Jeering Jennings: FRC puts their camera where their obsessive, unprincipled attacks have long been
Their wanton desire to de-gay America knows no bounds:
I guess it's just coincidence that the two overqualified appointments/nominees that these social conservatives are hellbent on destroying (Chai Feldblum being the other) just so happen to be gay. Right? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Oh, and what's with that bizarro angle at which they've filmed Peter Sprigg? Yo, Peter, buddy: Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to export the gays...
*SOURCE: Gays seek immigration reform [Medill Reports]
Some of us do know a thing or two about flattering cinematography. Safe schools, too.
*Our complete Kevin Jennings archive
"I guess it's just coincidence that the two overqualified appointments/nominees that these social conservatives are hellbent on destroying (Chai Feldblum being the other) just so happen to be gay. Right? Riiiiiiiiiiiight."
Maybe. They could make the argument that this has nothing to do with these nominees being gay and everything to do with a socially liberal ideology which they, as social conservatives, oppose. Which of course would mean that they would oppose a straight nominee taking similiar positions. Yet what's instructive and doesn't help their "cause" is to see how they treat even gays who are conservative or libertarian, though perhaps not social cons. Witness the flap over GOProud. Love or hate that group (or not care much about them), the reaction by The Peter, Barber, etc. is quite telling. What might prove interesting would be to post the objections social cons made to gay nominees from the Bush Administration (I recall at least an ambassador) or something like this from another Republican administration. That's where one can clearly see that the sexual orientation of the person they find objectionable IS the issue without any kind of convenient claim otherwise. Just a thought.
Posted by: John | Dec 18, 2009 7:16:57 PM
Mandatory Reporting?! ... Like the Catholic Church followed mandatory laws?
Posted by: Jeff Chang | Dec 19, 2009 4:07:26 AM
Last week and they reconstituted all of the lies and added some new ones. Luckily they were so vulgar and outrageously inaccurate that the media didn't pick up on them
Posted by: a. mcewen | Dec 19, 2009 9:40:22 AM
Last week and this week is what I meant to say.
Posted by: a. mcewen | Dec 19, 2009 9:40:53 AM
How can you tell if an evangelical is lying? The short answer: if he's talking. The slightly longer answer, if he is trying to compel the horde of like-minded supremacists to more sublimely revel in his rabidly aggressive hatred of anyone deemed by the raging hatemonger to be inferior.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Dec 19, 2009 1:06:27 PMcomments powered by Disqus