Thursday, December 19, 2013

PFOX Sues MoCo ... Again

It's just like the old days, PFOX complaining about stuff, claiming to be discriminated against. As far as I can tell, they are now complaining about things that happened nearly two years ago.

Yesterday's Gazette:
A Virginia nonprofit advocating for “ex-gays” has filed a discrimination complaint with the federal departments of Justice and Education against Montgomery County.

The group — called Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, or PFOX — contends that [ school Superintendent Joshua ] Starr made denigrating comments at a public meeting that hurt students. The group also said county public schools stopped a flier distribution program in middle and high schools, denying them access to students in a move reminiscent of the “1950’s Jim Crow South.”

Montgomery County officials have declined to discuss the details of the case, saying they don’t comment on pending litigation.

However, school district spokesman Dana Tofig said in an email that the county still lets fliers be distributed under the newest policy, even if the superintendent objects to the message.

PFOX bills itself as a group that advocates for “ex-gays,” or people who change their sexual orientation, something gay and lesbian advocates say is essentially impossible. Virginia nonprofit asks federal agencies to investigate Montgomery school system
That last sentence is a little misleading. It is true that "gay and lesbian advocates" say that it is essentially impossible for people to change their sexual orientation, but it is also true that psychologists, psychiatrists, and other physicians say that it is essentially impossible.

PFOX represents a fictional population.

PFOX is a sad group, that is, if it is a "group" at all. It might just be Regina Griggs. Poor lady has a gay son and just can't accept it. She is sure he will stop being gay one of these days.
In the complaint, Regina Griggs of PFOX accused the school system of changing its policy “in order to prevent ex-gays from participating” in distributing the flyers, and compared the actions by MCPS to “the 1950’s Jim Crow South.”

The Gazette was not able to interview Griggs. She did not respond to messages sent to her email and Twitter account, and a number listed on PFOX’s website was not working.

The group says it is not a therapeutic or counseling organization practicing “conversion therapy,” the largely derided practice that claimed to be able to turn gay people straight. But on its website, the group offers advice on selecting therapists to help try to change sexual orientation.

The largest group which espoused that theory, Exodus, shut down earlier this year, apologizing for “years of undue suffering and judgment” that it had caused.

Medical experts have rejected the idea of homosexuality as being abnormal. According to the American Psychological Association, “several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding.”
Yeah, that's about it.

PFOX is going to waste more taxpayer money, suing our county for the umpteenth time. They got a temporary restraining order once, other than that they never win, but money that could be going to something useful goes to lawyers instead.

70 Comments:

Anonymous clear skin said...

"It is true that "gay and lesbian advocates" say that it is essentially impossible for people to change their sexual orientation, but it is also true that psychologists, psychiatrists, and other physicians say that it is essentially impossible."

yes, but those professionals are acting as advocates, as there is no empirical evidence that supports such a stupid statement

there are also "psychologists, psychiatrists, and other physicians" that say that it is possible

as was demonstrated in an article I posted yesterday, objective scientific research on this topic is currently impossible

any researcher who dares to conduct a study that contradicts the gay agenda, any publication that prints it, any peer review panel that signs off on it, will face a harassment and smear campaign akin to the type Scientology conducts against its critics

yesterday, we witnessed someone who simply stated his religious objection and was removed from his position after his employer received not well veiled threats from gay advocacy organizations

the goal of these groups is that anyone who contradicts their agenda should not be able to find gainful employment

and MCPS regards these groups as "experts" rather than "advocates"

this is blatant discrimination like when MCPS passed out material to teachers saying that Quakers and Unitarians are positive and tolerant churches while Southern Baptists and Catholics aren't

MCPS needs to become advocates for the kids instead of the teachers' unions and leftist lunatics

then, the suits will end

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) weighed in on the controversy surrounding the name of Washington, D.C.'s professional football team, saying the team should change it's name from the Washington "Redskins."

Reid told The Hill that Dan Snyder, the team's owner, "is so short-sighted on this.”

“We live in a society where you can’t denigrate a race of people," Reid said. "And that’s what that is. I mean you can’t have the Washington Blackskins. I think it’s so short-sighted.”

Snyder has repeatedly defended use of the name, saying in October the traditional songs and cheers that invoke the name mattered to him "as a child, and I know it matters to every other Redskins fan in the D.C. area and across the nation."

Reid isn't the first politician to weigh in on the Washington football team's name. In May, 10 members of Congress urged Snyder and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to change the name, and in October, President Barack Obama said he would "think about changing" the name.

"I don't know whether our attachment to a particular name should override the real legitimate concerns that people have about these things," Obama told the AP.

Earth to Harry: polls show the majority of American Indians don't consider "Redskins" to be a derogatory term

December 19, 2013 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Paranoia Querulans said...

The clinical form of litigious paranoia presents uniform characteristic features which are recognized in every civilized community. The basic emotion is vanity, but added to that is a strong element both of acquisitiveness and avarice. Moreover the subjects are, as regards character, persistent, opinionative and stubborn. When these qualities are superadded to a mind of the paranoiac type, which as has been pointed out, is more influenced by the passions or emotions than by ordinary rational considerations, it can readily be appreciated that the subjects are capable of creating difficulties and anxieties which sooner or later may lead to their forcible seclusion in the interests of social order.
It is important to observe that the rights such people lay claim to or the wrongs they complain of may not necessarily be imaginary. But, whether imaginary or real, the statement of their case is always made to rest upon some foundation of fact, and is moreover presented, if not with ability, at any rate with forensic skill and plausibility. As the litigants are persons of one idea, and only capable of seeing one side of the case - their own - and as they are actuated by convictions which preclude feelings of delicacy or diffidence, they ultimately succeed in obtaining a hearing in a court of law under circumstances which would have discouraged any normal individual. Once in the law courts their doom is sealed. Neither the loss of the case nor the payment of heavy expenses have any effect in disheartening the litigant, who carries his suit from court to court until the methods of legal appeal are exhausted. The suit may be raised again and again on some side issue, or some different legal action may be initiated. In spite of the alienation of the sympathy of his relations and the advice of his friends and lawyers the paranoiac continues his futile litigation in the firm belief that he is only defending himself from fraud or seeking to regain his just rights. After exhausting his means and perhaps those of his family and finding himself unable to continue to litigate to the same advantage as formerly, delusions of persecution begin to establish themselves. He accuses the judges of corruption, the lawyers of being in the pay of his enemies and imagines the existence of a conspiracy to prevent him from obtaining justice. One of two things usually happens at this stage. Though well versed in legal procedure he may one day lose self-control and resort to threats of violence. He is then probably arrested and may on examination be found insane and committed to an asylum. Another not uncommon result is that finding himself non-suited in a court of law he commits a technical assault upon, it may be, some high legal functionary, or on some person in a prominent social position, with the object of securing an opportunity of directing public attention to his grievances. The only result is, as in the former instance, his medical certification and incarceration.

December 19, 2013 11:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So do you think the Mayor of NY's wife is a "fake"?

December 19, 2013 11:23 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Jim said "It is true that "gay and lesbian advocates" say that it is essentially impossible for people to change their sexual orientation, but it is also true that psychologists, psychiatrists, and other physicians say that it is essentially impossible."

Bad anonymous said "yes, but those professionals are acting as advocates, as there is no empirical evidence that supports such a stupid statement".

Nonsense. People have been struggling to convert gays to straights for decades and there's never been a single verifiable example of it happening. There are tests to verify change claims but no "exgay" is willing to undergo them because they are all lying. One of the foundations of "exgay" "therapy" is to tell clients from the start there is no such thing as a gay person, they are really heterosexual and to change they need to believe they are heterosexual - clients are told to lie about their sexual orientation right from the start.

The major mental health organizations have no dog in this race, they're just reporting what the science shows - it is essentially impossible for a person to change same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions.

Bad anonymous said "there are also "psychologists, psychiatrists, and other physicians" that say that it is possible".

They are a miniscule percentage of psychologists, psychiatrists, and physicians. That group is composed entirely of religious people who have prejudged that gayness is a wrongdoing and must be changed. Virtually no one without an anti-gay agenda thinks its possible to change sexual orientation.

Bad anonymous said "as was demonstrated in an article I posted yesterday, objective scientific research on this topic is currently impossible".

Your article was a joke. The Regnerus study contained virtually no data on children raised by same sex couples. The children with poor outcomes were all from mixed orientation marriages where a gay or lesbian married a heterosexual opposite sex partner. All the children in the study were from broken opposite sex marriages where one partner had a same sex affair.

Both Regnerus and the author of your article dishonestly conflated the children of those relationships with children raised by same sex couples. Of course the Regnerus study was blasted, Regnerus made claims about same sex couples when he had no data to support those claims - his conclusions were all based on a logical fallacy.

December 19, 2013 12:29 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The study was funded by the anti-gay Witherspoon institute who told Regnerus their expectations of the study results well ahead of time and even provided Regnersus with a Witherspoon consultant to help manipulate the data to generate the forgone conclusions. They even told Regnerus at the start to hurry up because they wanted to use the study to oppose marriage equality in an upcoming supreme court case.

The study was rushed into peer review before it was even completed and reviewers who asked to see the data weren't allowed to. In an obvious conflict of interest some of the reviewers were on Regnerus' team when he designed the study. An independent audit criticized the publishing journal for overlooking serious flaws and the publisher’s own admission that he was enticed to publish it, at least partly, by the opportunity to raise his journal’s relatively low Impact Factor.

The Regnerus study didn't get a huge volume of withering criticism because the scientific community was biased or unfair, it got that criticism because it was rife with fatal flaws and the data in no way supported the conclusions that anti-gays have drawn that the children of same sex couples have worse outcomes than the children of heterosexual couples. There is no remotely comparably flawed study showing the children of same sex couples do just as well, if not better than, the children of heterosexuals. If there were, it would have been similarly torn to shreds with hundreds of scholars objecting to its publishing. Even Regnerus himself in moments of candor when he's pushed sometimes admits that his study cannot support the claims that he makes that gay parenting results in worse outcomes in children — only two kids in his study were actually raised by gay parents for their entire childhoods.

December 19, 2013 12:30 PM  
Anonymous do it to light bulbs said...

Palin get the last word:

Sarah Palin believes the attacks on "Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson's pro-family comments is a threat to freedom of speech.

The 67-year-old duck hunter made headlines when GQ published an interview in which he discussed morality and sin, and juxtaposed homosexuality with bestiality.

After the quotes were published, GLAAD spoke out against Robertson's comments, calling them vile and misinformed.

Responding to GLAAD, A&E ultimately suspended him from "Duck Dynasty" with an indefinite hiatus.

People all over the country are coming out in defense of Robertson, like Palin, who believes he is being persecuted for merely practicing his First Amendment right.

something of interest to TTFers:

"NEW YORK (AP) — Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw magazine, has died in New York after a long illness.

Attorney Charles C. DeStefano (deh-STEHF'-eh-noh) says Goldstein died early Thursday at a hospice in Brooklyn.

The bird-flipping Goldstein helped break down legal barriers against pornography and raged against organized religion and anything that even suggested good taste."

December 19, 2013 12:53 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"Sarah Palin believes the attacks on "Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson's pro-family comments is a threat to freedom of speech. ".

Being criticized isn't an attack on your freedom of speech. You have a right to freedom of speech, you don't have a right to freedom from criticism although the right wingers constantly whine like they do.

December 19, 2013 1:47 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Phil Robertson's anti-gay comments aren't the only part of his interview with GQ causing controversy.

The 67-year-old "Duck Dynasty" star was suspended by A&E Wednesday for calling homosexuality sinful — and putting gay people in same category as terrorists. While those quotes quickly went viral, it wasn't his only brow-raising statement in the interview; he also implied that African Americans were happier living under Jim Crow laws.

"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once," the reality star said of growing up in pre-Civil-Rights-era Louisiana. "Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' — not a word!"

Robertson continued, "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

Needless to say, that hasn't gone over well either. A spokesperson for the NAACP shared a copy of the letter that they, along with the Human Rights Campaign, sent to "Duck Dynasty" network A&E. In addition to asking for the network to "denounce and repudiate Robertson's comments," they demanded that Robertson "apologizes for his vitriolic comments."

"We want to be clear why Phil Robertson's remarks are not just dangerous but also inaccurate," the letter stated, in part. "Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow. What he didn't see were lynching and beatings of black men and women for attempting to vote or simply walking down the street."

Noting that the remarks "go beyond being outlandishly inaccurate and offensive" and are actually "dangerous and revisionist, appealing to those in our society who wish to repeat patterns of discrimination," the letter said Robertson's "words show an unbridled lack of respect for African Americans and LGBT people, and the ongoing challenges members of our communities continue to experience on a daily basis."

December 19, 2013 3:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Hip Hip Hooray! The march of progress never stops.

The New Mexico Supreme court has ruled that the ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional and gays and lesbians must be allowed to marry.

December 19, 2013 3:50 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And of course all these court decisions in favour of marriage provide presedence for future court decisions in favour of marriage. The movement towards justice is snowballing.

December 19, 2013 4:58 PM  
Anonymous smithereens said...

"Nonsense. People have been struggling to convert gays to straights for decades and there's never been a single verifiable example of it happening."

to begin with, not having an example of something happening is not empirical proof that it's impossible

that's simply a logical fallacy

further, there is no real way to have such proof anyway and any example of such is quickly met with a line of circular argumentation from gay advocates

let's say you have someone who was once a homosexual and now has no same sex attraction at all

the lunatics would simply say the person was never gay to begin with

how would it be possible to prove otherwise?

let's say a person has worked with a therapist and has reached a point where he can have a healthy relationship with women

oh, the lunatics say he was always bi

there's really no way any of this could ever be proven and yet gay advocates act as if science has proven their case

"The major mental health organizations have no dog in this race, they're just reporting what the science shows - it is essentially impossible for a person to change same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions."

science doesn't show that

in the seventies, at a time when psychologists believed nothing of the sort, their professional association was bullied into changing its position

since, any professional who doesn't support the gay agenda is methodically excluded from the profession and marginalized

younger ones, if they haven't been brainwashed, are discouraged from the field

science is unfortunately very political and those who have survived do indeed have a dog in the fight

"They are a miniscule percentage of psychologists, psychiatrists, and physicians."

in the late 70s, most professionals didn't support the gay agenda

what has happened is political and not based on empirical evidence

"Your article was a joke. Both Regnerus and the author of your article dishonestly conflated the children of those relationships with children raised by same sex couples."

the author of the article I posted made no such claim, as you would have known had you read the atricle

"Of course the Regnerus study was blasted, Regnerus made claims about same sex couples when he had no data to support those claims -"

of course, anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda must be attacked to the fullest extent possible

anyone wonder why it was not just enough to disagree with the study?

why was all the rest necessary?

as an intimidation to other researchers, obviously

"his conclusions were all based on a logical fallacy."

kind of like the assertion that science has "proved" gays can't change sexual preference

December 20, 2013 2:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


"Being criticized isn't an attack on your freedom of speech."

really, how about when gay advocacy organizations threaten the employers of people who hold a biblical view of homosexuality if they don't fire them?

"he also implied that African Americans were happier living under Jim Crow laws."

he didn't "imply" anything

he related his personal experience, and there is no reason to doubt him:

""I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once," the reality star said of growing up in pre-Civil-Rights-era Louisiana. "Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' — not a word!"

Robertson continued, "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.""

sounds to me like he was expressing admiration for the black people he worked with

"Needless to say, that hasn't gone over well either. A spokesperson for the NAACP"

yeah, well, some people have a career to protect

""We want to be clear why Phil Robertson's remarks are not just dangerous but also inaccurate," the letter stated"

dangerous?

how?

inaccurate?

he only said what he saw, he didn't claim to have seen everything

December 20, 2013 2:22 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Poor anonymous, peddling so fast.

December 20, 2013 6:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

poor Robert

so insane, and yet, never anything to say

December 20, 2013 6:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The simple fact is Daddy Duck has every right to express his homophobic and racist beliefs.

Other Americans have the same right to express their opinions about his stated opinions and I'm sure our Anonymous troll would agree, Daddy Duck's A&E employer has every right to fire him for expressing different beliefs than his employer.

Personally, I prefer the Pope's attitude to Daddy Duck's attitude on both issues. As a Cardinal, Pope Francis supported civil unions for gay couples in Argentina who wish to spend their lives together and worked tirelessly to support poor oppressed minorities throughout his career.

December 20, 2013 8:20 AM  
Anonymous on the border said...

Phil Robertson didn't express any racist views.

As for his comments about homosexuality, we are coming to a crossroads.

When this whole gay thing started, we all agreed to tolerate homosexuality. Now, gay groups want society to endorse their lifestyle.

We all agreed that it was OK for you to say gay was normal as long as you allow us to say homosexuality is immoral.

It appears homosexuals are not willing to co-exist.

This is similar to last summer when homosexuals thought they could put Chik-Fil_A out of business if the owner wouldn't renounce his belief that marriage is between two genders.

Didn't work out that way.

Similarly, now a top-rated television show is threatened because its star believes homosexuality is incompatible with his religious beliefs.

Yes, A&E is within their right to cancel the show but they didn't want to do it. They were pressured by gay advocacy groups.

The funny thing is that whenever we talk about whether discrimination against gays should be banned, invariably TTFers start saying "well, religious discrimination is banned"

Apparently not, if someone can be fired for stating that his religion thinks homosexuality is immoral.

Gay advocates should think twice about saying either it's us or them. If they aren't willing to tolerate people who hold traditional views of sexual morality, it won't end well for them.

December 20, 2013 8:54 AM  
Anonymous skeedaddle said...

"so insane, and yet, never anything to say"

this is a good point

crazy people are usually very creative

what's going on with Robert?

December 20, 2013 8:56 AM  
Anonymous ain't A&E said...

"For a few hours, it looked like Americans would quietly accept the suspension of popular “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson for his unfiltered opinions about sin, sex, gays and blacks in a magazine interview.

But then, as if on cue, hundreds of thousands of fans of the openly Christian, duck-hunting businessman took to social networks and started their backlash.

As of Thursday night, more than 7.1 million people “liked” the “Stand With Phil Robertson” Facebook page, while about the same number had clicked their support for another Facebook page called “Boycott A&E Until Phil Robertson Is Put Back On Duck Dynasty.” There was even flak on the Web page of the gay advocacy group that demanded his firing.

The family itself is backing Mr. Robertson and implied Thursday evening that the show may be canceled, or at a minimum moved off the A&E Network unless he can return.

“We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm,” the Robertsons wrote on their website, duckcommander.com.

“We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of ‘Duck Dynasty.’ Again, thank you for your continued support of our family,” they concluded.

Republican politicians, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, spoke in defense of Mr. Robertson, and traditional values groups added their voices to the cultural moment.

“Don’t apologize for what the Bible calls a sin. HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY to stand with Phil,” said one Facebook poster, using one of Mr. Robertson’s pet phrases.

Paraphrasing Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians on sin, Mr. Robertson said, “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty,” A&E executives said in a statement Wednesday. “His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”

Mr. Robertson also issued a statement, referencing his sinful past and how his “mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.”"

So, you can't be on A&E unless your "personal views reflect" the views of A&E?

They should be out of business pretty soon unless they rethink their stated policy.

December 20, 2013 9:07 AM  
Anonymous lunatic fringe gay advocates are puerile fascists said...

The suspension of Phil Robertson from A&E’s Duck Dynasty is outrageous in a nation that values freedom, according to social critic and openly gay, dissident feminist Camille Paglia.

“I speak with authority here, because I was openly gay before the ‘Stonewall rebellion,’ when it cost you something to be so. And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech,” Paglia, a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, said on Laura Ingraham’s radio show Thursday.

“In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as well as they have the right to support homosexuality — as I one hundred percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right of religious freedom there,” she added.

Robertson has been suspended from Duck Dynasty due to comments he made to GQ that have been deemed “anti-gay.” According to Paglia, the culture has become too politically correct.

“To express yourself in a magazine in an interview — this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic Party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades,” Paglia said. “This is the whole legacy of free speech 1960’s that have been lost by my own party.”

Paglia went on to point out that while she is an atheist she respects religion and has been frustrated by the intolerance of gay activists.

“I think that this intolerance by gay activists toward the full spectrum of human beliefs is a sign of immaturity, juvenility,” Paglia said. “This is not the mark of a true intellectual life. This is why there is no cultural life now in the U.S. Why nothing is of interest coming from the major media in terms of cultural criticism. Why the graduates of the Ivy League with their A, A, A+ grades are complete cultural illiterates, etc. is because they are not being educated in any way to give respect to opposing view points.”

“There is a dialogue going on human civilization, for heaven sakes. It’s not just this monologue coming from fanatics who have displaced the religious beliefs of their parents into a political movement,” she added. “And that is what happened to feminism, and that is what happened to gay activism, a fanaticism.”

December 20, 2013 9:17 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Phil in a 2010 quote says lgbt people are murderers. If I said similar things in public about anyone, I would be fired in a flash; who wouldn't?

I suspect Phil has confused wealth and fame with license. Affluenza?

December 20, 2013 9:27 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I wonder if that's why anonymous doesn't use any identifiers? Phil spoke publicly and under his own name. No one has that privilege.

Janis said "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

December 20, 2013 9:30 AM  
Anonymous I hear a hee haw said...

"Phil in a 2010 quote says lgbt people are murderers."

Really? And no one but you has brought that up. Let's see the quote, Robo. When you quote someone, that's not the time to get creative.

"If I said similar things in public about anyone, I would be fired in a flash; who wouldn't?"

How about if you said eating pork is immoral and leads to alcoholism?

Would you be fired for that?

"I suspect Phil has confused wealth and fame with license."

Actually, it's sounds like he's always held this view. It's just that, now that he's famous, people are asking what his view is.

"Affluenza?"

What an ass you are.

December 20, 2013 9:48 AM  
Anonymous continued catastrophe said...

"Nearly three months after its launch and as millions of Americans log on to shop for health plans, HealthCare.gov has still had serious security vulnerabilities, according to documents and testimony obtained by ABC News.

There have been “two high findings” of risk – the most serious level of concern – in testing over the past few weeks, the top Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) cybersecurity official told the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday in a private transcribed interview.

It’s a “vulnerability in the system,” CMS chief information security officer Teresa Fryer told the committee of one of the issues. “They shut the module down, so this functionality is currently shut down.”

The exact description of the issue was redacted from the transcript so as not to further compromise security, a committee official told ABC News."

"The Obama administration on Thursday night significantly relaxed the rules of the federal health-care law for millions of consumers, saying they can buy bare-bones plans or entirely avoid a requirement that most Americans have health coverage.

The surprise announcement, days before the Dec. 23 deadline for people to choose plans that will begin Jan. 1, triggered an immediate backlash from the health insurance industry and raised fairness questions about a law intended to promote affordable and comprehensive coverage on a widespread basis.

The change, prompted by a group of Democratic senators, will allow consumers with a canceled health plan to claim a “hardship exemption.”

The ability to get an exemption means that the administration is freeing these people from one of the central features of the law: a requirement that most Americans have health insurance as of Jan. 1 or risk a fine. The exemption gives them the choice of having no insurance or of buying skimpy “catastrophic” coverage."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/12/19/cnn_obamacare_is_causing_americans_to_lose_access_to_their_doctors_face_higher_costs.html

December 20, 2013 10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

States Cite Surge in Obamacare Sign-Ups Ahead of First Deadline

"States running their own Obamacare insurance exchanges are reporting a significant surge in sign-ups just four days before the first major enrollment deadline.

The increase has ranged from 30 percent to 40 percent in the past few weeks, according to state officials who briefed reporters Wednesday. Monday is the last day to sign up for a plan that will guarantee health coverage effective Jan. 1.

California, which has one of the most successful programs, averaged 15,000 enrollments a day last week, up from an average 7,000 a day the week before, state officials said. In all of November, 80,000 Californians picked a plan; in the first week of December, 50,000 signed up.

“We are all still in the first inning of a nine-inning game,” Covered California executive director Peter Lee said. “Friends are telling friends; family are telling family. … We are quite confident that as we go into the next half of enrollment that we will build momentum.”

In Kentucky, enrollments are up 40 percent since Thanksgiving, straining the state’s exchange and forcing administrators to hire dozens of extra call-center workers and application processors. “We are seeing about 3,000 people a day approved for Medicaid or a [qualified health plan],” Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange executive director Carrie Banahan said. “We started out a few weeks ago at about a thousand per day.”

More than 92,000 people have gotten coverage so far.

In New York, phones at marketplace call centers are ringing off the hook, averaging between 1,200 to 1,500 calls per hour, officials say. Roughly 4,500 people are enrolling in coverage each day, state Department of Health counsel Lisa Sbrana said.

In the past week alone, they’ve seen a 34 percent increase in people signing up.

“We’re really happy,” Sbrana said. “We’re seeing a good mix of enrollees across age groups.”

The uptick in demand has also been seen in Connecticut, where 47,000 people have enrolled through the exchange since October and they’re now adding an average 1,400 people a day.

“One area things are not going as well for us is the call center,” Access Health Connecticut CEO Kevin Counihan said. “We didn’t staff up fast enough for the calls” before the Dec. 23 deadline.

Fourteen states plus the District of Columbia operate their own online insurance exchanges under the Affordable Care Act. Some states have been less successful with enrollments through the program than others. Marketplace websites in Maryland, Oregon, Minnesota and Hawaii, for example, have been plagued with technical problems similar to those that have hampered the federal HealthCare.gov, stunting enrollment.

“We’ve had some challenges,” Washington Health Benefit Exchange CEO Richard Onizuka said. “Our system was out most of the first week of December.”"

December 20, 2013 11:19 AM  
Anonymous nothing happen' here, move on said...

"States running their own Obamacare insurance exchanges are reporting a significant surge in sign-ups just four days before the first major enrollment deadline."

so what?

for some reason, liberals think it's a big story if people whose insurance was cancelled sign up for new insurance

what else would you expect?

December 20, 2013 11:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""Phil in a 2010 quote says lgbt people are murderers."

Really? And no one but you has brought that up. Let's see the quote, Robo. When you quote someone, that's not the time to get creative."


Here's the quote, quite a few of them in fact:

"Further evidence of "Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson's homophobia has come to light in the wake of his controversial GQ interview.

TMZ posted a video Thursday of Robertson unleashing an anti-gay sermon on a crowd at Pennsylvania's Berean Bible Church's Wild Game Supper in 2010. In the video, the Duck Commander king can be seen dressed in camouflage, thumping a Bible, talking about sexual deviants and the lack of morality in America.

"First they say, 'There is no God. Get him out of your mind,'" he said in a rambling speech. "Then they bow down to birds, animals and reptiles, and each other. And the first thing you see coming out of them is gross sexual immorality. They will dishonor their bodies with one another, degrade each other. Uh, is that going on in the United States of America? Look around. God's not there... And boy is there some immorality going on around here. Does it get worse?"

"Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions," Robertson continued. "They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil. That's what you have 235 years, roughly, after your forefathers founded the country. So what are you gonna do Pennsylvania? Just run with them? You're doing to die. Don't forget that."

In GQ, he uttered similar sentiments when he said homosexuality is a sin and likened it to bestiality. Still, he insists that as a Christian he does not judge.

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell," Robertson told the magazine. "That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

After public outcry, A&E suspended Robertson "indefinitely" from the reality series due to his comments about the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) community.

The controversy has led to many people, from celebrities like Sarah Palin to social media users, choosing sides and taking to Twitter and Facebook to support or lash out at Robertson."

December 20, 2013 11:29 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Well bad anonymous, your response to me certainly did blow but there sure weren't any smithereens.

I said "Nonsense. People have been struggling to convert gays to straights for decades and there's never been a single verifiable example of it happening."

Bad anonymous said "to begin with, not having an example of something happening is not empirical proof that it's impossible that's simply a logical fallacy".

True to a degree, absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. However, when people have searched to extremes for such evidence and not been able to find it that's pretty strong evidence that its not possible, or at the very least extremely rare. One could make the same statement you did about conversion "therapy" about bigfoot but extremely few scientists would agree that bigfoot is just as likely to exist as not despite the absence of evidence for it.

Bad anonymous said "further, there is no real way to have such proof anyway and any example of such is quickly met with a line of circular argumentation from gay advocates let's say you have someone who was once a homosexual and now has no same sex attraction at all the lunatics would simply say the person was never gay to begin with how would it be possible to prove otherwise?"

False. Penile plethysmographs and no-lie MRIs can verify a gay person's claim to now be heterosexual. No one who's claimed to have changed orientation has ever been willing to put their claim to the test - more compelling (albeit circumstancial) evidence that no one has changed orientation.

Bad anonymous said "let's say a person has worked with a therapist and has reached a point where he can have a healthy relationship with women oh, the lunatics say he was always bi".
First, there's no reason to believe his claims that he's having sex with women, or if he is that he isn't fantasizing about men while doing it. Second, once again his claims can be proven with scientific testing and once again all "exgays" refuse to attempt to prove their claims BECAUSE THEY'RE LYING.

I said "The major mental health organizations have no dog in this race, they're just reporting what the science shows - it is essentially impossible for a person to change same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions."

Bad anonymous said "science doesn't show that".

Of course it does. Schidloe and Schroeder proved that and the "success rate" for "reparative" "therapy" (assuming Spitzer's study did represent successes and he's now said it didn't) is optimistically estimated at .004%.

December 20, 2013 12:25 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of 'reparative therapy' as a treatment to change ones sexual orientation."American Psychiatric Association fact sheet, 1994-SEP

"...[reparative therapy] " can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation." American Academy of Pediatrics, 1993.

"...scientific evidence does not show that conversion therapy works." American Psychological Association, 1994.

And every other major mental and physical health organization has said that conversion "therapy' does not work and is potentially harmful.

Bad anonymous said "in the seventies, at a time when psychologists believed nothing of the sort, their professional association was bullied into changing its position".
Nonsense. It is impossible for a tiny group of people to force a major professional organization with the protection of law enforcement to change its mind. If it were possible it is inconceivable that in the forty years since, the organization hasn't tried to rectify the injustice and every other major mental and physical health organization would have also decided gayness is not an illness and is in no need of a cure. Further, anti-gay christian organizations (which have far greater numbers and influence than the gay community) have been attempting to bully the professional organizations into reclassifying gayness as an illness ever since and failed completely - that wouldn't be the case if it was possible to bully the American Pyschological Association into taking unscientific positions.

The fact is that there never was any evidence supporting the idea that gayness was a mental illness, the APA just took the traditional stance by default. Starting with Evelyn Hooker in the 1950's there was a growing body of scientific research that showed gays were indistinguishable from heterosexuals in terms of mental health. THAT is why the position on gayness was changed. Subsequent research througout the seventies and eighties further verified this fact and further research started to taper off in the 90's as it became increasingly obvious that gayness could in no scientific way be considered an illness and in need of change.

Bad anonymous said "since, any professional who doesn't support the gay agenda is methodically excluded from the profession and marginalized".

Nonsense. The major mental and physical health organizations aren't beholden to the gay community, they go where the science takes them. If any "professional" has been excluded from the profession and marginalized its because they aren't basing their positions on science but rather basing them on prejudice - you know, the prejudice that comes from the bible which tells these people IN ADVANCE that their "science" must show gayness is an illness in need of a cure.

December 20, 2013 12:27 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Your article was a joke. Both Regnerus and the author of your article dishonestly conflated the children of those relationships with children raised by same sex couples."

Bad anonymous said "the author of the article I posted made no such claim, as you would have known had you read the atricle".

The author of your article most certainly did make that claim which you'd know if you had read the article. I quote:

"Science Research last year, caused a firestorm in the scientific community. Unlike most previous studies, Regnerus found that children of parents who had experienced a same-sex relationship fared worse than children of heterosexual parents on measures of social, emotional, and psychological adjustment as well as educational attainment, employment history, need for public assistance, substance abuse, and criminal justice system involvement...Suppose Regnerus had conducted an identical study, with the same methodological flaws, that had produced results consistent with previous studies, finding no differences between the children of gay or lesbian ("lesbigay") versus heterosexual parents.".

The first sentence was technically correct although dishonest through ommission in that it neglected to say those children were from mixed orientation heterosexual marriages. The second statement intentionally and strongly implies the Regnerus study found those aforementioned negative results in the children of lesbian and gay parents. That's the same false conclusion Regnerus put in his study and the same lie that the anti-gay community has been peddling as far and wide as they can. That is the point I took issue with and utterly demolished. The Regnerus didn't find any differences between the children raised by lesbian or gay parents and the children children raised by heterosexual parents - it didn't study children raised by lesbian or gay parents at all. What it actually studied was the children of people in broken heterosexual marriages where one partner had had one or more extramarital same sex affairs.

When pressed, Regnerus will sometimes admit that his study cannot support the claims that he makes that gay parenting results in worse outcomes in children — only two kids in his study were actually raised by gay parents for their entire childhoods.
If you agreed that the Regnerus study says nothing about children raised by lesbian or gay parents you wouldn't have posted that article in the first place as it didn't further your ant-gay anti-science agenda. Contrary to your claim in your post in this thread you posted that article precisely because the author dishonestly conflated the children of broken mixed orientation heterosexual marriages with children raised by same sex couples.

December 20, 2013 12:28 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Of course the Regnerus study was blasted, Regnerus made claims about same sex couples when he had no data to support those claims"

Bad anonymous said "of course, anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda must be attacked to the fullest extent possible anyone wonder why it was not just enough to disagree with the study?".
That's precisely what they did - DISAGREE WITH THE STUDY. The withering criticism was all based on the fact that the study was designed to generate the desired anti-gay conclusions, unprecidented in its fatal methodological errors, and conclusions were drawn that could never be supported by the data the study did generate.

Bad anonymous said "why was all the rest necessary? as an intimidation to other researchers, obviously".
If anti-gay christian "scientists" Regnerus weren't discouraged from producing this farce by its radical departure from accepted scientific and research principles no other anti-gay christian "scientist" that wants to generate a "study" to reach forgone anti-gay conclusions is going to be discouraged either. Have no fear, nothing will ever discourage your side from producing biased rhetoric dressed up in the facade of science to further the goal of oppressing innocent people.

December 20, 2013 12:29 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Regarding the Regnerus study bad anonymous said " it still is significant that the homosexuality of parents had a negative impact on the kids".

There's no way you could scientifically draw that conclusion from the Regnerus data.

We know from previous research the children from broken homes have worse outcomes than the children from intact stable homes. What the Regnerus study showed was that children in mixed orientation marriages (where one parent is gay or lesbian and the other opposite sex parent is heterosexual) don't fair well. The vast majority of LGBT people and members of the mental health profession would agree its a bad idea for a lesbian or gay person to enter into an opposite sex marriage and have children (as you always promote), the infinitely preferable alternative being that lesbian and gays enter into same sex marriages and raise children if they so choose.

Now that, my dear bad anonymous, is how you produce a devastating rebuke to an ignorant comment (yours).

December 20, 2013 12:31 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Phil Robertson being criticized isn't an attack on his freedom of speech."

Bad anonymous said "really, how about when gay advocacy organizations threaten the employers of people who hold a biblical view of homosexuality if they don't fire them?".

He has a right to freedom of speech, he doesn't have a right to a reality television show or freedom from consequences for his speech. Phil can go stand and scream on a street corner about how evil gays are and no one will stop him - that's freedom of speech.

Bad anonymous said "When this whole gay thing started, we all agreed to tolerate homosexuality. Now, gay groups want society to endorse their lifestyle.".

You don't represent all, or even a majority of Americans. You don't get to decide how gays and lesbians are treated under the law, the American constitution does which says all must be treated equally. LGBT people couldn't give a damn if you "endorse" or condemn our lives, we just want equal treatment under the law which doesn't force you to "endorse" anything.

Bad anonymous said "We all agreed that it was OK for you to say gay was normal as long as you allow us to say homosexuality is immoral.".

No one has ever stopped you from screaming from the rooftops how immoral you think gayness is. Stop pretending to be a victim.

Bad anonymous said "It appears homosexuals are not willing to co-exist.".

It is you who is not willing to co-exist. We agreed that its alright if heterosexuals are married, allowed to adopt, and are included in anti-discrimination laws. Anti-gay heterosexuals like you push a double standard and try to deny us those same rights.



December 20, 2013 12:42 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Robert said "Phil in a 2010 quote says lgbt people are murderers."

Bad anonymous said "Really? And no one but you has brought that up. Let's see the quote, Robo. When you quote someone, that's not the time to get creative.".

You could have googled it yourself bad anonymous. Unlike you did when you lied about the shutdown polls we don't refer to an article we read and say it said the opposite of what it really did.

Here you go:

"In the sermon, at about the 1:15 mark in the video, Robertson says that men who have sex with men, and women who have sex with women, will receive the "due penalty for their perversions." He goes on to say that they are full of "murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, god-haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.""

Now you go ahead and try to spin and defend that as we know you'll do.

December 20, 2013 1:00 PM  
Anonymous Good one! said...

Q: When Delegate Don Dwyer shows up to the General Assembly on Jan. 8, how will he serve?

A: In jail!

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/health/treatment/derelict-drunken-delegate-dwyer/article

December 20, 2013 1:36 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

WMAL loves this Phil story. I haven't heard anything about Obama in three days. He'll feel neglected.

In response, if I were to say that people who eat pork are sinners, I might well be fired.

Is anonymenza anything like affluenza? Involving a feeling of entitlement to do whatever one wants, and a sense of freedom from social consequences?

December 20, 2013 4:11 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

A federal judge in Utah has struck down that state's anti-marriage laws. Couples are applying for marriage licenses.

December 20, 2013 4:27 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"A federal judge in Utah has struck down that state's anti-marriage laws. Couples are applying for marriage licenses".

Woo hoo! I can't believe this happened in Utah so soon!

December 20, 2013 4:33 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

According to Joe Jervis, Utah has no waiting period, and the first equal marriage has already taken place. Hooray for Utah!

December 20, 2013 5:38 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

As for the PFOX "complaint" to the US Departments of Justice and Education, it may well be that MCPS would respond only if the federal government asked for a response. A request for an investigation can be denied as frivolous without the target having to expend any resources at all.

Anyone wanting some of the key links (including the AMA's) for authority for the absurdity of the reparative therapy argument can find them at http://blog.pflag.org/2012/04/press-release-advocacy-groups-to.html

December 20, 2013 11:52 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Thank you to PFLAG for keeping this information available.

December 21, 2013 1:17 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

The Dying Gaul is at the National Gallery until April. It's well worth the trip downtown to see.

December 21, 2013 7:46 AM  
Anonymous I like Italian said...

I'm thinking about going this weekend, Robo. Was there a line?

December 21, 2013 8:04 AM  
Anonymous I see a dunce said...

"Anyone wanting some of the key links (including the AMA's) for authority for the absurdity of the reparative therapy argument can find them at http://blog.pflag.org/2012/04/press-release-advocacy-groups-to.html"

David, you dunce, there can be no such authority about a subject impervious to research.

Sure, no one can change. Because that would prove they never were to begin with.

It's a circular argument, unlike the argument, for example, that homosexuality is unhealthy, which expands in every direction.

So why don't we level with kids about that?

December 21, 2013 8:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...Bubble dweller sees circular arguments all around...

Promiscuity is unhealthy and we do teach the kids that.

December 21, 2013 9:29 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "David, you dunce, there can be no such authority about a subject impervious to research.

Sure, no one can change. Because that would prove they never were to begin with.".

Nonsense. A subject can be tested with penile plethysmograph before "therapy" and after when they claim to have been converted and the truth will be obvious. That no single so called "ex-gay" has been willing to do this is very telling.

Bad anonymous said "It's a circular argument, unlike the argument, for example, that homosexuality is unhealthy, which expands in every direction.".

Nonsense. Gay sex in a monogamous relationships has zero health risks. Like the typical dishonest anti-gay you are you constantly try to conflate promiscuity with gayness - honest people aren't so stupid that they buy that B.S.

December 21, 2013 10:22 AM  
Anonymous I see homosexual consequence deniers said...

actually, honest people know that, not only are homosexuals more likely to be promiscuous, they are more to do so randomly and they are more to contract AIDS even is the encounter is not so random

there is no other explanation why AIDS remains disproportionately present in homosexual populations where homosexuality is socially tolerated; most well-known homosexuals concede this

do spare us, lazy Priya, quoting from studies by gay advocacy groups with predetermined results

not only that: the behavior that homosexuals engage in is painful, inceasing the likelihood of abusing drugs to mask the discomfort, and artificial, and likely to cause injury because it is not what the human body is DESIGNED for

December 21, 2013 11:03 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I actually haven't seen it here in DC yet. I saw the statue in Rome a couple of years ago, and was fascinated. I just saw a letter in this morning's post about it, and looked it up.

I may organize a weekend optional field trip for my kids to go and see it this winter. I do museum trips to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore, each year and I think the students get a lot out of it. Several years ago the NG had a special exhibit on the art of Pompeii and Stabiae, which was nice. The drawback is that the travel to out-of-town places is expensive. Some of the French and Spanish teachers donate money for students to go who may not have the full fee, which is incredibly generous of them.

December 21, 2013 11:53 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "actually, honest people know that, not only are homosexuals more likely to be promiscuous, they are more to do so randomly and they are more to contract AIDS even is the encounter is not so random".

Studies show those who are not allowed to marry are more promiscuous than those who are. If you were really concerned about promiscuity and AIDS you'd be demanding that gays be allowed to marry.

Once again, you're trying to conflate promiscuity and gayness. Gay sex in a monogamous relationship is 100% risk free. You go on and on about promiscuity but what puts the lie to your "concern", you oppose gay sex even in a risk free monogamous relationship. You aren't concerned with limiting STDs, you just want to be a bigot, the talk about STDs and promiscuity is just a facade to hide what you're really about - oppressing innocent gays regardless.

Bad anonymous said "there is no other explanation why AIDS remains disproportionately present in homosexual populations where homosexuality is socially tolerated; most well-known homosexuals concede this".

Again, STD rates in gays are lower in places where their unions are recognized. Your choice of the words "where gayness is socially tolerated" give away your dishonesty. The "toleration" of gayness in no way means there is no oppression or disdain for gays, every country that allows gays to marry still has high levels of discrimination and disdain for gays and demeans gays. There is a long ways between "tolerance" and absence of oppression. You constantly insist gayness shouldn't be accepted and even in the most tolerant places high percentages of people feel the same way and so there is no where that gays aren't subject to demonization and oppression and hence subject to the negative mental health outcomes associated with discrimination.

Bad anonymous said "do spare us, lazy Priya, quoting from studies by gay advocacy groups with predetermined results".

I never quoted from any gay advocacy groups, I quoted from members of the major mental and physical health organizations and those I quoted judged the evidence and then drew conclusions, unlike your rump anti-gay groups who because of their religious bias always prejudge that gayness must be considered wrong and in need of change.

Bad anonymous said "not only that: the behavior that homosexuals engage in is painful, inceasing the likelihood of abusing drugs to mask the discomfort, and artificial, and likely to cause injury because it is not what the human body is DESIGNED for".

Nonsense. Millions of gay men have same sex sex regularly and experience no pain or injuries. The human body is not designed, it was evolved and nature uses physical features in whatever way is possible. Gays and lesbians abuse drugs because of people like you demeaning them, oppressing them, and telling them they'll be eternally tortured for doing what comes naturally and harms no one - that's what your "tolerance" looks like. Anyone "tolerated" the way you "tolerate" gays is going to have issues with self-esteem due to your "tolerance".

You're like the schoolyard bully, assaulting your victim and then claiming the distress the victim feels is due to the victim being mentally ill. YOU are the problem, not gayness.

December 21, 2013 12:55 PM  
Anonymous The Gay Designer said...

It is interesting that anon thinks humans are designed to be heterosexuals. I can think of two obvious counterexamples.

One is the position of the clitoris, which is the organ mostly responsible for orgasm in women. Because of its position some distance from the vagina, only a small percentage of women can experience orgasm during penetrative intercourse -- the female body was "designed" for a different kind of stimulation.

The second example is the position of the prostate just inside the anus. Stimulation of the prostate can result in intense pleasure and orgasm for the male, and is easily achieved through anal penetration by something just the size of an erect penis.

If you are going to believe that the human body was "designed" by an intelligence then you would have to conclude that it was designed with homosexuality in mind, male and female.

December 21, 2013 3:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It looks like Phil Robertson's suspension from "Duck Dynasty" may be just for show. Entertainment Weekly learned that on Jan. 15, A&E will begin airing new episodes of the show that include scenes featuring the "Dynasty" patriarch.

"The network also hopes the media and fan furor will cool down over the holidays and that tensions over shooting future episodes can then be resolved," Entertainment Weekly reports. “There’s no negotiation to have; we’re doing the show,” an inside source told them.

December 21, 2013 11:14 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

To be honest, it bothers me that our employers have so much influence over what we say off the job, and that media condemn what people say. It hasn't been that long since openly lgbt people were fired from government, teaching and military jobs, and in the not-too-far-distant past the mainstream media ridiculed gay people as sick and criminal.

December 22, 2013 5:24 AM  
Anonymous Obama surrrenders said...

as many of you have no doubt heard, Barack Obama unilaterally repealed Obamacare this week

a few days before this all kicks in, he announced that if you had your insurance cancelled and don't think you can afford the new insurance, you aren't required to comply with the individual mandate

first unions were exempted, then large businesses, then small businesses, then insurance companies, now those who had insurance before that they paid for

the only ones left are those who didn't have insurance to begin with

the government will now fine them 95 dollars if they don't spend thousands for health insurance

wonder which they'll choose?

especially since the only power granted the government to collect this fine is to withhold it from their tax refund

and since many of them don't work and pay taxes, it's really non-applicable anyway

you wonder if the IRS will have the nerve to try and collect the fee anyway

the big question of the day is:

considering how many policies were cancelled and how few have signed up, a week from Wednesday, will we have more uninsured or less than last New Year's Day?

it might break even, considering the millions who are signing up for Medicare

but we probably won't get any answer from the White House for a while

just think, Obama could agreed to delay Obamacare a year back in October and we would never have had the shutdown

December 22, 2013 8:28 AM  
Anonymous the tea party is a bully said...

shut up, you stupid Tea Party back seat driver!!!

you people are a bunch of bullies, always using your superior intelligence to take advantage of those of us who might have had our mental facilities impaired by our brave experimentation in drug use

December 22, 2013 8:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The nation's largest Republican organization for LGBT Americans has reached out to Phil Robertson and the "Duck Dynasty" family, suggesting that they all get together for a "Moonshine Summit" to work out their differences.

Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director Gregory T. Angelo released a statement on Friday in response to the controversy over Robertson's suspension over anti-gay remarks.

“Let’s put an end to all of the fussing and feuding and talk about this like adults. Phil, you have your views and we have ours, but I think you’d be surprised how much we all have in common, and there’s no better gay folk out there to make that case than Log Cabin Republicans. We’re conservative, we’re guided by our faith, and we believe in freedom of speech. Most important, we are all children of God; that’s the most important thing we have in common. So in the spirit of the season, let’s get together — your family and ours — raise a glass, and work this out.”

December 22, 2013 10:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nice to see that there are rational gay advocacy groups out there

December 22, 2013 12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert.
I applaud you.

you are correct. Intolerance in all it's forms is not okay.



and to whomever the person was that was talking about sexual stimulation..... the g-spot is where it is at.

AND. clearly you achieve clitoral stimulation in just about every style I can think of....


as to the prostrate stuff, can't comment. other than UCK.

please.

that hole has an intended purpose and that is not it's intended purpose, sorry.

December 23, 2013 12:20 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

The comment about intolerance was irony, right?

December 23, 2013 6:56 AM  
Anonymous The Gay Designer said...

Let me venture to predict that you (if you are female) or your wife/girlfriend (if you are male) have never had a G-spot orgasm. It is rare to the point that the existence of the G-spot is considered unconfirmed.

The clitoris can be stimulated in a heterosexual coupling, but not by intercourse, usually. It is not "designed" to be stimulated by penile penetration. The vibrator turns out to be ideal.

And if your logic regarding the prostate is "uck" then you have lost the argument. "Uck" is a good explanation for your attitude toward gay people, it is not a good description of the human body or any of its parts.

December 23, 2013 7:36 AM  
Anonymous anon-deliuxe said...

not putting a lot of emphasis to responding the last few days but, just for clarification, the anon that said Robert is correct about intolerance is the usual anon

December 23, 2013 8:08 AM  
Anonymous anon-deluxe said...

oops!

that is, NOT the usual anon

Merry Christmas, kids!

December 23, 2013 9:26 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

IO Saturnalia!

December 23, 2013 10:17 AM  
Anonymous quackin' in a winner wonderland said...

don't go blaming Robert's mama

she tried

Sunday morning with the Ducks:

"I will not give or back off from my path."

So said a defiant Phil Robertson on Sunday, speaking to a Bible study group at his hometown church in West Monroe, La., and making his first public statements since being suspended by A&E for his remarks to GQ about homosexuals.

"I love all men and women," said the camouflage-clad Robertson, who granted the Daily Mail exclusive access to his Bible study talk. "I am a lover of humanity, not a hater."

Keep up with your favorite celebs in the pages of PEOPLE Magazine by subscribing now.

Robertson, 67, addressed the small class at White's Ferry Road Church for 45 minutes, defending his positions and quoting from the Bible days after likening homosexuality to bestiality.

"We murder each other, and we steal from one another, sex and immorality goes ballistic," he said. "All the diseases that just so happened to follow sexual mischief … boy there are some microbes running around now."

He continued: "Sexual sins are numerous and many. I have a few myself. So what is your safest course of action? If you're a man, find yourself a woman, marry them and keep your sex right there."

"Common sense says we are not going to procreate the human race unless we have a man and a woman," he told the class.

Robertson said that over the last 2000 years, "the sins are the same" and "humans haven't changed."

"We get high, we get drunk, we get laid, we steal and kill," he stated. "Has this changed at all from the time God burnt up whole cities because their every thought was evil?"

Robertson urged homosexuals to turn to Jesus, saying, "Jesus will take sins away, if you're a homosexual he'll take it away, if you're an adulterer, if you're a liar, what's the difference? If we lose our morality, we lose our country."

Robertson also defended his own intelligence, saying, "I am not uneducated. I have a degree from Louisiana Tech. But this week I have been called an ignoramus."

After his class, Robertson joined his congregation for a church service led by his eldest son, Pastor Alan, and everyone had a good laugh.

"Well, we've had quite a quiet week, shot some ducks, done some shopping, ignited a national controversy."

December 23, 2013 10:30 AM  
Anonymous Dangerous Heterosexuals said...

A 35-year-old man threw his three-year-old son from a 52-story Manhattan apartment on Sunday following a custody dispute with the boy’s mother, the AP reports.


According to police, the father, Dmitriy Kanarikov, had visiting rights that enabled him to see his child, but he was supposed to hand the boy over to the mother at a police precinct on Sunday.


Kanarikov was pronounced dead at the scene, while the son, Kirill Kanarikov, was later declared dead at a local hospital.


Read more: NYC: Father Kills Son and Himself During Custody Battle | TIME.com http://nation.time.com/2013/12/23/dad-throws-toddler-from-nyc-roof-jumps-himself/#ixzz2oJbMznpd

December 23, 2013 11:16 AM  
Anonymous Those sweet heterosexuals said...


While marriage proposal stories each have their own nuances, they are all pretty much the same. Justin Harrel of Oklahoma, however, definitely broke the mold when it came to how a man pops the question. Wanted in two different counties, Justin made sure that he would get down on one knee (in a manner of speaking) before being carted off to the big house.

According to Yahoo News,he asked the arresting officer for a bit more time because he had something more he wanted to do:

"I advised Justin that he was under arrest and directed him to turn around and place his hands behind his back," the officer wrote in his police report. "Justin said, 'Steve, let's talk about this. Give me five minutes.'"

When the officer took him into custody, Harrel explained that he was about to propose to his girlfriend. He asked if he could go ahead with the proposal.

s The officer allowed Harrel to complete the marriage proposal, and Harrel's girlfriend eventually said yes. Harrel then asked the officer to get the engagement ring from his coat pocket and give it to her.

The officer handed the ring to the girlfriend.

http://cheezburger.com/7965377536

December 23, 2013 11:59 AM  
Anonymous Peace on Earth, Goodwill to all said...

Apple CEO Tim Cook Gives Remarkable Speech on Gay Rights, Racism

"Tim Cook, Apple’s media-shy chief executive, made a rare public speech at the U.N. this week. Auburn University, Cook’s alma mater, posted his 13-minute talk on Saturday.

Cook made his comments after receiving an achievement award from the university. He talked of personally witnessing a cross burning during his youth, an event that “changed his life forever,” and went on to say, “Since these early days, I have seen and have experienced many types of discrimination and all of them were rooted in the fear of people that were different than the majority.”

Cook, 53, continued by describing the values he says he found in Apple and its founder Steve Jobs when he joined the company in the late 1990s. These include creating products accessible to the disabled and, later, backing national nondiscrimination legislation.

Cook went on to talk of gay rights, saying, “Now is the time to write these basic principles of human dignity into the book of law.” He also backed an immigration overhaul, adding of proposed reforms, “Do not do them because they are economically sound — although they are — do them because they are right and just.”

The statements are remarkable for the notoriously private Cook because they strongly imply personal experience with discrimination. In 2013, Out Magazine named Cook the most powerful LGBT person in the world."

December 24, 2013 12:56 PM  
Anonymous ho-ho-ho said...

WOW!!

what a selfless guy

he's broken his silence and come out in favor of special protection for himself above what is afforded people different than himself

what a spoiled brat

he'll find coal in his stocking tonight

December 24, 2013 2:29 PM  
Anonymous Merry Christmas Utah! said...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/utah-turns-higher-court-halt-gay-marriage-21320118

"A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that gay marriages can continue in Utah, denying a request from the state to halt same-sex weddings that have been occurring at a rapid rate since last week.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' rejection of Utah's request for an emergency stay marks yet another legal setback for the state. The same federal judge who ruled that Utah's same-sex marriage ban violates gay and lesbian couples' rights previously denied the state's request to halt the marriages...

...Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at Virginia's University of Richmond who has tracked legal battles for gay marriage, thinks Utah faces long odds to get their stay granted, considering two courts have already rejected it and marriages have been going on for days now.


"The longer this goes on, the less likely it becomes that any court is going to entertain a stay," Tobias said.

The appeals court ruling means county clerks can continue to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians. More than 700 gay couples have obtained marriage licenses since Friday, with most of the activity in Salt Lake City."


And then there were 18.

December 24, 2013 11:44 PM  
Anonymous We've come a long way! said...

"LONDON (AP) - His code breaking prowess helped the Allies outfox the Nazis, his theories laid the foundation for the computer age, and his work on artificial intelligence still informs the debate over whether machines can think.

But Alan Turing was gay, and 1950s Britain punished the mathematician's sexuality with a criminal conviction, intrusive surveillance and hormone treatment meant to extinguish his sex drive.

Now, nearly half a century after the war hero's suicide, Queen Elizabeth II has finally granted Turing a pardon.

"Turing was an exceptional man with a brilliant mind," Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said in a prepared statement released Tuesday. Describing Turing's treatment as unjust, Grayling said the code breaker "deserves to be remembered and recognized for his fantastic contribution to the war effort and his legacy to science."

The pardon has been a long time coming.

Turing's contributions to science spanned several disciplines, but he's perhaps best remembered as the architect of the effort to crack the Enigma code, the cypher used by Nazi Germany to secure its military communications. Turing's groundbreaking work - combined with the effort of cryptanalysts at Bletchley Park near Oxford and the capture of several Nazi code books - gave the Allies the edge across half the globe, helping them defeat the Italians in the Mediterranean, beat back the Germans in Africa and escape enemy submarines in the Atlantic.

"It could be argued and it has been argued that he shortened the war, and that possibly without him the Allies might not have won the war," said David Leavitt, the author of a book on Turing's life and work. "That's highly speculative, but I don't think his contribution can be underestimated. It was immense."

Even before the war, Turing was formulating ideas that would underpin modern computing, ideas which matured into a fascination with artificial intelligence and the notion that machines would someday challenge the minds of man. When the war ended, Turing went to work programing some of the world's first computers, drawing up - among other things - one of the earliest chess games.

Turing made no secret of his sexuality, and being gay could easily lead to prosecution in post-war Britain. In 1952, Turing was convicted of "gross indecency" over his relationship with another man, and he was stripped of his security clearance, subjected to monitoring by British authorities, and forced to take estrogen to neutralize his sex drive - a process described by some as chemical castration.

S. Barry Cooper, a University of Leeds mathematician who has written about Turing's work, said future generations would struggle to understand the code breaker's treatment.

"You take one of your greatest scientists, and you invade his body with hormones," he said in a telephone interview. "It was a national failure."

Depressed and angry, Turing committed suicide in 1954.

Turing's legacy was long obscured by secrecy - "Even his mother wasn't allowed to know what he'd done," Cooper said. But as his contribution to the war effort was gradually declassified, and personal computers began to deliver on Turing's promise of "universal machines," the injustice of his conviction became ever more glaring. Then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued an apology for Turing's treatment in 2009, but campaigners kept pressing for a formal pardon.

One of them, British lawmaker Iain Stewart, told The Associated Press he was delighted with the news that one had finally been granted.

"He helped preserve our liberty," Steward said in a telephone interview. "We owed it to him in recognition of what he did for the country - and indeed the free world - that his name should be cleared.""

December 25, 2013 8:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We hold it as an inviolable principle that racism must be opposed by all the means that humanity has at its disposal. Wherever it occurs it has the potential to result in a systematic and comprehensive denial of human rights to those who are discriminated against. This is because all racism is inherently a challenge to human rights, because it denies the view that every human being is a person of equal worth with any other, because it treats entire peoples as subhuman."

"No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite"
--Nelson Mandela

December 25, 2013 8:58 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Alan Turing has always been one of my heroes.

December 26, 2013 12:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home