Comments on: Thompson to appear at CMAs with homophobic singer. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:41:12 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: jpopphan http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-3/#comment-4149957 jpopphan Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:39:25 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4149957 bitblt writes: <em>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?</em> 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. 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.

]]> By: bitblt http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-3/#comment-4149645 bitblt Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:59:14 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4149645 <blockquote> I’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 <em>they have no solid arguement that they can make for why gay marriage is wrong or harmful.</em> Comment by DigDug — November 7, 2007 @ 5:59 pm </blockquote><blockquote> To me, calling the claim that so called gay marriage will eventually lead to legalizing marriage to relatives a BS argument, and then writing that there is <em>no solid argument that they can make for why gay marriage is wrong or harmful,</em> is just really strange. Why, can’t all the popular arguments supporting so-called gay marriage be applied to any variation on the theme of marriage? How about these common promoters of so-call gay marriage? 1. How does <em>a particular variation of marriage</em> harm heterosexual marriage? 2. It’s not anyone’s business who people want to marry? 3. Fourteenth amendment guarantees that no citizen will be denied certain rights. 4. The involved parties are really love each other and are really committed. 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? And, how about that guy in Missouri who wanted to marry his horse? Shouldn’t he be allowed to marry whomever or whatever he wants. After all, it’s not your business who he marries. Some of us still have difficulty with the idea that anyone anywhere would try to call sexual relationship between two men or between two woman a marriage. Though DigDug seems to have no difficulty with this idea of same-same gender marriage, any further variation on the theme of marriage seems preposterous to him. My understanding here is simple: marriage is relationship between a man and a woman. So, what’s your understanding? Marriage is whatever the courts, or legislature, says it is. Well in that case, aren’t more variations desirable because the desires of more people are included? All the arguments used to support so-called homosexual marriage will be used to support other “forms” of marriage such a polygamy, polyandry, whatever polygamy and polyandry together are, marriage to children or to close relatives, and marriage to animals. Remove the uniqueness of the man-woman relationship and anything becomes a possibility. Believe this is in line with the scripture that says when people turn away from God they’ll believe anything. . So are we overly charmed by our logic, or is one of us working really hard to accept perversion? Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Marriage was instituted by the Creator in Genesis 2, and marriage is endorsed by Jesus Christ in Matthew 19.</blockquote>

I’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.

Comment by DigDug — November 7, 2007 @ 5:59 pm

To me, calling the claim that so called gay marriage will eventually lead to legalizing marriage to relatives a BS argument, and then writing that there is no solid argument that they can make for why gay marriage is wrong or harmful, is just really strange.

Why, can’t all the popular arguments supporting so-called gay marriage be applied to any variation on the theme of marriage?

How about these common promoters of so-call gay marriage?
1. How does a particular variation of marriage harm heterosexual marriage?
2. It’s not anyone’s business who people want to marry?
3. Fourteenth amendment guarantees that no citizen will be denied certain rights.
4. The involved parties are really love each other and are really committed.

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?

And, how about that guy in Missouri who wanted to marry his horse? Shouldn’t he be allowed to marry whomever or whatever he wants. After all, it’s not your business who he marries.

Some of us still have difficulty with the idea that anyone anywhere would try to call sexual relationship between two men or between two woman a marriage. Though DigDug seems to have no difficulty with this idea of same-same gender marriage, any further variation on the theme of marriage seems preposterous to him.

My understanding here is simple: marriage is relationship between a man and a woman.

So, what’s your understanding? Marriage is whatever the courts, or legislature, says it is. Well in that case, aren’t more variations desirable because the desires of more people are included?

All the arguments used to support so-called homosexual marriage will be used to support other “forms” of marriage such a polygamy, polyandry, whatever polygamy and polyandry together are, marriage to children or to close relatives, and marriage to animals.

Remove the uniqueness of the man-woman relationship and anything becomes a possibility. Believe this is in line with the scripture that says when people turn away from God they’ll believe anything. .

So are we overly charmed by our logic, or is one of us working really hard to accept perversion?

Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Marriage was instituted by the Creator in Genesis 2, and marriage is endorsed by Jesus Christ in Matthew 19.

]]> By: Exley http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-3/#comment-4149192 Exley Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:17:53 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4149192 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! 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!

]]> By: Chocolate Jesus http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-3/#comment-4149003 Chocolate Jesus Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:39:03 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4149003 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? (at least according to the idiot trolls who say "act" = "invade" ) 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?
(at least according to the idiot trolls who say “act” = “invade” )

]]> By: Chocolate Jesus http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-3/#comment-4149002 Chocolate Jesus Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:38:16 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4149002 >does he advocate the invasion of Pakistan are you unable to read or just a troll? since 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. >does he advocate the invasion of Pakistan

are you unable to read or just a troll?
since 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: bernarda http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-3/#comment-4149001 bernarda Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:29:49 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4149001 John 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 John 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

]]> By: TC-12 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-3/#comment-4148932 TC-12 Thu, 08 Nov 2007 07:15:01 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4148932 No 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..." :) No 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…” :)

]]> By: Lefty Patriot http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-3/#comment-4148850 Lefty Patriot Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:31:04 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4148850 This 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. This 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.

]]> By: Exley http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-3/#comment-4148838 Exley Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:07:13 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4148838 Lefty 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. Lefty 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.

]]> By: Lefty Patriot http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-3/#comment-4148836 Lefty Patriot Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:01:59 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4148836 Those 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. Those 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.

]]> By: Lefty Patriot http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-3/#comment-4148835 Lefty Patriot Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:01:14 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4148835 Those 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. Those 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.

]]> By: katy http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-3/#comment-4148834 katy Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:01:11 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4148834 <strong>hear! hear! digdug and lefty patriot!</strong> 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... hear! 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…

]]> By: Exley http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-3/#comment-4148827 Exley Thu, 08 Nov 2007 04:56:05 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4148827 ThinkProgress 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. ThinkProgress 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.

]]> By: Lefty Patriot http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-3/#comment-4148823 Lefty Patriot Thu, 08 Nov 2007 04:48:12 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4148823 And 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. And 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.

]]> By: Lefty Patriot http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-3/#comment-4148817 Lefty Patriot Thu, 08 Nov 2007 04:44:07 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4148817 ThinkProgress’ 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. ThinkProgress’ 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.

]]> By: DigDug http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-3/#comment-4148816 DigDug Thu, 08 Nov 2007 04:43:31 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4148816 <em> ThinkProgress’ hypocrisy and dishonest reporting are indeed a marvel to behold. Comment by Exley </em> 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.
ThinkProgress’ 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.

]]> By: Exley http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-3/#comment-4148801 Exley Thu, 08 Nov 2007 04:28:54 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4148801 Lefty 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. Lefty 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.

]]> By: The Republic of Stupidity http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-3/#comment-4148794 The Republic of Stupidity Thu, 08 Nov 2007 04:22:13 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4148794 http://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? http://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?

]]> By: Lefty Patriot http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-2/#comment-4148791 Lefty Patriot Thu, 08 Nov 2007 04:19:42 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4148791 Comment 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. Comment 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.

]]> By: MookieJoeAndAGirlNamedLuLu http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/comment-page-2/#comment-4148765 MookieJoeAndAGirlNamedLuLu Thu, 08 Nov 2007 03:43:54 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/07/thompson-to-appear-at-cmas-with-homophobic-singer/#comment-4148765 I would say that pretty much stopped the dem posters in their tracks, Exley. I would say that pretty much stopped the dem posters in their tracks, Exley.

]]>