What next? Does the physics community have to clarify its respect for Isaac Newton because the man was a anti-Catholic. Do orchestra’s have to clarify their playing the music of Richard Wagner because that composer was a rabid anti-Semite?

This is ridiculous.

But I do disavow them as loudly and as fast as I can when such an association comes to light. I’m also usually horrified when I find out such things.

26: Well yes, but do you consider them to be like the sleazoid based upon such thin association? No.

it’s not hyperbole to point out that Tim thinks 16 is not a minimum age of consent. He admits that kids younger than 16 having sex with adults is fine.

esurance also thinks that letting an older man take advantage of a boy is fine, and better than following the law.

In general our history education in this country sucks massively.

Pam’s House Blend, a VERY liberal blog to put it mildly, has an interesting post up today about Tony Perkins, former GOP Lousiana state rep and now head of the very powerful Family Research Council. Take a look:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/13356/tony-perkins-and-white-supremacy

Given how influential FRC is in GOP politics and the number of GOP politicians who are heavily connected to FRC, can we now assume beforehand that all these folks are racist based upon this one photo alone? Yes, PHB and the Left in general will charge this anyways but that’s irrelevant here.

BULLSHIT! If this ass clown is supposedly speaking for us, isn’t it fair to ask what exactly he meant by his comment?

Asking him to clarify his remarks is one thing, making what appears to be a pre-determined and only slightly veiled conviction beforehand is something entirely different.

I’d think he should explain himself rather than hiding behind bleeding vages like Tim the Sputtering Pedophile and e-surance.

Nice hyperbole but this doesn’t help your cause. In fact all it does is make you look like a complete ass.

I ask for evidence he needed to. He made reference specifically about what accomplishments he admired. He didn’t say anything about kid touching.

I’m not asking for his incarceration, merely his resignation. I’m not calling him a criminal, merely saying he acted inappropriately, something that he acknowledged himself. Paricularly inappropriately for a guy in his current position.

You’re right, he shouldn’t go to jail, just lose his job. Again, your standard of evidence for firing people is suspect when you can’t produce evidence of any crime and all the facts that have come out have completely vindicated him

Yeah, so “Brewster” has provided his driver’s license. In 2000, Jennings said that he thought the kid was 15 at the time he “counseled” him. He thought he was talking to a boy below the age of consent.

How do you know that? How do you know he had any inkling or knowledge of age of consent laws? Again, no proof, just accusations.

Oh, and it’s not just one sentence in 1997. It’s a reference he made in a book–and at public conferences.

Yes I read the whole quote, and he is very specific about WHAT exactly he admired about this man. It’s you who are drawing conclusions to fit your own agenda, completely ignoring that he said in very clear plain language what he admired about the guy.

So, please go read my stuff before you level angry accusations. And note the careful distinctions I make. Let me repeat a primary point (and likely the subject of my next post on the matter): had Jennings not talked about the issue–of his own accord–I would likely cut him some slack, but it’s that he talked about the issue as if providing an example of how to address such situations.

Sorry, didn’t realize reading everything you’ve ever posted (since you seem to post about 10 times a day, even though I thought there were at least 5 contributors to this blog, not just you) was a prerequisite for participating. Yes, you make careful distinctions in order not to have to take a position. You write 2 paragraphs detailing the lack of evidence against him, and completely acknowledging he had no knowldge of Hay’s NAMBLA involvement, and then go on to call for his resignation. Pick a side, instead of taking both and then acting all high and mighty when someone calls you on it.

And he never showed any indication that he thought he should have handled the situation differently, that is, until the issue became a political hot potato. And since you’re so convinced I’m on some kind of witch hunt, please note that I have, in past posts, said I might change my mind if evidence emerges that, before September 2009, he said he wished had handled the situation differently. Do you have such information? Or the information I requested in the post to which you attach your comment?

Who cares? This has no bearing on the issue. This is four posts now you’ve been asking for evidence. Each time new evidence and arguments have emerged and you’re still clinging hard and fast to your position no matter the little ground you still have to stand on regarding your points. We’ve already found hard evidence the boy was NOT underage and you still are calling him a pedophile. You’re obviously not a reasonable person when hard evidence contrary to your position still can’t convince you to reject it.

Tim would likely ask if he had a younger brother

Their lives are bitter, empty, and meaningless, with those moments of sexual satisfaction the only non-chemical way for them to feel more than the pathetic wretches they are.

“And speaking of handjobs, just because you’ve already been fooling around with guys doesn’t mean you can’t take a couple steps back, rely on your own right hand, and choose to abstain from any more sex with other dudes for a few more years — at the very least till you’re old enough to vote.”

Amen. Why is it so hard (that’s what she said) (Shut up, Michael) for some gay men to reject sleazy, inappropriate, even illegal activities with minors? WTF is wrong with you people?

When I was in college, I knew a guy who became HIV positive at 17 as the result of hooking up with a guy in his thirties. What would Tim and esurance say to him? “Hay, look at the bright side. You had a good time and nobody judged you!”

Which is why there are plenty of well-informed gay people (definitely including myself and GPW, and possibly including Jennings) who already knew that Hay founded the Mattachine Society and the Radical Faeries, and was an avowed Communist,

See, I’ve studied “gay history” a bit over the years (though less than some) and read pieces on Hay, and never heard that he was an avowed Communist either. There has been a real whitewash of Hay, it appears. In the “official” history, all that one hears about is what an incredible pioneer he was with the Mattachine Society.

I have to agree with one part of Tim’s remarks: this does appear to be turning into a full-blown witch hunt.

BULLSHIT! If this ass clown is supposedly speaking for us, isn’t it fair to ask what exactly he meant by his comment? I’d think he should explain himself rather than hiding behind bleeding vages like Tim the Sputtering Pedophile and e-surance.