On the other side of the table:
(My younger son is older than Ezra Klein. Ezra doesn't like me because I'm "superficial and Maureen Dowd-ish" and because I committed the unforgivable sin of mocking a photograph that one time. I like the way, at that linked post, Fenrisulven shows up and gives the anti-Althouse crowd a lesson on the interpretation of my old satirical post and the meaning of sexual harassment before and after Bill Clinton befogged the minds of partisan Democrats. Meanwhile, Ezra compares me to "conservative bloggers" he likes, never picking up the reality that I'm pretty much a liberal, a liberal who attacks the Democratic Party. Or maybe he does get that, and that's what he hates. He should! I'm dangerous. I might say anything, because I really don't care about your party.)
Isn't it funny that Nina's caught the new blog meme: Althouse drinks? And I'm drinking right now. A huge coffee, lovingly made at The Hideout:
I swivel my head 56 degrees. Man, that building seems to exist to tempt me into the graffiti life.
Posts
64 comments:
I too am a liberal that critiques the Democratic party. It's a mess. The revolting slobber of the Berkeley Maoists and their Shining Path of pure creepiness has taken over the party. There's nothing anyone can do but criticize the Cultural Revolution. I go deeper and blame it on the feminism of SdB and her cohorts in Paris who looked to Maoism for an answer. Their answer is a mess. I salute you for your Herculean labors to clean the Augean stable of the Democratic party. If you could have the whole party read ONE BOOK to get it back on track what would you suggest?
I encourage every one to go to the link and read the post and the comments. Even though this particular post of Ezra's is pretty much an idea-free zone, overall his blog is a real delight and we should all wish the precocious Ezra all the best as he gets this venture off the ground. I mean it's not easy to make the transition from myspace to a real grown-up blog while juggling your SAT prep, glee club practice and model united nations practice...
Anyway, just in case my comment over there gets vanished, this is what i just posted.
------------------------
Fen, you magnificent bastard. You show up with a cogent explanation of what Ann's point in the whole "breastgate" fiasco originally was. As a result, two lefties get into a fight about whether sexual assault committed by a lefty politician is something to get worked up over... Exposing once again that the left views each of the various components of their hodgepodge "ideology" (in this case feminism) as expendable in the pursuit of the greater good. You know, power.
Ann is crazy. Ann is a drunk. Ann's views and points can be discarded without consideration.
Oh, and here's a list of righty blogs that I really like, because they're written by non-conservatives!
Gotta love the open-mindedness on display on this blog.
The Vortex
Fenrisulven shows up and gives the anti-Althouse crowd a lesson on the interpretation of my old satirical post and the meaning of sexual harassment
Last time I pressed Fen for some links proving Clinton harassed somebody he jettisoned off predictably with a ink cloud of obfuscation.
Ann, maybe you can help out. Can you point me to the legal proceeding that concluded Bill Clinton sexually harassed someone?
Naked, you should jaunt over to Ezra's blog with that post. You'd save a lot of lefties having to think about things that induce cognitive dissonance...
I'm picturing NL with a gold watch swinging back and forth chanting "ignore Ann's point" "ignore Ann's point" "Ann and Fen have been discredited" "ignore Ann's point" ad naseum...
Though judging from the comments over there you probably shouldn't waste your time. You lefties (well, probably everybody) have a kick-ass self-delusion protocall that kicks in when confronted with contrary arguments...
Shady
I'm just looking for a link here, I don't read Klein's blog. Got a link for me?
I don't know how to imbed links. I'm no interweb expert. However, Ann is and she inserted the relevant link to Ezra's post in the main article.
Last time I pressed Fen for some links proving Clinton harassed somebody he jettisoned off predictably with a ink cloud of obfuscation.
No. My point revolved around how the feminist movement responded to accusations about Clinton's sexual harassment/discrimination. You asked for proof that Clinton had been convicted of sexual harassment/discrmintation - moving the goalposts to distract from the feminist hypocrisy I was describing.
The revolting slobber of the Berkeley Maoists and their Shining Path of pure creepiness has taken over the party.
Just brilliant, yes the Democratic party is run by a bunch of Maoists who wear their little Mao suits and wave their Little Red Books. Give it a break. This country, the Democratic Party included, is more conservative (in terms of economic policy) than it has been since the mid-sixties.
Name one single policy position of the Democratic party that could remotely be described as Maoist. Heck, I'll even give you bonus points for a position that approaches socialism.
Don't feed the Freder!
:)
Again, a post over at Ezra's. That I think get's to the point of why Ezra even broached this topic. An attempt to discount Ann to avoid ever having to actually, you know, respond to her points.
-----------
Simple Voice, you're totally missing the point. The issue is not whether Ann took some action that was "unforgivable". The issue is, has Ann provided a pretext for the open-minded denizens of this board to put her on the list of "people whose arguments can be discounted without consideration"? People who shall not be heard. If an argument presents difficulty for one's world view, the most natural thing in the world is to attempt to discredit and marginalize the author of that argument as unclean (crazy, drunk etc...) and unworthy of engagement.
That's how you get the arguments in the lefty-sphere that an American Idol vblog where Ann is seen with a glass of wine (HORRORS!!!) means that Ann is an alcoholic, and is thus discountable. Or Ann responding with force to a subtle jab from her debating partner on a bhtv means she's batshit crazy, and again discountable.
Btw, the fact that what's her name's jab WAS subtle, means that a lot of the people complaining of Ann's overreaction were simply too dense to realize what was being said and what was being reacted to. The rest, are just being disingenuous. Feel free to go to Ann's blog and poke around for her explanation of what her interlocutor was playing at...
Warning!! Contents of the Althouse blog have been known to cause extreme dementia in unprepared lefties. Cases of blog stalking and acute trolleria have been reported. Warning!!
Fen....great comments over at Ezra's blog!
Naked Lunch....Are you trying to make the point that since BC has never been convicted of sexual harassment, that means he didn't sexually harass women?
Freder, I only wish that my warning could have reached you, Doyle and HDhouse prior to your initial visits.
--------------
Warning!! Contents of the Althouse blog have been known to cause extreme dementia in unprepared lefties. Cases of blog stalking and acute trolleria have been reported. Warning!!
---------------
I've heard from high-ups at Google that they realize that the Althouse Vortex Effect (AVE) is real and is a huge problem. They have teams of experts working around the clock to find a cure, but they do recommend a couple of steps that sufferers of AVE, or even full-blown ADS, can take in the interim.
First, try to stay away from the Althouse Vortex. This is clearly impossible for many sufferes of AVE/ADS, but if nothing else, try to limit exposer to no more than 60 visits a day.
Second, spend more times with your loved ones. That dog needs a walk and you know it!
Third, intense prayer.
Ann is no lush. And I would doubt either that she has had a Catholic upbringing - though that may be an extrapolation too far.
The evidence? Holding a red wine glass by the stem in quite a dainty manner, instead of the perfectly to be encouraged method of wrapping a warming hand round the glass itself, in order to encourage the bouquet and enhance the taste.
On the other hand, the oft noted choice of red not white does intimate a thoroughly sensuous character, not mention the possibility of a Catholic nature.
So where were we?
If you Americans don't have this law then you should have, given that you cannot resist categorising everyone as Right or Left:
1. Lefties must only drink white wine at all times. Really strict idealogues will stick to the dry European Sauterne, Chablis or Riesling; whilst the 'fellow travelling' Pinkos will opt for Zinfandel.
2. Sound trenchermen and trencherwomen of the Right, however, boast of their exclusive appetite for the most robust and rounded and American of Reds (OK the 'colour' is pure wrong) such as Chalone Monterey Pinot Noir 2004.
3. The 'in-betweenies' - who can't really settle and waver with the issue and the wind - take a Burgundy of either type, hoping it will blend in with whichever camp they're dining with on any particular evening.
Cheers!
Fen
Now I think we're getting somewhere. You seem to be admitting that there are only accusations of sexual harassment. And in Willey's and Jones' case, both have howling credibility problems with both their stories and statements to federal investigators to the extent one case was thrown out of court [Jones] and other [Willey] was deemed not even worthy of prosecution based on the fact she [Willey] lied to the FBI among other things. So were back to Ann's and Fen's claim Clinton set feminism back 20 years based solely on accusations?
Naked Lunch....Are you trying to make the point that since BC has never been convicted of sexual harassment, that means he didn't sexually harass women?
No, but those who state it as fact after exhaustive and lengthy investigations concluding otherwise lose that right to claim it as fact.
Peter - I guess I'm in trouble, since my favorite white is a Riesling. ;) I usually stick with merlot, cabernet, or ideally any good Italian red.
"My point revolved around how the feminist movement responded to accusations about Clinton's sexual harassment/discrimination."
IIRC feminists were (understandably) upset but thought that Clinton was better than the alternatives at the time. It's not ideologically pure but it's realpolitik.
You thing they should have been more ideological and less practical?
nakedlunch: Clinton set feminism back 20 years based solely on accusations?
No. Again, the feminist response to those accusations, their hypocrisy, did that. If feminist don't really believe in the things the lecture us about, why should we?
And since you keep talking of links, I'd like to see some re Jones/Wiley & the FBI. I'm betting your distorting that too.
Donn: great comments over at Ezra's blog!
Thanks, although credit should go out to my feminist professor, Dr Darlene Pagan [UT Dallas] who had the integrity to stick by her principles re Clinton's sexual predation in the workplace. She taught us the truth, even though it damned her favorite President.
Thats the most pathetic aspect in all this: Valenti/Marcotte/Franke-Ruta should be making these points instead of me.
You thing they should have been more ideological and less practical?
Its the lesson of Le Morte d'Arthur. Your principles and laws should apply to everyone, even your best friends. If not, they're worthless.
No. Again, the feminist response to those accusations, their hypocrisy, did that. If feminist don't really believe in the things the lecture us about, why should we?
So the proper feminist response to the Duke rape accusations would be to support the accuser? Or could a reasonable case be made the allegations were highly suspect from the beginning. Seems to me you can't have it both ways Fen. I don't know if Clinton harassed anyone, and neither do you or Ann. I just don't buy the idea the Clintons are handy receptacles of every filthy accusation from rape to drug running to murder. Now if you had a non-consensual blow job you'd be cooking with gas...
Fen, I should add that you're a braver man than I to be wading into that sewer. I just lifted the manhole to take a peek and could scarcely believe the stench.
boy, you Clinton defenders never get it do you.
Clinton harassed every intern who ever worked for him and DIDNT give him blowjobs by giving the one who did job offers and special perks. By rewarding sexual favors, you are in fact punishing anyone who doesn't, and making it a de facto fule, if you want Vernon Jordan getting 6 figure income jobs for you at Revlon, suck my dick. If not, carry one.
This is the heart and soul of sexual harassment, and why the feminists were righteous and correct to point it out and fight to make laws against such behaviour. Then they turned around and threw all that credibility away and again blurred the line about sexual harassment because they wanted to defend a guy who was pro-abortion, a bigger fish to fry I guess than Women's Rights.
If you can't see that you have no conception of what sexual harassment and misuse of power for sex in a working environment is like in the real world.
IIRC feminists were (understandably) upset but thought that Clinton was better than the alternatives at the time. It's not ideologically pure but it's realpolitik.
YDRC (You don't recall correctly.) If feminists had said that, it would have seemed cynical, but at least it would have been honest. I don't have time to look it up now, but Gloria Steinem, in particular, wrote a long column basically giving Clinton a pass, using the most tortured logic I remember reading, ever. Another self-described feminist wrote in a women's magazine that she would readily get on her knees for Clinton b/c of his position favoring choice.
Set feminism back 20 years? Feminism is a day to day thing involving millions of workplace and other interactions; you can't set it back 20 years. But the way feminists rushed to defend Clinton in the Lewinsky/Jones/Willey/Broderick episodes discredited a generation of feminist leaders, who really have no particular influence anymore since they've been exposed as Democratic hacks.
Ironically, the Feministing blogger in this whole morality tale was too young to be implicated in the hypocritical Clinton-as-victim charade...and then she walked right smack into it!
A liberl law professor???? I'm shocked!! Skocked I say to find suhc a thing as liberal law professor.
(have my winnings sent to my table.)
:)
The comment that cracked me up on the Klein blog the most was this one:
He did not, in fact, give Lewinsky a job, and making a phone call to get someone you had sex with a job interview is maybe a little seedy, but hardly the stuff of outrage.
He did, however, tell Lewinsky he was going to get her a job, but realized that if he made a special effort on her behalf, it would expose him in ways he didn't want to be exposed. So he just kept lying to her about it until he finally got cornered.
So then, she basically blackmailed him into getting her a job in NY.
The guy he called on Lewinsky's behalf was only one of the richest men in the world and head of an international corporation. It is more than "seedy" for the President of the United States to owe a guy like that a favor. It certainly is an "outrage" for the President of the United States to owe a guy like that a favor because he diddled a 22-year-old intern.
Insert Bush into any of the sentences being used in Clinton's defense, and then imagine these things being said on a left-wing blog. And get ready to laugh your head off.
And, btw, I like Clinton. But that doesn't mean I have to give myself a voluntary lobotomy. This was much more than merely an error in his "private life."
Instapundit has come up with a pretty good name for your vlog casts, Three Sheets (to the wind). ;)
Which, BTW, is one of my favorite shows on INHD.
Last time I pressed Fen for some links proving Clinton harassed somebody he jettisoned off predictably with a ink cloud of obfuscation.
Wait. I thought we were told during the Thomas hearings that all the proof of harassment that was needed was an accusation? Whatever the case, the evidence supporting Wiley/Jones/Broddrick is much stronger than any supporting Anita Hill.
And in Willey's and Jones' case, both have howling credibility problems with both their stories and statements to federal investigators to the extent one case was thrown out of court [Jones]
I seem to remember a settlement involving a cash payment to Jones, and the loss of Clinton's law license.
Althouse Vortex Effect (AVE)
"Ave Annie, gratia plena..."
...hmmmm, it could catch on! Heretical maybe - bit of a burden on her son/s for sure - but nonetheless a passable thought.
An aside: if you die before you have witnessed a monastic choir singing the 'Salve Regina' to the solemn tone for a festival then you have lived in vain. My gang.
Bit harsh a judgement maybe, but trust me I know these things.
So the proper feminist response to the Duke rape accusations would be to support the accuser?
They did...and many of them still do. I give you Marcotte in her own words:
Amanda Marcotte, who wrote recently of the Duke rape case that she "had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and [sexually assaulted] her against her will -- not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair."
"I'm pretty much a liberal"
You all are ignoring the date. Ann's having a good laugh at your expense.
April Fools' or no, I think people here are oversimplifying "feminist" response to Clinton. There were indeed well-known feminists who were appalled by his behavior, and said so. Susan Brownmiller:
Nothing sickens me more than the specter of famous-name feminists jumping to the defense of President Clinton whenever a new story emerges about his sexual habits. I voted for the lyin', cheatin, cutie pie twice, in line with the "lesser evil" theory of electoral politics, and I'm not sorry I did, but you won't catch me apologizing for him in public.
Other, more radical feminists also condemned NOW for what they saw as "selling out":
...power corrupts. Few people can experience it and remember what it's like not to have it, or risk giving it up or having it taken away. That's what perhaps happened with NOW, and all these former feminists who are now selling their souls for Clinton.
Peter Palladas said...
"Althouse Vortex Effect (AVE) 'Ave Annie, gratia plena...'"
Well, she was having a ceasar salad the other night...
Gahrie
So tell us what the proper response by feminists to the Duke allegations should have been, and why.
Read me.
Read me.
Read me.
Read me.
Read me.
It should have been:
Let's wait and see what the investigation/trial shows.
Are have you forgotten that the lacrosse players are supposed to be presumed innocent?
Gahrie
Agreed. The same presumption of innocence should have been extended to Clinton during the Willey/Jones allegations, and certainly after it had been thoroughly investigated. Of course this would blow Ann's theory out of the water that feminists were supposed to publicly flog Clinton the second the allegations were made.
Naked Lunch:
I suggest you go back and read the first link that reader iam posted at 4:11 P.M.
Bill Clinton had a well known, long, sordid history of sexual assault, going back 30 years.
The point you are missing is that the feminists told us during the Thomas hearings that women accusing men oif harassment are supposed to be believed despite the man's presumption of innocence, only tyo be shown as totally hypocrites when it came to Clinton.
Sexual assault aside, what I find most offensive from a feminist point of view about Clinton is:
A) The way he got powerful women to go out and lie for him to the press. (Hillary, Albright et al)
B) The whole "nuts and sluts" stategy he used against his victims. If you recall, he was beginning this strategy against Lewinskt too, only she was able to produce "the dress". What do you think Lewinsky's reputation would be today if she hadn't of kept that dress?
Reader_iam: Nice try, but for a lost cause, by the looks of things.
A guest column here in your future, perhaps?
What better way to tweak the puritans?
Speaking of blogging Law Profs and alcohol . . .,
Why do you suppose Prof. Bainbridge doesn't seem to draw the same kind of criticism.
He blogs frequently about wine, here's his posts tagged "cabernet" for example, but he's not getting accused of being a drunk.
Is it a gender issue?
Is it the lack of video and photographic evidence?
Is it cause he uses the language of wine experts rather than just saying how he enjoys a good swig?
Or is it just the Althousian Vortex at work?
The same presumption of innocence should have been extended to Clinton during the Willey/Jones allegations, and certainly after it had been thoroughly investigated.
I believe the campaign to denounced Katherine Willey became, oh, about 20 minutes after she made her allegations. The WH released some mash notes she wrote and said, "see?" What we were supposed to overlook was that Willey was financially desperate at the time, and was clearly sucking up to the prez in hopes of getting a paying gig. Something Clinton knew when he allegedly groped her. He seemed to have a nose for powerless women that he could compromise if they didn't play along.
As for Jones... I hate use the left-wing blog cliche "um." But, um, this "thorough investigation" got sidetracked when the defendant, um, committed, um, perjury, for which he, um, lost his, um, law license for five years. Um.
Regarding Althouse and Catholicism (well, Ann and Catholicism--seems silly, in this context, to use the blogname):
I have been under the impression that Ann was, at least some point, an Episcopalian, and I guess I assumed that was how she was raised.
Now, that I assume that is silly, especially since, being a cradle Episcopalian myself, and very involved in an Episcopal congregation, I know how relatively rare that breed is, these days.
Austin's supposed to be a nice city, but you wouldn't catch me dead in that bigot state.
Austin's supposed to be a nice city, but you wouldn't catch me dead in that bigot state.
Were you trying to be funny? Or are you just deaf to irony?
downtownlad: Austin's supposed to be a nice city, but you wouldn't catch me dead in that bigot state.
Thats such a bigoted ignorant statement. Stereotype much, dtl? You're no better than those who judge you based on the San Fran S&M parades.
Ignorant?
No - last time I checked there was an anti-gay bigoted amendment that was passed by 80% of the population of Texas.
That's not stereotyping Fen. That's called calling it as I see it. And Texas is the biggest anti-gay bigot state of them all.
Nice of you to throw in anti-gay slur while you're at it.
I certainly wouldn't "defend" Texas as a whole, especially with regard to political attitudes toward gays.
Austin is different from the rest of the state. I've been there many times, because my best girlfriend has lived there for close to 20 years.
My other closest friend is a gay male, who while he's based in Philly (and in a decidedly gay neighborhood), spent quite a lot of time in Texas for business reasons (technical consulting). At one point, he even had an apartment in Dallas for a year, or more like two. He linked into the local gay community there, and I accompanied him to a couple of so-called "gay establishments." I worked for a while at one of the clients sites at which he also worked, outside Dallas, and at least four or five of the consultants were out and open gay people. This was not a problem. And my friend did not experience any particular problem either in his personal or work life, which hasn't necessarily been the case in other states or places (sometimes surprising ones, given stereotypes).
This is NOT to say there's not bigotry in Texas; it's just to say that few places are monolithic. It's also not say there's anything wrong with DTL's stand that he doesn't want to be in a place that institutionalizes, via law, anti-gay attitudes.
Just a counterpoint, that's all... .
That should read: "... four or five of the consultants" in our little group alone...
Reader_iam,
Exactly my point. And I didn't say Austin was bigoted. It's probably the one city in the state that is not. But the state as a whole is. That's why I'm boycotting Texas and unfortunately won't be able to vist the city that I referred to as "nice" in my first post.
I don't understand why gay people still stay in Texas though. If gay people took their economic dollars to more friendly environments, we'd have impact.
downtownlad -
Austin and its neighboring counties voted with an overwhelming majority to strike down Prop2.
If everyone moved out of inhospitable environments, it'd drain all the motivation for hometown change. If regime change begins at home, moving to a place where it's "easier" to be gay will have LESS of an impact rather than more. People will live where they want to live for a variety of reasons.
Austin is one HELL of a fine city. It's a shame you're so prejudiced you can't bring yourself to enjoy our hospitality.
Name one single policy position of the Democratic party that could remotely be described as Maoist."
Hillary has promised to nationalize Exxon. Mao would be proud.
No - last time I checked there was an anti-gay bigoted amendment that was passed by 80% of the population of Texas. That's not stereotyping Fen. That's called calling it as I see it. And Texas is the biggest anti-gay bigot state of them all.
What are you calling the "anti-gay bigoted ammendment"? Something that opposed homosexual marriage? We've already been over that, its not based on bigotry, but if you're going to throw a temper tantrum every time you lose a vote, its prob best that you stay out of Texas.
The big cities in Texas all have thriving GLBT communities, with real political power. Houston, for example, has a lesbian city councilwoman (elected citywide, at-large) and the city controller (second-highest ranking elected city official) is also a lesbian, elected citywide. She also has a strong chance of being the next mayor of Houston. Also, the new sheriff of Dallas (now that's a position one generally associates with good ol' boys) is a lesbian and a Latina.
Texas isn't that much different than other states when it comes to attitudes towards gays and lesbians. The big cities are tolerant and progressive, the rural areas, not so much. The difference between Texas and other states is that Texas has lots of people in the rural areas, and as a result, the big cities don't dominate the state the way that, for example, New York City dominates New York state, or Chicago dominates Illinois. Also, gay marriage bans have passed overwhelmingly in most states, so Texas isn't unique on that front, sadly.
As a straight person that is very pro-gay rights (I spent a nontrivial amount of time and treasure fighting Prop 2 - the anti-gay marriage initiative, and I'm still active in other socially progressive groups), I'm not a pollyanna when it comes to looking at the political and cultural realities surrounding gay rights issues. Bigotry exists, and it did have a big role in the voting for Prop 2. However, I have to say that singling out the state of Texas as being a uniquely terrible place for GLBT people is simply wrong.
Hey, if you want to see for yourself, come to Houston on April 21. The big Human Rights Campaign dinner is that night. You can find my wife and me there, along with hundreds of other people, at the downtown Hilton. Or if that's too formal for your tastes, pay a visit during the Pride Parade weekend. Try not to spill beer on the mayor while you're there.
downtownlad: Gay people do take their economic dollar to more friendly environments, and we do have plenty of impact because of it.
Is California a bigoted state? The measure to oppose gay marriage passed overwhelmingly there, too. But I don't see any kind of exodus happening in the LGBT community. The state becomes more tolerant year by year, as does the country.
I think the only state that has rejected this amendment is Arizona. Other states don't have the referendum or the Christian right just hasn't gotten around to them yet.
Out of the 80 percent who vote against gay marriage, I'm sure that a proportion of them are pure bigots, but not all of them. I've been for gay marriage forever, but a lot of liberals and moderates are still coming around. I don't underestimate the power of an argument based on the idea that marriage has been what it is for millenia, so who are we to change it? Feeling that way doesn't make you a bigot.
Yes, Johnstodder, California is a bigoted state.
But not as bigoted as Texas, as it does not have a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage.
And California has domestic partnerships. Texas and its bigoted residents passed an amendment that bans not just marriage, but any rights whatsoever for gay people.
So if you tried to pass a law that gave gay people the right to visit their partners in the hospital - guess what - that would be unconstitutional.
Because you see, it's obviously NOT just about marriage. It's about bigotry.
And while we're at it, I'll point out that Texas and its bigoted residents and its bigoted Governor (now our President) made sure that there is also a law on the books that makes it illegal for gay people to have sex in the privacy of their own homes.
Only because of our Supreme Court is that law (still on the books) not enforced.
Texas is very, very bigoted towards gay people, even if the cities are somewhat tolerant.
I'll take my gay dollars elsewhere thank you very much. And yes, I boycott the other bigot states as well.
A bigot boycotting "bigoted" states? Ha.
I'm sure Fen thinks African Americans who boycoytted the segregated south were bigots too.
It's funny. Fen hates gay people and passes laws that makes them second class citizens. But then he's horrified when gay people take offense to those laws.
So typical. Yet so pathetic. Typical Republican hater.
It passed in Oregon by 60%, so are they bigots too, but just less so statistically?
You are AGAIN showing your bigoted ignorance by claiming anyone who is against gay marriage is homophobic.
Its ironic that the trophy for biggest bigots and haters in politics has moved from the Democrat far right of the 50's-60's to the Democrat far left of the '90's-00's. Read any number of diaries on Kos or FDL for hate against Jews, religious people in general, and the latest I guess is Texans.
Post a Comment