So When Did It Become Bad to be Gay?
Posted by Andy on October 9th, 2006
Joe Tucci here,
Seriously. When did it become wrong to be gay? It used to be so hip and cool.
But I suppose now that a Republican came out, it is no longer PC anymore. Jeez the guy has had sex with one 21 year old dude, and the next thing you know, bam! gay is bad.
I am sure Hollywood will quickly rewrite all of their Pro-Gay scripts and movies to be heterosexual again.
Oh and the new James Bond, yeah the gay one, see ya! Shorter run than Timothy Dalton. Ha!
Of and the new Superman, forget, you’re out. Hollywood is all about straight people again.
I see a return of Terminator, the real Arnold one, not that chick crap, although nudity…. now a must.
Let’s get back to Mad Max kind of movies where the guys are bad ass Mo-Fa’s. Hoooo rah!
Oh and, yep metrosexuals, you too. See ya!
You are the weakest link, good bye.
Act like a real man. Grab your own crotch from now on, stare at tits again, drink real beer made in America, no more drinks with umbrellas, and whistle at women on the street.
Hot damn, America is back!!!!!!!!!!!!
Closed circuit to all males, it is now bad to order a mixed drink with Diet Cola. Grow a pair and get the real shit again. Be a man!
Sphere: Related Content
October 9th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
When Republicans took over.
October 9th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Sorry DJZ,
But the you know what is hitting the fan because of a gay guy.
Are you saying that the second people found out Foley was gay that they should have immediately investigated him? Should they have suggested the worse?
October 9th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
I think you’re trying to be purposely misleading Andy.
Even if this was a girl/girls (ala Senator Packwood), it would be of interest because of the cover -up. The knowledge that Republicans admit to knowing of this and trying to handle it behind the scenes is enough.
It’s the cover up that is the story. Same with Clinton. Same with Nixon- well, it was the whole attempt to circumvent the Democratic process with Nixon. The act is always magnified by the decisions made after.
Already Boehner, Kolbe, Reynolds, Alexander and even Hastert have admitted in one way or another in the last 10 days that Foley and his emails aren’t new news. After thinking about it, they knew they didn’t do all that they should’ve done. So now we get, “Who knew about these emails?”, “Why are they coming up now?” and “So When Did It Become Bad to be Gay?”. Sprinkle in some mention of Soros, Clinton and NAMBLA and you got yourself a real distraction.
October 9th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Hold on.
Where did “GOPers acknowledge knowing about this”? And what did they know?
Did he prop them, or just ask weird questions?
Oh, and I already went NAMBLA somewhere.
But seriously, I do not and will never defend what he did, whether legal or not. But I don’t think this is a systematic cover up.
We do need to know exactly who knew exactly what and when.
Here’s a hypo for you:
What if Rep. DeLay had heard that a GOP Rep was emailing with male pages, and was gay, and DeLay called for an investigation? Wouldn’t you think this would have been turned into an even uglier circus?
And as for the predatoring, I have seen that it was the pages who found out Foley was gay, and were pulling a prank on him. Should he have resisted sending homosexual messages? in my right wing christian mind, absolutely, but that is exactly what I’m strereotyped as I would say. Same with the others there. Had they jumped to conclusions, all hell would hav ebroken loose.
From what I think we know. No minors were physically abused. The only sex that was had was with 2 adult males.
From all the crap I’ve had spewed at me for supporting a marriage amendment, that ain’t wrong, and in fact fine, and should be allowed.
October 9th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Oh, BTW: I hope you got the sense of sataire from the main post.
October 11th, 2006 at 6:30 am
Well said Andy although you may be conceding too much in the sentence “The only sex that was had was with 2 adult males.” DJZ like most Dems is confused on whether he’s going for the “Republicans are anti gay” line or the “some Republicans are gay and gay enablers” angle. Either one is fine for them if it can be seen to justify Republican disclosure or lack of disclosure. Talk about distractions