Columnist Steve Chapman looks at the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) bus tour and reaches an interesting conclusion: NOM is capitalizing on provoking LGBT protests at its events, and activists are giving NOM what it wants. Chapman writes:
why would NOM hold a rally where it is sure of being badly outnumbered by motivated and well-organized critics? Maybe because that's what it wanted. The Summer for Marriage Tour could have been called the Come Shout Us Down Tour. The endeavor has managed to make opponents of gay marriage look like a brave, embattled minority, even though they constitute 53 percent of the public and have gotten their way in all but a few states. ...
NOM's website ... focuses not on any outpouring of support for its cause, but on the protesters who have appeared at its rallies, including some it accuses of disruptive and intimidating tactics. ...
The organization specializes in a form of political jujitsu, leveraging its foes' weight against them. As chairman Maggie Gallagher tells me, "The counter-protests are holding down our physical numbers, but they're expanding our online activist community."
Chapman adds:
It's hard to get terribly outraged when a group that goes out of its way to be drowned out by its critics almost gets drowned out by its critics. But the people here to support "traditional marriage" can accurately claim that they have been impeded in their effort to communicate their views.
The older I get, the more it seems that activists on the left and right work hand in glove, often giving each other what they crave.
More. Somewhat related, Andrew Klavan writes about the left's penchant to try to suppress opposing views. Generally speaking, he's not wide of the mark. Our own John Corvino and Jon Rauch, on the marriage question, are rare exceptions in seeking to actually debate those on the social right rather than shout them down.
61 Comments for “Falling for the Protest Bait?”
posted by Skeletor on
Isn’t there just evil in the world? Maggie Gallagher is evil. She doesn’t care about marriage. She only hates gays. Her organizations’s sole purpose us to exclude gays, not to promote marriage, not to protect marriage, not to save marriage, or whatever.
So what exactly is the “point of view” she is trying to convey that the left/fascist leftists/gay-sex liberals are trying to shut down? Nobody even wants to hear her crap. She is physically repulsive rabble-rouser who can’t even draw a crowd when supposedly the “facts” and the “people” are on her side.
Please. Nobody is trying to shut her down. It’s just that nobody cares what she has to say.
posted by Jimmy on
It’s remarkable that on the heels of an administration famous for hand picking crowds to ensure no dissenting views at public events that one of their apologists would want to discuss perceived attempts by anyone else at suppressing dissent. Challenging those views one does not agree with, at a public forum, in the free air does not represent an attempt to suppress free speech rights of others. It never has.
Rightists are the biggest whiners.
posted by another steve on
Please. Nobody is trying to shut her down.
Actually, that is EXACTLY what the protestors are doing. It’s a fact. When I was an activist, I was part of the same tactic.
Maggie Gallagher is evil. Actually, she is not Hitler, or Stalin. She’s a social conservative. Conservatives fear change; they are not advocating mass murder. If you think she is beyond the pale and that shouting her down is the only appropriate response, then you are a leftwing totalitarian. If you had state power, you’d be more dangerous than Maggie Gallagher.
posted by Throbert McGee on
What both sides crave above all else is more names on their mailing lists for fundraising solicitations.
posted by BobN on
If leftist activists hadn’t made a lot of noise over the last 50 years, you’d be married, with children, hitting highway rest stops on the sly.
Besides, NOM isn’t being “shouted down”. Their website features a video of a poor, poor women who was “intimidated” by some gay men whose only sin was to stand between where she SAT on the ground and the stage, thus blocking her!!! Oh, the humanininny!
And before you completely give into stereotypes and blame the left for being so noisy, don’t forget the “Christians” who show up at gay pride with BULLHORNS.
And one last thing, you can blame the left for going overboard with speech codes etc., but let’s not pretend that speech has ever been as free in this country as it is now.
posted by Bobby on
“Isn’t there just evil in the world? Maggie Gallagher is evil. She doesn’t care about marriage. She only hates gays. Her organizations’s sole purpose us to exclude gays, not to promote marriage, not to protect marriage, not to save marriage, or whatever.”
—People please, hating gay marriage doesn’t mean hating gays. I hate radical Islam, that doesn’t mean I hate Muslims. I hate Obama’s policies, that doesn’t mean I hate his race.
Maggie is a true believer, no different than radical environmentalists, anti-nuclear plant protesters, pro-marijuana people, the health lobby, the AARP, and pretty much everyone else.
Gay activists are funny people, if Bush had passed a law forbidding homosexuals from having heterosexual sex, you’d bet your ass a bunch of gay activists would be kissing women and having sex with breeders. Maybe that’s an unfair characterization, but that’s how gay activists look in the eyes of many.
The outrage against anti-gay marriage people is so typical of the left. They preach love and tolerance, but only if you agree with them and say the right things.
Maggie Gallagher is just a person trying to make a living. Are you gonna pay her mortgage? No. Are you gonna take care of her credit card bills? No. Calling her evil only shows that when the left can beat you with facts they beat you with insults.
The days of ACT-UP and Queer Nation are over. The 1960s are over. Gays need to put a suit and tie and learn to debate without emotion.
Besides, same-sex marriage is nothing more than a status thing, like buying a yacht. Maybe the only reason gays want it is for the presents. Ok, I’m kidding here, but seriously, life will not end without same-sex marriage.
By the way, the latest queen I dated told me we didn’t have enough chemistry after only one date. See? A woman would have dated me 3 or 4 times before deciding the chemistry wasn’t there. A woman would have never allowed me to feel her up during the movie, not on a first date. So although we didn’t have sex and I was a perfect gentleman (the feeling up was consensual) I was rejected after only one date. Frankly, by the time that sorry blond skinny queen finds a groom to marry his sorry progressive ass, he’ll be 50. In fact, I was open minded enough to date a queen that wasn’t quite RuPaul yet wasn’t John Wayne either. I didn’t even cringe when I saw him wearing awful pink sunglasses. Seriously, why not wear a shirt that says “I’m gay. Bash me.” And although he was cute and skinny (the Auschwitz look I love so much) he was no Abercrombie & Fitch.
So same-sex marriage? What-ever! Gays have to learn same-sex dating first.
posted by Doug on
I rest my cast against NOM is evil and vile.
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/07/noms-solution-to-gay-marriage.html
posted by Throbert McGee on
Sorry, Bobby, but a perfect gentleman would’ve said “my last date didn’t work out” and left it at that.
posted by Bobby on
Tell me, Throbert. Say a man sees your picture online, talks to you on the phone, has a good time with you in real life, and then tells you “sorry but we don’t have enough chemistry” on the basis of just one date, what would you think of him?
posted by another steve on
Doug, above, links to a gay left website that says “NOM’s Solution to Gay Marriage” and has a photo of a protest sign citing Leviticus, calling for those who have gay sex to be put to death.
“NOM’s Solution”? The blog he links to says the sign was held by “A supporter of the National Organization for Marriage…” at a NOM rally. So, some looney at the rally, not “NOM’s Solution.”
Maybe you’d like every gay organization to be judged by the looniest loon at a gay rights rally and the very pleasant things they may have to say about Christians.
posted by Jimmy on
It’s always the same with you, Bobby. You didn’t get what you wanted, when you wanted it and how you wanted it, and somehow the whole gay world is against you.
That sorry, blond, skinny queen was just fine until you didn’t get what you wanted. Maybe he picked up on the same thing any self-respecting chick would have picked up on, you have no class or charisma, or apparently, game.
That’s pretty pathetic, dude.
posted by dc on
Bobby is the “straight gay man.” He is the masculine one, he “reluctantly” dates a faggy gay, and then complains about/makes fun of him. I’ve seen this so many times you’d figure some right wing ass like Stanley Kurtz would write a condescending article about it. Honestly, my attitude towards Bobby and his comment is–whatever. If he wants to date feminine gays and make fun of them, that is his prerogative. My experience has been that gay men like Bobby secretly like feminine guys because being with one makes them seem/feel/be–more masculine. And that turns them on.
posted by Bobby on
Whatever DC, I don’t need to date a queen to feel masculine. As for you, Jimmy, like all progressives you’d rather support the ideal of same-sex marriage instead of the reality of same-sex dating. You’re like the people who want to become rich without going to work. Frankly, the average gay is just too demanding to ever take the time needed to meet someone worth of marrying. The exceptions don’t make the rules, just because a tiny minority of gays are having commitment ceremonies doesn’t mean most gas will. In fact, in countries where gay marriage or civil unions are legal only a tiny minority of gays partake in them.
As for me not having “no class or charisma, or apparently, game,” how the hell would you know that? And since when are either of those three characteristics important to land a man? And what does that say about wife-beaters and other married sociopaths? Do they have class, charisma and game?
By the way, it takes more than just one date to discover if someone has class, charisma and game. I was willing to date that stupid queen at least 4 times to see if we were a match. Besides, I seemed to have enough class, charisma and game to meet the bastard, didn’t I? He sure did like how I sounded on the phone and he obviously must have liked my profile description.
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
There’s no reason to insult Bobby in such a way.
You really don’t know the dynamics of his “date” with the guy. By his own admission, he has a penchant for “skinny blondes”–even Ann Coulter! LIS!
(Blondes have never been my thing…….but to each his own. They age very badly.)
Bobby has always reminded me of the jock who goes for the “pretty and malleable” blonde cheerleader type. LOL!
Everyone has their preference and I can say with authority that attractive people have the upper hand in the world of dating and lovemaking……at least in the initial stages.
Even as we pride ourselves on the idea that the roles of men and women have supposedly evolved, in love relationships I think things never really change……provided you’re discussing people who are capable of heightened emotional love.
True love, necessarily, renders you vulnerable and decidedly “unequal”.
One partner is always playing the “unequal” role at any given time. There’s no such thing as a 50-50 relationship.
It might ultimately even out that way……each taking turns giving in.
And if such a complementary vibe works, then you can most often achieve something long term.
If Bobby’s account of the “date” is accurate, my senses tell me that the blonde guy is a “player”. Kind of like the cheap hetero—blonde or whatever—woman who dates men for a dinner and a night out.
Bobby doesn’t come off as a player.
Obviously, he doesn’t do small talk well or waste time mincing words.
That guy probably saw that Bobby couldn’t be “played” and decided to move on to another guy who could be easily “milked”.
A related side bar……
A few months ago my sister and her husband began some slight renovations on their home. It’s a two-story on several acres so there’s lots of possibilities.
She told me she had checked a few HGTV sites to get a general idea where she wants to go with the design.
“Sarah’s House” and “Divine Design” were the most helpful.
I must confess that HGTV is not my thing and I only knew of it through channel-surfing; however, since checking out those shows on her recommendation, I just love the sweet Tommy Smythe on “Sarah’s House”.
He’s the type of guy that most of you would look over because he isn’t handsome or exciting, but this is the type of guy that most of you probably need!
I just love Tommy. He’s so witty and has very classical tastes in design. Just like my own.
He helps this Sarah person emerge from her sometimes-cluttered and flowery taste in decorating.
Here he is in his tiny apartment in Canada. As you know, real estate and the tiniest of spaces there are insanely overpriced.
You get a hole in the wall for a million bucks. Who would want to live there, anyway?
Tommy doesn’t flit and flitter around like the goofy David Bromstad.
Bromstad is a perfect example of the gay guy who makes me sick. He prisses around in those tattoos and it’s quite clear that he’s not going to be a very attractive older man. Can’t stand his face and his creepy way of talking.
Most gay men looking for a hook-up would probably go for this plastic dimestore Miami queen; however, they should be checking out more people like the witty and ultra-intelligent Tommy Smythe.
posted by Jimmy on
“reality of same-sex dating.”
YOUR reality = tough bananas
“You’re like the people who want to become rich without going to work.”
Hahahahahahaha!!!
“By the way, it takes more than just one date to discover if someone has class, charisma and game. ”
No it doesn’t. Your sense of entitlement is astounding.
“In fact, in countries where gay marriage or civil unions are legal only a tiny minority of gays partake in them.”
In fact, marriage rates are down across most demographics, so gay culture, once again, simply reflects trends going on the larger culture in which it inhabits.
If marriage is such a universal sacred cow, it more often than not is being allowed to roam the pasture unnoticed, and then people have the nerve bitch about those who are just trying to milk the heifer to relieve her misery!
“He sure did like how I sounded on the phone and he obviously must have liked my profile description.”
Ah yes, the intricacies of chasing tail in the cyber-bar. As with reality, it all comes down to the moment when the rubber meets the road.
Given your perennial victimhood, it must suck to be you.
posted by Jimmy on
“He’s the type of guy that most of you would look over because he isn’t handsome or exciting, but this is the type of guy that most of you probably need!”
Working in the design world, I know so many men like him, Debrah, and most of them are in good, long lasting relationships. I knew them when they were 15 years younger also, and they were right there along with me having a grand ol’ time being single.
Here is a post of mine about Bravo’s latest contest/show, “Work of Art”
http://roundtabletalking.blogspot.com/2010/06/process-vs-contest-bravos-new-show-work.html
posted by grendel on
now that bobby’s self-pity has hijacked yet another thread, I’ll jump too concur with Jimmy. I think you tell pretty quick if there is chemistry or not. and if there’s no chemistry on the first date, there’s unlikely to be chemistry on a second, third or fourth. Of course, you need a lot more than chemistry to make a good relationship, but that’s another question.
Besides, I’m not exactly sure what this guy did wrong. Sounds like he was pretty decent and upfront about things. They had a date, the guy didn’t want to go out again, and was upfront about it. They didn’t lead Bobby on, ignore phone calls, pretend to have other plans or whatever. So why again was he a jerk? Oh yeah, just cuz he didn’t want a second date. Wow, like Jimmy says Bobby, it must suck to be you.
posted by Bobby on
“By the way, it takes more than just one date to discover if someone has class, charisma and game. ”
No it doesn’t. Your sense of entitlement is astounding.
—So you think you can judge a book by its cover? That’s like saying you’re not going to read Moby Dick because you don’t like the name. If you agree to date someone after seeing his picture, reading his profile and talking to him on the phone, you should at least have more than one date with him. In fact, one of my best friends is someone that I had a horrible first date with, we argued about everything. Yet unlike other guys, he didn’t disappear. While I wasn’t his type, he kept seeing me and eventually we became good friends. So yes, I expect that the guys who meet me will want to meet me again. Besides, I assume they’re dating me because they find me attractive, at the very least they should try to get in my pants.
“In fact, marriage rates are down across most demographics, so gay culture, once again, simply reflects trends going on the larger culture in which it inhabits.”
—Since when does the gay community reflect the straight community? Ever been to a gay store? You’ll find bathingsuits that no straight man would be caught dead wearing.
“If marriage is such a universal sacred cow, it more often than not is being allowed to roam the pasture unnoticed, and then people have the nerve bitch about those who are just trying to milk the heifer to relieve her misery!”
—That may be true, but it does not justify the hateful attacks anti-gay marriage activists endure. Sometimes gays are no better than homophobes.
“Ah yes, the intricacies of chasing tail in the cyber-bar. As with reality, it all comes down to the moment when the rubber meets the road.
—Know what’s ironic? My good looking date complained that men don’t hit on him in gay bars. So he should have been more appreciative of me. Whatever, it just goes to show that most men are scared of commitment. In the gay community, many of us are treated no better than a condom, use it once and throw it away.
“Given your perennial victimhood, it must suck to be you.”
—Well, there are people with no legs, there are dirt poor people crapping in a hole in the ground in places like Egypt, there are homeless people, so no, it does not sucked to be me compared to others.
posted by Debrah on
Very nice post, Jimmy.
Here’s the direct link.
I agree that it’s great for aspiring designers and artists to have such exposure; however, I cannot get beyond the reality that in the current world of nonstop 24/7 cable fare, much—too much!—of what used to be considered “art” is now assembly line, distilled, and painfully ordinary expression and grandstanding.
Sad, that.
posted by Jimmy on
“Sad, that.”
Feel free to comment directly as more content comes along. I want to propagate a discussion about these concepts.
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
You should cross-post when you do more commentary.
*************************
Also, I know that this is going to be an alien concept…….
…….and that I might be suggesting something far too strenuous for some of you sedentary lard azzes…….
……..but try going out into the world and interacting with people instead of sitting in front of a computer screen, ogling photos of goofy twink whores attempting to look “sexy”.
Then you won’t waste so much time.
Making dates on the internet is not the best avenue for anyone.
I don’t care what the current trend might be.
posted by Debrah on
Something of interest from Media-ite
Are gay adult mags really such cash cows?
Also, I’ve never understood why people aren’t more circumspect with regard to their Facebook pages.
They’re there for all the world to see, yet so many put up the most ridiculous things which always chips away at their credibility if they are alleged “professionals”.
Facebook is fine for business contacts; however, I’d never use the place as a social network. Who wants to be contacted by every nut you’ve ever met in your life?
And that’s what happens…..plus it’s now known that Facebook uses the personal information of people who sign up to pass on to other companies.
Not a very safe place to camp out.
Eventually Facebook will be just as pedestrian and as passé as MySpace.
posted by Jorge on
Somewhat related, Andrew Klavan writes about the left’s penchant to try to suppress opposing views. Generally speaking, he’s not wide of the mark. Our own John Corvino and Jon Rauch, on the marriage question, are rare exceptions in seeking to actually debate those on the social right rather than shout them down.
I see the relation. Censorship is very likely to backfire in this country.
And before you completely give into stereotypes and blame the left for being so noisy, don’t forget the “Christians” who show up at gay pride with BULLHORNS.
What Christians with bullhorns? Evidence please. Links, personal testimony, specific anecdotes. I’ve been to a small number of gay marriage rallies and I never even saw any counterprotestors.
posted by Jorge on
By the way, it takes more than just one date to discover if someone has class, charisma and game.
It takes less than five minutes to figure out that someone does not.
Maybe you didn’t look as good in person, maybe you left an instant bad impression, maybe your personality wasn’t the right type, maybe you gave off “stalker” vibes, maybe you said something instantly offensive.
Bobby, you got rejected fair and square, and what’s worse, you’re whining about it. That is simply not an attractive personality trait.
posted by Jimmy on
“It takes less than five minutes to figure out that someone does not.”
OH, SNAP!!
I’m with when you’re right, Jorge!
Debrah –
Total serendipity: I wrote a song about FaceBook today. It’s an instant classic!
It’s on my other blog.
posted by BobN on
Tommy is adorable!
Jorge, google philadelphia gay rights bullhorn
posted by Jorge on
Ah.
Now there’s an interesting story. Legitimate arrest, but charges thrown out.
You don’t hear many stories of actual arrests.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Debrah, thanks for your earlier defense of me. I totally agree. moving on:
“Are gay adult mags really such cash cows?”
—I think they are, when I used to go to adult bookstores those publications would rarely sell under $5. The videos can cost you $20 to $50. Premium adult websites go from $50 to $100 a month (like Bel-Amie). With the exception of me, gays are usually rich which is why they used to be known as DINKS (Double Income No Kids). By the way, the leather freaks are paying top dollar for fetishes, those dungeons, cages, whips, etc, cost a pretty penny.
“Facebook is fine for business contacts; however, I’d never use the place as a social network. Who wants to be contacted by every nut you’ve ever met in your life?”
—I think Linkedin is for business contacts, facebooks can be a mixture of both, but I wouldn’t say anything unprofessional on LinkedIn and even on facebook I’m careful.
posted by John Howard on
Our own John Corvino and Jon Rauch, on the marriage question, are rare exceptions in seeking to actually debate those on the social right rather than shout them down.
Those two have never taken on my argument that people should only have conception rights with someone of the other sex. They run away.
posted by Jorge on
That’s because contraception rights were recognized a long time ago.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Would that you might emulate them!
posted by John Howard on
Jorge, you’re correct that currently there is no law against attempting to conceive with someone of the same sex, but it is not a right and should not be a right and should be prohibited. What do you mean by saying that same-sex conception rights have already been recognized?
Throbert, I ain’t giving up because my proposal is the only acceptable resolution, and every day that passes without it being enacted causes lasting harm to thousands of people and wastes money, and distracts us from super-important issues. What don’t you like about my proposal?
posted by dc on
This comments section has degraded into stupidity.
posted by Bobby on
John, seriously, this isn’t the SyFy channel. Same-sex conception doesn’t exist, when it does then you can worry about it, it will be just like cloning, somebody cloned a sheep and congress acted to ban human cloning.
posted by Jorge on
Jorge, you’re correct that currently there is no law against attempting to conceive with someone of the same sex
You are reading my post wrong. I wasn’t actually talking to you.
The Griswald v. CT line of cases overturned all bans on contraception, in an out of marriage. Sex can be non-procreative. Gay sex is by definition sex with contraception. So your argument goes nowhere. Griswald is still on the books.
posted by Jimmy on
How wretched must a soul be whose only thing to hold on to that provides any context to the testament of their existence turns out to be something so preposterous and utterly unnecessary.
posted by Throbert McGee on
They undoubtedly were, back in the long-long-ago before the Web. Though my understanding is that the financial lifeblood of such magazines was not, for the most part, newsstand/bookstore sales to customers who wanted to ogle photos naked men with erections, but rather three back-of-the-mag income streams: Legitimate personals (aka “lonelyhearts ads”), escort/massage ads (aka “loophole prostitution”), and vendors of mail-order video porn on VHS and later DVD.
Obviously, all of these “cashcow” functions of print J/O mags have been killed by the Web’s ability to deliver content faster and cheaper.
posted by John Howard on
Bobby, same-sex conception exists in mice, google Kaguya. Other researchers are working on stem-cell derived artificial gametes, google “female sperm”. The concept of “postgenderism” is well-worked out in Transhumanist circles. It needs to be quashed. It is stupid. It is really expensive and unnecessary and would destroy human dignity and equality, and seriously harms millions of people just by remaining a legal possibility. It needs to be prohibited.
When people ask “what’s wrong with gay marriage” and “how does gay marriage affect other people’s marriages” and I give an answer, you have to acknowledge my answer. You can’t dismiss my argument by pointing out the undisputed fact that no one has done it yet. I’ll be the first to tell you that it probably won’t ever be possible or available, so don’t ascribe any craziness to me. You guys are the ones claining a SyFy Channel right to conceive with someone of the same sex. And your doing this while thousands of families have no access to the protections of marriage. Shameful, really, just because you dream of creating genetically modified super children with no obesity problems, as if it was a genetic thing, and not simply a gluttony and laziness thing, or just a thing, like any other thing, that we deal with. You’re the one who wants to do SyFy craziness, admit it.
posted by John Howard on
and no, Congress never banned human cloning, because it got tied up with the issue of stem cell research, and Congress ended up gridlocked and didn’t do anything. Some people claiming to be from the pro-life camp refused to ban only reproductive cloning unless stem cell research were banned also, and succeeded in preventing a ban on anything. Nothing is prohibited, you could implant a hybrid embryo from Madonna and a chimpanzee and a zuchinni, and it’d be totally legal. (Some states prohibit implanting it, but other states don’t)
posted by John Howard on
Jorge, who were you talking to? Anyhow, contraception has very little to do with conception. Griswald legalized contraception for married couples, it didn’t legalize fornication or unmarried procreation, let alone same-sex conception, not did Eisenstadt. Maybe you don’t understand what I am talking about. Try googling some of this stuff, or clicking my name to go to my website.
posted by Throbert McGee on
AHA, the Truth finally emerges — John Howard is a fatty-fat-fatty trying to piggyback his Obesity Acceptance crusade on the gay-marriage campaign, which is as farcical as the idea of homosexuals trying to ride the coattails of Jewish or African-American civil-rights movemen–
…oh, wait.
Okay, carry on, John.
posted by John Howard on
Throbert, if I remember right, Bobby wanted to fix his sperm so that his kids wouldn’t have his gene for obesity. That’s an understandable sentiment, but “fixing” genes is not a right or wise public policy.
Throbert, do you have any specific objection to my suggestion? Click my name if you aren’t sure what it is.
posted by Debrah on
Bobby and all–
Regarding the Med-iate link, it is a bit of curious news that “HERE MEDIA” didn’t pay lots of their ex-employees and freelancers for the work they did.
One former employee is being threatened with a lawsuit for talking about his experience.
Perhaps to Throbert’s point that most revenue is now found online and not with the mags…..they were trying to get away without paying some of their employees.
Who knows?
A side issue is how detrimental to your image FaceBook can be.
LOL!
And I don’t care what privacy assurances FaceBook issues to users, I’d be wary of signing up simply because so much of their true shenanigans have been uncovered lately.
posted by Debrah on
I was reminded this morning of the wedding of the century that took place this weekend.
Eleanor Roosevelt look-alike Chelsea Clinton married Marc…….son of felon and ex-con Ed Mezvinsky.
From all accounts, a good time was had by all!
Just goes to show…….if you can accumulate enough money, legally or illegally, even Arkansas hicks and a Midwestern twanger can become the chi-chi chic.
LOL!!!
posted by Bobby on
“Regarding the Med-iate link, it is a bit of curious news that “HERE MEDIA” didn’t pay lots of their ex-employees and freelancers for the work they did.”
—That’s not really surprising, in advertising it’s the owner of the agency who makes most of the money, I assume it’s the same in media.
“Throbert, if I remember right, Bobby wanted to fix his sperm so that his kids wouldn’t have his gene for obesity.”
—Well, I’m not obese anymore, I’m average now, but you know what? Some heterosexuals are already experimenting with gene therapy to breed perfect children, and if I could, I would do the same. Unlike Sarah Palin, I refuse to have a baby with down syndrome, who needs the aggravation? However, if I’m ever rich enough to consider having children, I’ll probably be adopting anyway, but if I decide to breed with a surrogate mother I wouldn’t want my child to suffer hair loss among other problems.
Moving on, the Clinton wedding shows the hypocrisy of the left. They promote class warfare yet they blow $3 million on a wedding. I wouldn’t mind if Bill Clinton was Bill Gates, Donald Trump, or some other entrepreneur that never promoted a rich is bad attitude. And I respect the fact that the Clintons made a lot of money selling their books and giving speeches. However, their daughter’s wedding was over the top. Now to be fair, I don’t mind over the top weddings because they help the local economy, I’m sure waiters, bartenders, the wedding coordinator, designers, and all kinds of other people benefited from their splurge. After all, when was the last time a poor person paid your family? So at least in that way, the Clintons did a good thing.
posted by Jorge on
Moving on, the Clinton wedding shows the hypocrisy of the left. They promote class warfare yet they blow $3 million on a wedding.
The Clintons themselves, for all their progressivism, have never promoted class warfare, and they are not in power among the left. The decision of what kind of wedding Chelsea Clinton has is a private decision between citizens.
As you said, splurging helps the economy, especially in times of recession. I splurge, too, within the limits of my middle class income and single person household. Had a nice vacation down in Phoenix not to long ago–guided tours, room service, restaurants, arcades, lots of souveniers, pricey concessions, mall-hopping and of course the airfare (not the hotel; that was pretty cheap).
Reason I’m able to splurge is because was responsible with my education and I’m responsible with my money. I don’t need to answer to anyone on that, and neither do the Clintons.
posted by Jimmy on
Now, don’t be hatin’ on Bubba’s little butterfaced girl. She is a nice WASPy girl who, while doing OK in her own right, went and married herself a nice jewish Wall Street financeer. Smart girls can finish first.
posted by Bobby on
Oh, I see, we can’t make fun of Chelsea but we can make of “little butterfaced girl.” Now who is Jimmy referring to, Jenna? Frankly, Bush’s twins are a lot hotter than Chelsea. If I was straight I’d rather sleep with them.
“The decision of what kind of wedding Chelsea Clinton has is a private decision between citizens.”
—Yes and no. Billy gets a presidential pension, secret service protection, and they even declared the area of the wedding a no-flight zone to protect them from flying paparazzis. When Rush got married he did not get those priviledges.
So, since the Clinton’s are public figures, they can expect public questioning of their activities. Also, Chelsea participated in her mother’s presidential campaign before Obama won the nomination, so that girl is no longer a private figure.
Anyway Jorge, I’m glad you vacationed in Phoenix. The illegal-alien lobby and their labor unions supporters have become quite noisy lately yet I read of tourists in Germany being forced to show their papers 20 times during their trips. Isn’t that interesting?
Furthermore, in Europe citizenship isn’t given by birth, so if two illegal aliens have a baby in England, the child is considered illegal and the entire family could be deported.
posted by Jimmy on
Bobby, you ignorant slut, reread my post.
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
You and Jorge must get up far earlier in the morning to keep up with Bobby on this one.
He lists some very important facts in his (4:08 PM).
In the past, all families in the White House were scrutinized and even the daughters of presidents were the subjects of jokes.
Yet arguably one of the most naturally unattractive women to ever live in the White House is still benefiting from the double standards the Clintons have always enjoyed.
Chelsea Clinton gladly went on the campaign trail trying to help Hillary defeat Obama and she wouldn’t answer certain questions from the press. Why?
When she was in school for a while in the UK, she was dog-drunk outside a bar over there, but the photos weren’t circulated the way the press always printed every tiny bit of trivia about the Bush twins—whom, by the way, actually have personalities.
Of course Chelsea Clinton has turned out well, but so what? Big deal.
Millions of people grow up with parents who have issues—–some very public issues.
With all the kid glove treatment along with a cushy lifestyle, Chelsea Clinton would have to have been a moron not to have done something right.
I don’t think she’s exceptional at all. She’s just the beneficiary of a very overbearing mother who has always demanded that her ugly daughter be given special treatment by the press and because they are Liberal Demos, the press complied.
Chelsea lied just as her mother did during the campaign in 2008 when Hillary tried to pretend she and Chelsea had been met with gunfire on a foreign trip to make her seem more experienced globally………
………when, in truth, they had both been greeted by a little girl with bouquets of flowers.
Of course, congratulations to the Clintons on the wedding…..yada, yada, yada.
But don’t go beyond that. They are just seasoned scoundrels who have become wealthy from public office. They had lived in public housing all their married lives until after their White House years.
Terry McAuliffe performed a few shady maneuvers to get them into that house in upstate NY back in 2000.
Of course, they’ve now accumulated millions from book deals and Bill Clinton’s “speeches”. LOL!
But both Bill and Hillary are smarter than the average crook…….namely the new in-law Ed Mezvinsky.
posted by BobN on
When Rush got married he did not get those priviledges (sic)
Considering the frequency with which he weds, I’m surprised you’d even consider having the taxpayers pay for security!
posted by jimmy on
“When she was in school for a while in the UK, she was dog-drunk outside a bar over there, but the photos weren’t circulated the way the press always printed every tiny bit of trivia about the Bush twins”
It’s not generally newsworthy when someone who is legally allowed to drink over does it. Those twins were far more newsworthy, especially for their often stupid, entitled behavior.
Chelsea’s wedding is a fait accompli, let’s move on.
posted by Bobby on
“Considering the frequency with which he weds, I’m surprised you’d even consider having the taxpayers pay for security!”
—All I’m saying is that if you don’t close the airspace for Rush, you shouldn’t close it for Bill Clinton. If they really wanted privacy she could have married in the White House, or in some island in the middle of nowhere.
“It’s not generally newsworthy when someone who is legally allowed to drink over does it. Those twins were far more newsworthy, especially for their often stupid, entitled behavior.”
—It’s always newsworthy when the daughter of a president behaves like a jackass in public. Chelsea acted like a jackass yet she was protected, the Bush twins did the same and they weren’t.
By the way, the last time Bush married one of his daughters the wedding costs only $100,000. See? Even though Bush can afford to give his daughter a $3 million dollar wedding, he didn’t use that occasion as an excuse to mingle with celebrities and political donors.
The only people with a sense of entitlement are the Clintons and the Obamas. Hillary because she thinks her experience as senator and First Wife qualifies her for the president and Obama for thinking being black and a Harvard grad qualifies him for his job.
In fact, Obama should learn from GWB, Bush didn’t need to go on The View to defend his policies. And instead of a wasteful stimulus package he was willing to give Americans a tax rebate. See? With the rebate I go shopping and improve the economy. With the stimulus package the money is wasted by government bureacrauts building sidewalks where people don’t want sidewalks, and hiking trails where nobody goes hiking.
posted by Jimmy on
“By the way, the last time Bush married one of his daughters the wedding costs only $100,000.”
Yeah, W’s only instance of fiscal conservatism.
Typical. One would think such cheap, flagrantly incestuous behavior on the part of a president would be frowned upon. Just another pass the GOP extended to that sicko, W.
At least Bubba let his daughter marry outside the family.
posted by Jorge on
You and Jorge must get up far earlier in the morning to keep up with Bobby on this one.
I might agree with you if he had left it at the Secret Service, but that whole Chelsea is a public figure because she once campaigned for her mother bit is a little silly. The reason you all are saying it again and again is because that’s the only she’s ever done in public.
Anyway, Bobby, there weren’t any protests when I went. However I did learn something interesting. Since I actually returned without getting kidnapped and cut into pieces, I probably should be spending my time more productively on a cause that means more to me. So far I haven’t gotten around to that yet.
posted by Bobby on
“Typical. One would think such cheap, flagrantly incestuous behavior on the part of a president would be frowned upon. Just another pass the GOP extended to that sicko, W. ”
—Jimmy, I think you suffer from BDS – Bush Derangement Syndrome, it’s clear that you’re unable to cut the former president any breaks. What’s wrong with having a $100,000 in Crawford, Texas?
posted by Jimmy on
I don’t hate W, but I’m willing to have as much fun at W’s expense as I wish. Given the irrational hatred you have for our current president, your in no position to discuss right or wrong as long as you play the role of apologist for one of the worst presidents in American history.
Besides, why does it cost $100,000 to set up a cake and punch table and throw out a couple bowls of honey-roasted nuts and butter mints? They should have called me!
posted by Bobby on
Jimmy, the difference between us is I’m willing to give the devil (in this case, Obama) his due. For example, I was happy when Obama wanted to expand oil drilling in the atlantic seaboard, but then when he drops that plan and bans deep water drilling, I wasn’t happy.
“Besides, why does it cost $100,000 to set up a cake and punch table and throw out a couple bowls of honey-roasted nuts and butter mints? They should have called me!”
—It’s so obvious you’ve never been to Texas. I have news for you, everything’s big in Texas and this was no redneck trailer trash wedding.
posted by Jimmy on
“I was happy when Obama wanted to expand oil drilling in the atlantic seaboard, but then when he drops that plan and bans deep water drilling, I wasn’t happy.”
Have you ever read “Dune”, Bobby? You are like “the Beast” Rabban, a Harkonnen, and if you and yours had your way, this world would become a wasteland.
posted by Bobby on
“Have you ever read “Dune”, Bobby? You are like “the Beast” Rabban, a Harkonnen, and if you and yours had your way, this world would become a wasteland.”
—I haven’t read Dune, but I have read about what another piece of fiction, Silent Spring, did to the DDT industry and how thanks to the green movement thousands of children die of Malaria every year in Africa.
http://reason.com/archives/2002/06/12/silent-spring-at-40
posted by Jimmy on
It’s making a big comeback.