a ‘champagne socialist’ and ‘commie faggot’ by soldiers.

‘We don't like actors here,’ they told him. ‘We especially don't like Russian and Irish actors.’

Less than two weeks after arriving, aged 35, he said he was gang-raped by men who claimed they were ‘showing him who was in charge of the United States’.

‘After lights went out we were left to ourselves and the drill sergeant would only come down if there was an emergency,’ he told MailOnline.

‘It happened in the shower just before lights out.'

‘They wanted to get me down. The attack certainly happened out of the blue - they went for me in the shower. I felt deflated, depressed and dejected.’...

...But commanders allegedly refused to believe something like this would happen at the barracks and told him: ‘It must have been your fault. You must have provoked them.’...

....;‘One of the reasons people commit sexual assault is to put people in their place, to drive them out,’ Mic Hunter, author of ‘Honor Betrayed: Sexual Abuse in America’s Military’, said. ‘Sexual assault isn’t about sex, it’s about violence.’

Mr Hunter and others say the end of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ military’s policy could help the military address the issue.

June 15, 2012 2:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh well, if Mic Hunter says homosexual rape is not homosexual, who am I to argue?

I should have checked with him first

I guess that barbershop program is just one little part of our trillion dollar deficit

that Barry sure knows how to stimulate the economy, does he not?

I know he's now already held twice as many fundraisers for his re-election as Bush did in total

but now that's he's back from his big NYC party with the editor of Vogue and Sarah Jessica parker and Mariah Carey, I'm sure he's back to the serious business of getting America back to work

let's see what he's up to:

"WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will host a reception at the White House to observe Gay Pride Month on Friday.

Obama's recent declaration of support for gay marriage was celebrated as a key endorsement among gay groups.

After the reception, the first family leaves for Chicago, where they will spend the night.

Also on Friday, Obama will have lunch at a local Washington restaurant with winners of a campaign contest."

OK, so lunch with a campaign contest winner

then, a big gay party in the Rose Garden

then, off to the Windy City for some fun overnight"

gee, I guess he's not that busy

again, you have to wonder why he's working so hard to win the Presidential election in November

he could be President now if he wanted to be

we could use one

June 15, 2012 2:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"oh well, if Mic Hunter says homosexual rape is not homosexual, who am I to argue?

I should have checked with him first"

too funny

these TTFers think if anyone in the world says something, we'll all just assume it must be true

this would be a good place to dump bad real estate

June 15, 2012 3:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess you missed the announcement, complete with a Daily Caller heckler, at the White House today.

Obama Administration To Stop Deporting Younger Undocumented Immigrants And Grant Work Permits

Go ahead, click on the link, read the article and try to comprehend it. It'll be good for you to learn some additional facts.

And besides, you really should get your head out of there sometimes so you can enjoy the view and the fresh air.

Still no source for your fake quote I see.

June 15, 2012 3:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually, I read that story

not that interesting

I've been out several times today but thanks for the concern

I see you still haven't denied that the substantive issues discussed here are true

who said what when is not important

what is important is:

that homosexual rapes of males in the military are up sharply

if you think that is false, let us know

that GLSEN tries to find ways to force school boards who reject their material to use it

if you think that is false, let us know

that an elementary school principal in Washington explained oral and anal sex to his students without parental permission

if you think that is false, let us know

that Barack Obama has had twice as many fundraisers for his re-election as George Bush did

if you think that is false, let us know

keep dodging

it helps to make our point

June 15, 2012 4:12 PM  
Anonymous Get out your Etch-a-Sketches! said...

Republicans Want Mitt Romney To Flip-Flop On Immigration — Again

In the wake of President Barack Obama's administration announcement that they will stop deporting and start granting work permits to young illegal immigrants, Republicans are urging Republican nominee Mitt Romney to soften his position on illegal immigration. Again.

Lionel Sosa, a former top adviser to Ronald Reagan on Hispanic outreach, told Business Insider Friday that Romney will need to "moderate his immigration position to win the election."

"He is going to have to moderate his position," Sosa said in a phone interview early Friday afternoon. "And he's going to have to do it sooner rather than later. He had to moderate his position to win the [Republican] nomination. Now he needs to moderate it to win the election...

Sosa said it was an "obvious political ploy" by President Barack Obama to encourage the Latino voting bloc to vote for him in the same droves as 2008. But he noted that it was a "brilliant political ploy."

In a 2007 "Meet the Press" interview, Romney said that he supported permanent residency or citizenship for the illegal immigrants currently in the U.S., as long as there wasn't a "special pathway" to citizenship — but he hardened into an immigration hawk during the Republican primaries. He especially hammered home the points in Republican debates, like one in November:

"But to say that we're going to say to the people who have come here illegally that now you're all going to get to stay or some large number are going to get to stay and become permanent residents of the United States, that will only encourage more people to do the same thing," Romney said.

"People respond to incentives. And if you can become a permanent resident of the United States by coming here illegally, you'll do so. What I want to do is bring people into this country legally, particularly those that have education and skill that allows us to compete globally."


But some Republicans, including former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, have recently urged Romney to reconsider that position.

"I would just have a different policy than what he has espoused," Barbour told reporters during a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor, according to USA Today. Bush said this week that he worried Romney had backed himself "into a box" on immigration during the primary.

A recent poll by NBC and Telemundo found Obama with a 34-point lead among Hispanic voters. It didn't poll on the DREAM Act or the candidates' immigration policies.

A Latino Decisions poll released last Friday found that 87 percent of Latino voters support Sen. Dick Durbin's version of the DREAM Act, which contains many of the same provisions as Obama's new policy directive.

June 15, 2012 4:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually, I'm probably to the left of Obama on immigration

my basic position is we should let as many as we can absorb in

and, obviously, if they are already here, we can easily absorb them- and may even need them

still, it's not a major issue in the campaign

Romney will indeed etch-a-sketch some compromise that will be more palatable

and he's already doing well in opinion polls despite his current position

by the time the election is held, it will be clear to everyone that, despite his faults, Romney is someone we can all work with and he will be able to unite Americans again

don't forget, he once led the most liberal state in the country

June 15, 2012 4:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, everybody remembers Romney led Massachusetts -- all the way to 47th place in job creation!!

WOO HOO!

June 15, 2012 5:29 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anonymous,

I realize your in the middle of a number of arguments, but I have a serious question.

It bothers me that you say I threatened to kill you. This seems hugely out-of-character for me.

You may be confusing me with someone else.

Can you provide me with a quote, a date, even an approximate time, so I can look into it?

Do me this favor.

rrjr

June 15, 2012 5:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert, I thought it was you but I could be wrong. Soory, but I've tried to search this site before and it's actually become quite a labyrith of threads over the years. The remark I recall was something like "anon makes me so angry, I feel like I want to kill him."

I actually considered it rhetoric at the time. I always thought you were one of the more benevolent souls that visits the blog. In the early days of this blog, there were some creepy people watching my house and posting comments to let me know that, which no one else would get. I never thought you were in on that activity though. My comments yesterday were just trying to get things riled up.

Have a good weekend.

And don't get too riled up.

June 15, 2012 6:43 PM  
Anonymous dream robot said...

"Presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney commented Friday on President Barack Obama's decision to end deportations of some young undocumented immigrants.

"I believe the status of young people who come here through no fault their own is an important matter to be considered and should be solved on a long-term basis so they know what their future would be in this country," Romney told reporters. "I think the action of the president today makes it more difficult to reach that long-term solution because an executive order is of course, a short-term matter and can be reversed by subsequent presidents."

Romney took the same moderate tack as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), expressing sympathy for undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children, but still disagreeing with the Obama administration's action.

"I'd like to see legislation that deals with this issue, and I happen to agree with Marco Rubio," Romney said. "If I'm president, we'll do our very best to have that kind of solution."

The policy change is a memo from the Department of Homeland Security to its agencies. Romney is correct that it could be overturned by a future president.

Romney has said he would consider supporting yet-to-be-introduced legislation from Rubio that deals with undocumented immigrants in a somewhat similar way to the president's announced policy. The Rubio "Dream Act" would allow undocumented young people to stay in the United States, but with no path to citizenship. The policy change from DHS would similarly grant reprieve from deportation, but not put those eligible in a special line for citizenship."

June 15, 2012 6:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""I'd like to see legislation that deals with this issue, and I happen to agree with Marco Rubio," Romney said. "If I'm president, we'll do our very best to have that kind of solution.""

latinodecisions.com reports Latino Support DREAM Act Alternatives

Durbin Proposal 87% support, 10% oppose
Rubio Proposal 49% support, 46% oppose

examiner.com reports: Republicans need to wake up on immigration

"President Obama issued an executive order today that implemented the spirit of the DREAM Act, blocked by Republicans in the U.S. Senate last year. The basics of the executive order are as follows: if an immigrant,

- came to the United States below the age of 16,
- has lived here continuously for 5 years and lives here now,
- has graduated high school or obtained a GED,
- is 30 years old or younger,
- is free of a felony or major misdemeanor,
- and is currently enrolled in school

that immigrant will not be subject to deportation and may apply for a work permit to legally work in this country.

This policy stands in stark contrast to Mitt Romney's policy of "self deportation" where he'd require employers to vigorously ascertain the status of their employees, essentially making life hellishly difficult on illegal immigrants looking for work."

Mitt Romney and the Republicans need to wake up on the issue of immigration reform.

Electorally-speaking, the party will doom itself to permanent minority status if it continues to alienate latino voters (which are growing as a percentage of the voting population). And from a moral and policy perspective, the party should adopt an approach to immigration reform similar to the DREAM Act and President Obama's executive order. As is often the case, the right thing to do also leads to successful political results.

And it just so happens that this is the conservative approach...

June 16, 2012 8:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A Google search of the TTF.org website for the words "kill" and "Anon" produced several hits, including this one posted JANUARY 14, 2011 8:45 AM , in which Anon accused "a TTFer," not Robert, of making a threat to kill him.

imagine that

a politician being "verbally" attacked

what's the world coming to?

blog posts?

does this guy imagine that nasty and threatening blog posts will stop if he resigns?

he must not get around much

I remember once a TTFer here said he wanted to kill me

I didn't build a fallout shelter

btw, you'll notice that the use of "verbal attack" is a metaphor for violence that the liberals are hypocritically wailing about


Perhaps Anon's severe homophobia has caused him to reassign his memory of that alleged threat to the out gay man on this blog.

June 16, 2012 9:35 AM  
Anonymous how long can some people exist? said...

it's possible that it wasn't Robert who said it but I still think my memory's correct

as I said, I didn't worry about it, considering it to be rhetoric

I actually think Robert has been a generally civil fellow, at least in cyberspace, my only knowledge of him

is Robert the only "out" homosexual posting?

at this point it's possible since so few post here at all

I scared most of the TTFers away with my searing logical arguments, beyond dispute

they got tired of being embarassed, which Robert doesn't mind at all

in any case, one's sexual preferences don't sway my opinions about any other aspect of a person

I think homosexuality is a negative but there are worse things

btw, those so excited that Obama is trying to overrule Congress on immigration with a shameless political move stating he will no longer enforce the law should remember he said the same about marijuana laws a couple of years ago

it seems his answers are always blowing in the wind

Romney's right, fiat is the wrong way to settle this

the whims of a dictator are always subject to change

June 16, 2012 10:10 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Thanks.

rrjr

June 16, 2012 1:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Anon was lying about that, too.

June 16, 2012 1:50 PM  
Anonymous Tweet Tweet said...

Vagina remarks, silencing of Michigan lawmakers draws firestorm online

Best Tweet:

William K. Wolfrum@Wolfrum

Breaking: Michigan GOP bans usage of the word "Virginia" because it's a gateway word.
14 JUN 12

June 16, 2012 3:38 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

In the interest of full disclosure about end-of-the-school-year commentary, I had a parent attack me by email today for being too easy of an assessor, and not teaching his child anything. In the past five years this is the second parent who has implied this.

Things like this really get me down, but I should remember that they are far out-weighed by those who feel like I've been of assisstance in some fashion.

I posted the portion of the letter which I quoted, not as self-aggrandizement, but as encouragement to my lgbt friends and allies that we really do make a difference, just by being ourselves, by being good people, by setting an example. I think the example of kindness and fairness make so much more of a difference than all the clever argument we can dream up. People really do change their hearts and minds, over time.

rrjr

June 16, 2012 4:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Straight Man Pretends to be Gay for a Year (VIDEO)

Timothy Kurek, in an effort to see the LGBT community outside of his anti-gay religious view, decided to undertake a novel experiment: he pretended to be gay for a year.

Speaking to MSNBC this week, Kurek revealed this idea came about after a friend of his was rejected by her family when she came out as a lesbian. This prompted Kurek to want to understand what it is like to be gay in America, and so, telling everyone around him including friends and family that he was gay, he began to live his life as a gay American.

Did the experience change the Nashville resident? Yes. He tells MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts that the experience “altered” his faith and “challenged” his beliefs. Kurek even went so far as to apologize for his former view that being gay was sinful and wrong.

As you will see in the interview below, Kurek is careful to draw a distinction between his own, relatively limited experiences, and what it is truly like to be LGBT, but Kurek hopes that his forthcoming book on his experiences and the news about his experiment may encourage other religious people with anti-gay views to consider alternative viewpoints.

You can learn more about this and Kurek’s “gay year” in the MSNBC video below:

VIDEO: Coming Out, The Experiment

Some have praised Kurek for his daring to step outside of his community and attempting to empathize in this way, and then encouraging other religious people to do the same. A more cynical view would be that this is merely a headline-grabbing stunt to sell a new book. A more measured approach might be to suggest that it could be both...

June 16, 2012 5:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Battered by a once-again slackening economic recovery, Democrats of late have publicly betrayed their concerns about President Obama. That criticism reached a fever pitch Thursday, when Rep. Mark Critz, D-Pa., issued an unsolicited rebuke to the White House moments after the president's high-profile economic speech ended.

"President Obama and others in Washington need to realize that we cannot spend our way to prosperity and that to in order to create jobs," Critz, who represents much of the late John Murtha's district around the Western Pennsylvania town of Johnstown. "We need to address unfair trade deals that ship jobs overseas and enact policies that allow us to take advantage of our vast natural resources such as coal and natural gas in a safe and responsible manner which will lower energy costs and create jobs and approving the Keystone XL Pipeline would be a good first step."

Ouch. Not even a passing criticism of Republicans or any momentary mention of protecting popular safety net programs like Social Security or Medicare. Just a head-on, unqualified attack at his own party's leader.

June 16, 2012 7:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Not even a passing criticism of Republicans or any momentary mention of protecting popular safety net programs like Social Security or Medicare. "

You apparently don't know Mark Critz's positions very well.

Critz, who had been a staffer for Rep. John Murtha, was elected to Murtha's former seat during the 2010 midterms when half of the blue-dogs in Congress lost their seats. Critz was endorsed by most unions as well as former President Clinton.

Once elected, Rep. Critz voted for bipartisan legislation that reduces the deficit by $2 trillion and supports allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire while keeping tax cuts targeting the middle class. Critz voted against the Republican Balanced Budget Amendment [H J Res 2, Vote 858, November 18, 2011].

Why?

“We need to grow our economy and create jobs and that means reducing our debt and deficit in a responsible manner," said Critz. "I opposed the Republican Balanced Budget Amendment because it would lead to deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and it would cut education and high-tech research that creates jobs. Unfortunately, Jason Altmire sided with the Tea Party and voted for it.”

Critz defeated Altmire in the 2010 Democratic Primary and went on to defeat Keith Rothfus, who had Tea Party support, in the general election.

"Rep. Mark Critz is still hammering the Medicare drum. Once in a blue moon can a politician find a single issue that can carry him or her through both a primary and a general election with equal efficacy. But after Keith Rothfus announced he’d be speaking at a Tea Party Express event in Pittsburgh Thursday evening, Critz went on the attack.

The Tea Party Express has received criticism from Democrats on a host of issues. But the relevant accusation this week is that the group wants to end Medicare. Democrats say the their official support of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget demonstrates their lack of support for senior citizens. They’re using it to tag Keith Rothfus, an Allegheny County attorney and Critz’s GOP opponent.

“By rallying with the Tea Party Express, Keith Rothfus confirms that he supports ending Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher program, costing seniors an additional $6,000 a year in out of pocket-expenses while at the same time cutting taxes for millionaires like himself,” Critz’s campaign spokesman Mike Mikus said in a press release.

He also used Medicare as a wedge issue in his primary, via the Balanced Budget Amendment. Rep. Jason Altmire supported the BBA, which Critz effectively cast as a threat to the entitlement program.

Rothfus tries to muddy the issue, but Critz is totally correct about this. The RyanCare plan that all House Republicans support ends guaranteed benefits in Medicare, which is the crux of the program."

June 16, 2012 9:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"President Obama must be defeated in the coming election," Roberto Unger, a longtime professor at Harvard Law School who taught Obama, said on May 22. "He has failed to advance the progressive cause in the United States."

Unger said that Obama must lose the election in order for "the voice of democratic prophecy to speak once again in American life."

He acknowledged that if a Republican wins the presidency, "there will be a cost ... in judicial and administrative appointments." But he said that "the risk of military adventurism" would be no worse under a Republican than under Obama, and that "the Democratic Party proposes no new direction."

"Give the bond markets what they want, bail out the reckless so long as they are also rich, use fiscal and monetary stimulus to make up for the absence of any consequential broadening of economic and educational opportunity, sweeten the pill of disempowerment with a touch of tax fairness, even though the effect of any such tax reform is sure to be modest," he said. "This is less a project than it is an abdication."

June 16, 2012 9:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A professor at Harvard?

What a snob!

June 16, 2012 11:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

socialist too, apparently

taught Obama everything he knows

probably just jealous

kind of like Iran's mad that al Quaeda thought of 9/11 first

June 17, 2012 6:56 AM  
Anonymous Oops, where's that Etch-a-Sketch? said...

Romney, Who Has Two Harvard Degrees, Says Obama Spent ‘Too Much Time At Harvard’

..."Unfortunately for Romney, his attack is undermined by the fact that the GOP presidential hopeful has twice as many degrees from Harvard as Obama...."

June 17, 2012 10:04 AM  
Anonymous Anon lies by omission too said...

What else did Harvard Professor Unger say about Obama?

"The professor went on to list his complaints:

"His policy is financial confidence and food stamps."

"He has spent trillions of dollars to rescue the moneyed interests and left workers and homeowners to their own devices."

"He has delivered the politics of democracy to the rule of money."

"He has disguised his surrender with an empty appeal to tax justice."

"He has reduced justice to charity."

"He has subordinated the broadening of economic and educational opportunity to the important but secondary issue of access to health care in the mistaken belief that he would be spared a fight."

"He has evoked a politics of handholding, but no one changes the world without a struggle."

Unger also criticized the nation's current economic policies in a recent YouTube video called "Beyond Stimulus.""


Professor Unger is complaining President Obama is not progressive enough. Anyone who thinks that means he supports Mr. Romney for President should click on this link to Professor Robert Mangabeira Unger's "Beyond Obama" video, listen to the first 40 seconds of it, and hear him say:

"The Republican Party imagines that if owning government became less costly and restrictive, with lower taxes and fewer regulations, economic growth would make up for inequality. If this party had its way, inequality would become even greater than it is now, and threaten freedom and prosperity even more than it now does."

June 17, 2012 11:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

..."Unfortunately for Romney, his attack is undermined by the fact that the GOP presidential hopeful has twice as many degrees from Harvard as Obama...."

sounds like you don't understand Romney's point

it didn't literally mean that any actual time is too much just that a person like Obama was brainwashed by liberal professors without questioning

I guy like Obama, who can't think for himself, should have spent some time at Dartmouth, Stanford or, egad, Liberty, and not so much at Harvard

he never heard both sides of the story

"Anon lies by omission too said..."

an old TTF rhetorical strategy

if you quote from an article or interview, you must paste in entirety or you've LIED

when I'm making a point, I pull the quotes that enforce that point

you're free to do the same

"What else did Harvard Professor Unger say about Obama?

Professor Unger is complaining President Obama is not progressive enough."

yes, he is

and I wasn't implying otherwise

the point is Obama is getting it from all sides

"Anyone who thinks that means he supports Mr. Romney for President"

well, I don't

but he specifically says it would be preferable to let Romney win than letting Obama have a second term

this is what happens when your base is a coalition of lunatics

they are impossible to please because they're crazy and you don't get re-elected

"Some have praised Kurek for his daring to step outside of his community and attempting to empathize in this way, and then encouraging other religious people to do the same. A more cynical view would be that this is merely a headline-grabbing stunt to sell a new book."

I think the book sounds interesting and I might find time to read it

I don't know why writing an interesting book wouldn't be a good stunt to sell it

I wish there were more writers trying that "stunt"

as far as encouraging TTFers to read it, I think they already know the gay world pretty well, however

they could use a little understanding of the other side

check out Kevin Roos' fascinating book, "The Unlikely Disciple"

Roos was an undergrad journalism major at Brown and when it came time when most kids his age were spending a semester abroad, he decided to try a culture he knew nothing about and enrolled at Liberty University

he didn't convert but he sure overcame a lot of his own misconceptions

I've never been a big fan of Falwell and Liberty, being from another Christian body myself, but I feel a lot more positively about them now, after reading the book

you guys might particularly find interesting the story about when a gay friend of Roos' came to visit for the weekend and wound up having a great time playing basketball with the other guys in his dorm

June 17, 2012 12:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Frat-boy conservatism in the Rose Garden

What a buffoon.

Daily Caller “reporter” Neil Munro heckled President Obama near the end of his remarks announcing an executive order stopping the deportation of young people whose parents brought them here illegally. Munro shouted, “Why do you favor foreigners over American workers?” while reportedly identifying himself as an immigrant. He describes himself as “born Irish, then became a Cold War bridegroom” on his Twitter profile. If only Obama had proposed a green-card dating service instead of his Dream Act workaround.

The visibly angry president smacked down Munro. “The next time I prefer you let me finish my statements before you ask a question,” Obama said. He then walked out of the Rose Garden without taking any queries from reporters.

I’m not one to revere the imperial presidency, but it’s unbelievable how wingnuts treat this man with such unprecedented and bullying disrespect: from Rep. Joe Wilson screaming “You lie” during Obama’s 2009 speech to a joint session of Congress, to Speaker John Boehner denying him his choice of dates for another congressional address (for the first time in history) last fall, to Donald Trump’s persistent, humiliating demands for the president to show him his papers (with no rebuke from ally Mitt Romney). And for right-wingers who insist Democrats are too quick to cry racism: Really, what else explains this constant, in-your-face (literally) contempt for a president?

Certainly they disrespected President Clinton, too, but never with such in-person abuse. Clinton was impeached after a political witch hunt and treated poorly even by the so-called liberal media, but he was never stalked into the Rose Garden or congressional chambers and heckled, as Obama has been.

Conservatism has always been associated with deference to authority, but lately it’s only for authority they respect. The Romney campaign has been glorying in this new form of frat-boy conservatism, first sending campaign supporters to heckle Obama adviser David Axelrod during a press conference, and yesterday sending its bus to circle and disrupt an Obama event, honking its horn. It reminds me of the famous “Brooks Brothers riots” in Miami during December 2000, when supporters of George W. Bush threatened to physically prevent county officials from recounting votes in that heavily Democratic stronghold. Of course, it also harks back to Romney himself in prep school, tackling a gay classmate and cutting off his long blond hair while he cried and asked for help.

June 17, 2012 3:08 PM  
Anonymous itytee89 said...

"The visibly angry president smacked down Munro. “The next time I prefer you let me finish my statements before you ask a question,” Obama said. He then walked out of the Rose Garden without taking any queries from reporters."

oooh!

what a smackdown!

"I’m not one to revere the imperial presidency,"

that's true

in order to be infallible to lunatics, not any President will do

it would have to be a liberal socialist

"but it’s unbelievable how wingnuts"

that's a code name the lunatics have for people who don't agree with Karl Marx

"treat this man with such unprecedented and bullying disrespect"

and now we have the first president who considers themself a victim

the first gay President is the first bullied President

the poor dear....

June 17, 2012 9:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Clinton was impeached after a political witch hunt"

I seem to recall he was impeached after having oral sex with a young intern in the Oval Offfice and then lying about it to a special prosecutor

anyone else recall that?

"and treated poorly even by the so-called liberal media,"

what, did they "bully" the most powerful man in the world?

"but he was never stalked into the Rose Garden or congressional chambers and heckled, as Obama has been"

uh, when you are followed every moment by an entourage, hire a plane to bring reporters with you, publicize your schedule in the paper, go on TV every chance you get, et al

how could anyone "stalk" you?

June 18, 2012 4:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh no, Mr Bill

they're bullying and stalking Romney too:

"TROY, Ohio — Protesters shouted throughout Mitt Romney's campaign appearance in Ohio with House Speaker John Boehner.

Romney on Sunday gave an abbreviated campaign speech from the bed of a pickup truck in Boehner's home district. A small but noisy group of protestors shouted throughout his speech, which lasted about six minutes. The protesters shouted, "Romney go home!""

let's hope no one throws a shoe at Obama

then, he'll be bullied as bad as Bush

June 18, 2012 6:28 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I spent some time at one of those three aforementioned institutions; doe that mean I can think for myself?

I too enjoyed Kevin Roos's book, though I think it made me a little less sympathetic.

June 18, 2012 2:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, you can think for yourself even if you went to Harvard

I was just thinking how Obama might have broadened his horizons

he hasn't had a lot of intellectual growth since leaving school

you must have had a positive view of Liberty before reading the book

I had a negative one

June 18, 2012 4:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home