Democrats: Pandering to Perverts 101

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.

http://townhall.com/columnists/colu...ullough&dt=07/11/2007&page=full&comments=true

 

and im Edward R Murrow

 

Kingball, I'm going to ask you once more to stop starting threads and then not debating them. I don't mean to offend you or anything, I assumed though after last time (see below) you weren't coming back. I want as many members to stay, I'm not trying to force you out, its just that what you are currently doing is not that productive.

Many thanks,

Jack.

 

Did you see the dem candidate "debate" with Tavis Smiley at Howard University? I've never seen such a panderfest in my life!! One of the scenes I was dying to see: some black in the audience stand up and say "when are you going to stop insulting us with this condescending crap?". Unfortunately, reality never lives up to my hopes.

 

And I'm gonna tell you yet again 9sublime, I'll get to responding to the posts when I have time. And again is there a specific amount of time I have to respond to a post or can I respond at my leisure? Your request is an unreasonable one in my opinion. And yes I do feel you are unfairly targeting me. I don't have as much time as you obviously do I HAVE A JOB but I will eventually get to responding.

How is what I'm doing "not that productive"? I'd like a second opinion from another moderator. Your style of moderating is highly questionable IMO.



Good Day Jack.

 

Kingball, if you have time to start a thread, why not dedicate that time to posting a respone or two instead? What you are doing is clogging up the forum with threads that get one or two responses at best quite often.

 

And Bill Clinton is the Biggest pervert of all!!! Read my post here
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?p=17523#post17523

 

Well I hope someone takes some action to stop it soon! It throws the whole forum topic search out of whack for anyone seriously looking to reply to a thread.