The First “Gay Presidential Debate”…Nope, Not a Joke!
Oh lord…. this must be sheer heaven for the “Special Rights” crowd of the Gay Left. Their own debate! Wooooo hoooooo.
For the first time the leading candidates for the presidency will hold a televised debate devoted solely to LGBT issues. The one-hour event will be held on August 9 and broadcast on gay network LOGO at 9:00 pm ET (6:00 pm ET) and through live streaming video at LOGOonline.com.
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have confirmed they will participate. Several other Democratic candidates also may join the debate. The debate will be conducted with a live audience in Los Angeles. On the panel questioning the two Democrats will be Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese and singer Melissa Etheridge.
The debate was put together by LOGO and HRC. “In the 2008 presidential election, issues of concern to the LGBT community have already been at the forefront of the national conversation,” said Solmonese.
After all, how better to further advance the cause of self-victimization then to have all of the Democrats pander to you for one whole night? I can’t wait to watch it and see the endless pleas for gay people’s money flowing from the Dem candidates, especially Hillary whose husband codified two of the most anti-gay Federal mandates in our lifetime.
I would bet that Joe Solomonese and Melissa Etheridge (LOL!!!) will not ask any questions about Islamists condemning gays and lesbians to death, and Iran hanging gay youth. Betcha!
So, let the jokes begin on this self-created parody….
From PoliPundit: Edwards will have home-court advantage
From The Corner: L is Lesbian. G is Gay. B is Bisexual. T is transgender. What, pray tell, are the public policy aspects of bisexuality that require a debate at the presidential level? Oh, man, I hope there are some bisexual questions from the audience.
My addition: Why isn’t Senatress Lucy Grah-amnesty (R-SC) invited? She gave the best hissy fit the Senate had ever seen a couple weeks ago, after all.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
UPDATE (from Dan): Since I’m in LA, I have applied for press credentials to attend (having done so even before Bruce posted this piece). Let’s see if they’re open to having a gay conservative blogger attend. Even better, let’s see if they’ll have WiFi so I can blog it live.
102 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Bruce,
I am a conservative heterosexual Bush supporter who is pro gay rights.
Anyway, I am a fellow conservative blogger, and I am emailing other conservative bloggers to ask for their help.
If I already emailed you, my bad in advance.
Anyway, I would like it very much if you would go to http://www.bloggerschoiceawards.com/blogs/show/21020 and vote for me for best political blog and best overall blog as well, if you feel my blog is of a high quality. I really think I have a legitimate shot at winning. If you are open to spreading the word, that would be cool as well.
Thank you.
eric aka http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com
P.S. Please feel free to ask me anything so I can prove my human credentials. I am not a bot.
Comment by eric — July 10, 2007 @ 8:32 pm - July 10, 2007
Let me guess.
1) The Gay Left Establishment will see which candidate panders the most.
2) The Gay Left ‘droids here will announce that the event, with said pandering, is overwhelming proof of how much the Democrats “care” about “our community’s” issues. Notwithstanding the facts that:
(a) low taxes, free enterprise, and a strong defense of America are really pro-gay; and
(b) high taxes, socialized medicine, and caving in to the Islamists are all essentially anti-gay.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 10, 2007 @ 9:00 pm - July 10, 2007
I’m debating wether to recommend that Ron Paul request to appear. I think that would be very interesting, lol.
Comment by cowb0y — July 10, 2007 @ 9:59 pm - July 10, 2007
Wow. You people really hate the gays, don’t you?
Comment by Len — July 10, 2007 @ 10:27 pm - July 10, 2007
Humm, most of the questions should go something like…
As a gay individual, how will you as President help me and make my life trouble free….
As a transgender individual, how will you as President help me and make my life trouble free…
As a lesbian individual, how will you as President help me and make my life trouble free….
As we know the Democrats think we are all helpless and need big govenment to do most things for us.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 10, 2007 @ 10:32 pm - July 10, 2007
@Len: I don’t hate myself, no, but thanks for asking.
Q1: How will you protect the rights and liberties of all Americans?
Q2: Are there any other points you’d like to add to your answer to question 1?
Comment by cowb0y — July 10, 2007 @ 10:44 pm - July 10, 2007
First thought: it’s a massive fundraising pitch masquerading as a debate.
Comment by Jeremayakovka — July 10, 2007 @ 11:06 pm - July 10, 2007
Why do I anticipate this will set a new standard for political contortionists.
Comment by Shawmut — July 10, 2007 @ 11:12 pm - July 10, 2007
I can’t wait. This wil be fun to watch.
Comment by John in IL — July 11, 2007 @ 12:09 am - July 11, 2007
How can anyone not look at the way Democrats divide America into groups (black, hispanic, gay, female, athiests, etc) and preach that they are all ‘victims’ and not be repulsed?
And its so nice to see gay men who dont consider themselves victims.
Comment by Will — July 11, 2007 @ 5:48 am - July 11, 2007
“Why isn’t Senatress Lucy Grah-amnesty (R-SC) invited? She gave the best hissy fit the Senate had ever seen a couple weeks ago, after all.”
This is not the first time where you disagreed with someone’s politics and your response is to feminize their name and title and refer to them as “she” and deploy stock clichés such as “hissy fits”. Do you really consider this political analysis? It looks more like old style misogyny.
Comment by Brendan — July 11, 2007 @ 6:36 am - July 11, 2007
It looks more like old style misogyny.
What’s wrong with being bothered by someone who passes themselves off as a man and yet comes unglued like Aunt Flo(w) is visiting? Seems creepy enough to me.
And before you go off into your intolerant “intolerant” tirade, I’ve known transgendered guys who never flew off the handle like Grahamnesty did, so you can shove that arguement where it belongs.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 11, 2007 @ 6:45 am - July 11, 2007
“What’s wrong with being bothered by someone who passes themselves off as a man and yet comes unglued like Aunt Flo(w) is visiting? Seems creepy enough to me.”
Not surprisingly, you miss the point and indeed prove my point. Let’s assume for argument sake that we all agree Senator Graham became unhinged during the immigration debate, for you and GP, that automatically become feminiine behavior and that is predicated on assumptions of “feminine = irrationality” and yes there are misogynist assumptions implict in such thinking. This trope is not an isolated example, but fairly common on this blog.
As for “intolerant ‘intolerant’ tirade”, I have no idea what you mean.
Comment by Brendan — July 11, 2007 @ 7:50 am - July 11, 2007
I have to agree with Brendan here. Bruce, the Senator Graham comments, at the very least, border on misogyny. And I have seen this several times before. I respectfully request that in the future, if a man exhibits repulsive behavior, in your opinion, to not feminize their name. Anyway, it’s your blog, but as a regular reader and on and off poster I wanted to address this issue. Thanks.
Comment by Pat — July 11, 2007 @ 8:06 am - July 11, 2007
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Brendan, please sign up for the debate. You have all of the necessary credentials. Prone to indignant outrage over inconsequential, politically correct nonsense? Check. Devoid of even a rudimentary sense of humor? Check. Sufficiently egotistical to believe he is the self-appointed defender of an entire class of people, none of whom requested such a defense or were victimized in any way? Check. Obtuse enough to miss the hilarity of throwing a hissy fit to challenge the misogyny implicit in an accusation that a man threw a hissy fit. Check.
Comment by Sean A — July 11, 2007 @ 8:57 am - July 11, 2007
My new favorite commenter: Sean A !!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — July 11, 2007 @ 9:39 am - July 11, 2007
Beyond some of the language, this has gotten ugly very quickly. From reading over the past couple of weeks, I didn’t realize the blogger was anti-gay, what with the name of the blog and all. But his post this morning is, and I have no interest in homophobia. Bye.
Comment by Samantha — July 11, 2007 @ 10:31 am - July 11, 2007
Why isn´t Rosie O´Donnell on the panel? Maybe NBC would televise the debate.
Comment by Roberto — July 11, 2007 @ 10:52 am - July 11, 2007
Not sure what happened to my last post. Sorry, Bruce, I have to agree with Brendan. The Senator Graham comment, at the very least, bordered on being misogynist. When one takes behavior he finds objectionable and then feminizes the name, it has the appearance of demonizing women. Sean A, I got the “humor.” And frankly, I don’t care if women are offended or not. I’ll leave that up to any individual.
Bruce, I respectfully request that you avoid posting these borderline misogynist comments. Obviously, it’s your blog, and I know that I can choose to not participate in this blog any more, but I hope you would consider my request. Thanks.
Comment by Pat — July 11, 2007 @ 10:55 am - July 11, 2007
Samantha, do as you will. That’s what freedom is. Just know in your heart that your accusations here that GP is somehow homophobic, make no sense.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 11, 2007 @ 11:02 am - July 11, 2007
So the HRC is doing the debate. Ho-hum. The Muslim freaks who hang gays won’t be mentioned. A conservative gay voice should be included.
But then again, The Dems aren’t the only ones who perform panderfests (Justice Sunday anyone?).
Comment by Jimbo — July 11, 2007 @ 11:26 am - July 11, 2007
Three points:
1. If the Republican candidates held a debate at Jones U. or Liberty U.
to suck-up to…devoted solely to religious issues, the press would have a “hissy-fit”.2. This could be fun to watch. Their going to try and fill a whole hour on LGBT issues? I mean really, how many questions can you possibly ask on this topic?
3. I wonder, after the first tier candidates say the oppose Gay Marriage but support Civil Unions, which of the low tier candidates will break from the pack, come out of the closet, and admit they privately support Gay Marriage and now do so publicly. And then watch as the first tier candidates spin around and say they supported Gay Marriage all along.
Comment by sonicfrog — July 11, 2007 @ 12:12 pm - July 11, 2007
Here’s a thought for everyone on the board, regardless of political affiliation:
Why isn’t LOGO identifying itself as a part of CBS News? Are they afraid of a backlash or something? Why are they being so (pardon the expression) closeted about being identified as part of the MSM?
Not as if CBS has the high amount of viewership that, say, Fox News does.
And Dan, you are right – let’s see if they allow a gay conservative to have press credentials. And if they don’t – I say make a big stink.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 11, 2007 @ 12:52 pm - July 11, 2007
Really? How? I don’t see it. The intended target, yes. Women in general – where/how?
Perhaps it is your interpretation here, Pat, that is demonizing and degrading to women?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 11, 2007 @ 12:53 pm - July 11, 2007
“Really? How? I don’t see it. The intended target, yes. Women in general – where/how?”
Are you really obtuse? The feminization of the name was the intended and it is GP’s standard operating procedure. Never mind the irony of accusing someone of “hissy fits” from a person who experiences serious mental meltdown and blogs about it as if it were a national emergency every time his plane is 10 minutes late.
Comment by Brendan — July 11, 2007 @ 1:24 pm - July 11, 2007
It looks more like old style misogyny.
When you start your campaign to eradicate the use of “girlfriend”, “Miss Thang”, and “sister” in the gay community and condemn anyone who uses them as a “misogynist” who is insulting women, send us a flyer.
But until then, you go into my circular file of selective outrage, next to the Reverends Al and Jesse and their attacks on DJs for saying “nappy-headed ‘hos” while systematically ignoring the fact that rap and hip-hop songs that don’t are about as common as apples on pear trees.
“Misogynist” is like “racist”; nothing more than meaningless word bombs that the left throws when it’s losing an argument or when it wants to make white males cringe and roll over.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 11, 2007 @ 1:31 pm - July 11, 2007
No Brendan – but I’m starting to suspect you could be.
You (and now Pat I guess) want us to believe that insulting an individual by ascribing to him or her some perceived characteristics of their opposite gender, somehow equals, insulting their entire opposite gender.
That equation is obtuse, on your part. That equation is degrading, insulting, and demonizing to the opposite gender – on your part.
Stop insulting women right now, Brendan.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 11, 2007 @ 1:54 pm - July 11, 2007
Brendan-
Please avoid the psychoanalyzing of me. It is really dumb.
If you don’t like what you are reading here, there are 1.5 million other blogs that I’m sure you can surf.
First Amendment Rules!
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — July 11, 2007 @ 1:55 pm - July 11, 2007
The lefties are eating up this garbage. Talk about special rights. The comments here are really a hoot: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1864226/posts?page=1
Comment by David — July 11, 2007 @ 2:00 pm - July 11, 2007
#24:
It seems to me that if feminizing someone is a way of demonizing that individual -you’ve admitted that – then then only logical implication is that femininity is itself a “demon-like” attribute. And since femininity is an attribute of “Women in general”, it follows that women in general are being demonized.
This is becoming an increasingly common tactic of the right – they’re trying to do it to John Edwards, for example. I think it’s a sign of shrill desperation. It’s interesting that conservative gay men would use this tactic because part and parcel of the whole idea of portraying men as feminine is an underlying homohatred.
Comment by Ian S — July 11, 2007 @ 2:02 pm - July 11, 2007
“After all, how better to further advance the cause of self-victimization then to have all of the Democrats pander to you for one whole night?”
Interesting. Did you react so ferociously when the Blacks had their own special rights debate?
Comment by Rally — July 11, 2007 @ 2:18 pm - July 11, 2007
I see Ian has a psychology degree now, as well as Brendan. How convenient.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — July 11, 2007 @ 2:57 pm - July 11, 2007
It’s interesting that conservative gay men would use this tactic because part and parcel of the whole idea of portraying men as feminine is an underlying homohatred.
When you start your campaign to eradicate the use of “girlfriend”, “Miss Thang”, and “sister” in the gay community and condemn anyone who uses them as a “homohater” who is also insulting women, send us a flyer.
But until then, you go into my circular file of selective outrage, next to the Reverends Al and Jesse and their attacks on DJs for saying “nappy-headed ‘hos” while systematically ignoring the fact that rap and hip-hop songs that don’t are about as common as apples on pear trees.
“Homohater” is like “racist”; nothing more than meaningless word bombs that the left throws when it’s losing an argument or when it wants to make white males cringe and roll over.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 11, 2007 @ 3:00 pm - July 11, 2007
To me, this seems less a debate and more a forum, but either way I agree with Peter that Dan should make a stink if not granted entry.
BTW, CBS makes no attempts to keep it’s ownership of LOGO a secret. One of LOGO’s regular features, hourly I think, is a CBS-branded news clip. Where did you get such an idea Peter?
Comment by David — July 11, 2007 @ 3:05 pm - July 11, 2007
Not any more, sister. Catch up with the 21st century.
In the 21st century, an insult to someone’s manhood – by saying he characteristically fails to behave as a brave, secure or honorable man – is nothing more than that. An insult to that individual’s manhood. Since, in the 21st century, gay men CAN be (or ARE often known as being) brave, secure and honorable.
Only gay “professional victims” have homo-hatred on their minds so much that they manage to see it under every rock and tree. Just as only female “professional victims” – or if male, then male “closet misogynists” – have misogyny on their minds so much, that they manage to see it under every rock and tree.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 11, 2007 @ 3:19 pm - July 11, 2007
I find it necessary to correct my prior post. It turns out that CBS does not own LOGO. Logo is owned by MTV which is owned by VIACOM. CBS and VIACOM are separate companies controlled by Sumner Redstone, who is are far as I know still the chairman of both boards.
Comment by David — July 11, 2007 @ 3:23 pm - July 11, 2007
Sorry. The last line s/be …..is as for as I know…..
Comment by David — July 11, 2007 @ 3:25 pm - July 11, 2007
Oh excuse me, I did leave out something important.
What I said above, applies to America. And probably to Europe. Probably not to Third World countries. And definitely not to Islamic(ist) countries.
In other words: If you want a place stuck in the 20th century or earlier, where both homohatred and misogyny definitely ARE rampant, and are conflated with one another, such that one actually does underlie the other – go to an Islamic country.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 11, 2007 @ 3:27 pm - July 11, 2007
“Where did you get such an idea Peter?”
When was the last time you saw CBS touting their affiliation (via Viacom) with Logo? Everyone knows that Disney owns ABC, Buena Vista, Lifetime, et al. So why isn’t Viacom/CBS shouting their “diversity” from the rooftops?
I call it being ashamed of the gay sibling. Prove me wrong.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 11, 2007 @ 3:41 pm - July 11, 2007
Oh and slightly off-topic: will they get Rosie O’Donnell to moderate? Considering her off-color ranting on board a Gay Families cruise, she may be just the perfect candidate.
God knows nobody on the Dhimmicrat side is.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 11, 2007 @ 3:44 pm - July 11, 2007
#33:
So what you’re saying is a man with feminine characteristics can’t be brave, secure or honorable. And that’s not misogynistic?
Comment by Ian S — July 11, 2007 @ 3:53 pm - July 11, 2007
No, ILC is not saying that.
In fact, he’s saying the opposite.
Since, in the 21st century, gay men CAN be (or ARE often known as being) brave, secure and honorable.
Again, Ian, when you start your campaign to eradicate “sister”, “bitch”, “Miss Thang”, and “such a she” from the gay lexicon as being homohating and misogynistic, send us a flyer.
But until then, selective outrage.
Especially given your support of Democrats making statements that would actually qualify as such.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 11, 2007 @ 4:12 pm - July 11, 2007
Good grief Peter, the only reason I even know of a CBS/LOGO connection is because TIVO has figured out it lives in a gay household and auto-records something from LOGO nearly everyday. The few times I have actually watched it, that CBS newsbreak thing seems to be a feature during breaks. Thus, I am caused to believe you’re wrong about this.
Comment by David — July 11, 2007 @ 4:17 pm - July 11, 2007
The word for someone who fails to act bravely? Coward.
The word for someone who fails to act honorably? Shameful. Or vile. Or sleazy.
The word for someone who equates being a woman with cowardice and shame? Misogynist.
And the (obvious, to anyone with a brain) difference between the casual use of “girl” and “Miss Thing” in the gay community and your use of feminine insults is that the queens who use that language use it in both good and bad contexts. The day you start posting about how proud you are that your girl Georgina Bush is staying the course is the day we will think that maybe your use of such insults is not misogynistic.
Comment by JonboyDC — July 11, 2007 @ 4:28 pm - July 11, 2007
Think whatever you like, David. You still haven’t disproven my point.
In looking at the fact that CBS does a newsbreak on LOGO, it points out that the news media is being selectively biased in terms of its target audiences. But at the same time, Viacom is not being forthcoming with the fact that their reporting is being done from a slanted angle with a GLBT perspective. That is wrong.
If you think I’m off-base, then answer this question: would you say that it would be wrong if Fox News did a newsbreak on, say, the Military Channel or the Hallmark Channel? Would you be outraged?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 11, 2007 @ 4:30 pm - July 11, 2007
#40:
I think it just depends which side of his mouth you’re listening to. He clearly links “manhood” – not womanhood – with the terms “brave”, “secure” and “honorable.” I suppose women just throw hissy-fits.
Comment by Ian S — July 11, 2007 @ 4:35 pm - July 11, 2007
“I suppose women just throw hissy-fits.”
Pot, meet kettle.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 11, 2007 @ 4:39 pm - July 11, 2007
Peter, I think you are wrong. I fail to see any evidence Viacom is ashamed of LOGO. And again, LOGO is not part of CBS news as you suggested in post #23, although they do share parentage.
Your second paragraph in #42, I’m just not getting.
And finally, why in the world would I care if Fox did a newsbreak on MIl or HLMK?
Comment by David — July 11, 2007 @ 5:06 pm - July 11, 2007
David, the point I am trying to make is that rather than show CORRECTLY that Logo and CBS are related, the people who are putting together this GLBT pander-fest are trying to keep this fact swept under the rug.
Let me break it down for you: if you owned two networks and the small one was putting on a program, wouldn’t you think it would be a good idea to advertise it on the bigger, more-viewed network?
Of course – any sensible businessman would. If Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Sports Net was going to broadcast the Super Bowl, he’d have FNC doing as many promos as possible. My only question is why isn’t CBS doing the same?
And again I point to the only rational explanation – CBS doesn’t want its mainstream viewers to know that Logo exists as part of its Tiffany Network. I call it bias. You may think it’s a tempest in a teapot, and that is your opinion.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 11, 2007 @ 5:24 pm - July 11, 2007
I still don’t see it as you do, but I don’t feel strongly enough either way to continue talking about it.
In any case, I plan on watching this “debate” it just for the bullshit. It ought to be interesting. And I do hope Dan gets in.
Comment by David — July 11, 2007 @ 5:38 pm - July 11, 2007
#50 redux.
Sorry Peter, I should have said while I don’t agree, I do understand why you believe what you believe.
Comment by David — July 11, 2007 @ 5:53 pm - July 11, 2007
Almost no network does that. CBS doesn’t advertise MTV programming, or Comedy Central or Spike TV or any of the other television channels/networks owned by Viacom. It doesn’t mean they’re ashamed of those channels — it’s just not the model they use. (Similarly, two fashion magazines owned by the same publisher rarely run ads for each other).
Virtually the only big family of networks/channels that does some cross promotion is NBC/Universal, which very very occasionally runs ads for Bravo or SciFi or USA shows on NBC or any of its other channels. But they’re the exception. Accusing CBS for covering up its connection with Logo because it treats Logo exactly as it treats every other Viacom property is pretty ridiculous. It’s just not evidence of anything.
Comment by JonboyDC — July 11, 2007 @ 6:14 pm - July 11, 2007
Why is everyone claiming this is a “first” presidential gay debate?
“…a similar gay presidential candidates forum organized by HRC on July 15, 2003, at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center in Washington. Seven of the nine Democratic candidates seeking their party’s 2004 presidential nomination, including John Kerry and Howard Dean, participated in that event. ABC News senior correspondent Sam Donaldson served as moderator. A live audience of about 500 gay people attended the forum.”
–Washington Blade
Comment by just sayin' — July 11, 2007 @ 7:17 pm - July 11, 2007
Seriously, people need to get over it……people are gay. We’re here, we’re queer, and we’re getting married.
Comment by Paul — July 11, 2007 @ 9:36 pm - July 11, 2007
I really think Ron Paul (the best candidate on both sides IMO) should be on that debate.
Comment by Mark — July 11, 2007 @ 10:10 pm - July 11, 2007
#54:
Not if Repub Sen. David “Diapers” Vitter has anything to say about it! Ya really gotta love those family values conservatives. After what Vitter’s wife said a few years ago, I think Davie Diapers ought to be extra protective of his johnson. BTW, Carville just referred to the diaper story on CNN. Larry Flynt says he’s investigating some 20-25 hypocritical politicians. Gee, I wonder how many will turn out to be liberals. Heh-heh.
Comment by Ian S — July 12, 2007 @ 12:26 am - July 12, 2007
Girls can wear jeans and cut their hair shot, wear shirts and boots. Cause it’s ok to be a boy. But for a boy to dress like a girl is degrading. Because you think that being a girl is degrading.
That sums u why calling a male a feminine pronoun is considered an insult. Our society teaches that a man who has any association with femininity is inferior. Because women are inferior.
That basic misogyny explains the greater hostile towards gay men in our culture. Lesbians are trading up. Gay men are trading down.
Perhaps the Democratic candidates should discuss that.
Comment by Chase — July 12, 2007 @ 2:00 am - July 12, 2007
And what better reason to wallow in victimhood?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 12, 2007 @ 2:49 am - July 12, 2007
I really like Ron Paul’s stance on gay marriage (or marriage as a whole, for that matter) and I think he should be in this debate.
Comment by Eugene — July 12, 2007 @ 4:24 am - July 12, 2007
Holy cow. How reflexively libs respond to everything with cries of “victimhood!” If not for themselves then for someone else. Not even pavlov’s dogs performed this reliably.
But I will say, these displays of such willful victimhood make me all the more glad that I dont get “LOGO” (and what does LOGO stand for anyway? Is it supposed to be the gay FUBU? certainly sounds that way, which is tacky in and of itself.)
Comment by Will — July 12, 2007 @ 6:08 am - July 12, 2007
And how reflexively you right wing wankers respond to anyone standing up for themselves or for anyone else by accusing them of making victims of themselves. As if not commenting on your stupidity makes us strong and noble while telling you that you’re a moron makes us weak and pathetic.
If you want to be a misogynistic pig, go for it — say as many misogynistic things as you want. But if you deny that calling men women in an exclusively insulting way is misogyny, I’m going to point out that you’re full of shit. Just like I’ll tell you you’re full of shit if you declare that the earth is flat or that George Bush is intelligent.
And Logo is just a cable channel with a little original programing (some good, some bad) and a lot of queer movies. And I don’t think “Logo” is an acronym for anything. But of course, with absolutely no knowledge of what Logo is, you’ve decided that you don’t like it and further jumped to the conclusion that the name is something stupid in order to justify your baseless dislike.
Comment by JonboyDC — July 12, 2007 @ 7:59 am - July 12, 2007
Jonboy found himself a dictionary with only one page on it… (misogynistic)
Comment by GayPatriot — July 12, 2007 @ 8:44 am - July 12, 2007
<p>24, <i>Really? How? I don’t see it. The intended target, yes. Women in general – where/how?</p>
<p>Perhaps it is your interpretation here, Pat, that is demonizing and degrading to women?</i></p>
<p>ILC, I’m not sure how else to explain it. From this and a previous post, Bruce obviously disagreed with Senator Graham support of the immigration bill and was rather negative regarding that. But that wasn’t enough, he felt the need to feminize his name (because of a “hissy” fit?) at least twice. So while Graham was clearly the target of his disdain, but by feminizing his name as well, I question if he was demonizing women and/or implying their inferiority. I’d like to assume he wasn’t, but to me it clearly had the appearance, and in my view, it was totally inappropriate. I don’t see how my interpretation of this could be demonizing and degrading to women by calling this out, or even expressing victimhood on their behalf. But I will accept that my interpretation of Bruce’s comments could be wrong, and apparently only a couple of us felt his comments were inappropriate. </p>
<p>25 <i>When you start your campaign to eradicate the use of “girlfriend”, “Miss Thang”, and “sister” in the gay community and condemn anyone who uses them as a “misogynist” who is insulting women, send us a flyer.</i></p>
<p>NDT, personally I don’t use those terms, and not crazy about it. However, for those who do use those terms for someone else, my understanding is that they are not using it as part of criticism of their behavior or actions. If it was, then I would question if there is misogyny behind those terms as well.</p>
<p><i>But until then, you go into my circular file of selective outrage, next to the Reverends Al and Jesse and their attacks on DJs for saying “nappy-headed ‘hos” while systematically ignoring the fact that rap and hip-hop songs that don’t are about as common as apples on pear trees.</i></p>
<p>I’m in full agreement with your point here. </p>
<p><i>“Misogynist” is like “racist”; nothing more than meaningless word bombs that the left throws when it’s losing an argument or when it wants to make white males cringe and roll over.</i></p>
<p>Just because these terms are overused doesn’t mean that racism and misogyny don’t happen. Plenty of times I have seen posters, here and elsewhere, use this tactic against other posters or politicians when they disagree with their behavior or opinion. And I’ve seen people on the right and the left do it, and I oppose it even when I otherwise agree with person’s position. I’ve seen it on this blog by other posters, but I usually ignore it, and in many cases ignore those posters generally because they have been distasteful in other ways as well. But I generally like this blog, and since it was one of the blogmasters, I decided to speak up.</p>
<p>Anyway, I made my objections and made a request to Bruce to not do this any more. He apparently rejected the request. So be it.</p>
<em><strong>[GP Ed. Note – This is a perfect example of the hysterical political correctness of the Left Gone Wild and one of the main reasons this blog was created — to highlight this hypocrisy of principle-less liberals. Now please “Move On”, Pat.]</strong></em>
Comment by Pat — July 12, 2007 @ 8:48 am - July 12, 2007
#63:
Calling Pat’s calm, reasoned discussion “hysterical” is a perfect example of how reality-challenged wingnuts have become these days.
Comment by Ian S — July 12, 2007 @ 9:39 am - July 12, 2007
“That basic misogyny explains the greater hostile towards gay men in our culture. Lesbians are trading up. Gay men are trading down.
Perhaps the Democratic candidates should discuss that.”
Chase, why would the candidates discuss that?
Comment by Sean A — July 12, 2007 @ 9:54 am - July 12, 2007
Ian… why am I not surprised that, as an Unhinged Liberal yourself, you look in the mirror and see “reality-challenged wingnuts” conspiring against you?
Come knock on my door when an Islamist shows up to have tea with you, ok?
Comment by GayPatriot — July 12, 2007 @ 11:11 am - July 12, 2007
JonboyDC, those are excellent comments. Do you have a blog?
Comment by arturo fernandez — July 12, 2007 @ 11:32 am - July 12, 2007
OK, so this whole comment slab has turned into a rant about either misogyny (sp) or who owns the LOGO channel.
HELLO!!!!
What ever happened to discussing the real topic of this post, the debate-ish thing last night. Did ANYONE watch it. I have been surfing the net and not yet found one mention of it, not even on the Dem friendly, Bush bashing, lib-net-root driven news site Digg>/a>. I guess the Gay Lobby isn’t as important as we thought.
Comment by sonicfrog — July 12, 2007 @ 12:12 pm - July 12, 2007
NDT, personally I don’t use those terms, and not crazy about it. However, for those who do use those terms for someone else, my understanding is that they are not using it as part of criticism of their behavior or actions.
Pat, according to the gay leftists here, referring to a man as being in any way feminine is “misogynistic”.
Just because these terms are overused doesn’t mean that racism and misogyny don’t happen.
Then I suggest you start clamping down on their abuse, because I have really reached the point of not giving a rat’s ass anymore.
Mainly because the Democrat Party and its syncophant gays like Ian, Chase, and Brendan scream “misogynist” and “racist” at every opportunity, but defend and support the statement, “Oh oh….looks like a pouty Brown Sugar is going to ask Daddy to buy her another pair of Ferragamos” as being neither misogynist or racist when used to refer to Condi Rice.
But of course, Condi Rice commits the unpardonable sins of being a female and a minority who doesn’t obey white males like Ian, Chase, and Brendan, who know far better than SHE does what she should support based on her gender and skin color.
In short, I’m not tolerating any of them calling me “misogynist” when they have no trouble smearing a female who has kicked their asses up and down the field in terms of business, academic, and public achievement because she doesn’t do like she should and worship their white male Democrat feet.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 12, 2007 @ 12:25 pm - July 12, 2007
Thank you.
OK. Question noted. Again, I can’t see it; I took it that:
(1) Bruce believes a man ought to carry himself with certain characteristics of reserve and inner security, plus basic common sense;
(2) Bruce finds Senator Graham lacking in those characteristics. So much so, that negating Graham’s manliness (i.e., by implying Graham belongs to a different gender) is in order.
Agree with Bruce or not: that’s all I could find in it.
I have to disagree here as well. I know from when I’ve heard the terms that they are not always, but are fairly often, criticism of someone’s behavior and/or actions. In such cases, the speaker implies once again that:
(1) In his or her view, a man – gay or otherwise – ought to carry himself with a certain reserve, inner security, and common sense; and
(2) In his or her view, target X lacks those characteristics to the point where a snappy negation of X’s male gender status is called for.
Then Bruce said:
Bruce, it’s totally your blog of course, but here is where I stick up for Pat. I have learned to really respect him as one of the reasonable ones.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 12, 2007 @ 12:28 pm - July 12, 2007
Pat, I have a still-disagreeing-but-respectful one for you in moderation. Stay tuned.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 12, 2007 @ 12:39 pm - July 12, 2007
Have you folks considered including Dr. Ron Paul, 2008 Presidential candidate, in this event? I think you’d be doing the community a great service by offering him a platform as well to speak at your event! Take care and best wishes, Matt
Comment by mdh — July 12, 2007 @ 12:45 pm - July 12, 2007
And I would agree with ILC; Pat is a wonderful, observant, friendly, and sane voice. If anything, he should be encouraged to stay, not asked to move anywhere.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 12, 2007 @ 1:14 pm - July 12, 2007
#70:
Why do you only expect men to possess those characteristics? Why is lacking those characteristics necessarily associated with being a woman? That’s the problem Pat, I and others have with this issue. The characteristics you mention would seem admirable in any person regardless of gender.
Comment by Ian S — July 12, 2007 @ 2:23 pm - July 12, 2007
That is not what anyone has said. But referring to men using feminine terms exclusively to criticize their perceived weakness, cowardice, etc., is misogynistic.
Insult me all you like. It still doesn’t give you a credible response to my argument.
Some of us are capable of holding two compatible ideas in our heads at the same time. For example, the ideas that religious extremists (including Islamists) and wingnuts are both enemies of America and American values, and that those enemies need to be combatted in different ways.
(And no, I don’t have a blog. Sometimes I follow a link over here and find myself compelled to respond to comments that are so completely disconnected from fact, reality, or logic that a response seems mandatory).
Comment by JonboyDC — July 12, 2007 @ 2:46 pm - July 12, 2007
But referring to men using feminine terms exclusively to criticize their perceived weakness, cowardice, etc., is misogynistic.
When you start your campaign to eradicate the use of “girlfriend”, “Miss Thang”, “sister”, “such a she”, and “b*tch” in the gay community and condemn anyone who uses them as a “misogynist” who is insulting women or who is denigrating men by comparing them to women, send us a flyer.
But until then, you go into my circular file of selective outrage, next to the Reverends Al and Jesse and their attacks on DJs for saying “nappy-headed ‘hos” while systematically ignoring the fact that rap and hip-hop songs that don’t are about as common as apples on pear trees.
“Misogynist” is like “racist”; nothing more than meaningless word bombs that the left throws when it’s losing an argument or when it wants to make white males cringe and roll over. Furthermore, it is being thrown by people like Brendan, Ian, or the other gay leftists screaming it who think it appropriate to say of Condi Rice, “Oh oh….looks like a pouty Brown Sugar is going to ask Daddy to buy her another pair of Ferragamos”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 12, 2007 @ 3:18 pm - July 12, 2007
1) That argument has already been responded to. Repeating yourself doesn’t make a weak argument any stronger. To the extent that things like facts or reality matter to you at all, you can read the other posts and find those responses.
2) I can’t speak for Brendan or Ian, but don’t you dare assume that I approve of those insults against Ms. Rice. Criticizing you is not the same as agreeing with every statement ever made by someone you don’t like. (Just like saying that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified is not the same as saying Sadam Hussein was a great guy, or like saying that Lieberman’s saber rattling against Iran is stupid is not the same as approving of the barbaric actions of the Iranian government).
Comment by JonboyDC — July 12, 2007 @ 3:56 pm - July 12, 2007
For the record… I wasn’t suggesting Pat leave…. I was suggesting he “move on” from this ridiculous exercise in trying to read my mind and heart.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — July 12, 2007 @ 4:05 pm - July 12, 2007
#77 – JonBoy…. why can you not speak for Brendan and Ian, but have no trouble repeatedly putting words in my mouth and repeatedly reading my mind?
Are you just a good mind reader when it comes to conservatives, and can’t penetrate the intricate and complex mind of a liberal?
Good grief.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — July 12, 2007 @ 4:07 pm - July 12, 2007
And you’ve proven your point, JonboyDC; rather than answer why you support all of those things, you bobble and spin.
You don’t want to admit that the leftists who were screaming “misogynist” and with whom you’ve allied yourself think it perfectly acceptable to say of Condi Rice, “Oh oh….looks like a pouty Brown Sugar is going to ask Daddy to buy her another pair of Ferragamos”.
You don’t want to admit that your argument that referring to men with feminine terms is misogynist and derogatory of women would neatly paint the overwhelming majority of the gay community as being enthusiastic and regular practitioners of such.
That’s because your point here had nothing to do with misogyny; as you yourself pointed out, your only reason in coming to this blog is to bash other people. “Misogyny” is merely a weapon you use.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 12, 2007 @ 4:16 pm - July 12, 2007
I don’t need to read your mind — the words you use speak for yourself. The words you’ve used and the way you’ve used them lead to the inescapable conclusion that you believe women lack honor and courage. If that’s not what you believe, don’t use words that lead to that conclusion. If you believe women are as capable of courage and honor as any man, then insulting a man by calling him a woman makes no sense. But if you believe it is an insult, it’s only because you think poorly of women. And if you continue to insult men by calling them women, don’t get mad at people who think you actually mean what you say.
Comment by JonboyDC — July 12, 2007 @ 4:16 pm - July 12, 2007
I certainly didn’t mean to insult women by associating them with Senator Lindsey Graham…. I respect women more than that.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — July 12, 2007 @ 4:19 pm - July 12, 2007
That claim is absurd and obtuse.
First of all, note the word “exclusively” dropped in there to taint the argument, or move the goalposts. Typical. Back in the real world, Bruce has plenty of other ways of criticizing Sen. Graham, and plenty of positive uses for feminine terms.
Second, last time I checked,
(1) we were limited to 2 genders – which were, in fact, different biologically
(2) therefore, to negate or ridicule a person’s membership in 1 gender (because the person isn’t remotely near displaying that gender’s best qualities), you inevitably had to imply the person was really part of the other gender.
Nothing “anti”-the-other-gender about it. Except in the eye of the beholder.
In other words: the misogynists here are the ones CLAIMING that Bruce’s ridicule of Graham’s gender is somehow “anti’-the-other-gender. Y’all know who you are. You’re the ones supplying all the misogynistic interpretation here… then having the nerve to claim it isn’t yours, it’s Bruce’s. (Aka “projection”)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 12, 2007 @ 4:21 pm - July 12, 2007
If every time Bruce calls a man by a woman’s name he means it as an insult, he is indeed “referring to men using feminine terms exclusively to criticize” them.
And the genders are indeed biologically different. But I don’t think that Bruce was suggesting that Senator Graham has breasts or ovaries. As has been stated here, he was asserting that Graham was a coward and lacked honor. And he did so by implying that all women are cowards and lack honor.
Comment by JonboyDC — July 12, 2007 @ 4:33 pm - July 12, 2007
Calling Pat’s calm, reasoned discussion “hysterical” is a perfect example of how reality-challenged wingnuts have become these days.
Thanks, Ian. I also believe my argument was calm and not hysterical. I’m not sure about reasoned, but I tried. And I agree with most of your points regarding this issue.
Also, thanks NDT and ILC. I appreciate your kind words and support despite the fact we disagree on this issue. You’ve brought up good arguments, and I respect them, and articulated them better than I did my argument. I don’t want to rehash or elaborate more on my reasons in the interest of winding this issue down, at least on my part. I still believe that feminizing one’s name when being critical of that person is inappropriate, but I will agree to disagree on this point. After this post, I do not anticipate commenting further on this issue.
For the record… I wasn’t suggesting Pat leave…. I was suggesting he “move on” from this ridiculous exercise in trying to read my mind and heart.
Bruce, thanks for clarifying what you meant by “move on.” Also, I want to clarify that it was not my intention to try to read your mind or heart. I try my best to not read beyond any one’s words, especially on the Internet, since I find it an exercise of futility.
Comment by Pat — July 12, 2007 @ 6:07 pm - July 12, 2007
OK. I tried to get us back on topic. Now I leave the stage to go to sleep.
Comment by sonicfrog — July 13, 2007 @ 2:02 am - July 13, 2007
Holy Jesus! Where did all this “misogyny” bullsh*t come from? I’m disappointed in Bruce and NDT and whomever for giving Ian, Jonboy etc. the time of day on their patently absurd rantings.
Just tell them to shove it sideways and move on. Watch:
And the genders are indeed biologically different.
Oh cram it in with your tampon, little bitch. Nobody cares.
See how easy it is?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 13, 2007 @ 2:24 am - July 13, 2007
Only to an overly-emotional liberal such as yourself does pointing out that there are differences between men and women equate to “misogeny”. That men and women are different is a fact of life, and being factual, is therefore terribly upsetting to you. Nonetheless, facts are stubborn things, and they care not whether you accept them or throw hysterical tantrums about them, they remain facts.
And the fact is that men and women are different. They are biologically different, they are physically different, and they are, yes, cognitively different–they think about and react to things diferently. This isnt misogeny, this isnt degrading women, its fact, and for those idiots who couldnt figure it out for themselves, its been established and verified by numerous, highly publicized scientific studies, perhaps the most famous of which was published in a highly derided time magazine cover story entitled Men and Women are Different.
Women overwhelmingly think and react to the world in terms of emotion, while men are overwhelmingly more rational. No one is suggesting there are no exceptions, or that these are absolutes, but it is a demonstrable, verifiable difference in the way men and womens brains work.
Its the same reason that for decades Democrats have been called “the mommy party”, and Republicans “the daddy party”, its why women overwhelmingly vote for Democrats and men vote overwhelmingly for Republicans. Women, whom natural selection has selected to be the caregivers, have thusly developed traits that make them better at it–responding to emotion, and emotionally being chief among them. Men whom natural selection has selected to be the defenders have developed the traits necessary for success in that role, physical strength and a tendency to react to situations rationally and logically. These traits suit each of the sexes in their roles and make them more likely to survive.
It doesnt make one better than the other–it is neither good nor bad, it is simply fact.
When Bruce observed that Lindsay Graham was reacting like a woman when he threw a hissy fit, he was simply pointing out the undeniable fact that Senator Graham was reacting emotionally, and that such emotional reaction is more closely related with females than with males.
Just as your hysterical reaction, and cries of victimhood are likewise emotionally and not rationally driven.
In other words… Why are you being such a woman and why do libtards hate science so much???
Comment by Will — July 13, 2007 @ 4:55 am - July 13, 2007
NDT writes “Mainly because the Democrat Party and its syncophant gays like Ian, Chase, and Brendan scream “misogynist” and “racist” at every opportunity, but defend and support the statement, “Oh oh….looks like a pouty Brown Sugar is going to ask Daddy to buy her another pair of Ferragamos” as being neither misogynist or racist when used to refer to Condi Rice.”
NDT please point out where I have ever “defended and supported” that statement about Condi Rice? You are a liar. I don’t especially like Rice’s politics, but I thought that statement when I heard it (I forget who said it) was outrageously offensive and racist and misogynist, but presumably you disagree since these are meaningless terms only intended to upset white men.
Comment by Brendan — July 13, 2007 @ 8:59 am - July 13, 2007
Getting back to the topic at hand (last time I checked, it was the gay presidential debate), looks like Shrillary and The Breck Girl are trying to limit their own party’s debates.
Rumor has it that Dennis Kucinich is hoppin’ mad. (Yeah, like he can do anything about this.)
I say just let the Dhimmicrats eat their own. Makes it easier to pick off the front runner come November.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 13, 2007 @ 11:36 am - July 13, 2007
I don’t especially like Rice’s politics, but I thought that statement when I heard it (I forget who said it) was outrageously offensive and racist and misogynist, but presumably you disagree since these are meaningless terms only intended to upset white men.
Sure you did, Brendan. In fact, you were so upset by that statement, you couldn’t even remember that it was made or by who made it. In fact, you didn’t even remember to condemn it — until I brought it up as a demostration of how you and your fellow Democrat Party members treat women and minorities.
And now, I note, it still upsets you so much that you aren’t going after the Democrats like Chase and Ian who supported it….but after the people who pointed out that gay Democrats and the Democrat Party supported it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2007 @ 12:04 pm - July 13, 2007
“Sure you did, Brendan. ”
ND30, are you stupid or just a pathological liar, though I guess they are not mutually exclusive? Once again, point out where I ever “defended or supported” those remarks on Condi Rice. To now claim that because I don’t recall who originally made the remark is proof that I supported or defended is plain asinine.
Comment by Brendan — July 13, 2007 @ 12:47 pm - July 13, 2007
Ah, the cool rational logic of the wingnut. How wonderful it must be for you all to be free of any hysterical emotionalism.
(And Brendan, I’m betting that the answer to your question to ND30 is “both.”)
Comment by JonboyDC — July 13, 2007 @ 4:17 pm - July 13, 2007
Oh, and sonicfrog, the debate isn’t until August 9, which is why you’ve seen no news coverage of it. (I know, once again facts get in the way of your baseless conservative rage. How dare they!)
Comment by JonboyDC — July 13, 2007 @ 4:26 pm - July 13, 2007
#93 – “Ah, the cool rational logic of the wingnut. How wonderful it must be for you all to be free of any hysterical emotionalism.”
As if the libtards aren’t any less hysterical.
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 13, 2007 @ 5:14 pm - July 13, 2007
To now claim that because I don’t recall who originally made the remark is proof that I supported or defended is plain asinine.
Considering I gave you a reference link that points to it specifically, the theory that you “don’t recall” seems rather suspicious.
But it makes perfect sense in the context of you avoiding calling your own party and your own fellow Democrats and gay leftists “misogynists”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2007 @ 5:30 pm - July 13, 2007
Since neither Brendan nor I participated in that conversation in any way, shape, or form, exactly why are either of us responsible for anything that was said in it? Is it your theory that if we agree with other people on one point we must therefore agree with them on all points? Someone who seems to agree with you in this thread told me to “cram it in with [my] tampon.” Do I get to somehow make you responsible for that statement?
For a rugged individualist, you sure seem to believe that people who disagree with you should all be treated as part of the same group.
Comment by JonboyDC — July 13, 2007 @ 6:53 pm - July 13, 2007
You can try making me responsible. But I will gladly say that I disagree with TGC on that and don’t think he used appropriate language.
And it’s not a theory; it’s simply pointing out that your upset over “misogyny” is only directed against conservatives, and completely ignores far better examples among liberals and other gays.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2007 @ 9:47 pm - July 13, 2007
ND30–you still have not pointed out where I “supported and defended” the remark about Condi Rice. Why don’t you admit that you were wrong to make that accusation?
Comment by brendan — July 15, 2007 @ 8:46 am - July 15, 2007
Unfortunately, Brendan, all you’re doing is bobbling and spinning.
You don’t want to admit that the leftists who were screaming “misogynist” and with whom you’ve allied yourself think it perfectly acceptable to say of Condi Rice, “Oh oh….looks like a pouty Brown Sugar is going to ask Daddy to buy her another pair of Ferragamos”.
You don’t want to admit that your argument that referring to men with feminine terms is misogynist and derogatory of women would neatly paint the overwhelming majority of the gay community as being enthusiastic and regular practitioners of such.
That’s because your point here had nothing to do with misogyny; as you yourself pointed out, your only reason in coming to this blog is to bash other people. “Misogyny” is merely a weapon you use.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 16, 2007 @ 12:20 pm - July 16, 2007
NDT, I love how you went to the heart of that.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 16, 2007 @ 2:43 pm - July 16, 2007
(shrug) Wasn’t hard. I’ve had it with leftists like Brendan and JonboyDC who run around accusing others of “misogyny”, but spin and try to deflect when it comes to their own party and their own people calling Condi Rice a “pouty brown sugar”, or when it comes to leftist gays like themselves using feminine terms to describe other gay men.
It’s just like a child screaming “I hate you!” to try to shock and force their parents into doing the child’s bidding — and in a similar fashion, that only works on people who are more concerned about being “loved”, i.e. “politically correct”, than they are about the difference between right and wrong.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 16, 2007 @ 3:00 pm - July 16, 2007