Gay Patriot Header Image

The Very Deep Thoughts of Sally Kohn

Posted by V the K at 10:07 pm - April 6, 2015.
Filed under: Leftist Nutjobs

Would it be uncivil to suggest that lesbianese CNN pundit Sally Kohn is the dumber, blonder version of Rachel Maddow? I know I’m not supposed to be uncivil, but what else can you say about someone who … almost daily… spews idiocy like this: (Hat Tip: Ace)

Of course, as long as Cher is alive, she won’t be the #DumbestWomanOnTwitter. (Hat Tip: Weasel Zips)

Screen-Shot-2015-04-06-at-10.49.38-AM-550x401

Share

9 Comments

  1. That’s a pretty stupid comment.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — April 6, 2015 @ 11:00 pm - April 6, 2015

  2. Sure make light of traffic laws until someone like Rodney King, or a druggie shot dead by cops comes around. I had 2 coroners cases in a month of black felons shot dead by cops both on weekends around 2 am when the bars & strip clubs kick people out.

    Comment by Steve — April 6, 2015 @ 11:15 pm - April 6, 2015

  3. Sally Kohn is incorrect. If the gay printer refused to print the signs for the Westboro Baptist Church, he would be in violation of the anti-discrimination laws based upon the customer’s religion, which still is one of the protected items. What an absolute Leftist tool!

    Comment by Juan — April 7, 2015 @ 12:14 am - April 7, 2015

  4. This is as dumb as Michael Moore saying that taxes aren’t ‘force’.

    Comment by Karen — April 7, 2015 @ 12:31 am - April 7, 2015

  5. Yeah….government force is not government force if its in my favor.

    Right. Got it now.

    Comment by Craig Smith — April 7, 2015 @ 12:51 am - April 7, 2015

  6. Note that at the time of Lawrence v. Texas, sodomy had already been downgraded to a misdemeanor in Texas — the maximum possible penalty was a fine of $250, if I’m not mistaken. That’s higher than the usual fines for not wearing a seatbelt, but not vastly more onerous. Would Kohn be willing to concede that anti-sodomy laws do not amount to “government force” because people are free to risk the consequences and pay the $250?

    (And, in fact, the Texas judge originally imposed a much lower fine on the two men who’d been charged with “deviant sex”; the amount was so low that it didn’t give them legal standing to appeal. The men and their attorney had to REQUEST a higher fine — which the judge agreed to do — just so that they’d be able to challenge the case!)

    Comment by Throbert McGee — April 7, 2015 @ 4:08 pm - April 7, 2015

  7. Is the threat of the fine for breaking the law amount to “forcing” you to follow the law? No.”

    Holy cow! This person just doesn’t understand English. How on earth is a fine not a “force”?

    Or maybe, instead of not understanding basic English, she has way too much money?!

    If that’s the case, Obama needs to take some of her money from her and give it too others – as long as it is called a “fine” then it won’t be by “force,” will it?

    Comment by charles — April 7, 2015 @ 9:26 pm - April 7, 2015

  8. Sally Kohn’s logic is pure and simple: It’s not a crime, unless you are caught.

    You may rape, pillage and burn to your heart’s content.

    Want a little bauble? Pocket it. Want a free meal? Stiff the check. Want some variety, get some strange when your partner is at work. Want some air time? Make up a gang rape story.

    Sally Kohn’s logic is that of a fish: there is no right or wrong, there is only getting caught or not getting caught.

    Comment by Heliotrope — April 8, 2015 @ 9:13 am - April 8, 2015

  9. Sally Kohn’s logic is pure and simple: It’s not a crime, unless you are caught.

    Erm, I don’t think that was her point. At least, I’m pretty sure that what she intended to say was that “Legal fines against bakers for not making gay wedding cakes aren’t government force, just like fining people for not wearing seatbelts isn’t force — bakers who don’t want to bake gay wedding cakes are free to deal with the consequences,” as she put it. In other words, they’re not being forced to bake gay wedding cakes; they’re merely being forced to pay fines if they choose of their own free will to not bake gay wedding cakes.

    LOJIK!

    Comment by Throbert McGee — April 8, 2015 @ 7:50 pm - April 8, 2015

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.