Thompson to appear at CMAs with homophobic singer.
Thompson to appear at CMAs with homophobic singer.
On Oct. 24, country singer John Rich, one half of Big & Rich, controversially compared homosexuality to incest. Rich was explaining on a radio show that he was supporting Fred Thompson because he agrees with him on issues such as gay marriage:
I think if you legalize that, you’ve got to legalize some other things that are pretty unsavory. You can call me a radical, but how can you tell an aunt that she can’t marry her nephew if they are really in love and sharing the bills? How can you tell them they can’t get married, but something else that’s unnatural can happen?
Rich has apologized for his comments. Apparently that is good enough for Thompson, who will appear with Rich tonight at the Country Music Awards in Nashville.
UPDATE: Coincidentally, Thompson also appeared today on the Steve Gill Show, where Rich first made his controversial comments.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Homophobes are all gays.
November 7th, 2007 at 5:53 pmWhat country singer isn’t a homophobe?
November 7th, 2007 at 5:55 pmUmm yeah Rich,obsessive male grooming isn’t gay at all.Ya just keep telling yourself tht now ya here?Raging queen.
November 7th, 2007 at 5:58 pmI’ve heard this arguement many times from the right. Saying basicly that if you legalize gay marriage, then why not incestual marriage. Or they claim the legalizing gay marriage will lead to eventually legalizing incestual marriage.
It’s a completely BS arguement. They are completely different issues. Personally, I will always vote for gay marriage and if incestual marriage was ever proposed (which it won’t be in our lifetimes, obviously) I would vote against it, as nearly everyone would. They are seperate issues. There is no broad support for incestual marriage.
The reason right wingers always attach another issue when discussing gay marriage is because they have no solid arguement that they can make for why gay marriage is wrong or harmful.
November 7th, 2007 at 5:59 pmDig Dug is right. They have to manufacture stuff to be afraid of. Like linking gay marriage to incestuous marriage. No link.
November 7th, 2007 at 6:02 pmif that pic is anything thing to go by I would say there is a certain cowboy in a heap of denial! LOL
November 7th, 2007 at 6:04 pm“Big Kenny and John Rich”
That’s rich.
Couple of morons with morons for fans.
November 7th, 2007 at 6:05 pm“What country singer isn’t a homophobe?”
Willie Nelson, Johnny Cash, Emmylou Harris, Dixie Chicks. Prob’ly some others, too, but they ARE few and far between.
November 7th, 2007 at 6:11 pmMmmm, that photo of him looks pretty freaking gay to me. We have “Cowboys” like that here in Seattle, and well, they’re gay.
Buck Fush
November 7th, 2007 at 6:11 pmWhere did you get the picture of the snakeskin cowboy? Oh, thats John Rich, my bad.
Still looks like a snakeskin cowboy
November 7th, 2007 at 6:21 pmMmmm, that photo of him looks pretty freaking gay to me. We have “Cowboys†like that here in Seattle, and well, they’re gay.
Mmmm, I seem to be hearing quite a few quips about looking gay.
Tell me, what makes this guy “look” gay?
November 7th, 2007 at 6:22 pmLooks like a real Capitol Hill strutter, doesn’t he Buckie?
November 7th, 2007 at 6:23 pmI believe the “what’s next, incest?” argument was also popular before the Supreme Court decided in 1967 that just because a majority of Virginians were racists who thought it was “unnatural”, they couldn’t make interracial marriage a crime.
November 7th, 2007 at 6:25 pmCountry music stars speaking out against incest?
November 7th, 2007 at 6:26 pmThere goes half of “Big & Rich’s” audience.
Lol!
As for unsavory behavior, how about Freddie Thompson sleeping with some Country Music tramp who’s been married and divorced more times than I have fingers on my right hand? And for marrying a girl younger than hos own daughter?
RUCerious – Totally, the mustash is a give away. Bathroom taper if I ever saw one.
Buck Fush
November 7th, 2007 at 6:29 pmyeeee haaaa paw! git me sum more chiken so wez can watch the nazcar rase! earnhart! earheart earnheart!
November 7th, 2007 at 6:30 pmI can’t understand this slippery slope argument. How does allowing same sex marriage lead to … anything else?
I mean, what’s next you’re going to allow blacks and whites to marry? Hispanics and asians? Upper crust socialites and lower class workers? Heaven forbid.
Next thing you know, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together – mass hysteria.
November 7th, 2007 at 6:34 pmdid anyone check to see if he was gay? the homophobes that scream the loudest are usually the ones that are the queerest of the queer….
November 7th, 2007 at 6:35 pmWell, now we know who Thompson appeals to. The stupid group. Has Thompson caught up to the issues of the day or does he still think we are fighting the Russians
November 7th, 2007 at 6:37 pmI don’t know if this fellow is gay or not and I don’t care but that moustache thing is a mess
November 7th, 2007 at 6:38 pmI love it every time Fred Flunkstone opens his mouth.
November 7th, 2007 at 6:38 pmIt says the dumbest damn things imaginable.
His chances of getting nominated are .0001 %
Kinky Friedman did some passable country western songs, and he probably wasn’t gay. How could anyone forget the classic:
“Waitret, sweet waitret, come sit on my face.
November 7th, 2007 at 6:42 pmBring me a Lone Star, make it a case.”
Is it just me or does this guy look like the cowboy from the Village People? Closeted?
November 7th, 2007 at 6:45 pmOr the classic, “My Private Parts just Went Public”
November 7th, 2007 at 6:46 pmI don’t see why calling homosexual acts ‘unnatural’ is homophobia.
While I don’t care about people being gay, I certainly wouldn’t want to watch them at it. And likewise, many gay people have an aversion to the thought of straight sex. Does that make them heterophobic? By the logic employed in this post, yes.
And why does appearing at an event mean you endorse every position of everybody else who attends? If the event was some Anti-Gay rally, then maybe there would be an issue, but you can find every public figure has been compromised from time to time by those they have stood next to, shared a stage with, shaken hands with and so on.
I don’t personally see the connection between fighting homophobia and being a progressive, I don’t accept that sexual politics/gender politics, has any credence. These organisations always try and frame their struggle as akin to the struggle of Blacks and Latinos for their civil rights, but can anybody seriously say that gay and lesbians have had/are enduring anything like the reality of that situation? Isolated examples of people being killed or attacked for being gay do not equate to the civil rights struggle. The progressive movement should just leave these deadweight fringe-issue vote-losers behind.
November 7th, 2007 at 7:06 pm“I am just glad that my private parts are in my pants and not on display at the Museum of Natural History”
November 7th, 2007 at 7:10 pmSteve Martin
I’m sure one day it will come out (pun intended) that Rich is gay and either in love with his nephew or his uncle.
November 7th, 2007 at 7:10 pmFred is finished now he’s just out for the money. Fred knows that he lost his income from Law and Order and the writers are on strike. So Fred will do and say
November 7th, 2007 at 7:28 pmanything for a buck. If a gay organization wanted to give him a million dollars he would smile and take it.
He would say what ever they wanted him to say for that money.
He does have a bit of that “Brokeback” look about him, doesn’t he.
November 7th, 2007 at 7:31 pmHe does have a bit of that “Brokeback†look about him, doesn’t he.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — November 7, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
What “look” would that be?
November 7th, 2007 at 7:39 pmThe progressive movement should just leave these deadweight fringe-issue vote-losers behind.
Comment by pinhut — November 7, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
No thanks, pinhead, we’ll leave you and your ignorance behind.
November 7th, 2007 at 7:42 pmWhat “look†would that be?
Comment by MookieJoeAndAGirlNamedLuLu — November 7, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
That Larry Craig come-hither look just beneath the big cowby hat and above the fancy follicles. That look.
November 7th, 2007 at 7:43 pmYou can call me a radical, but how can you tell Rudy Giuliani that he can’t marry his second cousin if they are really in love and sharing the bills?
November 7th, 2007 at 7:44 pmThey is no “gay look” here just a really sorry assed moustache thingie and a stupid hat
November 7th, 2007 at 7:45 pm“What “look†would that be?”
Oh, I don’t know… fancy hat, sharp, well cropped hair and porno-stash. I’m guessing he also has a real sharp big shiny belt buckle, “cruel jeans” and a very pretty pair of boots with rather high heels. You know – cowboy-Nashville style.
November 7th, 2007 at 7:47 pmComment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — November 7, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
Does he have his thumbs tucked in?
November 7th, 2007 at 7:52 pmDoes he have his thumbs tucked in?
Comment by dbadass — November 7, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
Depends on who he’s standing behind.
November 7th, 2007 at 7:54 pmDo you think this guy would ever put it in his girlfriend’s or wife’s a$$ if they would let him? Jist askin’
November 7th, 2007 at 7:55 pmIsolated examples of people being killed or attacked for being gay do not equate to the civil rights struggle.
Have really looked into this issue? ready anything about why gays want these rights?
It is a civil rights issue. There are something like 1800 laws concerning the rights of married couples. Things that really matter, like inheritence laws, the right to approve medical proceduers, and many others.
The progressive movement should just leave these deadweight fringe-issue vote-losers behind.
Comment by pinhut
It’s not all just about getting votes for some of us. Some of us fight for issues because we feel that there are injustices that need to be righted.
It’s called having principles.
November 7th, 2007 at 7:57 pmWhat do you think Daryll,
Would you put it in your wife’s a**?
November 7th, 2007 at 7:57 pmThat Larry Craig come-hither look just beneath the big cowby hat and above the fancy follicles. That look.
So is that a look you recognize or is the “look” just stereotyping of gay men from people who are bleating just how much they support gays?
November 7th, 2007 at 7:58 pmHey Daryll, I need a straight anIser on this shellfish comsumption thing as these shrimp and scallops i am woofing are so damn good. See I have one of those Happy Gods who wants to see his flock happy
November 7th, 2007 at 7:58 pmDaryll: “This is the reason why I refuse to support any Democratic Presidential Candidate (Including Rudy).”
Daryll, have you heard the one about the famous evangelical christian leader who called democrats “babykillers” supporting abortion-rights advocate Rudy Guiliani. It just shows that those “convictions” your dear leaders hold are about deep enough to get the bottom of your shoes damp.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:01 pmSorry Daryll to bog you down with multiple questions but you are my source for all things Christian especially the ones that don’t seem to make sense. So God created Adam and Eve and they spawned the rest. Am I correct? If so how come the spawn weren’t all messed up from this clear genertic bottleneck and why do most societies have taboos against close kin contact if God was so down with this whole incest thing?
November 7th, 2007 at 8:01 pmWe must follow God’s laws.
Comment by Daryll
No. This is a democracy. NOT a theocracy. The laws of the country are not based on YOUR religion.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:02 pmOh, I don’t know… fancy hat, sharp, well cropped hair and porno-stash. I’m guessing he also has a real sharp big shiny belt buckle, “cruel jeans†and a very pretty pair of boots with rather high heels. You know – cowboy-Nashville style.
So one of the signs of the gay “look” is having well-cropped hair and wearing boots, gotcha.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:02 pmMookie: “So is that a look you recognize or is the “look†just stereotyping of gay men from people who are bleating just how much they support gays?”
Easy, Mookie. It’s a joke on a thread where nobody but the trolls think gay people should be deprived of any constitutional rights or opportunities because of their sexual preference. That’s what counts, you know. Having pointed that out, though, I’m sorry if I offended you.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:06 pmIt says the dumbest damn things imaginable.
Does he ever say he supports giving illegals drivers licenses and then say he doesn’t two minutes later?
November 7th, 2007 at 8:06 pmNow, just a minute here, Im a christian, and even I realize mankind procreated from one family after the flood.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:08 pmDaryll: “We must follow God’s laws.”
You’re right, Daryll. Anyone wearing mixed-fabric clothing will be executed by stoning.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:08 pmEasy, Mookie. It’s a joke on a thread where nobody but the trolls think gay people should be deprived of any constitutional rights or opportunities because of their sexual preference. That’s what counts, you know. Having pointed that out, though, I’m sorry if I offended you.
No offense taken Jack, I just wanted to make sure that those who purportedly support homosexuals don’t accidentally stereotype the people the claim to support.
You might want to call your congressman though as it seems the recently passed ENDA act failed to address the transgendered people in our society.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:09 pmSounds a lot like RUDY to us!!!
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 7, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
Rudy or Hillary it would seem; neither being a very good choice to lead the country.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:11 pmMokie: “Does he ever say he supports giving illegals drivers licenses and then say he doesn’t two minutes later?”
Does he run for Governor as a pro-choice candidate and then run for President as a “pro-life” candidate? Does he call Democrats “baby-killers” and then support a Republican who has supported the “right to choose?” Does he criticize Michael Moore for going to Cuba while smoking a Cuban stogie? Does he scream that Hugo Chavez is a dicator for nationalizing ONE of their television stations while staring into space while Mushareff closes down his entire media industry?
November 7th, 2007 at 8:12 pmDaryll: “We must follow God’s laws.â€
Show me where God says do war for oil.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:12 pmNow, just a minute here, Im a christian, and even I realize mankind procreated from one family after the flood.
But wouldn’t they have had to originate from Adam and Eve? Just askin’ a technical question and not looking for a fight; I’m a casual believer! :-)
November 7th, 2007 at 8:13 pmYou might want to call your congressman though as it seems the recently passed ENDA act failed to address the transgendered people in our society.
Comment by MookieJoeAndAGirlNamedLuLu — November 7, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
That’s a good point. Have you ever seen any of the lab work on a multitude of sppecies in which hormonal levels are manipulated at key windows of development thus masculinizing or feminizing the brains of the subjects? Did you know that the Olympics still has no agreed upon method for determining the gender of an individual athlete and that more than a few well respected scientists have no idea what gender is and as many as 5 have been proposed?
November 7th, 2007 at 8:15 pmI think Daryll left.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:16 pmMokie: “But wouldn’t they have had to originate from Adam and Eve? Just askin’ a technical question and not looking for a fight; I’m a casual believer! :-)”
OK, let’s review. They had two sons. One killed the other and went off to…. what exactly?
November 7th, 2007 at 8:17 pmComment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — November 7, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
I don’t know, does he? Does Fred offer a health plan that requires compulsory medical checkups, does he decide to create a ‘baby bill’ one day and withdraw it the next, does he advocate the invasion of Pakistan, does he blame a clutzy accident on nonexistent neocon thugs?
Not trying to get anyone riled here, just trying to point out that we could go on for DAYS listing all the faults of the potential nominees on both sides.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:18 pmBut wouldn’t they have had to originate from Adam and Eve?
Yupp. we are all related.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:19 pmOK, let’s review. They had two sons. One killed the other and went off to…. what exactly?
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — November 7, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
I have no idea; this is about where my knowledge on Biblical subjects comes to an end.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:19 pmYupp. we are all related.
Comment by Xisithrus — November 7, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
Cool. Can I borrow fifty bucks, brother?
November 7th, 2007 at 8:21 pmYupp. we are all related.
Comment by Xisithrus — November 7, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
Then how could anyone justify discrimination against, hatred of, or superiority over our own?
November 7th, 2007 at 8:21 pmDid you know that the Olympics still has no agreed upon method for determining the gender of an individual athlete and that more than a few well respected scientists have no idea what gender is and as many as 5 have been proposed?
No shiite? Good gravy, what are the other three genders supposed to be…or am I going to regret asking?
November 7th, 2007 at 8:22 pmThen how could anyone justify discrimination against, hatred of, or superiority over our own?
Comment by dbadass — November 7, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
You obviously don’t have children. You haven’t seen hatred until you’ve seen the last tater-tot being eyed by three hungry kids.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:24 pmYeah, and apparently they only had two sons – WHAT exactly were they mating with?
Female Predatorsâ„¢. Wait…is there such a thing?
November 7th, 2007 at 8:25 pmOK, let’s review. They had two sons. One killed the other and went off to…. what exactly?
Well Cain killed Abel and then they had another son. Cain was marked and supposedly had sex with Gods first created mate for Adam which ran off because they fought. Others say Cain mated with a hominid.
With the Greek story of Noah, Noah in this story named Deucalion, who floated in a trunk like Arc, with his wife, once grounded on land, threw rocks over their shoulders, which formed into children.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:28 pmComment by MookieJoeAndAGirlNamedLuLu — November 7, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
As to the Olympics, At one point “female’ atheletes were forced to walk naked before a board of presumbably “male” doctors. To the best of my knowledge “male” athletes were never expected to do the same. For sometime the Barr body test has been employed but has been shown to be unreliable in some cases. The real question is what does it mean to be male or female? Is it body parts or is it genetic? Admittedly they are rare but folks have been found who have female genitalia but the male (Xy) chromosomal makeup while idividuals with male genitalia have been found with the female chromosomal condition(XX). Add the issues of trisomy and nondisjuction which yield conditions such as Klinfelter’s and Turner’s syndrome and the whole picture gets quickly muddled. Until such time as the science catches up with the fear of differences it seems best to follow the Golden Rule.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:31 pmWell there’s many a strange impulse out on the plains of West Texas
There’s many a young boy who feels things he can’t comprehend
Now a small town don’t like it when somebody falls between sexes
No a small town don’t like it when a cowboy has feelings for men.
And I believe to my soul that inside every man there’s the feminine
And inside every lady there’s a deep manly voice loud and clear
Well a cowboy may brag about things that he’s done with his women
But the ones that brag loudest are the ones that are most likely quEer
[...]
Cowboys are frequently, secretly fond of each other
What did you think all them saddles and boots was about?
And there’s many a cowboy who don’t understand the way that he feels for his brother
And inside every lady there’s a cowboy who wants to come out
And inside every cowboy there’s a lady that’d love to slip out.
Cowboys Are Frequently Secretly (Fond Of Each Other) – Willie Nelson
November 7th, 2007 at 8:36 pmlook for the video… it’s great!
Someday a lab rat somewhere will figure out a way to give a false chromosomal (spelling?) reading for such tests and then the games will really fall to pieces.
Not that I have much time for the Olympics anyway, not after they decided to include ‘Rhythmic Gymnastics’-WTF? If only every Olympiad could feature the 1980 U.S. Hockey gold medal game…sigh.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:39 pmComment by republicans hate facts — November 7, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 7, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
Wow. Anger issues?
Such tiresome baiting will get you nowhere with me (trading taunts and insults doesn’t really add much) so you might as well save yourself the trouble; just little friendly advice.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:44 pmNot that I have much time for the Olympics anyway, not after they decided to include ‘Rhythmic Gymnastics’-WTF? If only every Olympiad could feature the 1980 U.S. Hockey gold medal game…sigh.
Comment by MookieJoeAndAGirlNamedLuLu — November 7, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
As if US pro baseball isn’t boring enough. I’d just as soon watch the badminton
http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/programme/index_uk.asp?SportCode=BB
November 7th, 2007 at 8:57 pmoops that should have been…
http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/index_uk.asp
November 7th, 2007 at 8:59 pmthese country music rednecks crack me up!! – all this from a guy who sings a song called ’save a horse – ride a cowboy’!!!(i’m not making this up – this is a big & rich song)
November 7th, 2007 at 9:00 pmHe could easily pass for a cowboy George Michael.
November 7th, 2007 at 9:30 pmThat kind of mustache takes a lot of time in the bathroom, primping in the mirror to maintain it, so I bet he is bisexual and hates himself.
November 7th, 2007 at 9:34 pmWhat country singer isn’t a homophobe?
Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
Now, now, Ike. Ya cain’t condemn us all for a few, or even quite a few, bad apples. The whole bushel tain’t never totally bad.
November 7th, 2007 at 9:54 pmIf only every Olympiad could feature the 1980 U.S. Hockey gold medal game…sigh.
Comment by MookieJoeAndAGirlNamedLuLu — November 7, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
Do you really have to live your life through other people’s hard work and talent? If only there were some personal reponsibility…sigh.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:15 pmCOLUMBIA, South Carolina (CNN) — Democratic Sen. Barack Obama kicked off a series of local outreach gospel concerts Friday in Charleston, South Carolina, that unexpectedly came back to bite his campaign.
When the campaign announced the lineups for the three-city “Embrace the Change!” gospel tour last week, one name stood out to gay bloggers: Donnie McClurkin.
The Grammy-award winning singer is on record as saying homosexuality is a choice, and that he was “once involved with those desires and those thoughts” but was able to get past them through prayer.
To say the least, neither of those arguments is very popular in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.
John Aravosis, a prominent gay blogger and co-founder of the Web site AmericaBlog, led the charge against the Obama campaign, writing that the Illinois Democrat was “sucking up to anti-gay bigots” and “giving them a stage.”
When the story bubbled up into the mainstream media, it took the Obama campaign by surprise…On Tuesday, Obama was forced to confront the uncomfortable truth that some Christians and gays are a little more than just strange bedfellows, especially among blacks…
A September poll of African Americans in South Carolina by Winthrop University and ETV showed that 62 percent of those surveyed said that “sex between two adults of the same sex” is “strongly unacceptable.”
Obama held a conference call Wednesday with Joe Solomonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, and announced that the Rev. Andy Sidden, an openly gay South Carolina pastor, will appear at the same event as McClurkin on Sunday in Columbia.
Solomonese was not completely assuaged.
“I spoke with Senator Barack Obama today and expressed to him our community’s disappointment for his decision to continue to remain associated with Reverend McClurkin, an anti-gay preacher who states the need to ‘break the curse of homosexuality,’” he said in a statement.
“There is no gospel in Donnie McClurkin’s message for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people and their allies. That’s a message that certainly doesn’t belong on any presidential candidate’s stage.”
The State newspaper in Columbia reported Friday that Obama organized a conference call Thursday night with gay and lesbian leaders. After the call, the South Carolina Gay and Lesbian Pride Movement announced it will hold a protest vigil outside Sunday’s concert in Columbia.
Will Obama’s refusal to kick McClurkin off the concert bill hurt him? Like many political squabbles, despite the national story, it depends how much the controversy resonates with voters in those crucial early states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/27/obama.gospel/
November 7th, 2007 at 10:36 pmI would say that pretty much stopped the dem posters in their tracks, Exley.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:43 pmComment by MookieJoeAndAGirlNamedLuLu — November 7, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
Nothing like trying to change the subject when you’ve been pwned, hey, mook? You must be new; Exley’s cut-and-paste jobs are routinely ignored. They’re generally off-topic and pointless, like him. And you, by the way.
Losers.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:19 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/ 2007/ POLITICS/ 10/ 27/ obama.gospel/
Comment by Exley — November 7, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
Is this Exley’s way of coming out of the closet?
November 7th, 2007 at 11:22 pmLefty Patriot is displaying his usual lack of reading comprehension.
The Obama article clearly illustrates ThinkProgress’ hypocrisy and double-standard. It attempt to paint Fred Thompson as some type of bigot because he will be appearing on the CMAs with some singer who once made some controversial remarks about homosexuality. Yet amazingly ThinkProgress opted not to report on Sen. Obama’s association with some singer who has made controversial remarks about homosexuality.
ThinkProgress’ hypocrisy and dishonest reporting are indeed a marvel to behold.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:28 pmThinkProgress’ hypocrisy and dishonest reporting are indeed a marvel to behold.
Comment by Exley
Think Progress defintely supports democratic candidates and so will come down on Republicans more. What would you expect?
Although, the simple fact that they didn’t report on it doesn’t make them hypocrits. It just means they’re selecting stories that hurt republicans and ignoring some stories that would hurt democrats. It’s one sided, it’s biased, but it’s not hypocricy.
Hypocricy would be if members of the think progress staff themselves were seen on stage with some homo-phobic character after slamming Thompson for it. THAT would be hypocracy.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:43 pmThinkProgress’ hypocrisy and dishonest reporting are indeed a marvel to behold.
Comment by Exley — November 7, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
Well, we’re here to trash Republicans. You do demonstrate remarkable stupidity, Exley; in that, you’re consistent. there is no hypocrisy or dishinesty, just good aim.
Fu(*ing idiot.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:44 pmAnd I commend TP for keeping their eye on the ball. Thompson is an old-fashioned bigotted racist homophobe, and should be trashed at every opportunity.
Exley will continue to cry about it, but that’s neither news nor unexpected from these wingnut pansy crybabies.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:48 pmThinkProgress clearly thinks everyone who reads this site is as ill-informed as Lefty Patriot and that nobody would know about Obama’s association with the homophobic singer.
However, their effort to lambaste Sen. Thompson for exactly the same thing that Sen. Obama did backfired badly. Those of us who actually read the news and follow politics will not allow ThinkProgress to get away with their dishonest reporting.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:56 pmhear! hear! digdug and lefty patriot!
well done… rightfully so!
what i got from that story was how forthcoming and receptive
and timely obama was about the concerns of GLBT community…
admirable…
g’nite all…
November 8th, 2007 at 12:01 amThose of us who actually read the news and follow politics will not allow ThinkProgress to get away with their dishonest reporting.
Comment by Exley — November 7, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
Yeah, you’ll drown us in your tears of rage. You’re a joke, Exlax, and all of your whining and moaning is just music to our ears. How will you do anything about TP’s reporting, which is absolutely honest, if somewhat slanted? Will you tell your mommy? Will you report them to…who? or will you continue to show up here to prove how petty and foolish you are, time and again? That will really change things. Fred Thompson is a bigot and a racist, as well as the laziest man to ever serve in the Senate. Simple truths. Your curt-and-paste jobs aren’t even read by anybody here, so go for it. At least it keeps you off your sister for a little while.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:01 amThose of us who actually read the news and follow politics will not allow ThinkProgress to get away with their dishonest reporting.
Comment by Exley — November 7, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
Yeah, you’ll drown us in your tears of rage. You’re a joke, Exlax, and all of your whining and moaning is just music to our ears. How will you do anything about TP’s reporting, which is absolutely honest, if somewhat slanted? Will you tell your mommy? Will you report them to…who? or will you continue to show up here to prove how petty and foolish you are, time and again? That will really change things. Fred Thompson is a bigot and a racist, as well as the laziest man to ever serve in the Senate. Simple truths. Your cut-and-paste jobs aren’t even read by anybody here, so go for it. At least it keeps you off your sister for a little while.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:01 amLefty Patriot,
Shhhhhhhh……You have already embarrassed yourself when you admitted that you do not follow the news and that you did not know about the Obama controversy.
This site is for those people who follow politics. Your constant displays of ignorance contribute nothing to the site and simply clog up threads.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:07 amThis site is for those people who follow politics. Your constant displays of ignorance contribute nothing to the site and simply clog up threads.
Comment by Exley — November 8, 2007 @ 12:07 am
This site is for people to point and make fun of morons like you. Your foolish assumption that I was unaware of the Obama flap shows the level of your stupidity and inability to reason outside of your own teeny little sphere. Your attempt to conflate the racism and bigotry of Fred Thompson with the political opportunism of Obama was ignored by me and others with functioning brains, so you now leap headfirst into the pile of shit you have created, and in doing so look and smell like the loser you are. Your constant displays of political ignorance and rightwing bigotry contribute nothing except momentary humor at your expense, and clog up the threads like a toilet, but you don’t care, because you like making an ass of yourself. We get it.
Next.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:31 amNo offense to the Gay community….but isn’t the band name “Big & Rich” sorta, ummm….gay? For a candy bar, sure. Or ice cream bar. Definitely something you might lick excitedly with your tongue. Maybe I’m reading something into this that’s not there….but I’m picturing a dude (see photo above) from the Village People with a giant ethnic shlong in his mouth gurgling something about “Big!…big….big & rich, baby…big & rich!…slurp…” :)
November 8th, 2007 at 2:15 amJohn Rich is like so not Village People, as you can see in this photo.
http://www.answers.com/topic/bigandrich-jpg
Or this one,
http://uk.imdb.com/gallery/granitz/4706/Events/4706/BigandRich_Grani_8547423_400.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Alphin,%20Big%20Kenny
November 8th, 2007 at 4:29 am>does he advocate the invasion of Pakistan
are you unable to read or just a troll?
November 8th, 2007 at 4:38 amsince when does “act” = “invade”?…. thats what this whole idiotic Obama “controversy” is about… twisting words…. Obama said ” if pakistan will not act, we will”… so what they claim Obama said is “if pakistan will not invade itself, we will”…. this is idiotic. he just said “act” he didnt specific what that act was.. could be missle strike, could be special forces operation, etc. whats so kooky and misplaced about that?
members of pakistan’s intelligence service have ties with the taliban….much of thier government and populace dislikes us.. explain exactly why they are our allies again? oh wait, because the guy who runs the country shakes our hand and takes our money.
by all accounts there are many AQ in pakistan, much of their intelligence services is not only sypathethic to them, but also has a long history of providing them with assistance. explain again to me why bombing pakistan is a ridiculous move in the war against al queda but invading iraq wasnt?
November 8th, 2007 at 4:39 am(at least according to the idiot trolls who say “act” = “invade” )
Lefty Patriot,
Don’t be embarrassed that you didn’t know about the Obama controversy. Just take this as a lesson — Do some reading, learn something about politics, pick up a newspaper every now and then….That way you won’t be caught unawares again and you won’t be humiliated by your ignorance. Okay, son? Good for you!
November 8th, 2007 at 11:17 amNovember 8th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
bitblt writes:
So to be more specific try these questions.
How does polygamy harm heterosexual marriage?
How does polyandry harm heterosexual marriage?
How does polygamy and polyandry in the same “married unit†harm heterosexual marriage?
How does marrying a child harm heterosexual marriage?
Those are easy questions to answer, my friend.
1. How does polygamy harm heterosexual marriage?
I actually wonder if it does. In our society it is unthinkable – even though we end up with almost the same thing from serial monogamy, i.e., marriage, divorce, re-marriage, divorce, re-marriage, divorce, etc. In other cultures it is tolerated and seems to work, so I guess it depends upon one’s cultural perspective.
The “harm” to marriage in Western society comes from the fallout from irresponsible heterosexual marriages that end in divorce and oftentimes unwanted/unplanned children. Broken families, “step” families, etc. are the result. Some Muslim clerics argue that polygamy would be the solution to this, since a man can have multiple female wives and partners at the same time instead of one at the time… but of course, our Western values won’t allow it.
2. How does polyandry harm heterosexual marriage?
That’s the same question as #1, really. Again, we end up with the same thing because of heterosexual serial monogamy as descibed above. Polyandry just means that a woman has more than one husband.
3. How does polygamy and polyandry in the same “married unit†harm heterosexual marriage?
This would be what some call “corporate marriage” where you have several men who are married to several women, all functioning as a family group. To my knowledge, this sort of thing is exceptionally rare – if it exists at all. (I’ve seen the idea discussed in scifi, but no where else.) But in some ways, the serial monogamy practiced by many heterosexuals is the same thing. Multiple marriages and re-marriages lead to families being caught in a de facto corporate marriage.
4. How does marrying a child harm heterosexual marriage?
Well, I guess you first have to define “child” in terms of age. There have been times in our country’s past where girls as young as 12 were allowed to marry, and usually were married to men much older than themselves. But I will assume that you mean a person who is 10 years old or less. Such a “marriage” is invalid because the child cannot give consent for marriage or for sex. Marrying a child under 10 years old probably doesn’t harm “marriage” as an institution – other than making it an excuse for child molestation – but it definitely harms the child. No question there.
Now, let’s talk about the real issue here and why none of the questions you pose have any relevance to the discussion of same-sex marriage.
In the first place, you are citing extreme examples in order to malign the entire idea of same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians are not demanding the right to marry multiple partners nor are they demanding the right to marry children. They are simply standing up for their human right to marry the partner of their choice – who must be of age and able to consent to the marriage. Gays and lesbians want to protect their families as much as heterosexuals do. Gays and lesbians deserve the same protection and treatment under the law that heterosexuals have.
Secondly, you totally discredit the idea that gays and lesbians are capable of loving another person in the way that you presumably love your spouse. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the existence of the thousands of gay couples living together in long-term monogamous relationships disproves your claim.
You claim that permitting same-sex marriage will lead to others demanding the right to marry their pet, their horse, their grandmother, etc. What a looney idea! Where are these people now? Where are the demonstrations by those who practice beastiality? NO WHERE! That is because no one would support it. And to equate a gay couple with someone who has sex with animals is just absurd; animals cannot by definition give consent. There can be no consensual sex or marriage to an animal, period.
We already have laws on the books preventing incestuous marriage – and for a damn good reason. There is NO ONE campaigning to change the laws to allow it, and I doubt that there ever will be.
You say, “Remove the uniqueness of the man-woman relationship and anything becomes a possibility. ” Perhaps in your own fevered imagination, but not in reality. Besides, heterosexuals have done more than enough to screw up marriage on their own. The 10% or so of the population that is homosexual could not hope to accomplish such destruction as has already been done by heterosexuals.
You go on and cite Biblical verses to back up your position. What horsecrap. YOU belong to a religion that YOU believe in. YOU choose to follow the dictats of that faith. YOU decided to be a Christian. YOU are reponsible to your God, but you are not responsible for me or anyone else.
Gays and lesbians ALREADY have the human right to marry their same-sex partners. People like you are just standing in the way. It is sad that you would use the teachings of your religion as an argument to deny rights to other people. How shameful!
You are free to hate gay people and even campaign against their civil rights. But you are not free to assert that your personal religious beliefs are sufficient to trump someone else’s rights. Your religion is just that – your’s. Enjoy it and leave the rest of us alone.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:39 pm