I cannot believe there are gay people who defend other gay people for being anti-gay. We all know these closet gays are saying these things for political reasons. Of course, they deny being gay themselves.
- Nov 20, 1999
- 22,994
- 779
- 126
I'm an idiot because you posted the exact same fucking MSM sources that i just yesterday? hahahaha, AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
YOU'RE the one who kept digging himself a hole. First you dismissed it because it was a blog. Then you insinuate the timestamps could be forged. Of course you couldn't say SHIT about the fact that there were several hundred comments that confirmed the timestamp AND the fact that other blogs track backed to mike's blog with timestamps. YOU'RE the idiot who brought it up. I take great pleasure in making you look like a complete fucking idiot. You might as well be a republican considering how stupid you are.
Let me make this very simple for you:
You: This blog says X.
Me: It's a blog. Where's your proof that X is correct?
You: The blog says it's true, and they're making a movie.
Me: That's not proof.
You: Yes it is. Plus other blogs say it's true. You're dumb.
Come back when you're able to act like an adult.
Wow, this thread descended further than I ever thought possible. Congrats to the OP for reaching a new low!
- Nov 20, 1999
- 22,994
- 779
- 126
Blog says a republican is gay
Blog has a proven track record of being correct on outing republicans
The blog has timestamps for those posts
The blog has several hundred comments that back up those timestamps (some of them with disbelieving comments)
The blog has trackbacks to OTHER blogs that backup those timestamps (one of which is a negative blog article about the author's tactics)
I also post a TV interview with a douchebag republican berating the author of that blog for everything EXCEPT making false accusations
I also post links to MSM articles validating the blog author's credibility <-- the fact that you kept on insinuating the possibility of fraud until here shows what an idiot you are and how big a hole you kept digging yourself because you're too embarrassed to admit you're an idiot
83 posts into this thread and I've only seen 1 post to indicate that this is anything more than a rumor... and even if it is true, so what?
Um, they aren't attacked for being gay, they're attacked for serving anti-gay interests as gay people, for choosing the gains of power over the justice to gay people.
There are harmful lies and myths in the Republican world that are the basis for many of them to be anti-gay, and they include things like how gays 'choose to be gay'.
Taking a gay person who chooses to lie about their sexual orientation and serve anti-gay power, often voting for bigotry, and showing the truth, can help expose those myths as lies.
Why is it gall to say they are hypocrites for speaking and voting against gays - which would be bigotry if they were heterosexual - while actually being gay?
That's little different than, say, a tobacco executive who says smoking is safe, but doesn't allow his family to smoke because of the health risks.
The 'stigma' - the noun for the result of bigotry - for gays is perpetuated by Republicans so often thinking no one among them is gay. If it weren't a choice, wouldn't a lot of their family and neighbors and leaders be gay? Seeing how many of their leaders are in fact gay and hid it to protect their power in an anti-gay environment, helps undermine the lie.
While there are ethical issues trading off the person's rights not to suffer the bigotry against the benefit of the truth helping reduce the bigotry, they are reduced for the gays who secretly are gay and help perpetuate the bigotry for selfish reasons, and hypocrisy is a reasonable statement.
has the person in question said on record that gays are evil, immoral, etc? has he even ever claimed to be a heterosexual, or is he simply trying to keep his personal life private?
if a tobacco executive said that cigarettes should be available for purchase for people who chose to accept the health risk but didn't smoke himself... I'd have no problem with that stance.
not all republicans fall into line with all of their party's positions and not all gay people think that advancing the cause of gay rights is particularly important or of such importance as to trump all of their other political views.
This whole thread is nothing more than an update on an old notion.
Put a thousand bloggers in front of a thousand keyboards and eventually one of them will guess correctly twice in a row. And for Phokus that is proof enough that this blogger will guess right a third time.
Put a thousand bloggers in front of a thousand keyboards and eventually one of them will guess correctly twice in a row. And for Phokus that is proof enough that this blogger will guess right a third time.
What a dishonest post, completely mischaracterizing the bog.
A broken clock might be right twice a day, but a liar always gives the wrong time.
There you go again with your standard tactic of putting words in my mouth that I never said.
It's an honest post. A lot more honest than someone declaring something a fact when it's based on a blogger with a hunch.
Pens1566
Lifer
- Oct 11, 2005
- 13,501
- 10,943
- 136
Originally posted by: Skitzer
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Vacation for this
But nothing for this, pretty much exactly the same thing
On topic, so what if he's gay? What is it with you ultra-liberals, you expend huge amounts of energy defending gay rights and then you demonize the hell out of republicans when they turn out to be gay. You lament how sad it is that it's emotionally and socially difficult for a gay person to come out of the closet, then abuse the hell out of a republican when they do. And then you have the gall to accuse them of being hypocrites.
This!!
No one is "demonizing" him because of his sexual preference. He's being ridiculed for being a hypocrite.
Since I have not yet commented on the accuracy of this report, you are referring to other people.
But let's look at the honesty of your post.
You characterized this as based on no more than a wild guess - with a thousand people typing wild guesses one might get lucky and get it correct.
You further say that the basis for the claim was no more than "a hunch".
That is not honest whatsoever. The actual statement by the blog writer:
Whatever argument you want to make about the accuracy of his claim, you are wrong to say it's nothing but "a hunch". That is dishonest.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter