Kevin Jennings Knew of Harry Hay’s NAMBLA Connections?
Zomblog presents a very convincing case that Jennings may indeed have known about Hays’ support for NAMBLA when he publically praised the man years ago. Until now I’ve seen most of the criticism directed at Jennings as being sketchy and partisan in nature. While this too may be influenced somewhat by politics, there is persuasive evidence to back up the accusation. I would encourage everyone to read this post for yourselves.
If it is true that Jennings knew of Hays’ connections to NAMBLA and ignored them when he praised the man, that is indeed a legitimate issue of concern and one which rightly calls his appointment in the Obama Administration into question. Jennings’ refusal to comment on the growing controversy is unwise and will only cause it to fester even more. If there is one thing that the Roman Polanski arrest has shown us it is that outrage and disgust over child molestation/rape transcends political lines which in the case of Polanski caused a very-noticeable rift on this issue between some liberal elites and liberal rank-and-file. Jennings himself isn’t a child molester/rapist and Hays too might not have been. Yet Jennings may have knowingly and publically praised a supporter of child molestation/rape.
This charge to me is the most damaging of all the ones I’ve seen made online about Jennings. I doubt I’m wrong in saying that like most Americans, I cannot and will not support anyone in a position of public trust who is either in favor of groups like NAMBLA or knowingly praises those who are. It doesn’t matter to me what their political affliation is. Partisan wrangling means squat when the lives and welfare of children are involved. Jennings owes the American public an immmediate explanation or he failing this, perhaps even depending upon what he says in his defense, he should definitely lose his job.
– John (Average Gay Joe)
33 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Among all the other evidence that Zombie presents, this June 1994 “Spirit of Stonewall” press release signed (and probably written) by Harry Hay in defense of NAMBLA is especially interesting as a primary document. Just check out all the juicy left-wing tropes in this paragraph:
Elsewhere in the press release, Hay goes crazy with the scare quotes:
And:
(Hay himself was, of course, quite far from being a “suspected” “communist”.)
Comment by Throbert McGee — October 15, 2009 @ 10:21 am - October 15, 2009
Whoops — here’s the link to that press release, this time using tinyURL. And here’s the direct URL to copy-and-paste:
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/orgs/NAMBLA/spirit.of.stonewall
Comment by Throbert McGee — October 15, 2009 @ 10:25 am - October 15, 2009
Harry Hay’s connection to NAMBLA and the American Communist Party were widely-known the gay community decades ago, and even in the late 70’s were cited as setting-back the gay movement by decades by created the meme of homosexual = communist. In large-part that doomed the Matachine Society activities in the 50’s…too-many of it’s activists were known or suspected Communists.
And NAMBLA was a pariah group and anathema from the very start…especially in gay social-circles more-so than even in the gay lib/civil rights arena. It was the existance of NAMBLA that fueled much of the homophobia against gay male teachers in the historic California Gay Teachers proposition-battle. ( My apoligies for not remembering it’s Prop-number. )
Back then, one of the advantages of the gay bar and the bathhouses (before AIDS)was the underage kids couldn’t get in, and the bouncers and counter-people were quite rigorous and strict about checking ID’s for age. With an 18-yo drinking-age, fewer college guys needed fake ID’s so there wasn’t the sophisicated cottage-industry of faking IDs then either.
Jennings may have been a teacher, but he didn’t learn from history.
Comment by Ted B. — October 15, 2009 @ 11:51 am - October 15, 2009
Kevin Jennings is a career gay activist and “scholar.” For him not to know that Harry Hay was connected to NAMBLA is about as plausible as Rush Limbaugh not knowing that Mean Joe Greene played for the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Comment by V the K — October 15, 2009 @ 11:54 am - October 15, 2009
I was hoping you wouldn’t get into this, Joe, but I’ll try to rebuke the main point of the zombieblog post.
The whole point is contingent on whether or not Kevin Jennings knew about Harry Hay’s NAMBLA associations. The main point they use to support that he did and still praised the man (since they don’t have any actual evidence, and Jennings himself never uttered any words in praise) was that in the same book that lists Hay’s NAMBLA connections, Jennings lifted a chapter to put in another compilation. Therefore, according to you and others, he must have read the whole book, knew about Harry Hay’s NAMBLA connections and is therefore culpable to swear it off.
This basically shows a complete ignorance on the part of anyone of how publishing works. The fact that portions or a chapter of one book were used in another is not proof that he had knowledge or condoned every part of the other. It’s very common practice that an editor or publisher knew of Jennings need for material and sent him a chapter as an example so it could be included, and they could make money. Or Jennings may have come across it merely as a chapter. I’ve seen many instances where only a chapter of a book that is relevant is read or needed. Just the other day I gave a book on meth to a friend of mine, assuming and only recommending the chapter particular to gay men. If he did something with that, or Jennings was recommended it, it doesn’t really point to any proof he read the whole book, knew what it included, or was praising sex with children by praising, very specifically in his speech I might add, only Hay’s involvement in the gay movement.
Do you really think he should lose his job? I think the authors of this blog really need to take a step back on this one. What do you really have against the man? The “child sex” story has been completely debunked, and you now look like birthers chasing after vague recollections of a teacher 21 years ago. Now the best you have on him is he HAD to have read the whole book cause he reproduced a chapter of it. Again, complete lack of knowledge about anything regarding publishing, especially compilation publishing and the process it goes through. But that’s your smoking gun, demanding his head. The inability of you guys to let this go because of some stereotype you think this reinforces about gays and their condoning sex with minors is getting sick.
Honestly, is this the standard you want to hold people too? Once he might have read a book once about a guy who he didn’t agree with but who did fight for gay rights, specifically praised ONLY the part about gay rights, and explicitly said so, but he might have read something that one time… so he should lose his job!!! That’s like saying everyone who ever liked Thriller is supporting child molestation. That’s your standard of proof, loose association based on things you can’t prove but think he might have known. I don’t think Jennings should condone anything, since he’ll spend his entire career doing condemnations since that’s your standard of evidence, loose associations and misstatements about his memory of the 80s.
Also, could you be objective about how this is making this blog look when multiple authors are now on board? This is what, a half dozen posts on this subject? Any signs of discussion are met with scarlet brands of child molester if you don’t agree with the blog authors. This issue is going no where, and you will see no apology or action taken regarding it. He has the support of the White House, the major media, and every major educational association. Stop chasing shadows that lead nowhere because they vaguely fit your preconceived worldview of gays all wanting to fuck kids. Any objective, reasonable person could see this is a waste of your time and just makes you out to look crazy enough to lose credibility when actual issues worth commentary come forth.
Usually with you Joe, but don’t climb on the dog pile on this one.
Comment by Tim — October 15, 2009 @ 12:50 pm - October 15, 2009
I seem to recall that Hillary tried to push the same thing.
Sorta like how Chairman Obama could attend Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years and never heard a damn thing he said? Or maybe it’s like palling around with a known terrorist but claiming it’s ok because that was a long time ago?
Or is it like liberals supporting our troops by diverting funds to pet projects????
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 15, 2009 @ 1:14 pm - October 15, 2009
Tim’s nice enough to come back (again) and come up with nice theories to explain how this ‘gay scholar’ could have missed the little NAMBLA fact.
This is the same Tim who’s showed he’s fine with adults having sex with 15 year olds, mind you.
It also ignores the point. We can come up with all the theories we want (the sending the book chapter is a new and novel, er chapter theory). The fact is in the face of all this evidence in his own words he’s staying silent. So far, that’s the most damning of all.
Comment by The_Livewire — October 15, 2009 @ 1:27 pm - October 15, 2009
The “child sex” story has been completely debunked
No, it hasn’t. What has happened is the following:
– Jennings is claiming that “Brewster” was 16 — after repeating for the past 21 years on multiple occasions that “Brewster” and several other boys he similarly “counseled” were 15.
– “Brewster” has suddenly resurfaced stating that he was 16 and never had any sex — after Jennnings has repeated for the past 21 years on multiple occasions that “Brewster” and several other boys he similarly “counseled” were 15 and having sex with multiple adults.
– Media Matters, an organization paid by Barack Obama and numerous supporters with the explicit purpose of pushing liberal propaganda and a history of supporting the forging of documents to attack conservatives, has published a letter from a lawyer claiming that “Brewster” was 16 — that lawyer being Jennings’s own lawyer.
– Media Matters, an organization paid by Barack Obama and numerous supporters with the explicit purpose of pushing liberal propaganda and a history of supporting the forging of documents to attack conservatives, has published what they allege to be “Brewster’s” driver’s license — which lacks a name, date of issuance, number, signature, photograph, and anything else that could identify it as a valid license issued to an actual person.
In short:
– Either Jennings is lying or “Brewster” is.
– Media Matters is unable and unwilling to allow third-party verification of the “evidence” that they have brought forward and, with a history of supporting the forgery of documents, is insisting that we should “trust them”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 15, 2009 @ 1:55 pm - October 15, 2009
Also, could you be objective about how this is making this blog look when multiple authors are now on board?
Right. We now have four different authors making it clear that being gay does not require you to support and endorse pedophiles, that gay public officials should not be able to hide behind their sexual orientation, and that gay public officials who are so quick to praise and support pedophiles and sex with underage children owe an explanation of why they are doing so.
Granted, if you want to be popular in the gay community and be considered an “authentic” gay, this is not the route to go. However, as I recall, one of the overarching goals of this blog is to demonstrate to the 99% of the world that aren’t gay leftists that there’s no requirement that you support leftist stupidity in order to be gay.
Your problem, Tim, is that you simply aren’t capable of moving beyond your minority status. You have stated, as Livewire points out, that you see nothing wrong with children under the age of consent having sex with adults. How can you be expected to enforce the law when you refuse to believe in it? Your sexual orientation makes you unfit to serve in any form of law enforcement because you are unable to enforce the laws equally.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 15, 2009 @ 2:01 pm - October 15, 2009
I only responded to this post because I have respect for what Joe normally posts and wanted to specifically engage HIM on the points he’s made.
I got tired of trying to have reasoned discussion when every point I make is just responded to with child molestor child molestor child molestor. I can have better adult discussions with a brick wall than NDK, ILC, LW and the rest of the second rate small minded bigots who troll this site nowadays. Nice link accusing me of being a pedo, but make sure you’re URL is correct.
NDK. Could you kindly provide evidence of MM forging documents? Can you provide proof of Barack Obama personally giving them any money? I wouldn’t release personal information beyond what is necessary to prove a crime was not committed either. Unless you have evidence of any sort of crime, quit shouting like a hysterical old woman. You’re turning into the new birthers, and preventing any sort of productive or meaningful dialogue. Again, your level of proof is unattainable. Apparently you want the original footage of this man being born from his mom’s vagina, God holding a calendar and a watch, and even then I’m sure it would be some forgery by Barack Obama’s magical movie editing abilities…
Again, show proof he was advocating Hay’s NAMBLA ideals? I noticed no one managed to even go after that point, just scream child molestor for the 50th time with a bad link. As far as his keeping silent on the issue, I can see very well why he’s not apologizing. It’s the same reason I don’t come on here anymore. If you choose to wrestle pigs you’re going to get dirty. And most of the time the pig likes it.
Comment by Tim — October 15, 2009 @ 2:40 pm - October 15, 2009
Sorry, Tim. You keep saying you go away, but you keep coming back.
We’re too old for you.
“NDK and the rest, if you really can’t see a difference between a 15 yr old engaging in consensual sex and a much younger child being molested, you need to adjust your moral compass. ”
So Tim thinks we need our compasses adjusted because adults having sex with 15 year olds is fine.
Comment by The_Livewire — October 15, 2009 @ 2:52 pm - October 15, 2009
NDK. Could you kindly provide evidence of MM forging documents?
Perhaps you should ask me to provide evidence relative to what I actually said.
Media Matters, an organization paid by Barack Obama and numerous supporters with the explicit purpose of pushing liberal propaganda and a history of supporting the forging of documents to attack conservatives
And for that, with pleasure.
I wouldn’t release personal information beyond what is necessary to prove a crime was not committed either.
So according to a law enforcement expert such as yourself, who claims to have worked in police stations, all that is required to prove that you did not have sex with a child is to produce, well after the fact, a driver’s license that shows a birth date — without any reference on said license as to whose it is.
In that case, you should probably get to work on freeing the innumerable child molesters who could have proved they committed no crime by providing a driver’s license with a sufficient birth date on it as “proof” that the child they molested was of age, regardless of whose it was, how it was numbered, how it was signed, or even if the photo doesn’t match the person’s who they claim it was.
You continue to demonstrate, Tim, why gays like yourself should NOT be given any form of employment protection; your sexual orientation makes it impossible to do your job or to even follow basic laws. There is no way people who cannot report child molestation just because a gay person is doing it are fit to be teachers.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 15, 2009 @ 3:29 pm - October 15, 2009
“NDK and the rest, if you really can’t see a difference between a 15 yr old engaging in consensual sex and a much younger child being molested, you need to adjust your moral compass. ”
So Tim thinks we need our compasses adjusted because adults having sex with 15 year olds is fine.
Did I ever say it was fine? Once? Again, par for the course, I never said that. I said that a rational person could distinguish a DIFFERENCE between a teenager seeking out consensual sex and the rape of a small child. Just as people can see the difference between crimes like speeding, and say murder. Or smoking pot and rape. I also provided documentation showing such hard line attitudes towards these laws were making 14 yr old boys who take pictures of their dicks on their cell phones equivalent with violent rapists, sexual offenders and child predators. See, my argument was reasoned, and yours was drawing your own conclusion, despite my language being clearly NOT in favor of allowing sex with teens, and yet that’s your rebuttal.
NDK. That link purely proves MM was wrong in it’s initial analysis of the Bush docs. They forged NOTHING. It shows no financial connection between Obama and MM. Show me one instance of Media Matters forging documents. Show me once instance of BO giving money to them. Quit shooting your mouth off with only vague association and no standards of evidence for your argument.
NDK, as a person with a law enforcement background, I do know that people involved in such sensitive subjects don’t need every minute detail of their life broadcast to the world just because you need some sick curiousity of yours fulfilled concerning something you have nothing to do with. Showing ANY evidence of this man’s age is honorable considering there was no crime comitted. In MANY cases only small amounts of evidence are needed, and the rest of the details are withheld to protect the privacy and well being of the man in question. Why don’t you go down to the local court house and try to get details of any rape victim’s life? Most are shown only to relevant parties like a judge/attorney/cop etc for good reason!
I continue to demonstrate why I should not have any form of employment protection??? My sexual orientation makes it impossible to do my job or follow basic laws??? You are the one who can’t even produce one shred of evidence of a crime, provide links that show no evidence of forgery or financial connection which you claim, and just scream child molester at anyone who beats you intellectually in an argument over and over until they give up and go away. AND I’M THE ONE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE A JOB OR CAN’T FOLLOW LAWS OR SHOULD BE AROUND CHILDREN???
THIS IS WHY I DON’T COME TO THIS SITE ANYMORE, THERE ARE NOT REASONABLE ADULTS HERE TO HAVE ANY SORT OF CONVERSATION WITH.
Comment by Tim — October 15, 2009 @ 4:41 pm - October 15, 2009
Tim: I would suggest that you read the post at Zomblog again. The case for Jennings having known about Hays’ part is very convincing. Even if I were to accept the excuse that you give here, that doesn’t speak to the fact that Jennings was in a position at the time where he should have known. Jennings was known to be an activist and gay history scholar at the time he praised Hays. It stretches credulity just a tad too much to think that he didn’t know anything about Hays’ NAMBLA connections. Given that his public praise for Hays was expressed in a speech 3 years after the 1994 book he participated in, that only adds to this. Finally, by his continued silence on this matter, while partisan attack dogs “respond” for him, he is behaving like corrupt politicians on both sides when they are caught. No, if Jennings were straight and this had been about race, for example, he would have been tossed under the bus far sooner than this latest revelation. Before this looked like nothing more than a partisan witch hunt to me built squarely on slander and the most tenuous of connections, which is why I wasn’t buying any of this even though I oppose the man politically myself. Yet this charge is the most damning IMO and has every appearance of having more substance behind it. So yes, if it is true that he knew of Hays’ connections to NAMBLA, which seems to me that he did, then he should indeed lose his job.
Comment by John — October 15, 2009 @ 4:43 pm - October 15, 2009
John,
Thanks for your response. It’s so refreshing to not have a shouting match.
I don’t really accept your argument to just go read the post again. Again, the crux of the argument is that he HAD to have known about Hay’s NAMBLA involvement because the anthology he was involved in compiling pulled a chapter from another Hay’s book that made a mention of Hay’s NAMBLA involvement. Can we agree on that much? Is that enough for you to have damning evidence and he should lose his job? You chose not to address this.
Here’s why I disagree: When many books that are compilations are published, there is conversation among writers and editors and make it known they are seeking contributions or material. Possibly the editor, writer, or someone involved with the Hay’s book saw they could make additional royalties and money by having a chapter about Hay’s activism included. They probably submitted this CHAPTER which they saw relevant and probably submitted or suggested it and it got in the book. Jennings was VERY CLEAR in his explanation of WHY he was praising Hay’s at the time. Read the quote, he points out his perseverance in getting people to join his cause at the initial points of gay activism.
Your assumption is that because he had this one chapter in an anthology, he should have read everything else about the man and should know his entire life history and never put it in or praised him. It’s a very shaky, unrealistic account to hold anyone to. I like Ayn Rand’s writing. There is a violent rape described in one of her books. If I read “Atlas Shrugged” should I (any therefore, any Rand admirers) be held to never praise her because she advocates raping women??? NO! All I can see in this case is a very thinly extrapolated case of association that you have no evidence of. Just a “maybe” he “might” have known about it, and if maybe on the off chance he did … C’mon. You want a man’s job for that? Considering all the other work he’s done?
Maybe you can convince me. Show me what more they have about him knowing about Hay’s. Show me what PROOF you have. Don’t just refer me back to the link. I’ve read it. I’ve even summarized MY view of the evidence and refuted it. Show me where I’m wrong. Don’t just tell me I’m wrong and to read it over. We’re adults here. Address my points, or reinforce your case stating why this apparent association of he should have known is stronger or provide more evidence. But don’t just tell me I’m wrong and to read it again. Let’s have a dialogue here.
Comment by Tim — October 15, 2009 @ 5:10 pm - October 15, 2009
Tim, why don’t you present your rebuttal over on Zombietime?
Comment by Throbert McGee — October 15, 2009 @ 5:59 pm - October 15, 2009
How about this:
Since you don’t want to be called a pedo, how about fcking idiot? Through your long bloviations wasting space on the thread, all you keep repeating is that we should take his and MediaMorons’ word for it.
If it had been me, I would never claim that I admired Harry Hay. But then again my mama brought me up better than that. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask what the hell he was talking about when he said it. Particularly since liberals rarely say exactly what they mean and always pretend to be something they’re not. Always sneaky, underhanded and two-faced. It’s a fair question and I think if he wants to keep on working with and/or for children and their safety, he better damn well answer it.
Further, if you only want to talk to John, get his e-mail and STFU.
No. The reason you don’t come to this site anymore (Whiskey Tango Foxtrot????) is because while you piss & moan, we don’t coddle you and tell you how brilliant you are. If you want to wallow in victimhood, there’s plenty of gay liberal panty waist sites out there.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 15, 2009 @ 6:32 pm - October 15, 2009
Since you don’t want to be called a pedo, how about fcking idiot?
Way to prove my point.
Always sneaky, underhanded and two-faced. It’s a fair question and I think if he wants to keep on working with and/or for children and their safety, he better damn well answer it.
Again, way to elevate the discussion with your insults. Sorry if reading hurts your head, but in adult land we sometimes need more than emoticons and insults to have discussions.
He’s answered the questions, provided this kid’s ID, apologized and said he would have handled the situation differently. Harry Hay has a very long history with the gay movement. Dating back to the 1920s he was involved with various gay organizations up through the 90s. Jennings was specific in the quote about exactly WHAT he admired in the man, and you want to go through a man who lived almost a century and find one thing and hold Jennings accountable to everything another man did in his whole life when you evidently can’t just take a very direct quote in which he explained what he admired.
Further, if you only want to talk to John, get his e-mail and STFU.
Ah, telling me to shut the fuck up, again, classy.
The reason you don’t come to this site anymore (Whiskey Tango Foxtrot????) is because while you piss & moan, we don’t coddle you and tell you how brilliant you are.
As your post readily shows, you have an inability to have a reasoned discussion. Your inflated ego and narrow minded world view assure anyone who doesn’t agree with you is not only wrong, but warrants insults and put downs. I don’t ask for praise, merely adult, reasonable, logical engagement. If you can’t merely disagree with someone, but feel the need to insult and be a condescending jerk, don’t be surprised when you get intellectually annihilated.
Comment by Tim — October 15, 2009 @ 6:44 pm - October 15, 2009
Tim, Kevin Jennings only apologized (and said he would have handled the issue differently after it had become a political football. For years he talked about it almost ad nauseum and never once indicated he had any qualms about the way he had handled the situation.
If you can prove me wrong on this point, please do so as I would be delighted to rescind my call for his resignation should the circumstances warrant.
And to all, please note I am working on a followup to this piece, but want to first read a printout of Zomblog’s post. After a cursory online reading, I have reached a slightly different conclusion than the one John reaches above. And want to confirm that before I post on the issue again.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 15, 2009 @ 6:56 pm - October 15, 2009
No, we cannot Tim. The reason I told you to go back to Zomblog’s post is that there is more in there than just Jennings’ participation in the 1994 book:
As should have been clear I even let you have that one for the sake of argumentation, even though I found the excuse to be unconvincing, yet STILL there is enough reason to believe that Jennings knew about Hays’ connections to NAMBLA in 1997 when he publically praised the man. From a 2007 online bio of Jennings, found at a friendly source:
Are you seriously trying to say that given his impressive background and as well-connected as Jennings was prior to his 1997 speech that not once, never at any time, he ever heard anything about Hays’ connections to NAMBLA? Even during his time in New York starting in 1994? Never saw a single news story about the IGLA’s kicking NAMBLA out in 1994, which Hays was widely reported in criticizing, never heard about any of this from colleagues, friends, lovers or just about anybody in the NYC gay community at that time??? I’m not buying it, Tim. Either the man is a very incomeptent scholar, which whether you agree with his views or not his accomplishments seem to belie that, or he was quietly participating in the cover-up of Hays’ extremely unsavory side. Heck, Zombie does a better job than I in framing this, so please do take a crack in responding to it:
Zombie’s conclusions are reasonable while your excusing Jennings on this I do not find to be convincing.
A flawed comparison since Rand was writing about fictional characters while Jennings was writing about, and later praising, a real person.
Comment by John — October 15, 2009 @ 7:00 pm - October 15, 2009
Kevin Jennings was also a member of ACT UP
Comment by V the K — October 15, 2009 @ 8:28 pm - October 15, 2009
This almost becomes too easy.
You are the one who can’t even produce one shred of evidence of a crime
Actually, there are several pieces of evidence — primarily the fact that Jennings himself repeatedly stated that “Brewster” was 15 and having public sex with older men, and that Jennings refused to report it or intervene. That violates both Massachusetts age of consent laws and other statutes requiring teachers and others in positions of authority to report sexual exploitation of those under the age of consent by adults.
Meanwhile, Tim presents as “evidence” what supposedly is a driver’s license without any identifiable marks, name, signature, photo, or number, and which remarkably resembles a fake ID blank, inexplicably produced by an organization that endorses, supports, and defends forging documents in support of liberals and Obama Party members like Jennings.
The final hilarity is when Tim, who has insisted that “Brewster” was not raped or molested, tries to argue that “Brewster” needs privacy protection equivalent to those who have been raped or molested.
The entertaining thing is to watch Tim complain that others are not “adults” — while demonstrating himself a narcissistic child’s worldview, in which everyone else is wrong and in which any rule that he doesn’t like should not apply.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 16, 2009 @ 1:08 am - October 16, 2009
And by the way, Throbert, I’ve been reading your comments over on Zomblog, and definitely want to apologize for what I said about you last week. It’s more than obvious you are neither a leftist or apologete for them, and it was unfair and wrong for me to say that you were.
(deep bow of respect)
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 16, 2009 @ 1:19 am - October 16, 2009
NDT: Thank you, I appreciate that. And I owe you an apology as well (and VtK, but he’s used to that) — I know that both of you are astute critics of the Gay
LeftMainstream here and on other sites such as IGF, and I’m glad to count you as allies. However, it does get on my nerves sometimes when you go into attack mode and lay on the hyperbole too thick.And the main trouble with over-the-top phrasings is not that they’re “unfair” to our opponents, but rather that it gives them a much too easy occasion to score points by refuting the hyperbole as not literally true, while dodging the underlying argument.
Comment by Throbert McGee — October 16, 2009 @ 1:51 am - October 16, 2009
SWEET JESUS, TIM! The man EXPLOITED CHILDREN sexually for his own selfish pleasure and promoted that others do the same. To any rational, intelligent person, that zeros out any “good” he might have done. Only some sick, deranged perv would flail about making sorry ass excuses like you are.
I wouldn’t give a crap if the man was Pope for 50 years or whatever. If he’s buggering children, he ranks several levels lower than dog shit. Those making excuses aren’t any better. I wouldn’t have said that I admired him and neither would anybody who thinks with anything more than their dick (and even some of them wouldn’t).
You don’t deserve “classy”. You can take that along with your inflated ego and narrow world view and cram it.
No you don’t. As I said you piss & moan because we won’t agree with you that screwing children is wonderful and other “great things” you do with your life excuses it.
Filth deserve nothing more. I take comfort in the fact that I sure as hell won’t be “intellectually annihilated” by the likes of your sorry child buggering ass.
May the messiah and his peace of Nobel have mercy on your rotting carcass.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 16, 2009 @ 2:03 am - October 16, 2009
Well said, Throbert in #24, very well said, especially that second ¶.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 16, 2009 @ 2:07 am - October 16, 2009
[...] Kevin Jennings Knew of Harry Hay’s NAMBLA Connections? [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » If Jennings Were Aware of Harry Hay’s Support of PederastyDid he have a duty to denounce this man who inspired him? — October 16, 2009 @ 2:09 am - October 16, 2009
Ooooh! Lemme see if I can play:
So what if Roman Polanski got a 13 y/o chick drunk and sodomized her. He’s made a lot of great films (???). And what could be greater than sticking it to “the man”, fleeing to Europe and becoming a “man of the world”? Besides, the bitch wanted it by showing up at Nicholson’s house unescorted, right?
Oh yeah. John Wayne Gacy was active in his community. He threw block parties and loved to entertain children. He did work for the local democrat office, so he was politically active. He was made “outstanding vice-president” of the local Jaycees. I’m sure Waterloo, Illinois died a little inside in 1994.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 16, 2009 @ 3:47 am - October 16, 2009
#28: And one more thing, TGC, like Polanski, Gacy was a GREAT artist. His portraits of clowns are absolutely breathtaking. Oh yeah–and he buried something like 30 men and boys under his house that he had murdered. So, you certainly can’t say he was lazy (plus, he was a homeowner!).
Comment by Sean A — October 16, 2009 @ 10:13 am - October 16, 2009
And the main trouble with over-the-top phrasings is not that they’re “unfair” to our opponents, but rather that it gives them a much too easy occasion to score points by refuting the hyperbole as not literally true, while dodging the underlying argument.
Throbert, that’s true. But in many cases, not only is the hyperbole not literally true, it is outright false. In any case, resorting to hyperbole usually means the person doesn’t have an argument for the actual issue, and needs to make stuff up in order to try to win the argument. It’s bad enough when anyone does it, but more disappointing when someone who is otherwise intelligent does it.
Comment by Pat — October 16, 2009 @ 10:35 am - October 16, 2009
[...] Kevin Jennings Knew of Harry Hay’s NAMBLA Connections? [...]
Pingback by Kevin Jennings Safe Schools Czar – Age 15, or 16, What’s the Difference ? « Angry Californian — October 17, 2009 @ 12:21 pm - October 17, 2009
As a straight married USA patriot, I am proud to have found your website while looking for information on this Marxist goofball Jennings who thinks having sex with children is OK. The Mainstream Media or as we have come to know it under the Reign of Obama, the State Run Media, has made all Gays, Lesbians and Transgender folks out to be Leftist Loons ready to trash the US Constitution and fall in line behind the Dear Leader and his Chicago Thugs.
Many regular conservatives in the straight Patriot community support gay marriage as long as it is deemed legal by state and not federal government. The second breath away from President Bush for 8 years, Dick Cheney feels the same way. The Lunatic in the Whitehouse has made it an issue in order to exploit the Gay Community for votes as he does every “special interest” group.
By keeping America splintered into fragments, he has us fight each other rather than the real “Public Enemy #1” – Barack Hussein Obama and his Communist Legion in the Whitehouse and Congress.
Your website is to be commended and your message is true. God Bless you.
Comment by Roscoe Bonefitucci — October 23, 2009 @ 6:47 am - October 23, 2009
[...] [...]
Pingback by Catholic church links pedophilia with homosexuality - Politics and Other Controversies -Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 6 - City-Data Forum — April 14, 2010 @ 1:43 pm - April 14, 2010