Author Topic: Democrats: Pandering to Perverts 101  (Read 1001 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Richpo64

  • Guest
Democrats: Pandering to Perverts 101
« on: July 11, 2007, 12:56:33 PM »
Democrats: Pandering to Perverts 101
By Kevin McCullough
Wednesday, July 11, 2007


John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton said they stood on journalistic principle when they months ago refused to accept the invitation of Brit Hume (America's most credible anchorman) and Fox News Channel (America's most watched news network) when FNC extended an invitation to host what would easily the most watched Democratic Presidential candidate debate to date. Attempting to smear Fox News as a less than credible broker of fair and balanced news coverage Edwards, then Obama, and finally Clinton waived at the invite.


So what kind of journalists do they have at LOGO-TV?


One of the lowest rated cable outlets in existence LOGO serves exclusively the communities of people who identify themselves by the type of perverse sexual activity they engage in. "Man/boy lovers", "butch/girly girl amores", "I like to go both ways," and the "I look like a girl but am I" crowds all make their way to LOGO-TV for some daily affirmations where they are told repeatedly, "do whatever you can imagine, and ignore the prudes who say otherwise."


Sure it doesn't sound on first blush (does anyone actually blush anymore) like it would be the kind of reputable "journalistically credible" type of media outlet that would attract serious presidential candidates. But then again that is oh so very year 2000 of me.


And sure... I'm completely convinced that the head of the Human Rights Campaign and very important cultural icons like Melissa Etheridge can carve up as equally challenging questions as could Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, and Wendell Goler?right.


But the world will never know... but not because Fox didn't try.


We will never be able to compare in the same campaign cycle the journalistic prowess of the type of lightweight questions Democratic candidates will face from the shoddy crew at Fox News Channel. After all who could argue with the intellectual, philosophical, economic, national security, and social conscience expertise of a network that prides itself on the number of different ways a human being can have engage in sexual behavior while at the same time avoiding good old fashioned marital sexual intercourse?


The truth is the HillaryEdwardsObama08 crew was scratching each others eyeballs out trying to be the first candidate to confirm that they would be participating in the August event.

"In the 2008 presidential election, issues of concern to the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) community have already been at the forefront of the national conversation,? said Joe Solmonese head of the Human Rights Campaign. "From the repeal of ?Don?t ask, Don?t Tell? to the recent signing of a civil unions bill in New Hampshire, there is no doubt that voters will demand answers to important questions affecting our community."

Yes, I'm sure voters will. Perhaps not quite as you'd imagine though Mr. Solomonese.

In the attempt by the three leading contenders for the Democratic nomination America will see for the first time (or at least the ten viewers who get LOGO as part of their cable package) how far Democratic candidates are willing to pander to get a vote.

Does it take an entire broadcast hour for each of them to "out gay" the other one? Will Obama and/or Edwards show up in Chiffon? Will Hillary pass love notes to Etheridge?

What will happen is that each of these candidates will have to also later face the same "faith-based" audiences that they have been attempting to woo in recent weeks. Heaven forbid, but Obama might even have to make a follow up appearance in Rick Warren's pulpit to announce the results of his most recent AIDS test. And what will they have to say then?

See here is the unrelenting truth, put as plainly as humanly possible:

Homosexual behavior and Christianity do not mix. From the standpoint of theory, theology, doctrine, and practice the two are totally and completely incompatible; as are adultery, pornography, bestiality, pedophilia, pre-marital sex, incest, cross dressing, multiple partner orgies and the list goes on. So the candidates can not have it both ways.

The truth is Democrats are not now nor have they ever been interested in seriously committed faith based voters. They have no use for true believers be they Jewish, Catholic, or Evangelical.

But they have an insatiable lust for the sexually depraved among us. Former President Clinton's Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders even gave her name and endorsement to a book that actually advocated pedophilia.

The willingness of the leading candidates of the Democratic Party to even acknowledge the invite of the LOGO network is embarrassing enough. To go so far as to give their consent to be queried over the softball questions that they will be thrown is a travesty to the American political process.

This move will ultimately come back to hurt them bad.

I personally will see to it that all 8000 churches in New York City are aware of their willingness to pander to perverts. And mark my words, large numbers of previously assumed "safe" African American votes will be looking for a candidate other than these when push comes to shove.

That's not a threat.

It's a promise!

Dumb moves begat stupid results. Turning down Brit Hume in the election cycle is dumb on steroids. Turning down Brit Hume and saying yes to the rabid homosexual activists in America is closing in on the point of no return.

But what do I know? I watch Fox News Channel


Kevin McCullough's first hardback title "The MuscleHead Revolution: Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking" is now available. Kevin McCullough is heard daily in New York City, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware on WMCA 570 at 2pm. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com.

Mucho

  • Guest
Re: Democrats: Pandering to Perverts 101
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2007, 02:30:50 PM »
After all the perv Repubs that have been caught like Foley & Vitter etc & ad nauseum, appearing on FOX would be  the real pandering to perverts .

fatman

  • Guest
Re: Democrats: Pandering to Perverts 101
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2007, 11:56:56 PM »
"Man/boy lovers", "butch/girly girl amores", "I like to go both ways," and the "I look like a girl but am I" crowds all make their way to LOGO-TV for some daily affirmations where they are told repeatedly, "do whatever you can imagine, and ignore the prudes who say otherwise."


I'd like to see some kind of evidence as far as the man/boy lover thing, but I'm not holding my breath because judging from the tone of this piece it's just another way of trying to equate homosexuality with pedophilia.  I've watched Logo from time to time, and I've never seen any reference to this.  It seems to me that this guy is all upset that gays have their own network, I don't know what all the fuss is about.  If you don't like it, don't watch it.  They have this wonderful invention, been around awhile, called a remote control.  It enables you to change the channel, or even better, turn it off.

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8022
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Democrats: Pandering to Perverts 101
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2007, 12:34:39 AM »
if you look at it at a distance does anybody notice this tie-in with homosexuality to pedophilia is quite abit off the mark and nobody willing to see it that way

Ex. man/boy love association
note never once talking lesbians.
last I check their gay also.

wouldn`t the accurate statemewnt would be it`s a predominately male disorder

Richpo64

  • Guest
Re: Democrats: Pandering to Perverts 101
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2007, 01:11:24 PM »
I realize that liberals have created their own reality, but don't you notice that if a man rapes and murders a boy, or rapes a boy over a period of time ... the man is a homosexual? He likes boys sexually. Isn't he a homosexual?

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8022
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Democrats: Pandering to Perverts 101
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2007, 02:25:50 PM »
thank you
you`ve proven my point
people only see gays commiting crimes.
note the point you made is male
you never used females.
so it`s still a predominately male situation.
useless you think the person who killed joan bennet ramsey is gay.
which is not impposible ,alot of people think homosexual men like raping girls.


Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Democrats: Pandering to Perverts 101
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2007, 03:06:23 PM »
The truth is Democrats are not now nor have they ever been interested in seriously committed faith based voters. They have no use for true believers be they Jewish, Catholic, or Evangelical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The REAL TRUTH is that whether a politician in interested in faith-based voters should be about as important as whether they like tomato soup. It should be totally irrelevant.

The government has no business pandering to any sort of religion or lack of same. This is a secular democracy. People should keep their churches out of government and vice versa.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

fatman

  • Guest
Re: Democrats: Pandering to Perverts 101
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2007, 09:31:28 PM »
I realize that liberals have created their own reality, but don't you notice that if a man rapes and murders a boy, or rapes a boy over a period of time ... the man is a homosexual? He likes boys sexually. Isn't he a homosexual?

No.  He is a pedophile.  There are ample examples of "straight" men who have engaged in pedophilic acts with young boys.  But I guess to your way of thinking that would make them bi-sexual.

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8022
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Democrats: Pandering to Perverts 101
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2007, 12:04:40 AM »
you got a point fatman

pedophilia can also be a case of what available and convience

meaning which would actually tell on him less likely.

I never thought of it till now
males in general has no social protections for this
child or adult.
were just meant to keep quite
tawney kitain`s husband got harrassed and he`s a big guy
I kinda doubt a young boy growing up will get support from his peers