GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2005/11/08/al-franken-im-glad-the-homosexual-got-killed/trackback/

  1. I’m sure Heather, QP, GCB or PP will step up to the plate and defend Al Franken … and then they’ll call the rest of us “Uncle Toms” for criticizing him.

    Comment by V the K — November 8, 2005 @ 11:17 am - November 8, 2005

  2. I don’t think it’s defense in asking was someone from the Hasty Pudding club actually murdered attributable as a hate crime?

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 8, 2005 @ 11:21 am - November 8, 2005

  3. GCB – No one is saying Franken committed a hate crime. Do you defend his “joke” ?

    Comment by GayPatriot — November 8, 2005 @ 11:26 am - November 8, 2005

  4. I’m not defending anything and I’m not asking if Al Franken committed a hate crime. I’m asking, in reality, was a member of the Hasty Pudding Club murder as the result of a hate crime?

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 8, 2005 @ 12:05 pm - November 8, 2005

  5. Whoa there kiddo! You might want to go read the 1976 Harvard Crimson article on which your little concoction is ultimately based before you go off the deep end with this one.

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=112149

    I know it’s easier just to slap up some other guy’s foolishness and call it a day, but do yourself a favor and actually read — R E A D — the entire piece.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — November 8, 2005 @ 12:07 pm - November 8, 2005

  6. I know it’s easier just to slap up some other guy’s foolishness and call it a day

    Your wish is my command.

    36 square yards equals 108 square feet or 11664 total linear feet. The Exxon spill, if we were to assume only 36 yards (significantly less than what was affected) from shore into the sea were affected would equal 232,087,680 linear feet. That equals about a 2 million percent difference. -GayCowBoyBob

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 8, 2005 @ 12:34 pm - November 8, 2005

  7. Would you like us to slap up where you say that making statements about how you hate homosexuals and how you’re glad the homosexual was killed is OK as long as you claim it’s a joke, Queer Patriot?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2005 @ 12:40 pm - November 8, 2005

  8. #5 — Gee, QP, are you suggesting it’s wrong to take statements out of context and use them against someone?

    If so, I believe you owe Rick Santorum an apology.

    Comment by V the K — November 8, 2005 @ 12:41 pm - November 8, 2005

  9. So, will QP respond with a well-reasoned defense of his comment, or childish name-calling? What do you, the viewers at home, think?

    Comment by V the K — November 8, 2005 @ 12:49 pm - November 8, 2005

  10. Frank, I believe I corrected myself on that:

    You do realize though you’ve just enhanced my argument, correct? We’re now talking about 264 square feet of the Greenpeace boat to about 232,087,680 square feet of the Exxon Valdez spill. Big difference I would say.

    But then what more should I expect though of people who generally get the details right and the message all wrong? Sigh…

    And here’s the full quote of Franken’s statement…

    He recalled writing a skit called “Seamen on Broadway” that was rejected from the Hasty Pudding show “by some preppie so they could take some other preppie’s skit.” Franken started to smile again, but his tone was serious, too serious. “It’s not preppies, cause I’m a preppie myself. I just don’t like homosexuals. If you ask me, they’re all homosexuals in the Pudding. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia.” The smile became so broad it pushed his eyes shut. He couldn’t stand it any longer. “Put that in, put that in,” Franken laughed, leaning over the desk. “I’d love to see that in The Crimson.”

    But back to my first and only real question. I was just curious if anyone from the Hasty Puddings club was murdered at what police thought was a hate crime. The usual pundits here got on me like Richard Simmons on the pile at a rugby match rather than simply take the time to answer my question.

    Way to go Retardicans.

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 8, 2005 @ 12:53 pm - November 8, 2005

  11. LOL……good thing I placed my bet on “childish name-calling”. We’ll be having steak for lunch today!

    And Bob, honestly, why are you asking a rhetorical question? Libs like yourself insist that ANY time a gay person is killed, it’s a “hate crime”. It’s just like Jesse Jackson, only with more screaming and flamboyance — and boy, that must take SOME work on your part to be able to outdo him.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2005 @ 12:58 pm - November 8, 2005

  12. OK. I’ll ask once again. Was there a murder of a Hasty Pudding’s member that is somehow related to this person’s homosexuality and committed by individuals on the basis of that homosexuality?

    Is that better? I didn’t say “hate crime.” I just want to know.

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 8, 2005 @ 1:13 pm - November 8, 2005

  13. You know, it wasn’t too long ago that the libs were dissing Dr. Laura Schlessinger because of her take on homosexuals. Will the libs do the same now that Stuart Smalley has said something more detrimental?

    Will they now boycott Air America and watch its ratings plummet? Oh, wait – Air America doesn’t need help in crashing, because it already is.

    Anyone who thinks that what the Franken-stein said is not bigoted needs to turn in their gay badge NOW.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — November 8, 2005 @ 1:13 pm - November 8, 2005

  14. Whoa, wait a minute, Bob…perhaps you’d better reread your quote:

    Franken started to smile again, but his tone was serious, too serious. “It’s not preppies, cause I’m a preppie myself. I just don’t like homosexuals. If you ask me, they’re all homosexuals in the Pudding. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia.”

    In short:

    – Franken doesn’t like people in Hasty Pudding

    – Franken thinks all people in Hasty Pudding are homosexuals

    Here’s the tough part for you: Franken doesn’t like people in Hasty Pudding because he thinks they’re all homosexuals.

    Now, when you look at what Franken said in that context, he would be glad if ANY Pudding person got killed, because they’re all homosexuals and he doesn’t like homosexuals.

    Put differently, “I’m glad when Hasty Pudding people get killed because they’re all gay and I don’t like homosexuals”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2005 @ 1:22 pm - November 8, 2005

  15. I don’t CARE if someone was killed (in this case)….. the POINT is, lame-brain, that Franken clearly delivered a homophobic bigoted joke. What say you about that? Doesn’t even sound like HE CARES if a homosexual dies or not….

    Comment by GayPatriot — November 8, 2005 @ 1:23 pm - November 8, 2005

  16. BTW, back from Texas Motor Speedway. I saw no obviously gay people (male), but I saw quite a few female couples that had strong “butch” vibes?

    One wouldn’t think that a sport with no major league female drivers would attract a lesbionic follwoing, but I know what I saw.

    Seats were not that good. Fourth Corner, only 6 rows up, so couldn’t see cars in the corner. Rusty Wallace, who drives a beer sponsored car, was on his way to a Top 10, maybe even Top 5 finish, but didn’t change tires on last caution, and got passed by about 15 cars on the restart.

    Comment by Ed Mahmoud abu Sid & Marty Kroft\\\\\\\'s Martyrs Brigades — November 8, 2005 @ 1:31 pm - November 8, 2005

  17. LOL…..was the traffic that bad getting back into the city, Ed? I was out on Saturday night driving up 820 from Fort Worth towards Keller…..as soon as I turned onto the NE Loop headed for 377….traffic at a crawl. I ended up cutting north through NRH and then over on 170….ugh!

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2005 @ 1:34 pm - November 8, 2005

  18. We left for the track at 9:30 am, and no problem getting to the track at all, about 5 minutes total time in traffic, parked before 10:30.

    Getting out, sat motionless for almost an hour, half an hour more to I-35W. 20 mph past the US 287 merge, than full highway speed beyond that.

    Comment by Ed Mahmoud abu Sid & Marty Kroft\\\\\\\'s Martyrs Brigades — November 8, 2005 @ 1:38 pm - November 8, 2005

  19. I don’t CARE if someone was killed (in this case)….. the POINT is, lame-brain, that Franken clearly delivered a homophobic bigoted joke. What say you about that? Doesn’t even sound like HE CARES if a homosexual dies or not…

    Well then I guess that’s true because Al Franken has a serious history of violence and bigoted sentiment toward homosexuals. Perhaps even worse than Dr. Laura.

    You remember what happened last year, right?

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 8, 2005 @ 1:50 pm - November 8, 2005

  20. #15 — GCB is doing his usual weasel dance and avoiding the awkward position where he would have to 1.) defend the kind of comment that he would condemn if it fell from the mouth of Rick Santorum or 2.) criticize a leftist. By throwing out an irrelevent, non-sequitur question, he weasels out of an awkward situation.

    Comment by V the K — November 8, 2005 @ 1:51 pm - November 8, 2005

  21. And now he weasels out by using the classic leftist — hey, look, here’s a bigoted conservative — maneuver.

    Comment by V the K — November 8, 2005 @ 1:52 pm - November 8, 2005

  22. GayCow’s original arithmetic for the Greenpeace boat’s coral damage:

    36 square yards equals 108 square feet or 11664 total linear feet.

    I pointed out that

    36 square yards = 324 square feet. BUT… 36 yards, square = 1296 square yards =} x 9 = 11,664 square feet.

    He responds (after allowing the information to pass out the ear opposite from the one through which it entered):

    You do realize though you’ve just enhanced my argument, correct? We’re now talking about 264 square feet of the Greenpeace boat…

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 8, 2005 @ 2:27 pm - November 8, 2005

  23. But what about Nixon and Watergate?

    Comment by Gaylord McGay — November 8, 2005 @ 2:28 pm - November 8, 2005

  24. GCB is doing his usual weasel dance and avoiding the awkward position where he would have to 1.) defend the kind of comment that he would condemn if it fell from the mouth of Rick Santorum or 2.) criticize a leftist. By throwing out an irrelevent, non-sequitur question, he weasels out of an awkward situation.

    That’s what I’m saying. Franken has a proven track record of homophobia right? I mean, this isn’t one off-the-cuff joke in poor taste as opposed to several impacting instances of homophobia that actually affect public policy, right?

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 8, 2005 @ 2:44 pm - November 8, 2005

  25. Dance, weasel, dance!

    Comment by V the K — November 8, 2005 @ 2:47 pm - November 8, 2005

  26. LOL…..and what difference would that make, GCB? Homophobes who in several instances advocate public policies stripping gays of rights you call “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    Like V the K said….dance, weasel, dance!

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2005 @ 2:53 pm - November 8, 2005

  27. He responds (after allowing the information to pass out the ear opposite from the one through which it entered):

    OMG, Frank. You’re absolutely frickin right on your math. You’re brilliant.

    Now tell me how how these numbers compare:

    36 yards, square = 1296 square yards =} x 9 = 11,664 square feet for the Greenpeace boat.

    2,148,960 feet (407 miles) x 108 feet (36 yards) of beachfront (an actually limited amount of shoreline to what was really affected)=3,127,680 square feet

    So in this estimate the Valdez affected the environment at a factor of 268 more than the Greenpeace boat. Greenpeace paid $7,000 for their problem and so the Valdez in this conservative estmate should have at least paid $1,877,037 for the environmental impact.

    Not so bad, right? But it’s a little more complicated than that. Let’s take a look at how long this damage will actually fix. In a healthy ecosystem, damaged coral can take a relatively short time to reflourish and naturally with little need for human intervention – maybe ten years all on it’s own. In bad oil spills, like the Valdez with 11 million gallons released, just the cleanup itself can take several years at significant use of human intervention. That environmental cost rises exponentially at the necessity of what’s needed to correct the problem. And then there’s the consideration of long-term health effects to the plants and animals that came in contact with the oil. Clean-up only addresses the fundamental toxicity.

    We know that the spill affected reproductive aspects of Pink Salmon, Sea Otters and Harlequin Ducks. A 2001 survey of the Valdez site indicated that 53 sites still contained residual oil over 38 that seemed cleared. There were even more subsurface pits in the main biological zone with bioavailable oil affecting shelfish and the birds that feed on them. Monoaromatics causing outright narcosis death and chronic low level exposure causing leukemia in animals is part of this ongoing effect. More deformities and less regular growth and reproduction are also effects. Imagine your salmon having 2-3 extra sets of fins. Mmm… delicious!

    So you see, it’s complicated and nearly impossible to quantify the effects of the Greenpeace boat accident and the Valdez spill. But I think it’s easy to acknowledge just how much more significant the Valdez spill was. Was the Greenpeace boat accident ironic? Perhaps. But did it in any way really compare to the effects of the Valdez? Not in the slightest.

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 8, 2005 @ 3:37 pm - November 8, 2005

  28. LOL…..and what difference would that make, GCB? Homophobes who in several instances advocate public policies stripping gays of rights you call “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    And Santorum would like to re-institute sodomy laws? Is that only for same-sex couples or will he also refrain from the BJ as well? Santorum would like to criminalize gay sex while Kerry wants to reserve marriage for straight partners. Santorum would prefer a step back while Kerry proposes staying where we are. That justifies Santorum’s position and blackmarks Kerry’s?

    If I’m dancing, at least its kick-ass club as opposed to your repressed cotillion waltzes with ugly female cousins.

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 8, 2005 @ 3:44 pm - November 8, 2005

  29. Actually, when I took Natural Resource management courses in college, we read several reports indicating that oil spills were largely self-cleaning, and that human efforts to clean-up oil spills had marginal impact at best and at worst, made the environmental impact worse.

    Comment by V the K — November 8, 2005 @ 3:45 pm - November 8, 2005

  30. Oh JC!

    I meant 232,087,680 square feet for the Valdez spill actually correcting my earlier estimate to $62,199,498,240. I knew that seemed to small.

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 8, 2005 @ 3:47 pm - November 8, 2005

  31. Actually, when I took Natural Resource management courses in college, we read several reports indicating that oil spills were largely self-cleaning, and that human efforts to clean-up oil spills had marginal impact at best and at worst, made the environmental impact worse.

    It depends on where and what kind of oil was spilled. Light oils will actually tend to evaporate mostly but heavy oils, like in the Valdez, do not dissipate quickly.

    The possibility of continuing low level chronic effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill seem very real now, although measurable population effects would be very difficult to detect in wild populations. If there are continuing effects, it would be most likely restricted to populations residing or feeding in the isolated oil pockets. Sea otters and harlequin ducks fall into this category. Researchers have been monitoring these populations’ poor recovery in heavily oiled areas since the 1989 spill. The 2001 shoreline survey has provided new insights for possible sources of continued oil contamination. This has stimulated future studies that will focus on the bioavailability of the oil and its impacts on species such as sea otters, harlequin ducks, and their intertidal prey.

    There are still many pockets of subsurface oil yet to release from the Valdez. They still have the potential to cause further damage well into the future.

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 8, 2005 @ 3:50 pm - November 8, 2005

  32. Exxon Valdez oil spill impacts lasting far longer than expected, scientists say

    By DAVID WILLIAMSON
    UNC News Services
    CHAPEL HILL — Assuming that oil spills such as the one
    that devastated Alaska’s Prince William Sound almost 15 years ago and other
    toxic insults to the environment have only short-term impacts on coastal
    marine ecosystems has been a big mistake, a new study shows.

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 8, 2005 @ 3:51 pm - November 8, 2005

  33. Since Ed’s in the oil industry, I’ll defer to his judgment, rather than indulge the weasel in any further diversionary tactics.

    Comment by V the K — November 8, 2005 @ 3:57 pm - November 8, 2005

  34. It seems also that many of the people hired to help in the cleanup are now suffering long term effects from breating in the mixture created by the steam cleaning of the rocks.

    …Exxon’s pressurized hot water wash created oil mists and PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon) aerosols, resulting in chemical poisoning of workers who inhaled them. Did Exxon and VECO (the primary cleanup contractor) know about these health effects? Ott reports:

    The oil industry was well aware of the health hazards of inhalation of various fractions of crude oil and its refined products before the [Exxon Valdez] spill. . . . Exxon had developed an extensive library on health effects from inhalation of oil vapors, mists, and aerosol — and proper protection for company employees.

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 8, 2005 @ 3:59 pm - November 8, 2005

  35. Exxon also recouped half the clean-up costs from insurance and tax write-offs. The company it hired to clean up the spill made $800 million from the effort and then purchased the Anchorage Times which gave glowing reviews of Exxon’s clean up effort in the years following.

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 8, 2005 @ 4:02 pm - November 8, 2005

  36. And what does Ed do in Oil? Does his position give him a clear ethical viewpoint on the matter?

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 8, 2005 @ 4:11 pm - November 8, 2005

  37. And Santorum would like to re-institute sodomy laws? Is that only for same-sex couples or will he also refrain from the BJ as well? Santorum would like to criminalize gay sex while Kerry wants to reserve marriage for straight partners. Santorum would prefer a step back while Kerry proposes staying where we are. That justifies Santorum’s position and blackmarks Kerry’s?

    Santorum’s position, if your spin on it has a kernel of truth anywhere in it, is not in the least bit justified. I’ve said as much about antigay positions elsewhere.

    But now, GayCowboyBob, let’s get to the heart of your rationalization here:

    Santorum would prefer a step back while Kerry proposes staying where we are.

    You mean like in Massachusetts, where Kerry proposed banning the EXISTING right of gay marriage? The Massachusetts Supreme Court said unequivocally that that was a step BACKWARD. Anyone with half a brain said that was a step BACKWARD.

    Moreover, Bob, I want you to say that those people pushing antigay state constitutional amendments, like John Kerry did, are justified because it’s only “staying where we are”. Since you insist that John Kerry was “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” for pushing those amendments, that applies to everyone else as well.

    Finally, Bob, John Kerry said he was for “FULL inclusion” and “EQUALITY”. Yet on every occasion, he supported laws and amendments designed to ensure that glbt Americans would NEVER enjoy those things. Indeed, he PRAISED voters for passing them.

    If I’m dancing, at least its kick-ass club as opposed to your repressed cotillion waltzes with ugly female cousins.

    LOL…gee, not only is he blind, he’s hearing-impaired as well. :)

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2005 @ 4:14 pm - November 8, 2005

  38. #37 — Anything to avoid the awkward dilemma of defending a homophobic comment or attacking a liberal. Man, that’s the gotta suck. Keep on dancing, weasel.

    Comment by V the K — November 8, 2005 @ 4:24 pm - November 8, 2005

  39. Santorum’s position, if your spin on it has a kernel of truth anywhere in it, is not in the least bit justified. I’ve said as much about antigay positions elsewhere.

    Are you saying that Santorum did not take a stand against the Supreme Court’s ruling that struck down state sodomy laws?

    “If the Supreme Court says that you have a right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.” – Rick Santorum

    What should I be getting out of this comment? To me it says that he feels you basically cannot have gay sex period and that it should be a criminal offense that if condoned would be the start of an avalanche of other heinous, similar criminal sexual circumstances. He quite clearly feels that gay sex is equivalent to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery, no? That they are clearly unacceptable and reproachable.

    You mean like in Massachusetts, where Kerry proposed banning the EXISTING right of gay marriage? The Massachusetts Supreme Court said unequivocally that that was a step BACKWARD. Anyone with half a brain said that was a step BACKWARD.

    In your post itself, you stated how his action was condemned by nearly every major national gay rights group. They do not think his comments and propsed action are appropriate. And for one-issue voters it may have been enough to outright oppose him. However, the way our government is set up we do not have the option like other countries of a kind of “no confidence” vote when we don’t like any of the candidates. It’s one or the other and so you choose the candidate that you feel is the overall best compromise of your interests. In this area Kerry is not enlightened, but consider a further clarification by Senator Kerry:

    “…What I said was we need to achieve what we can, and then we will see where we are. It may well be that if we achieve civil union, if we have leadership that advances the causes that I have described to you, that we may all of us progress as we have progressed in the last 15 years to a place where there is a different understanding of it. But at this particular moment in time, I don’t believe that exists, and I want to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. I want to pass hate crimes. I want to pass federal benefit partnership rights. I want to advance us as fast and as appropriately as I think we can, but I think that one has to respect the current cultural, historical, religious perception, and I respect it.”

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 8, 2005 @ 4:47 pm - November 8, 2005

  40. Playing the spin, lie, move the goalpost game again, Bob?

    Here was your position at first:

    And Santorum would like to re-institute sodomy laws? Is that only for same-sex couples or will he also refrain from the BJ as well? Santorum would like to criminalize gay sex while Kerry wants to reserve marriage for straight partners.

    Then when I said if that was true, I opposed it, you changed your story:

    Are you saying that Santorum did not take a stand against the Supreme Court’s ruling that struck down state sodomy laws?

    Hardly. He did take a stand against it. And in his own backward way, he was right. Santorum’s point was that removing the right of states to regulate gay sex invalidated their ability to regulate ANY type of sex. From a legal standpoint, he was right — and the Supremes have had to resort to all sort of twisted and convoluted reasonings to explain why bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery laws should be upheld — and ironically, in the process, asserting states’ rights to discriminate in “public acts” like marriage and adoption, even against gays.

    Santorum was against Lawrence primarily because he’s a bigot when it comes to public acts. But interestingly enough, that led him to a reasonable conclusion, which reminds of the old adage that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    In your post itself, you stated how his action was condemned by nearly every major national gay rights group.

    Actually, Bob, if you read, that first part of the post where HRC, et al. decided to be gay rights organizations is from 2005. In 2004, as is outlined later in the post, they were gushing over how “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” Kerry’s stances were and were giving him millions of dollars to jet around the country proclaiming his love and undying support of state constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights.

    Do you consider calling someone “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” and giving them millions, MILLIONS of dollars while spending next to nothing on defeating antigay initiatives that that someone is supporting to be “condemnation”, Bob?

    As for your excuse about “single-issue organizations”, that’s what HRC/NGLTF and others ARE — they are GAY RIGHTS organizations and gay rights organizations ONLY.

    They didn’t have to endorse Kerry. They didn’t have to endorse ANYONE. They could have put money into fighting back the amendments that both Kerry and Bush were endorsing and showing that the gay community is concerned about rights and not about whoring for politicians. But unfortunately, as you and HRC/NGLTF etc. show, you’re only a whore for Democrats, defending their support of antigay state constitutional amendments as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, like the ugly old man at the bar who thinks buying drinks for them will get him into the cute boy’s pants. Kerry and the Democrats know you’re nothing but a spineless fool who will defend whatever they do, whatever they say, whatever stupid excuse they use, and will give them money for the privilege.

    What I find ironic is this:

    “I want to advance us as fast and as appropriately as I think we can, but I think that one has to respect the current cultural, historical, religious perception, and I respect it.”

    In short, Kerry opposes full equality and inclusion because of religious and traditional views. Isn’t it amazing how you, Bob, who bashes Schwarzenegger, who bashes anyone else who would even dare say such a thing, who says that these people are ignorant and superstitious antigay bigots, cowers so before Kerry?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2005 @ 5:51 pm - November 8, 2005

  41. Wow, this Bob guy sure has a hard time saying, “Franken’s remark was hurtful, bigoted and wrong. I hope he’ll refute the story or apologize.”

    Doesn’t seem so hard, now, does it?

    Comment by BobIsAfraid — November 8, 2005 @ 6:48 pm - November 8, 2005

  42. Hardly. He did take a stand against it. And in his own backward way, he was right. Santorum’s point was that removing the right of states to regulate gay sex invalidated their ability to regulate ANY type of sex.

    That’s hardly true. Bigamy, polygamy and adultery all have basis in marriage laws and incest based in reproductive health. All have very clear legal reason for being. Sodomy laws however are biased into being be religious assumptions. Remember, sodomy is any kind of sexual act outside of actual heterosexual copulation including oral sex etc. between heterosexuals.

    They didn’t have to endorse Kerry. They didn’t have to endorse ANYONE.

    Bull. Your own Log Cabin is a prime example of how detrimental not endorsing a candidate can be. When they didn’t back Bush they lost any hope of access they may have had a chance at if they had publicly endorsed him, even though they did not ascribe to the full range of his policies.

    In short, Kerry opposes full equality and inclusion because of religious and traditional views.

    But his statement clearly showed that he accepted the eventual reality of gay marriage and that he was defending the position out of respect for the viewpoint of today’s America, not some ridiculous fingers in the ear la-la-la can’t hear you of Republicans.

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 8, 2005 @ 6:56 pm - November 8, 2005

  43. BTW, did we establish if Al Franken is a homophobe or that he just has bad taste in humor?

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 8, 2005 @ 7:00 pm - November 8, 2005

  44. The weasel dance goes on.

    Comment by V the K — November 8, 2005 @ 7:08 pm - November 8, 2005

  45. GayCowBBs, actually everyone in Hollywood and NYC and DC know that Franken is a homophobe, bigot, racist, anti-Catholic baiting lying weasel. Everyone in the GayLeft knows he was wrong to make a joke at the expense of an entire community of victims still racked by the horrors of Nazi Germany’s oppression of gays. Besides, I know someone who cleans AlFranken’s neighbor’s pool and he says he’s seen AlFranken punting a BillyDoll all over his backyard on three occasions. Three! That’s all the evidence I need.

    So, fellow Franken weasel, when are you going to distance yourself from his hurtful, hatefilled comments and accept this posterboi for the undisciplined Left was WRONG? Come on, GayCowBBs, confess, admit your error in not condemning Franken at the outset, and repent.

    You’ll feel better… and, in the end, isn’t that all that really matters to the GayLeft? How they feel?

    Tick tock, we’re waiting.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 8, 2005 @ 8:49 pm - November 8, 2005

  46. AlFranken punting a BillyDoll all over his backyard

    Er, could you explain that one to me? I’m just an innocent Catholic boy…

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 8, 2005 @ 9:01 pm - November 8, 2005

  47. No such thing as an “innocent catholic boy”. :)

    Comment by monty — November 8, 2005 @ 10:56 pm - November 8, 2005

  48. Liverpool ENGLAND
    Prolifers gathered Monday to mourn the death of an unborn chicken, lying dead in a back alley. Police cordoned off the area, which was decorated with flowers, cards and teddy bears. One card read, “RIP Little Baby. Safe in the arms of Jesus. From someone who is a loving mother xxxx.”

    Police were first called to the scene when someone reported a human fetus lying in an alley. Word spread fast and the sadsacks came out of the woodwork to shed a few tears at the inhumanity. The police soon realized that the fetus was really that of a chicken.
    A spokesman for the police later told the community, “Stop grieving, it’s only a chicken.”

    From the BBC…

    Comment by travis t monk — November 8, 2005 @ 11:11 pm - November 8, 2005

  49. Between the marriage and oil stuff, I’m trying to get some info on the original Al Franken topic. Aside from the original, nearly 30 year old interview, I’m looking for more recent proof of a regular pattern on the claims about his homophobia, racism, bigotry and anti-catholicism. As I read the article, it can be taken as a really nasty homophobic comment, or just a stupid comment by an ambitious writer in his mid 20s who was bitter about not being able to get into the Pudding and wanted to bait them.

    I’d be disappointed if the accusations are true, but personally always found him a bit weird; especially when I attended the Democratic National Convention in 1992 and stood watching as he asked politicians some really odd/annoying questions.

    But then again, let’s not forget conservative commentators, like Rush Limbaugh, who said in the past that drug users should just be thown into jail…..

    Comment by Kevin — November 8, 2005 @ 11:14 pm - November 8, 2005

  50. I agree, Kevin.

    I’ve found him to be annoying and egocentric…however, so is most every radio personality on the air. Funny how we LIBS have only ONE radio station. :)

    Comment by monty — November 8, 2005 @ 11:23 pm - November 8, 2005

  51. Oh, Jesus! Do I have to explain everything to you humorless (and at this point, witless) Gay Patriots????!!?? Key line: “I’d love to see that in the Harvard Crimson!”.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — November 9, 2005 @ 12:02 am - November 9, 2005

  52. QP, of course you have to explain it. :-)

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 9, 2005 @ 12:09 am - November 9, 2005

  53. That’s hardly true. Bigamy, polygamy and adultery all have basis in marriage laws and incest based in reproductive health.

    That’s odd, Bob…….you suddenly start saying it’s legal to ban certain types of marriage and certain types of sex because they’re unhealthy when cornered on Lawrence.

    Bull. Your own Log Cabin is a prime example of how detrimental not endorsing a candidate can be. When they didn’t back Bush they lost any hope of access they may have had a chance at if they had publicly endorsed him, even though they did not ascribe to the full range of his policies.

    Any excuse to explain sucking up to homophobes, eh Bob? What’s the matter — afraid the Democrats who supposedly support gays won’t listen to us if we hold them accountable for being antigay bigots who suck up to the religious right? Would Kerry’s support for gay rights suddenly evaporate if you didn’t give him money and instead spent it on opposing antigay state constitutional amendments?

    As for Log Cabin, their donations and their ability to fund campaigns increased dramatically when they finally took a stand and said “No”. That increases their access to voters, which means they no longer have to waste time talking to homophobic politicians — they can get rid of them or change their viewpoints the old-fashioned way.

    But his statement clearly showed that he accepted the eventual reality of gay marriage and that he was defending the position out of respect for the viewpoint of today’s America, not some ridiculous fingers in the ear la-la-la can’t hear you of Republicans.

    LOL….so in other words, it’s “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” to oppose gay marriage and support stripping gays of rights because the majority of Americans do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 9, 2005 @ 1:35 am - November 9, 2005

  54. What’s the matter — afraid the Democrats who supposedly support gays won’t listen to us if we hold them accountable for being antigay bigots who suck up to the religious right

    Why bother now when you’ve never done it with Republicans? (not that they care)

    That increases their access to voters, which means they no longer have to waste time talking to homophobic politicians

    You mean Republican ones? Or just your general run of the mill homophobic politician? And what exactly does “increases their access to voters” really mean? Grass roots stuff? What exactly does one do to fire up the gay, Republican grass roots effort?

    “Log Cabin looks forward to a thorough and thoughtful review of Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court.” (how thoughtful yet non-commital)

    “Log Cabin Expresses Disappointment in Governor Schwarzenegger’s Veto of Civil Marriage Equality” (nothing like “disappointment” to stir up the base)

    “Log Cabin Republicans Praise Massachusetts Vote Protecting Marriage Equality” (something that Republicans had nothing to do with)

    Does it mean that people actually, for once, gave them a little credit when they didn’t slobber over themselves in excitement for the Republican candidate for President. My, now there’s a novel thought. Bravo you Log Cabiners! Good for you for having a spine for once! Now make some plans for your next four years cause it won’t include any tea parties at the White House in the near future.

    I mean really, isn’t it a bit “damned if you do, damned if you don’t?” The Republican leadership is hardly ready, or interested, in pandering to an organization with no leverage but might be willing to listen to a few issues if LCR was on board the GOP train, but the organization gets no access if they don’t go along with the program and frankly just irks their donors as being gay over Republican (at least from what I read on here).

    LOL….so in other words, it’s “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” to oppose gay marriage and support stripping gays of rights because the majority of Americans do.

    Oh gee, you tripped me all up in that clever repartee of yours.

    Not supporting gay marriage is not supporting gay marriage. In a case like Senator Kerry, I think his motives are misguided and I would better appreciate him if he simply said he supported it but personally planned not to take any action on it as he felt it was out of step with current culture. Otherwise though, where he feels he can lead litigation forward, he has, which is far more extensive in general than any of his Republican contemporaries. Can you name a few examples of Republican sentators that have similar records as John Kerry on gay issues?

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 9, 2005 @ 2:03 am - November 9, 2005

  55. GCB! I was blind and now I can see. I was was under the foolish and naive impression that on core matters of principle, it was critically important to stand firm on your ideals. Now I know that it is much more important to remain silent and preserve access. My only question for you is, why aren’t you a Republican? They control all branches of the government. If access is the ultimate goal, then endorsing the loser is a near death experience. The only chance of recovery is an instant conversion. Otherwise, no access for 4 years. On the other hand, LCR stood on principle and has regained it’s access in less than a year. The only conclusion I can draw is that you have not been smart enough to take your own advice. Perhaps you should listen harder.

    Comment by Bobo — November 9, 2005 @ 2:30 am - November 9, 2005

  56. #50
    I’d be disappointed if the accusations are true,

    That would result in a bad case of blue balls, wouldn’t it?

    But then again, let’s not forget conservative commentators, like Rush Limbaugh, who said in the past that drug users should just be thown into jail…..

    Wasn’t he talking about habitual recreational drug users or was he talking about folks who get addicted to highly addictive pain medication?

    #51

    Funny how we LIBS have only ONE radio station.

    Only one? What about NPR?
    I suppose liberals could have more if they had people who were actually interested in listening to hate speech. As it is, they can’t raise a dime on their own. They have to either have the government support it or embezzle from the Boys & Girls club to stay afloat.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 9, 2005 @ 2:35 am - November 9, 2005

  57. Wow! You’re dredging up a off-color joke from Franken from 1976 to prove that he’s anti-gay (something he clearly isn’t)? Well then, you must have been livid that GOP Senators refused to apologize for lynching, that Lott praised segregation, and that Bill Bennet showed his obvious racism.

    Franken is a comedian and this joke is from 1976! These GOPers are not comedians and their racist/sexist/anti-gay drivel is from the past year!

    You guys are funny- even though you’re apparently too dense to discern ancient jokes from current reality! Hey, remember that President Bush was drinking hard and possibly using illegal drugs back in 1976! What does that say about him today?

    Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — November 9, 2005 @ 9:43 am - November 9, 2005

  58. Why bother now when you’ve never done it with Republicans? (not that they care)

    Wasn’t that the whole point of LCR NOT endorsing Bush? They stood up and said “No”, and it only did two things — increase their donations and their effectiveness with voters.

    No wonder homophobic Democrats like John Kerry pay whores like Joe Solmonese and Elizabeth Birch immense sums of money to tell gays they’re helpless people who can’t do anything unless it’s shoveling cash to Democrats.

    You mean Republican ones? Or just your general run of the mill homophobic politician? And what exactly does “increases their access to voters” really mean? Grass roots stuff? What exactly does one do to fire up the gay, Republican grass roots effort?

    It means talking to voters instead of worrying about White House tea party invitations. It means fighting antigay initiatives instead of giving money to antigay politicians.

    And the irony is that this is what that leads to:

    I was moved when the first speech given today was by a Republican State Senator, Brian Lees. Senator Lees, who had been the lead co-sponsor of the amendment that would have outlawed same-sex marriage, spoke courageously in favor of civil marriage equality. Senator Lees words echoed the feelings of the overwhelming majority of the people of this state, ‘Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry.

    Of course, you mocked that:

    “Log Cabin Republicans Praise Massachusetts Vote Protecting Marriage Equality” (something that Republicans had nothing to do with)

    That’s because, Bob, you’re a pimp for the Democratic Party who needs to push your lie:

    In a case like Senator Kerry, I think his motives are misguided and I would better appreciate him if he simply said he supported it but personally planned not to take any action on it as he felt it was out of step with current culture.

    But you called it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when he publicly and flatly supports a ban on it in Massachusetts.

    Kerry doesn’t support gay marriage. If he supported gay marriage, he would not have publicly supported a state constitutional amendment to ban it, especially in Massachusetts. He wouldn’t STILL be saying that it’s “wrong” and “out of step with voters’ views”. But of course, you and your fellow Dembots shoveled him millions of dollars, and you don’t want to admit that you spent it on a homophobic bigot who’s laughing his ass all the way to the bank at you rather than on meaningful initiatives that could actually advance gay rights. And why’d you do it? Because you wanted White House tea party invitations, not gay rights.

    And as for your squeals and weaselly spin that you and your fellow gay libs “condemned” his actions, let’s put two things together:

    You mock this as meaningless:

    “Log Cabin Expresses Disappointment in Governor Schwarzenegger’s Veto of Civil Marriage Equality” (nothing like “disappointment” to stir up the base)

    You scream that this is “condemnation” and banishment:

    HRC DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED IN KERRY’S SUPPORT OF MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 9, 2005 @ 10:17 am - November 9, 2005

  59. You’re apparently too dense to discern ancient jokes from current reality!

    Hey, you guys were the ones who nominated John Kerry.

    Comment by V the K — November 9, 2005 @ 10:28 am - November 9, 2005

  60. Wow! You’re dredging up a off-color joke from Franken from 1976 to prove that he’s anti-gay (something he clearly isn’t)?

    Oh, that’s right….supporting and cheering politicians who push state constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights like you and Franken do isn’t antigay, it’s “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 9, 2005 @ 10:31 am - November 9, 2005

  61. this joke is from 1976!

    Has he apologized for it in these 29 years?

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 9, 2005 @ 12:16 pm - November 9, 2005

  62. Actually now that I remember it, wasn’t he in an SNL skit where one gay mime outed another?

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 9, 2005 @ 12:18 pm - November 9, 2005

  63. Severe weather possible near Genessee, Ohio and Monongahela Rivers!

    Comment by Ed Mahmoud abu Sid & Marty Kroft\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Martyrs Brigades — November 9, 2005 @ 12:51 pm - November 9, 2005

  64. A weatherman. How nelly. :)

    Comment by Gaylord McGay — November 9, 2005 @ 1:48 pm - November 9, 2005

  65. ¡PITTSBURGH TORNADO WATCH!

    Comment by Ed Mahmoud abu Sid & Marty Kroft\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Martyrs Brigades — November 9, 2005 @ 4:57 pm - November 9, 2005

  66. Pittsburgh radar!

    Comment by Ed Mahmoud abu Sid & Marty Kroft\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Martyrs Brigades — November 9, 2005 @ 5:01 pm - November 9, 2005

  67. HAY!!! christmas is coming wanna feel good?..well, me thinks we have a poster boy in;
    Lucas Dawson, who is charged with voluntary manslaughter, has remained in prison because his family could not raise the $30,000 for his bail. He could face a maximum of 30 years in prison if he is convicted.
    Lucas Dawson told his family he was gay nearly four years ago.
    “That’s always been my biggest fear,” his mother said. “That someone would attack him just because he is gay.”
    we…could…do…something…get him out of jail?…

    Comment by travis t monk — November 10, 2005 @ 7:12 pm - November 10, 2005

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.211 Powered by Wordpress