Comments on: DEFINITION OF POND SCUM

By: Chip

Chip — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:37:44 +0000

#26

Thanks for supporting my point by attempting to pass off as “gospel truth” the very same manufactured outrage from the echo chamber to which I was referring. Come up for air and clean out your eyes/ears sometime and you’ll come to understand that even the most fervent conservative critics such as James Dobson don’t espouse hatred toward gays, but rather firmly disagree with their lifestyle and political agenda.

By: busboy33

busboy33 — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:53:11 +0000

@Thomas Jackson:
Not sure I follow you — how is he blackmailing politicians? If he got evidence, then contacted the politician and demanded certain things (votes, monies, etc.) or else he’d release the information, that would be blackmail. Trying to discredit politicians he does not agree with isn’t blackmail, since he’s not asking for anything. If you’re gay, and if you’re a politician, and if he doesn’t like your voting record, he tries to out you. Thats punishing politicians he doesn’t agree with, not blackmail.
And if I’m understanding the tenor of the Rightie comments, apparently you all are shocked someone would smear a politician they don’t agree with. Understandable, as the wingnutters certainly don’t make rude, disparaging or embarrasing comments about Liberal Pinko Commie Hippie politicians.

p.s. — that last bit was sarcasm

By: busboy33

busboy33 — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 03:38:37 +0000

@ Chip:
True, the subtle difference between intellectual disapproval of homosexuals and the paranoid hatred of fags gets lost on some of us on the Left side of the isle. I can only speak for myself, but I miss the distinction because I don’t see a whole lot of the former. Gays are ruining America, destroying the sancitity of marriage, weakening the military, threatening our children, etc. . . . that all comes across as virulent hatred, not as disapproval. The only thing I don’t see Rightie wingnuts blaming gays for is green-lighting the lastest Rush Hour movie. Fortunately, now that the wingnuts have an even more deplorable source of evil to target (illegal immigrants), it just doesn’t come up so much.
Must be all of that interweb conditioning, ‘cuz I sure couldn’t have come to that conclusion on my own, by listening to politicians and pundits on the Right.

By: Chip

Chip — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 15:29:58 +0000

As might be expected in consideration of how their minds have been preconditioned in their internet echo chambers, the lefties here are having a difficult time discerning between hate and disapproval of gays, and are relying on illogical rationalizations to “justify” the deplorable tactics/actions of this Rogers character.

By: yoyo

yoyo — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:57:13 +0000

if republicans werent always trying to appeal to the god and thunder morons who think all gays are going to hell, this would never be an issue. from a truly secular country (currently) we think this is all very funny. In Aus poltiticians are not outted because playing against the gays has not been a strategy of any major party to any extent. Clean your own house!

By: busboy33

busboy33 — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:53:43 +0000

@retire05:

“Gays can, and do, accomplish what everyone else can with a will.”

Somehow, when you’re dying in the hospital, I don’t think a will is going to get your same-sex partner into your room once its “family only”.

By: Thomas Jackson

Thomas Jackson — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 01:28:46 +0000

Rogers is a blackmailer. He is just the sort of operative a campaign that is desperate would employ. No depths are too low and no tactic too mean.

One wonders how the MSM would react if a conservative pulled this kind of stuff.

By: Melanie Haddon

Melanie Haddon — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:33:28 +0000

“And please, if you think hate crimes are used against everyone, please provide me with one case where a minority has been prosecuted using hate crime laws.”

Oh, retire05, what does this have to do with hypocrical, public toilet cruising gay Republicans? Well, here is the case you asked for anyway….

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260289,00.html

By: busboy33

busboy33 — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 18:00:29 +0000

@ tHePeOPle:
Those must be the legitimate dirty scummy politics. Y’know, nothing distasteful.

By: retire05

retire05 — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:52:56 +0000

Don’t confuse the gay “rights” movement with anything having to do with rights. It doesn’t. What it has to do with is being declared a minority, being able to force laws giving special priviledges. If you think that it has anything to do with a $255.00 Social Security death benfits, you are dead wrong.
Gays can, and do, accomplish what everyone else can with a will. A living will determines who will make your decisions for you. A standard will determines who gets your estate. And unless they are willing to determine the difference between husband and wife, there is a problem with the Social Security rules.
Let me give you an example. A wife is entitled to the largest payment from SS depending on income. If her income is less than her husbands and she will gain more from drawing against her husband’s account and not her own, she can do that. But…..if she is older than he is, she cannot draw against his account until he reaches retirement age. So a woman who married someone five years older than her will have to wait five years to recieve the larger benefit. Also, I don’t think a man can draw against his wife’s account even if she made a larger salary and the benefits would be greater.

How would that work with a same sex couple? If one makes a larger salary, would the other one be able to draw against that account even though their own payment upon retirement would be less? When they marry, would they have to declare who is considered the wife and who is declared the husband? How would that work? In order to make it equal under the law, the husband/wife requirement for the larger SS payment would have to be eliminated and would place an even greater strain on the SS Fund.

Gay rights are already guaranteed. It the work place, when it comes to buying a house (two unmarried people can have joint ownership in a home) and many companies give domestic partner insurance benefits. Of course, domestic partnership benefits is discriminatory against straight marrieds as most of the time, the insurance company has the right to ask for a copy of their marriage license (mine did) so the straight employee is already held to a different standard than one who claims domestic partnership.

So to assume that the gay movement has anything to do with rights is wrongheaded. It has everything to do with forcing the government to give special consideration to one segment of our society just as the hate crimes did. And please, if you think hate crimes are used against everyone, please provide me with one case where a minority has been prosecuted using hate crime laws.