to use a lie that homosexuality and pedophilia are inherently connected (hence why you ask me about “separating” them), not because they are but instead to appeal to naked prejudices.

Well, it seems a raw nerve has been plucked.

I do not equate homosexuality and pedophilia as a universal truism. However, NAMBLA presents a bit of a public relations problem in the “naked prejudices” department.

You have failed to make clear to me why the activists with the homosexual “rights” agenda would not be specific in who they include under their big tent. Are pedophiles and people who dress up little children in sexual fetish garb in or out of the “naked prejudices” tent?

Just a little clarity would go a long way toward dispelling any notions that you would harbor a side show of freaks and perverts in order to enhance your political clout.

Moral relativism is not an insurance policy for always getting a pass. Sometimes you actually have to stand for something.

I am interested to know if you are interested in separating pedophilia and homosexuality. Do you favor child sexualization? Do you have an erotic impulse in this? Do you feel that homosexuality should be a no holds barred concept?

Oh please, helio, quit insulting my intelligence. You know my answers are “no” without even asking. The only reason you do ask these questions is precisely why King raised the issue: to use a lie that homosexuality and pedophilia are inherently connected (hence why you ask me about “separating” them), not because they are but instead to appeal to naked prejudices. That is despicable and a tactic that the extreme Left excels at, followed by the extreme Right. Using the most unsavory tactics while feigning innocence even though the whole world can see what you are doing takes quite a bit of gall but doesn’t win you any friends to your position. By taking this approach, unlike Dan in his reasoned posts, you completely alienate folks repelled by this nonsense. Can you handle making a reasoned argument why hate crimes legislation is the wrong way to go or like King do you prefer to continue being an ass getting nowhere?

John, if you were thinking clearly on this matter, you would realize that supporting these specific exclusions would make a powerful argument towards separating pedophilia from homosexuality and calling out the idiots like Baldwin who are covering up for the gay community’s embrace of child sexualization.

I am interested to know if you are interested in separating pedophilia and homosexuality. Do you favor child sexualization? Do you have an erotic impulse in this? Do you feel that homosexuality should be a no holds barred concept?

You may leave political parties out of your answer. Just lay out your version of moral relativity for all to see.

John, if you were thinking clearly on this matter, you would realize that supporting these specific exclusions would make a powerful argument towards separating pedophilia from homosexuality and calling out the idiots like Baldwin who are covering up for the gay community’s embrace of child sexualization.

NDT, you are so absorbed with attacking liberals that you have become exactly what you criticize them for, especially through dehumanizing your opponents by adopting as fact even the most scurrilous of accusations. Instead of criticizing legitimate flaws among Dems you focus on bullshit that not only cheapens your position but ironically allows Dems to escape scrutiny on their flaws because of the outrageousness from folks like you. King didn’t propose this amendment with noble intentions and you damn well know it. He did so because he knew that he could an anti-gay chord among some and mine their prejudice for political gain. This had nothing to do with stopping pedophiles and everything to do with King’s anti-gay bias and King’s political fortune.

Your hatred of Republicans is such that you’re actually trying to explain why condemning pedophilia among gays is homophobic.

You are truly an ass so steeped in hatred for anything and anyone who doesn’t toe your partisan line that such an absurd statement as this really isn’t surprising. If this is what you truly think I was doing than your hatred and partisanship have blinded you completely to reason, let alone common human decency.

But you’re not thinking clearly. Instead, you’re merely making rationalizations for Republican-bashing and providing a prime example of the inability and unwillingness of liberal gays to condemn stupidity in the gay community. Your hatred of Republicans is such that you’re actually trying to explain why condemning pedophilia among gays is homophobic.

I do not believe that there should be any form of protection for these men and women who are willing to abuse a child for the sake of having sex. This is a crime in both the heterosexual and homosexual communities.

However, what I have observed and North Dallas Third more or less concurs, is that leftard liberal homosexuals seem intent upon poisoning the lives of little children. That kind of sex education should not be given in schools.

There most definitely are some very predatory homosexuals out there and the Curly case is one of many that have been reported over time. It happened to the son of a former neighbour. The boy was snatched when he was with his brother going to the shops. His body was found several days later and he had been raped before he had been murdered.

Any legislation that protects the types that would do that type of thing to a child, whether it is a heterosexual crime or a gay crime is bad legislation. These people should not receive any form of cover.

It is not grandstanding to make a stand to prevent that type from being covered in “hate” crimes legislation.

Put it this way, in the prison system (at least it used to be like this) someone guilty of a crime against a child ended up dead or badly beaten. If these pedophiles are given protection under the legislation and some future incident happens, and as a result of that incident, the pedophile then sues either the parents of the victim of his own crime, or the prison inmates who meted out a bit of their own justice, then that legislation has served the worst type within society.

This is an issue that should not be Dem vs GOP, it is one where people should see common sense and exclude pedophiles.

As for the statement about the military, I just want to know what planet the dingbat known as Mad Dog has been living, because the military and ex-military over a period of years stretching back to the 1960s have been attacked for being in uniform. Those attacks are hate crimes. It is just that military personnel normally do not go crying saying that they are victims of the vicious libtards that exist all over the world.

The democrats did protect pedophiles by voting against an ammendment that would have made sure the law would exclude them. And then did take steps to insure the military couldn’t be defended with it, w/o the above mentioned tampering.

I see. So then by your logic, Republicans sought to protect rapists by failing to ensure they were not included in this bill means that they favor the sexual exploitation of others. The GOP is “obviously” against police officers, firefighters and emergency workers, who despite the sacrifices they make in service to others weren’t even worthy of being included by Republicans in these amendment attempts.

Or could it be that Congressman King and his sycophant allies, of which you are apparently one, made asses of themselves with a pathetic stunt that had more to do with trying to score cheap political points rather than substantive argument about the merits of the bill.

You defend this crap and actually wonder why the GOP’s fortunes are so bleak? This is what conservatism has come to? Dan at least is able to give a reasoned opinion why this bill is wrong, while folks like King engage in cheap stunts defended by rabid fans like you. Pity that the GOP leadership seems to have more Kings and Livewires than Dans. That’s unfortunately good news for the Dems, very bad news for the country.

Try to read it again, I promise no one will laugh while your lips move.

Since the ammendment wasn’t added, all it takes is a court somewhere (championed by the ACLU no doubt) to make them a ‘protected class’.

Indeed. Of course, a court somewhere could also declare that the moon is made of green cheese but I see no rush to prevent this oddball court from taking such a drastic step. Yet, perhaps you have a point as everyone knows that Gouda is the best kind around. As for your quip on the ACLU, while there is much to disagree with that group on I’ve yet to see them advocate pedophiles as being a protected class or even hint as such. Yet I understand, they are the Devil incarnate and rather than deal with the merits of issues at hand ad hominem is so much easier. Tell me again how such mindless partisanship on the Right differs from that on the Left?

Just like specifically adding veterans would make them a protected class.

So if I understand you, you desire to have “hate crimes” protection for military personnel even though no such need has been shown and despite your own opposition to such laws? Ok. Or is it, perhaps, a cheap political stunt to unujustly tar the opposition when they have given us so much more of substance to go after them on? No wait, that require a level of reason that conservatives claim to have over liberals yet just like their foes toss to the wayside in the heat of partisan exchange.

Nowhere in the post does it say that pedophiles are specifically protected, that’s your straw man. You’re hiding behind it even thought it’s burnng bright.

Perhaps you missed the title of this charming lil’ post: “Congressional Dems Protect Pedophiles, Demean Military In Hate Crimes Bill”.

You were saying, Livewire?

Just like specifically adding veterans would make them a protected class. So, the Democrats don’t want to be proactive in excluding a group, or in adding a group for fear of Code Pink being beat with their own pistols.

Nowhere in the post does it say that pedophiles are specifically protected, that’s your straw man. You’re hiding behind it even thought it’s burnng bright.

Such is obvious since you are asking me to “admit” to what are clear facts that require no such “admission”. So let me ask you: is the sky blue? Is the Pope Catholic? Now that those are out of the way, tell me the purpose for offering these amendments and where in this proposed legislation protection for pedophiles can be found.

Thank you for playing.

There’s a prime reason for DADT; gays overwhelmingly support this antimilitary bigotry and endorse politicians like Obama who brand our troops as “intruders” in their own country. Why should the military be forced to allow people who, because of their sexual orientation, are driven to attack, harm, and berate our troops?

Yet another example that NDT is no different than the extreme Left…