By The Right Scoop


This was a great segment and honestly I was proud to be in Barron’s corner. While I disagree with his lifestyle choices, I thought he did a great job defending both the Republican Party and the conservative movement against Cenk’s accusations – especially that the Republican Party ‘doesn’t like him’.

Rush has tried to make this point over and over, that conservatives are much more tolerant than are liberals. You remember how much flack Elton John got from the Left for singing at Rush’s wedding. It’s just par for the course with the Left and we’ve seen it over and over.

Look, as long as someone from GOProud is ok with me disagreeing with their lifestyle choices and perhaps even their gay agenda (if they have one), then I don’t have a problem going to CPAC. I’m certainly not going to try and humiliate them like Ryan Sorba from last year, but I’m not going to pass out pamphlets for them either. But if an organization wants to boycott, that’s ok too. I’m sympathetic to them but I’m not sure I agree with them.

Anyway, enjoy the segment:

**

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • http://twitter.com/SumErgoMonstro The Monster

    Being a Lefty means knowing what someone’s supposed to think even if they don’t think that way.

    Isn’t it interesting that he knows how intolerant conservatives are better than the guy who actually interacts with conservatives?

    This fits into what Evan Sayet said about how 9/11 changed him from a stereotypical NY Jew Lib. He saw how the libs were reacting to 9/11 by blaming America, and resigned himself to making common cause with conservatives that would oppose him on everything other than how to combat Islamofascism.

    Then a funny thing happened. He got a chance to find out FROM CONSERVATIVES what they think. And he realized that all his life, all he knew about conservative philosophy was what he heard from libs. That’s like talking about how you’ve always hated Pepsi, but you’ve never actually had any; you just know what all your Coke truck driver friends say. Or like hating blacks based on crap you heard from racists, when you’d never actually known any black people yourself.

    And the Left loves to tell us how WE are the provincial, small-minded, intolerant folks.

    • B-Funk

      Couldn’t’ve said it better. Also, that slob interviewing was raising my blood pressure through the roof with that smug snorting of his. I greatly dislike that attitude.

      • Impertinent

        Exactly….I’d love to meet this pompous arsehole in any bar….he’d need a Law Reviewer like Barry to extricate his cranium from is anus!

        • Anonymous

          That’s mature. Now you’ve embraced the true nature of conservative rhetoric… ad hominem arguments which are unrelated to the issue being discussed.

          • Anovah

            I also love how in the same article that we have this…

            “conservatives are much more tolerant than are liberals”

            we also have these…

            “I disagree with his lifestyle choices”

            “their gay agenda”

            “I’m not going to pass out pamphlets for them”

            “humiliate them like Ryan Sorba”

            And I’m supposed to believe conservatives are a paragon of tolerance compared to liberals. Puh-lease

            • Anonymous

              lol…that’s so true.

              but looking at my comment again, I can now see the irony of me accusing conservatives of using “ad hominem arguments which are unrelated to the issue being discussed”, when that is exactly what I am doing to them. I feel like a blowhard right now.

              I like your name! :D

          • Anovah

            I also love how in the same article that we have this…

            “conservatives are much more tolerant than are liberals”

            we also have these…

            “I disagree with his lifestyle choices”

            “their gay agenda”

            “I’m not going to pass out pamphlets for them”

            “humiliate them like Ryan Sorba”

            And I’m supposed to believe conservatives are a paragon of tolerance compared to liberals. Puh-lease

          • alliancex92x

            yea to many ignorant people here im going back to tyt to find some more of that good old truth

        • Seth

          Yes, much more tolerant than liberals, that seems obvious :S

          • Sc29403

            Not!

    • Nick

      A stereotypical New York Jew lib? That’s not anti-Semitic at all.

      • Dude

        Uhhhh, it is no more anti-Semitic than “Kansas Catholic conservative” is anti-Catholic. “New York Jew lib” is a list of labels that just might apply to Evan Sayet prior to 9/11. In other words, it is a statement of fact, whether or not you like labels and a statement of fact is hardly anti-Semitic, especially when it isn’t particularly an insult (unless you find it insulting to be called a New Yorker, a Jew, or a liberal).

        • Anovah

          First of all, crack open a dictionary and look up the word Semitic and you’ll see why it can’t be applied to Catholics.

          Second, there is a history of discrimination against jews and their ethnicity. If you can’t understand how this is anti-semitic then you need to crack open more than just a dictionary.

      • Impertinent

        New York lib Jew? Ask the upper East siders what they pride themselves on and label themselves as?

        I’m a practicing JEW and I know what they like to be known as.

        • Anovah

          Whew, now I can use that logic to spew the N word every chance I get. Thanks!

        • Anovah

          Whew, now I can use that logic to spew the N word every chance I get. Thanks!

      • Duh

        Perhaps you have trouble with comprehension. Here’s the pertinent part:
        “Evan Sayet said about how 9/11 changed him from a stereotypical NY Jew Lib.”

        Get it, dumbazz? Evan labeled HIMSELF.

        • Anovah

          Well hey if he can be anti-semitic so can I. Woo hoo! Hooray for bigotry.

        • Anovah

          Well hey if he can be anti-semitic so can I. Woo hoo! Hooray for bigotry.

    • Impertinent

      “He saw how the libs were reacting to 9/11 by blaming America, and resigned himself to making common cause with conservatives that would oppose him on everything other than how to combat Islamofascism.”

      Excellent and well put…thanks. We conservatives and many Americans know who the real terrorists are among the Islamic fascists….it’s liberal, “progressive”, intolerant, elitist boobs….in other words DemoRats! The hate they promote and support along with their infantile, juvenile, brain addled and insufficient IQ’s should are are now…obvious to everyone. They’re totally untrustworthy, deceitful, racist and ignorant cretins.

      • KeepItReal525

        Actually, recent studies have proved that being a Dem is being more evolved, for it is conservative thinking that would allow lesser animals to survive whereas higher primates, like ourselves, have gotten to the point where we can embrace things like supporting those less well off than ourselves and perpetuating science and scientifically proven programs. Why am I a progressive liberal? Because I believe that when my brothers and sisters around the world are not struggling to survive, when they are better off than I and my family are better off. Conservatives can argue to give me a tax break so I can buy another car, but I’d rather that money go towards government programs to get the impoverished out of poverty. Who knows what that kid in Newark or Harlem or Detroit could grow up to be, discover or invent? I don’t. But only when every human being has the opportunity to prove themselves and live a happier life, will I be contented.

        • Anonymous

          That is an argument from ignorance. For one, everyone in this country does have the same opportunity, or do the text books in the inner city say something different than the ones in the suburbs? The progressive programs have done nothing but show people how to not get for themselves but to let someone else get for them.

          Conservatives argue for tax breaks so your money can be your money and you can do with it what you’d like. If that means sending all of it overseas to help the needy then fantastic, if you buy a new car, that’s Ok too. The whole point is to keep the government from making that decision for you.

          You have the whole thing backwards.

        • Anonymous

          That is an argument from ignorance. For one, everyone in this country does have the same opportunity, or do the text books in the inner city say something different than the ones in the suburbs? The progressive programs have done nothing but show people how to not get for themselves but to let someone else get for them.

          Conservatives argue for tax breaks so your money can be your money and you can do with it what you’d like. If that means sending all of it overseas to help the needy then fantastic, if you buy a new car, that’s Ok too. The whole point is to keep the government from making that decision for you.

          You have the whole thing backwards.

          • Robertowernet

            Man you are living in a perfect world, and that is your mistake!

            • Anonymous

              As a person who came from nothing living in government housing, I fundamentally reject that you cannot make it if you try.

              I know that the world is not perfect, however anyone who thinks that we can all exist on the same levels is an ignorant fool. There always has to be someone who has succeeded more than the next guy or there is no growth, no movement.

          • Sc29403

            So very ignorant of the real world!

            • Anonymous

              And your argument is tired. See my reply to Robertowernet.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Yashendwirh Marena Hoskins

            Except, no, not all innercity books are updated to the level that suburb cities are. A lot of school programs are to make sure that lower funded schools have ENOUGH books that are also -current-. It’s pretty damnable that you would think kids are just loafing off the government and they should obviously provide for themselves. Luckily the rest of the US isnt so blind to childhood struggle or all innercity schools would look like the redlight district from India. In your comment, it’s pretty apparent why the government needs to exist to provide for people, for -children-.

            • Anonymous

              Ah, I see. So, since it’s a two year old book they can’t learn from it the same principles in the books that are two years newer? In the “lower funded” schools where there aren’t enough books there’s always the idea of sharing… uh oh, did I say something I’m not supposed to? In fact I would be willing to bet that the school systems of old had many situations where the books had to be shared. You know, the schools that raised the entrepreneurs that built this country.

              The kids learn to loaf off the government from their parents, and I don’t just think it I KNOW it. I have seen it with my own eyes. I grew up in it. Did you? The government doesn’t need to do anything for these kids, the parents need to be more involved. Welfare systems have torn the family structure into pieces making it easier on a man’s conscience to leave a woman bearing his child because the government will take care of them.

              Above all of this, how about groups like the NAACP and the like, stop wasting their time and money trying to get social justice, and more time with the kids in these areas building the community to make it a better breeding ground for learning.

      • independent

        I think if you watch fox news for just 5 minutes, you’ll see everything you just described.

      • http://twitter.com/ScipiosForum Scipio Africanus

        You show your lack of patriotism by declaring war on millions of US citizens for simply having an opinion that’s different than yours.

        If you hate liberals so much, then your efforts are best spent on making sure that the GOP isn’t the same group of corrupt and incompetent people they were during the Bush era. You need to assure that they represent the people instead of self serving lobby groups like they do now.

        But you will never do this since you yourself stand for the status quo of the failed leadership of the GOP.

        If you’re content with Republican corruption, then you’re no friend of the American people.

        If you’re not on the side of the American people, then why should we respect your opinion?

      • http://twitter.com/ScipiosForum Scipio Africanus

        You show your lack of patriotism by declaring war on millions of US citizens for simply having an opinion that’s different than yours.

        If you hate liberals so much, then your efforts are best spent on making sure that the GOP isn’t the same group of corrupt and incompetent people they were during the Bush era. You need to assure that they represent the people instead of self serving lobby groups like they do now.

        But you will never do this since you yourself stand for the status quo of the failed leadership of the GOP.

        If you’re content with Republican corruption, then you’re no friend of the American people.

        If you’re not on the side of the American people, then why should we respect your opinion?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=789530479 Diana Grazia

        lmao..all about “feelings” and childish emotions with libs? lol look who is talking! If this is not overstated, overheated, overboard emotional ranting, nothing else is:-)

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=789530479 Diana Grazia

        lmao..all about “feelings” and childish emotions with libs? lol look who is talking! If this is not overstated, overheated, overboard emotional ranting, nothing else is:-)

    • Kdk

      schmuck

    • Kdk

      schmuck

    • BeliefDoesNotEqualTruth

      The Monster said “Being a Lefty means knowing what someone’s supposed to think even if they don’t think that way.”

      Actually you’re wrong on 2 accounts :
      – 1) Being a lefty means knowing the facts which, better than guts, help making a reasonable arguments and reasonable choices.
      – 2) What people publicly claim to think and what they really think is not always the same. Ask George Alan Rekers !

  • http://twitter.com/DannyFromWI DJ DeMent

    I have to admit it can be a bit unnerving to hear a gay group is going to be involved in planning CPAC, but these guys seem to be a lot more about finding and pushing the common ground (economy, limited government, border security, etc.) than focusing on the “gay agenda” as evidenced when they invited Ann Coulter to speak at one of their events, even knowing she’s an outspoken opponent of gay marriage. GOProud seems, for the most part, to have put the identity agenda aside for the sake of the common good and I applaud them for that.

    However, I actually have more objection to folks who are now declaring the “death” of social conservatism. People who are actually taking this as a sign that we’re totally accepting of the gay agenda now and that the “Fundies” are the ones we need to ostracize and throw out. Oddly enough, it’s not the gays doing it, it’s the younger Libertarians.

    That being said, c’mon people: we have BIRCHERS coming there and you’re worried about the gays? lol

    • Impertinent

      Like the man said…he has… and they have more in common with Tea party conservatism and conservatism in general…than they do in relating to sado masochistic displays of depravity and our usual views of Homosexuality.

      I happen to have several clients that are Gay…are conservative…and revile and openly mock the “leather and chaps” warriors…whom I’m told are less than .001% of gays. They are the freaks and oddities like liberals and “progressives”.

    • Impertinent

      Like the man said…he has… and they have more in common with Tea party conservatism and conservatism in general…than they do in relating to sado masochistic displays of depravity and our usual views of Homosexuality.

      I happen to have several clients that are Gay…are conservative…and revile and openly mock the “leather and chaps” warriors…whom I’m told are less than .001% of gays. They are the freaks and oddities like liberals and “progressives”.

  • http://twitter.com/DannyFromWI DJ DeMent

    I have to admit it can be a bit unnerving to hear a gay group is going to be involved in planning CPAC, but these guys seem to be a lot more about finding and pushing the common ground (economy, limited government, border security, etc.) than focusing on the “gay agenda” as evidenced when they invited Ann Coulter to speak at one of their events, even knowing she’s an outspoken opponent of gay marriage. GOProud seems, for the most part, to have put the identity agenda aside for the sake of the common good and I applaud them for that.

    However, I actually have more objection to folks who are now declaring the “death” of social conservatism. People who are actually taking this as a sign that we’re totally accepting of the gay agenda now and that the “Fundies” are the ones we need to ostracize and throw out. Oddly enough, it’s not the gays doing it, it’s the younger Libertarians.

    That being said, c’mon people: we have BIRCHERS coming there and you’re worried about the gays? lol

  • http://twitter.com/Alvin691 Alvin691

    Cenk again acts like a child.

    • http://twitter.com/MerlinYoda Matthew A. Dirks

      … which is pretty much par for the course in every thing he’s hosted or co-hosted. Only when he’s a guest and held to task by the host and another guest have I seen him be marginally mature.

    • http://twitter.com/MerlinYoda Matthew A. Dirks

      … which is pretty much par for the course in every thing he’s hosted or co-hosted. Only when he’s a guest and held to task by the host and another guest have I seen him be marginally mature.

      • Anonymous

        Look at his own show The Young Turks. They have a YouTube channel. His demeanor there is much more composed and less angry, and he makes some interesting arguments. As a liberal and a regular viewer of TYT, I must say that his behavior in this interview was unacceptable.

  • jimbo85

    Wait, so you disagree with his lifestyle choices? I understand disagreeing with the gay agenda or some of the gay policy initiatives, but I don’t understand disagreeing with him actually being gay. An important part of what Chris is talking about is that conservations ARE accepting of homosexuals (as much as the left likes to blindly ignore) even if they disagree with issues such as gay marriage, DADT, etc. The left gets the idea that conservatives ‘don’t like gays’ from comments such as disagreeing with their lifestyle. I am a proud gay conservative and read your site everyday, I just want to point out that liberals will continue to get this idea until the Republican lingo changes to a more accepting tone with homosexuality.

  • jimbo85

    Wait, so you disagree with his lifestyle choices? I understand disagreeing with the gay agenda or some of the gay policy initiatives, but I don’t understand disagreeing with him actually being gay. An important part of what Chris is talking about is that conservations ARE accepting of homosexuals (as much as the left likes to blindly ignore) even if they disagree with issues such as gay marriage, DADT, etc. The left gets the idea that conservatives ‘don’t like gays’ from comments such as disagreeing with their lifestyle. I am a proud gay conservative and read your site everyday, I just want to point out that liberals will continue to get this idea until the Republican lingo changes to a more accepting tone with homosexuality.

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

      I think you read me write, that I don’t agree with the gay lifestyle. I don’t agree with Gay marriage and I think being gay (and I believe it’s a choice) is sinful. I’m not elevating it above other sins but I do believe it’s a perversion of what God created.

      My intention is not to offend you, I’m just answering your question. I recognize that you may find my views offensive, but I think the Bible is clear on this and I believe what it says.

      • jimbo85

        Thanks for responding to my question. You didn’t offend me at all. In fact it was my lack of reading further into the phrase that stopped me from seeing that you can in fact disagree with the lifestyle for any reason, religion included, while still being able to work together. Reading the comments below I see that I overreacted to the phrasing and frankly should be happy that y’all are willing to work together despite those differences. Happy New Years!

        • http://twitter.com/Cmdrtobs Toby

          lol you clown, the guy basically threw your olive leaf you extended (because you hold man similar views) and charged you with being sinful! hahahahaha. Given a chance you really think he wouldn’t out law you? hahahahaha

      • jimbo85

        Thanks for responding to my question. You didn’t offend me at all. In fact it was my lack of reading further into the phrase that stopped me from seeing that you can in fact disagree with the lifestyle for any reason, religion included, while still being able to work together. Reading the comments below I see that I overreacted to the phrasing and frankly should be happy that y’all are willing to work together despite those differences. Happy New Years!

      • sadpanda

        If being gay was a choice, there wouldn’t be gay people, im sorry but what you said is completely ignorant. It’s funny how people think saying “i dont agree with your lifestyle” is supposed to make them feel good because only agreeing with people’s lifestyles who are similar to their own is ignorant. Just say i do not partake in that lifestyle. You do not see a gay person saying “i dont agree with a straight lifestyle” because they understand we are created different, yet should be treated equally. Get a grip and realize your religious beliefs are between you and God, and should not be used to decide what is right and wrong for anyone who is not yourself.

        • http://twitter.com/DannyFromWI DJ DeMent

          The fact of the matter is, it’s a choice. Plain and simple. I know many, MANY gays honest enough to admit it’s a choice. Heck, I know former gays. But they are free to chose what they wish, it’s part of free will. Doesn’t mean we have to be accepting of their choice. Doesn’t mean we hate them for it either.

          • sadpanda

            if it were their choice, why would someone choose the one that is socially less acceptable. You dont wake up one day and say hmmm i think im going to see what its like having sex with my own sex. Are you serious? You have no gay friends that told you that and how dare you lie in order to sound like you know what your talking about! Shameful

            • Anonymous

              A lot of “gay” people claim it was a choice and “convert” or find a “cure”. Some join right-wing religious fundamentalist groups and argue that if they can be “cured” then others can as well. They hold themselves up as proof that being gay is a choice. It is quite possible this commenter has met people like this. It’s unfair to refer to him as a liar based on what you have read of his comments.

            • PeterWaldo

              It is true, in the main, that the predilection to sodomy is not a choice. The dirty little secret, is that homos reproduce through the molestation of children. That’s one good reason why sodomy is a capital crime.

          • jimbo85

            That comment is so ignorant I have no words to rebuke you other than if it were a choice there certainly wouldn’t be as many gays. Might want to reconsider the term ‘plain and simple’.

          • Mark

            It is not a choice. It is not plain and simple. You are incorrect. Former gays? What you know are closet dwellers who have serious psychological traumas being exacted upon them by religious doctrine. Your spirituality of self-repression is a terrible burden upon children all over the world.

          • PeterWaldo

            The act of sodomy is a capital crime for, not only our own good, but society’s, also. Liberals change God’s house rules when they don’t like them; because, a liberal is someone that thinks they are smarter than God. That is why we have crashed and are well on our way to, soon, be attacked, burned and/or enslaved by invadors in a (horrible) new world order.

            • http://www.facebook.com/Yashendwirh Marena Hoskins

              Well luckily this is a nation where the giovernement isn’t SUPPOSED to make any kind of status or law favoring any one religion. One day we’ll actually see it through, considering your type of radicalism is quickly dying out.

      • loves liberity

        therightscoop
        I have two brothers, one who is heterosexual and one who is homosexual. the homosexual brother was different as a child. He did not choose to be homosexual but was born that way.

        • Impertinent

          And you know that with such certainty..How? How do you explain one over the other?

          • Anonymous

            So according to your logic, you only need a good homosexual lover to be gay? Would that make it easier for yourself in you choosing to be gay?

          • Sc29403

            The explanation is that one was born gay and one was born not gay…..God’s creativity and diversity.

      • Vella191

        Thats an opinion that you have. Fine. Its one that most republicans share. But how can you pretend to be accepting and tolerant of gay people if you don’t think they should have the rights to actually live as gay people?

    • http://twitter.com/MerlinYoda Matthew A. Dirks

      Wait, so you’re understanding/tolerant with his disagreement on “gay issues” that specifically address gay individuals (DADT, gay marriage, etc) but yet you’re not understanding/tolerant with his disagreement with the “gay lifestyle” which specifically (and necessarily) addresses gay individuals?

      You didn’t phrase it that manner and instead frame it as a issue of “tone” which needs to be addressed as opposed to recognizing that it is instead something much more substantial (e.g. having a substantive disagreement with that particular lifestyle), but I hope you realize your notion of having to “accept a lifestyle” in order to cooperate with followers of that lifestyle on non-related issues yet oppose them in related issues would be hypocritical in and of itself.

      Someone could be fervently against your lifestyle (even think it sinful) yet that doesn’t preclude working alongside you on other social and economically conservative issues. The problem that many on the hard Left/liberal end seem to have is believing that tone is more important than substance when the opposite is true. A true assertion is true whether you deliver it firmly or flower it up with euphemisms. On the same token, no amount of euphemistic language or linguistic gymnastics can make a false assertion a true one.

    • http://fuzislippers.blogspot.com/ FuziSlippers

      I agree with you. I think that one thing conservatives do well is get out of other people’s lives and try to keep the government out of our lives as much as possible, but one thing we don’t always do as well is express that cogently. Being conservative means that we don’t want the government intruding into our lives, that has to include being gay, being atheist, etc. (that’s not to equate being gay with being atheist, btw, it’s just another area that some conservatives get weird about for some reason) If it doesn’t mean that, then we’re no better than the left who want to dictate everyone’s personal choices.

      • Anonymous

        As an atheist, I think it’s an apt comparison. Being gay today is much closer to a religion than it is anything else. It’s a cause. A calling. Oh, sure, some people are born homosexual and you can spot them right off. But the vast majority of people who call themselves homosexual today are a combination of bisexuals and joiners. My experience with Lesbians is that every one of them is not only a Lesbian, but they are all animal rights activists and vegetarians. Being gay is just one more cause. The gay rights movement can’t stomach bisexuality, so these people tend to identify themselves as gay to make their lives easier.

        My “identity” is much more that of a smoker than it is an an atheist, so it’s the absurdity of the taking away my rights while watching gays get their rights validated that piss me off the most about gay rights laws. But some atheists live and breath their atheism, and that’s just what some gays do, too.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SS7DJ4AAWMIGUUZKK6666VXSGQ C

        I, too, think atheism is an apt comparison, now that you mention it. My argument to those, like therightscoop, who see homosexuality as a choice, has always been, “If homosexuals’ urges toward the same sex are as strong as my urges toward the opposite sex, then I sure can’t blame them for acting on them.” It certainly isn’t a “choice” to me, that I am attracted to the opposite sex. Likewise, it is not a choice that I don’t believe in God. I could no more change that than I could change my sexuality. In either case, I would just be pretending, to fit into society better. As a fiscally conservative, libertarian, registered Republican, I just wish the Republican Party were more as you describe conservatives, FuziSlippers – more as you apparently are.

      • http://twitter.com/TJLEJEUNE TJL

        Conservatives staying out of peoples lives, your joking right? Fiscal conservatives tend to respect personal freedom but social conservatives sh#t on it. Euthanasia and birth control for example . Social conservatives love when the government intrudes into personal lives, but only if the government has a Christian agenda. Did you know that the state constitutions of Tennessee and taxes both forbid atheists from holding public office. Clearly this is unconstitutional but social conservatives don’t give a damn about the constitution. The only personal freedom these people recognize is the freedom to find christ. I see this as the biggest problem for the republican party. If the GOP would stop pandering to the religious right and actually believed in fiscal responsibility i would register republican in the drop of a hat.

        Ron Paul for 2012

        • Anonymous

          You are uneducated in the history of this country my friend. Nearly all of the states required some type of recognition of God in the earliest years of the country. In fact Penn. had a clause that Ben Franklin would have said to take office as Gov. of the state.

          I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

          You can check my blog for all of the links to the documents.
          http://1791blog.com/2010/12/reason-or-religion/

          So you’re wrong about it being unconstitutional. I assume you’re talking about the clause that says there shall be no religious test. That was about a test for a particular sect.

        • Anonymous

          You are uneducated in the history of this country my friend. Nearly all of the states required some type of recognition of God in the earliest years of the country. In fact Penn. had a clause that Ben Franklin would have said to take office as Gov. of the state.

          I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

          You can check my blog for all of the links to the documents.
          http://1791blog.com/2010/12/reason-or-religion/

          So you’re wrong about it being unconstitutional. I assume you’re talking about the clause that says there shall be no religious test. That was about a test for a particular sect.

        • http://fuzislippers.blogspot.com/ FuziSlippers

          I think that you have a point. But what is important to recognize with the current conservative ascendancy is that it contains a great many people who reject government control over personal rights and liberty. There are many of us who are former liberals, or are current Democrats, or are fiscal conservatives, et al. who extend conservative principles into the socio-cultural sphere. However, this is not to be confused with libertarianism, we do think that there the government has a role to play, just not a dictatorial, dogmatic role.

          The current problem that we face–the alarming leftward lunge of this administration, the way that America is being destroyed–trumps all other considerations and in-fighting. It must. If we don’t pull together to save our republic, will it really matter who is gay and who isn’t? We’ll all be pauper slaves to the state, starving side by side, in a nation that is powerless in the world but that retains totalitarian power over its own people, crushing their spirit. We need to work together. The alternative is too frightening.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SL2DKCZMQ6OIMPD2JP2H4YBWDE Gretchen

        “I think that one thing conservatives do well is get out of other people’s lives and try to keep the government out of our lives as much as possible…”

        That is a fascinating statement, Fuzi. I’m curious as to how you came to that conclusion? I consider myself an Independent because I choose the individuals I vote for as my representatives based on issues as opposed to party lines.

        One of the things that makes me cold to the Republican party is the antithesis of your statement. I feel conservatives push some social agendas that dictate and manipulate how people live their lives. For example: the politicized stance on marriage. The liberals consistently move to allow for individual choice and beliefs on social issues, as opposed to dictating from The Bible. I’m Catholic, but I don’t believe that what I turn to as a personal source of values should overrule what someone of a different religion turns to as a personal source of values. And I don’t believe our legislature should use religion to dictate that. I believe the people that govern our laws should do so based on overall freedom for the betterment of ALL people in our country. When my aunt, who is a lesbian, went to visit the woman that she loved and had spent 22 years of her life loving at ICU fighting to survive, she was not allowed to see her because she was not her “spouse” or surviving relative. So her “partner” (aka, the love of her life) had to lay in a hospital bed all alone, while my aunt sat in the waiting room….when all she wanted to do was hold the hand of the woman she loved and let her know she wasn’t alone. The mandated reason for that was dictated by the definition of marriage, as derived from the Bible (something my aunt read every day) and as constrained by the party that you said stays out of our lives. I don’t understand how that is acceptable.

        With your belief that being conservative means that we don’t want the government intruding into our lives, why wouldn’t they be the party that lets you choose the person you marry (given that we would then have a choice of religion – or lack of) and pursue laws as such? And how is it acceptable for a country that defines a separation of church and state quote the Bible and allow my aunt and her self-proclaimed love to suffer because the Bible says so?

        These questions are not meant to advocate anything; they’re questions with answers that I see conservatives answer with absolute selfishness. I don’t believe God would have wanted someone to die all alone when they didn’t have to. Someone wanted to hold their hand, but laws advocated by conservatives did not allow it.

        • http://fuzislippers.blogspot.com/ FuziSlippers

          Why do you assume that I’m a Republican. I said that I am a conservative. Keep in mind that there are conservative Republicans, conservative Democrats, conservative Libertarians, conservative Indies. Your entire comment is built on a false assumption. If you’d like to try again in light of this information, I’m happy to read what you have to say.

    • http://twitter.com/JellyToast1 Michael LeKites

      Hey, I don’t have to accept the homosexual lifestyle in order to work side by side with a gay man to defeat the greater enemy of liberal fascism. I am a Christian. I believe homosexuality is a sin. But that doesn’t mean I hate the homosexual. Gluttony is a sin too, but that doesn’t mean I hate fat people or couldn’t work beside one or be a friend of one.
      This who idea that Christians hate homosexuals. They do hate the homosexual agenda that is being pushed by a lot of gay activists, which is really just a Fascist agenda. They also hate gay pride parades where people are openly engaging in public sex. There is a difference between what is being pushed on society by a lot of gay activists and what, I hope, so called gay conservatives are supporting. I can liken this to bailing water on a sinking ship. I don’t give a rip what your lifestyle is as long as you bail water.

      • http://twitter.com/JoshuaLKahn Joshua Kahn

        Okay, but all sins aren’t really equivalent, are they?

        • Vidg2003

          “Jesus answered, ‘You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.'” John 19:11

          Jesus says that are sins are not equal, therefore all sins are not equal.

          • watchmen1

            Are we talking “greater sin” in Gods eyes or society’s eyes? Are you reading original text …”guilty of a greater sin.”, or is that in 16th century King James’s limited interpretation (or other modern translations based off KJV)?

            English translations prove to be poor at proper interpretation of certain subtleties within the texts, but still convey the general concept and message of the passage. “Greater sin” may not mean “greater / worse sin”.

        • http://twitter.com/JellyToast1 Michael LeKites

          Sure, gluttony isn’t as big a deal as other sins. Gluttony isn’t the same as murder, for instance. Sure. I don’t want to minimize the sin of homosexuality, either. My point was simply that if GoProud is seriously working to support conservative cause like lower taxes, strong national defense, fighting ObamaCare, etc, hey fine. Why should I complain because they’re a gay group?
          As long as they don’t expect other conservatives to throw away their opposition to things like gay marriage. A free nation means being around people who are free to express things and live lifestyles you disagree with. Freedom works both ways.

  • Gboyz

    TYT (the young turks) This guy is as funny as Ed Shultz. Way to pretend like you are the fighter for gay people and totally oppose this guy simply because he’s conservative. Screw you liberal turk!

  • Gboyz

    TYT (the young turks) This guy is as funny as Ed Shultz. Way to pretend like you are the fighter for gay people and totally oppose this guy simply because he’s conservative. Screw you liberal turk!

    • las

      This is exactly what any gay conservative can expect. Ask any gay conservative which is more difficult: coming out as gay, or being gay and coming out as a conservative. Being gay and coming out as a conservative invites more hatred and bigotry than the former. The consequences are huge. But coming out as gay is received with understanding and is even perceived as novel.

      • http://twitter.com/Cmdrtobs Toby

        Er no, it’s the fact he is supporting the Republican party. Cenk CLEARLY stated it’s fine and ok and expected for Gay people to be Conservative, but why the hell a Republican.

    • las

      This is exactly what any gay conservative can expect. Ask any gay conservative which is more difficult: coming out as gay, or being gay and coming out as a conservative. Being gay and coming out as a conservative invites more hatred and bigotry than the former. The consequences are huge. But coming out as gay is received with understanding and is even perceived as novel.

    • Anonymous

      How does he pretend? What he does not understand is why the man supports a party that is fervently against him and his sexual orientation. Cenk DOES oppose this man because he is a conservative. Why else? Because he is gay? No. If you were to actually research into some of the stories covered by Cenk in TYT, you might understand his amazement at the mans political position. As well as Cenk’s clear position on homosexuality.

  • http://fuzislippers.blogspot.com/ FuziSlippers

    GOProud is fantastic, and I’m thrilled to see Barron pwn that buffoon. In fact, I think I’ll watch it again right now. Hee!

  • http://fuzislippers.blogspot.com/ FuziSlippers

    GOProud is fantastic, and I’m thrilled to see Barron pwn that buffoon. In fact, I think I’ll watch it again right now. Hee!

  • Anonymous

    Wow, is being a huge douchebag a prerequisite to hosting ‘The Ed Show’? That might have been the most obnoxious and condescending bedwetter I’ve ever seen.

    I love seeing the left get so angry when they can’t paint all conservatives with a broad bigoted brush. If this guy would actually try to be journalistic and know the background of his guests, he wouldn’t have ended up with egg all over his face after he found out GOProud has been involved with CPAC every year it’s existed. CPAC is probably the most diverse convention of conservatives, and that’s what makes it so enlightening for the movement. Kudos to them for sticking with GoProud so far.

    If I were Barron, I would’ve asked that bedwetter how any gay person can be a liberal, when they would rather do nothing than surrender to or ignore the regimes that actually kill people for being gay. Or how any person on the fringe of society could support the collectivism of the left, when history has proven them to be the biggest offenders of the individual rights.

    Great clip scoop.

    • http://twitter.com/MerlinYoda Matthew A. Dirks

      “Wow, is being a huge douchebag a prerequisite to hosting ‘The Ed Show’? That might have been the most obnoxious and condescending bedwetter I’ve ever seen. ”

      Heh, if you thought that was bad you should see some of the rest of the intellectually dishonest, hard-Left commentary he spews in the “TheYoungTurks” channel on YouTube … I swear it seems like Cenk has set up more straw-men than all the farm-laborers that have ever worked in the USA since its inception.

  • Estj

    Cenk’s “made up his mind don’t confuse him with the facts”. He’s hearing it straight from the mouth of a gay man and still chooses to argue. Cenk comes across as uninformed, close minded and JUST as intolerant as he asserts the Republican party is. Fact is, being a CONSERVATIVE and a Republican are two different things and people have different belief’s. Let it go man! Cenk looked like an idiot! Reminds me of that saying ” It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt”.

    • Bruce

      Uhhhh…I think that’s what Cenk’s point was. You can be gay and conservative but why on earth would you be gay and Republican? The party is ANTI-GAY. There is no doubt about it. It like a black guy joining the KKK because he likes that they have KFC Tuesdays after the meeting.

    • Bruce

      Uhhhh…I think that’s what Cenk’s point was. You can be gay and conservative but why on earth would you be gay and Republican? The party is ANTI-GAY. There is no doubt about it. It like a black guy joining the KKK because he likes that they have KFC Tuesdays after the meeting.

  • Anonymous

    Chris did a great job! And yet again Cenk just embarrassed himself, while a grown up was having an adult conversation Cenky was using a child’s argument like…
    “Oh come on, no really, come on. You don’t know what you’re talking about, come ON, geez.” That’s just pathetic.

  • Anonymous

    IMO gay rights are states right’s issues. We can redirect our efforts to restoring the states rights issues, after we save the country from burning to the ground. I think God will forgive me for putting the salvation of this country first. It’s not that I am setting aside my biblical principles, it’s that if we don’t embrace everyone who aligns with us to save this Country, we may not be able to mention the word Bible in the future.

  • Anonymous

    IMO gay rights are states right’s issues. We can redirect our efforts to restoring the states rights issues, after we save the country from burning to the ground. I think God will forgive me for putting the salvation of this country first. It’s not that I am setting aside my biblical principles, it’s that if we don’t embrace everyone who aligns with us to save this Country, we may not be able to mention the word Bible in the future.

    • http://twitter.com/5ftflirt 5ftflirt

      Sybilll gets it. Hear that, social conservatives? Obama. Must. Lose. in 2012. Whatever it takes.

      • Vidg2003

        Even RINO Romney?

    • Brifry

      Yup, the only way to win is to throw social conservatives under the bus lol

  • Anonymous

    Pretty funny to see Liberal hosts lose it when a gay, woman or other minority is off the Democrat reservation.

  • Anonymous

    Pretty funny to see Liberal hosts lose it when a gay, woman or other minority is off the Democrat reservation.

  • Mbrisch

    I nominate Barron for GOPchair. He makes the conservative argument more succintly than others.

  • Publius

    There’s a fair and balanced interviewer.

  • Publius

    There’s a fair and balanced interviewer.

  • Usranger68

    Hate? Wow. I thought DADT had to do with favoritism in combat MOSs.

  • http://twitter.com/PatinMichigan RightWingMole

    Fags have no place in the GOP…. end of story… FULL DAMN STOP!

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

      sorry dude, but we dont tolerate that here. Good Bye.

  • Geordie K

    Thanks, Trollsy McTrollsalot.

    Anyway, this wasn’t even a debate. I don’t think I’ve seen a supposed professional interviewer be so thoroughly dismantled at every turn. Barron would have done well to mention, though, that Dems are the party that coddles radical Islam, the main real existential threat to gays in the world. Sure, social cons don’t want gays to marry or join the military… But hate them? Please. You find me a con who really hates gays, and I’ll show you a closet case or backwater idiot — not exactly movement material.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=547794456 Anonymous

    You “disagree with his lifestyle choice” but are “proud to be in Barron’s corner” … WTF? Do you realize how incredibly anti-gay and illogical that is?

    • http://twitter.com/DannyFromWI DJ DeMent

      So to not agree with the gay lifestyle but to agree that we need to stand together on principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility is anti-gay and illogical because…? Any answer besides the victim card? Or the “homophobe” card even though we’re clearly willing to work with them?

      • jimbo85

        to say that you disagree with the lifestyle sounds like you don’t accept it. I don’t think there is any victim or homophobe card in play, just hope that everyone legitimacy accepts it.

        • http://twitter.com/DannyFromWI DJ DeMent

          Define accept. Because if your idea of “accept” menas to be 100% fine with it, then no. That’s not going to happen. If you mean accept as in accept the fact that they have a right to choose their sexual preference inasmuch as anyone else can chose what sexual preferences and fetishes they engage in, that’s fine provided they don’t make a public spectacle out of it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=547794456 Anonymous

            Do you consider yourself a Christian? If so, then embracing, promoting, and portraying male/male sodomy as normal and healthy (as GOProud has done) is nothing short of evil. They are not “sinners” like everyone else. How many alcoholics do you know who say it’s normal, healthy, and they have pride parades to celebrate it. Are those people you would welcome into the GOP? Would you similarly embrace men who formed a group called GOPnambla and had similar conservative views as yours but you simply disagreed with their lifestyle choice? Hello?

            • http://twitter.com/DannyFromWI DJ DeMent

              that’s all well and good, but in actuality… homosexuals were lumped into the same group as fornicators and adulterers in the New Testament. They were in the Old as well; all these actions were to lead to being stoned to death. However, the blood of Christ has atoned for man’s sins, so death is no longer a penalty for sin. At least, not ours to deal out.

              That being said, I don’t see NAMBLA trying to join the GOP. In fact, I’ve seen several gays in my area denounce the pedophilia group known by that name as just that. Contrary to what you may have been fed, not all gays want to hump little boys, I’m sorry.

              P.S. ALL Sodomy, be it M/M or M/F was condemned by God. And Sodom, though that act was named after it, was condemned for more than just having homosexuals in it. They also allowed child rape, child and human sacrifice, rampant deviant sexual behavior of all types, incest… it was an utter hell hole.

            • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QHIB3HSTHJ6B7QZE6HGU6AMTYE Josh

              All have sinned and fallen short… RS is not agreeing with their choice. Hate the sin, not the sinner. To say that those who choose a gay lifestyle are not fit to be Christian is to say that those who lie cannot be Christian either. Let those without sin throw the first stone. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

        • Anonymous

          Let me see if I can explain this with a less politically charged example.

          Here in my state there is a well-known community of polygamists who kick out their extra boys and brainwash their girls. (There are also other polygamous communities that don’t do that.) I disagree with their lifestyle. I think it’s wrong and destructive. I support them being prosecuted if they violate the law: if they commit statutory rape of young girls, for example, or if they commit welfare fraud. But I don’t support going on some kind of crusade after them to wipe them out. I don’t support denying them their due process rights just because I find their lifestyle odious. If a family like that moved in next door (which they probably wouldn’t, since they tend to live in their own communities) I wouldn’t go looking to make trouble for them. I might not bring them a friendly batch of cookies, but that’s not the same thing in any way as calling the cops on them every time their kids play outside or their yard is messy. Does that make me an anti-polygamist bigot?

          That’s the difference. Many conservatives don’t like the choices gay people have made, but luckily they realize that they’re too busy making their own life choices to go making everyone else’s. I’ve had plenty of gay neighbors, and I *did* bring them a friendly batch of cookies.

          • Anonymous

            Well said, WackyHermit. Gee, you’re “nuanced” like our half-white, half-black prez claims to be all the time. If it works for him, it surely should work for you. Good comment.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mason-Maurer/1455233551 Mason Maurer

      Illogical? Did RS claim to have pointy ears? You can disagree with how someone lives their life AND acknowledge their right to live that life style. I don’t like cigarettes & smoking them is disgusting. But anti-smoking Nazis that have kicked smoking out of bars & restaurants piss me off. Seriously man, break away from the group think.

  • Redrant LW

    The host viewed the guest as monolithically ‘gay.’ That because he is gay, he should only vote for dems. What the guest was trying to convey is that they are so much more than being gay. When you think about it that is what leftist do, is put people in groups and try to claim these groups as their own.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ED6NVJJX2ZNQK6BUSYHYRCHUOA chris

      ding, ding, ding, ding. you hit the donkey in the face. for all of their talk about conservatives being the small-minded ones, ilbs are the most condescending group of people i have ever met in my own life. they must honestly think that if you are gay, black, hispanic, female, you automatically value and vote your identity above all else and have no other thoughts or interests regarding i don’t know; taxes, federal spending, the debt and deficit, foreign policy, the miltary, national security, entitltments, etc. or in other words the issues for which nations rise and fall.

  • Guest

    what the f is the gay agenda?

    • Vidg2003

      Homo-Fascism.

      • Anonymous

        lol what

    • Vidg2003

      Homo-Fascism.

    • http://twitter.com/JoshuaLKahn Joshua Kahn

      The fear is of legislated speech codes criminalizing opposition to homosexuality and restricting free and or religious speech. It’s like the next step in the evolution of hate crimes legislation.

    • http://twitter.com/JoshuaLKahn Joshua Kahn

      The fear is of legislated speech codes criminalizing opposition to homosexuality and restricting free and or religious speech. It’s like the next step in the evolution of hate crimes legislation.

      • Vidg2003

        Like I said, Homo-Fascism. Thanks for being much more articulate, though.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QFBDJZEBQFCIA4XYOMD44VVWZI A.Helen

    Is the dark haired fat guy Ed “Sgt” Schultz’s “love” child ?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QFBDJZEBQFCIA4XYOMD44VVWZI A.Helen

    Is the dark haired fat guy Ed “Sgt” Schultz’s “love” child ?

  • NBlitzer

    What a joke! Cenk kicked that GOProud guy’s ass all over the place. I can now see Hannity say in a couple of years, DADT was repealed because of Republican support!

    • http://twitter.com/DannyFromWI DJ DeMent

      Oh really? So condescending snark and not a single counter-point to what he said other than Identity, that constitutes an ass-kicking these days?

      Wow, no wonder liberals always think they win. lol

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mason-Maurer/1455233551 Mason Maurer

      What video were YOU watching? Cenk couldn’t think his way out of a wet paper sack if you gave him a knife. Which is what make him perfect for msnbc. I think theres’ a cave without it’s troll

    • Anonymous

      Uh, you don’t “kick anybody’s ass all over the place,” you dipstick, when, as a “host,” you have to talk over and repeatedly interrupt your “guest” answering your questions just because he’s not answering them the way you want him to.

      “Host” Cenk started to look almost panicked, like he was losing control of his own interview, and just desperate to have his “guest” agree with him about even one of his liberal talking points. He lapsed into what liberals often do when they can’t win an argument on the merits — name-calling. Pathetic.

      • NBlitzer

        Moron, Cenk rebutted his guest’s statements intelligently. Cenk pointed out the stupidity of the belief that conservatives and Republicans are more tolerant of gays than liberals and Democrats. And judging by your post, one can only conclude that conservatives are intolerant, childish and stupid.

        • Anonymous

          Aside from calling attention to your typical liberal name-calling (moron, intolerant, childish and stupid — all in one paragraph, no less), your so-called “response” is not worth much of my time. The more someone like you posts comments, the more you prove my point. Is your hair on fire yet? Well, douse it with some of that Kool-Aid you’ve been drinking.

          • NBlitzer

            And both your posts to me prove my point: that you and your ilk are intolerant, childish and stupid.

            And BTW if you actually look and hear the video, Cenk barely interrupted and talked over his guest. But I guess the truth doesn’t matter in that Bizarro world of yours.

            • Anonymous

              Like I said, not worth my time. So, you win, you get the last word. Yea for you. Feel better now, or want to do some more pointless name-calling?

              • Anon

                Didn’t you start off by calling him a “dipstick”?

        • jimbo85

          by ‘intelligently’ do you mean ‘obnoxiously’? Because Cenk was literally YELLING absurdities rather than having a discussion about it. I’m wondering if you were even watching the same interview. Cenk is an idiot, and you’re learning well from him.

    • jimbo85

      Yes or No question NBlitzer: Could DADT have passed with 0 Republican votes? Only looking for a yes or no answer.

      • Willy

        DADT was passed because the majority of Democrats voted for it.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ED6NVJJX2ZNQK6BUSYHYRCHUOA chris

    interesting how the fat straight guy knows better than the articulate gay guy about what’s best for gay people. this must be the social/cultural liberal sequel to the line “what’s the matter with kansas?” as if libs know better than other folks what their own interests and values are. and always with a smug on their face and laugh that more than reeks of condescension. i despise people like him and i’m not even a conservative.

    • Anonymous

      Exactamundo, chris!

      Even if you’re not a conservative, it’s refreshing to see that you engage in some critical thinking for yourself, instead of letting others do your thinking for you. Keep it up. We conservatives accept moderate, self-thinking liberals, too.

  • Larry

    How exactly do these guys stay on the air? They can’t seem to do anything but throw stones and start fires. GOProud guy makes a reasoned argument, MSNBC says you’re an idiot. No wonder I don’t watch MSNBC. Ever.

  • Kevin R.

    I wonder if all 7 MSNBC viewers watched this segment???

  • moonbatkiller

    this young turk got bichslapped.

  • Mark

    Saying we’re hostile towards gays is different from saying we’re hostile towards blacks, because #1: Ex-gay groups. #2: we keep talking about a sinister, intolerant “gay agenda”. It would be equally offensive if somebody talked about a “black agenda”. It’s only natural to want to stand up for your rights.
    I think Barron gets this, but knows many are opposed to certain things because of federalism. Of course, there is an “old guard” that still does have hostility towards gay people, but being as it is, they are not this newer, internet-savvy, libertarian generation.

  • Pclifford

    Skillful responses,Mr Barron!
    We need a united conservative front if we are to save this country. The Federal Government has no Constitutional role in many of the social issues in which is has become involved. A focus on these social issues potentially divides our conservative movement and plays into the hands of our Progressive friends. We can ill afford to be distracted from our true goals by these social issues. These social issues should be matters of free choice and not controlled by government edict, or if deemed necessary, they should be handled at the state level. This approach would do much to defuse a lot of strident conflict in America and promote individual liberties. I welcome GOProud.

    • Alex

      Amen!

      • Lou

        Amen, too – except the “Progressive friends” part. :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=197402182 Chuck Norton

    GoProud should come to CPAC. I am against gay marriage unless the people vote to approve it in a referendum (and I admit I would vote no). With that said gay Americans have the same political rights as everyone else. Their voice on issues like the economy, the burdens of big government, the breakdown of society, gun control etc is just as protected. I see no reason to keep them out of CPAC. I respect Concerned Women for America and the FRC, but in this case the outlet for their ire is misplaced IMHO.

    • http://fuzislippers.blogspot.com/ FuziSlippers

      They’re not out of CPAC, the other two groups isolated themselves in protest. That’s their right and their choice, but GOProud is welcome at CPAC and still attending. If that changes, expect all heck to break loose in defense of GOProud.

    • Urbanh

      I don’t think it’s just “ire”. It’s common sense. CWA and FRC are socially conservative, pro-marriage, pro-Life, pro-family groups with very large, well-informed and active memberships. They are also fiscally conservative, but the social issues are their top focus. So why would they join and support CPAC when the message is that their top issues are being placed on the back burner by having to share the stage with a pro-homosexual group? That makes no sense as it would run counter to the purpose of their organizations.

      I think this is a mistake on CPAC’s part and they are over-estimating the number of socially liberal fiscal conservatives they’re going to gain this way. The real question is are we really able to win majorities without the support of these socially conservative groups? Do you really think that GOProud is going to get us more votes than FRC or CWA? That’s the real question, and I don’t think it’s a hard one.

    • Urbanh

      The GOProud guy did a good job in the interview though :-)

  • HippyJoe

    Cenk was PAWNED by the GOProud Chairman. Cenk got so befuddled I was afraid he’d swallow his tongue and choke to death on live MSNBC programming….would help to improve their miserable ratings tho…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mason-Maurer/1455233551 Mason Maurer

    Once again the on air (I use the term loosely)talent prove they have no clue about how things work in the real world.”You’re gay therefore you HAVE to be liberal because it(being gay) is the only issue you’re allowed to care about. You aren’t allowed the worry about your jobs or high taxes, being killed by terrorists, who, by the way would kill them just for being who they are.

  • jaafar

    Cenk’s supercilious laughter is completely embarrassing.

  • Anonymous

    I love how the Liberal pundits take it for granted that every person who is gay or blk are Democrats. They can not accept that a gay man can be Conservative. That is the difference between the Liberals and Conservatives, you don’t have to agree on every subject to be a Conservative but the Party of Tolerance requires everyone to be in lock step or they are not true Democrats.

    • Anonymous

      yet they accuse the right of being in lockstep. lol.

  • http://www.facebook.com/robert.mahoney Robert Mahoney

    I guess they will say he isn’t “authentically” gay.

    Blacks who vote Republicans aren’t “authentically” Black. Check.

    Latinos who vote Republican aren’t “authentically” Latino. Check.

    Asians who vote Republican aren’t “authentically” Asian. Check.

  • Jongaloon

    Conservatives make strange bedfellows.

    • watchmen1

      HA, Barron should have said that in the interview. Would have been classic! At least it would have shut up the host’s (moron’s) laughter for a bit.

  • Scottlarson01

    Liberals just dont get it.Conservatives are not the homophobes ,they made us out to be.Finally the gays are waking up to see that the liberals were just using them.

  • leaveMeAlone

    As a gay conservative myself, just because the left sort of gets one thing right- repealing DADT… what about the rest of their agenda. As long as conservatives stand strongly by/for our constitution, that’s enough protection for me. I can fight my own battles thank you.

    • Anonymous

      Good for you and more power to you, my friend.

    • didntregister

      Let me start by saying that I’m a gay conservative too — I am perfectly fine with conservatives disagreeing with my lifestyle. What gets me is the #*& jags like Cenk who stand for up “gay rights” and decide what’s best for me.

      Sure, I have some sympathies with more “liberal ideas”, but that does not mean I even agree with the Left on issues pertaining to gays. No, I don’t support full blown gay marriage. No, not everyone who is gay has the same policy positions. Like Barron points out, the issues that concern me — debt, spending, defense, education — are issues that concern all American citizens. These are issues that the Left simply does not get.

      • http://fuzislippers.blogspot.com/ FuziSlippers

        Ah, but you muddy the waters by being a fully-formed human being and not defined solely and single-dimensionally by your sexual orientation (race, gender, class) as the left will always define everyone.

      • http://fuzislippers.blogspot.com/ FuziSlippers

        Ah, but you muddy the waters by being a fully-formed human being and not defined solely and single-dimensionally by your sexual orientation (race, gender, class) as the left will always define everyone.

    • http://twitter.com/poonamdoshi Poonam Doshi

      Yeah, except that whole “Equal Protection Under the Law” thing for gays, conservatives are completely on your side. Idiot.

  • Anonymous

    So much anger, hate and sanctimony coming from the left. They really are cracking up aren’t they?

  • Anonymous

    There are many life styles chosen by politically conservative people that I disagree with…but can live with… as can most. But, where most cultural and social issues are concerned, the involvement of the feds and activism of progressives intentionally exacerbates them. They Create problems where they do not exist to promote a political agenda. Leftist liberal types want to dictate and legislate social norms and life styles on society. DADT is a perfect example. It’s not about gays serving…gays have served for decades…it’s about further degrading cultural norms by creating an issue using 1% of a population (gays) to change what 99% of the world considers to be be the best method to perpetuate the species….marriage between a man and a woman. They are once gain using the military as a captured audience for social experimentation with the ultimate goal of legislating morality.

  • Rooster Hawk

    This perfectly illustrates the condescending,self ritchous,elitist arrogance of the left that patriotic,independent,self sufficient americans are beginning to deeply resent.

  • Anonymous

    Gee, I think it’s pretty easy to see who’s really delusional from drinking too much Kool-Aid here.

    The obviously biased MSNBC guy just couldn’t seem to wrap his head around the concept of a proud, gay conservative who is not looking for the Democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists, whatever term you want to use, to make him into a victim which they can then claim to have saved. Similar denial occurs when liberals run into, say, a black conservative. It just doesn’t compute in their tiny, little biased brains.

    Hey, how can you turn against “your people,” the ones we progressives have spent so much time and effort convincing they are victims so we can swoop in and save them with bigger government and more taxpayer dollars?

    BS! When more gays, more blacks and more Latinos decide to no longer be the victims the progressives need them to be, the progressives will be finished.

  • Mediaaccess

    Upstanding guy!! I don’t agree with gays at all – unless, of course your females- but not just females, pretty females!! This guy gets it!! His priorities are right on!! Back to Katie Couric – You little witch!! Conservative values mean freedom! Come year you host of a moron, come here to Hungary and I’ll show you your new country – idióta!

  • Pgronemeier

    Did Cenk really say “…with a straight face”? It’s a good thing the national media will pick up on this…HAHAHAHA

    • http://twitter.com/poonamdoshi Poonam Doshi

      It’s an expression, you halfwit.

  • Pgronemeier

    Did Cenk really say “…with a straight face”? It’s a good thing the national media will pick up on this…HAHAHAHA

  • Joel

    I don’t know who that asshole is but he is a typical POS A-Mess-NBC host.

  • Joel

    I don’t know who that asshole is but he is a typical POS A-Mess-NBC host.

  • Joel

    I don’t know who that asshole is but he is a typical POS A-Mess-NBC host.

  • sadpanda

    “i have an easier time being openly gay with the conservatives than i do being a conservative with other gay people”- great statement Barron!! And look how openly rude the host is to Barron because he is conservative…hmmm… so liberals only welcome gays as long as theyre liberals i guess… fascinating

  • Linda

    The Left is ever so tolerant, as long as what they’re tolerating fits into their little thought pocket.

    They are ever so tolerant of gays, but let that gay be Conservative and/or Republican, and that gay is worthy of derision, because well obviously he’s misguided and deluded if he thinks the GOP will accept him.

    Yeah, right. How tolerant. *rolls eyes*

    I am a 50 year old Conservative Republican woman. Being a woman, in their opinion, I should be all for the Democratic party. The evil GOP just seeks to keep me subservient, according to the Dems.

    I look at the policies and agendas set forth by both parties, and my take is the Democrats are the party of a handout, the Republicans are the party of a hand up to give you the opportunity to get to a better place.

    • sadpanda

      Great statement Linda.
      And how sick are these lies the dems spit out?
      It is so obvious they are speaking to those who are young and new to politics, because those are the only people who could believe anything they say, and that is why they never actually have a reasonable conversation with anyone who opposes them. They simply spout out lies and accusations so that those who know nothing but what they watch on the “news”, are caught amongst the emotional appeal. They use morals as their platform, yet they have none.

      • Leo

        What lies did he spit out?

    • Leo

      where did people get the idea of being a woman=being a democrat? the republican party isn’t sexist as far as I know of, and aren’t pushing anti-woman policies. Where homosexuals are concerned, we have Republicans campaigning of anti-gay policies. And the whole point of the interview was to debate with a gay conservative about why you would want to vote Republican when they don’t even want to vote for their rights, so please spare the ‘Oh so if you’re a gay REPUBLICAN then the Libs won’t like you’ argument.
      If the Republicans were tolerant, they wouldn’t campaign against gay rights. If you don’t see that obvious

  • Pjgrunst5

    How classy is this guy, he does not listen to what he is saying. He thinks he knows better for gays then the gay guy. How arrogant. Plus with no heady comback he just laughs at him.

  • Anonymous

    the right is more tolerant than the left is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard.
    the writer of this piece basically says that he disagrees with who barron is as a person but he agrees with his political views …. NICE. Republicans hates gays and it is not a generational thing it is a systemic wide belief

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

      Nice smear job. I never said I ‘disagreed with who Barron is as a person’. I disagree with the choices he is making. You know, there really is a difference.

      • NBlitzer

        Ok, so if Barron wasn’t gay, you’d have no problem with him, right?

        And BTW, you should change the headline to ‘MSNBC Host gets better of GOProud Chairman’, because that’s what really happened.

        • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

          You’ve trolled long enough. Good Bye.

        • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

          Dude, what are you dimwitted? I’ve made clear my feelings on this.

          • lib4ever

            Then answer the question moron, and stop dancing around the issue.

            • KeninMontana

              He has already stated his position, it’s not his fault you and NBlitzer lack basic reading comprehension skills.

              • libby

                KeninMontana, you have crap for brains since neither you nor therightscoop can answer a simple question. Answer it or stfu.

                • DisturbingBehavior

                  Nice job with the totalitarianism, Herr Dictator.

                • KeninMontana

                  I think it’s time for you to stfu and leave, if you ever develop enough of a spark of intelligence to hold an adult conversation, you might be worthy of having a discussion with. However, for now back to swamp for you troll.

        • jimbo85

          yeah screaming insanities like an ape and telling a gay man he needs to ‘get with the picture’ because apparently every gay man needs to be a liberal makes a lot of sense. NBlitzer, you are blind. Barron remained composed and didn’t make himself look like a blubbering ass, unlike Cenk.

        • http://twitter.com/poonamdoshi Poonam Doshi

          Right Scoop has a habit of creating it’s headlines and making up what happened without actually watching the clip. Barron had NOTHING. “DADT would not have passed without Republicans.” Um, yeah, that’s bc they FILIBUSTERED it which required a few Republicans to break the filibuster. So Barron is giving them credit for defeating their own filibuster.

        • http://twitter.com/poonamdoshi Poonam Doshi

          Right Scoop has a habit of creating it’s headlines and making up what happened without actually watching the clip. Barron had NOTHING. “DADT would not have passed without Republicans.” Um, yeah, that’s bc they FILIBUSTERED it which required a few Republicans to break the filibuster. So Barron is giving them credit for defeating their own filibuster.

      • NBlitzer

        Ok, so if Barron wasn’t gay, you’d have no problem with him, right?

        And BTW, you should change the headline to ‘MSNBC Host gets better of GOProud Chairman’, because that’s what really happened.

      • http://twitter.com/poonamdoshi Poonam Doshi

        Just one problem, Barron believes he was BORN gay and apparently he believes that conservatives also think he was born that way and thus will fight for his basic human right to get married to a consenting adult of one’s choosing, keeping his job, etc. more than liberals. That’s not not just stupid, it’s plain delusional.

        • Anonymous

          “Barron believes he was BORN gay”

          Where is your proof for this? Either that you are actually born gay, or that Barron believes that he is?

          Why in the world is it so hard for gay people to say they are making a choice to be gay? Why can’t you just own it? These are ridiculous arguments.

      • http://twitter.com/poonamdoshi Poonam Doshi

        Just one problem, Barron believes he was BORN gay and apparently he believes that conservatives also think he was born that way and thus will fight for his basic human right to get married to a consenting adult of one’s choosing, keeping his job, etc. more than liberals. That’s not not just stupid, it’s plain delusional.

    • NBlitzer

      The Bizarro World Of American Conservatism

    • NBlitzer

      The Bizarro World Of American Conservatism

      • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

        You’ve trolled long enough. Good Bye.

        • sadpanda

          Now i see why the news brings this topic up so often. There are sooooo many opinions on this subject, and most are so controversial my head is still spinning from all these comments.

          BTW thanks for not allowing hateful rhetoric because if you did this would just be another wasted site! Keep up the good job RS!

        • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

          NBlitzer’s arguments weren’t well-formed, but was a nice departure from the echo-chamber of “lifestyle” choices and accept-gay-help-as-long-as-we-all-still-work-against-them-and-call-them-sinners. I like this site because it tends to be a voice of reason from the Right on most issues, but this ideological culling is unfortunate. Some of you argue that DADT is just about an agenda, rather than character and not cowering in secret–or that marriage equality is only about forcing acceptance rather than security for my kids–you can have your “acceptance,” I have no use for it. The public realm should be free of your religious imposition. I’m a true libertarian: fisc conservative and largely socially liberal (but I’m pro-life). I’m a recovering liberal, having left the Dem party. And yet, I cant see allying myself with those who regard my right-wing-imposed difficulties (discharged DADT, cant marry, kids lose benefit b/c of attacks aimed at me) as a “CHOICE”. As a young man, I wanted to go into the ministry–no one fought harder to change who I was–I certainly didn’t “choose.” Nor do all those kids who commit suicide or the 25% of ALL homeless youths who were kicked out of their homes for being gay. This is stone-hearted and dishonest to simply dismiss being gay as a “life-style choice” so that you can remain ideologically pure by condemning gays. I hope this doesn’t earn me “troll” status, but this side of the debate isn’t fairly represented.

          • Anonymous

            I think lifestyle choice refers to actions, where-as being gay certainly does not. For instance, there are many gay clergy who do not practice a gay “lifestyle.” Society has no right to condemn gay lifestyles when it does not equally condemn heterosexual marriages that are of no basis. Gay couples can be much more caring than heterosexual couples, and can be better parents. Gay children thrown out of heterosexual parent homes is as criminal as it is tragic.

            • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

              I liked your response nearablackhole, but I would add and object.

              First I would add that those who do condemn gay families must first condemn divorcees and the families they form. Jesus condemned divorce and re-marriage, but said nothing about gays–and Paul urged women to be silent in churches and obey their husbands, while telling slaves to obey their masters. If you rake up homophobic muck from the old testament, then you also have to protest outside Red Lobster’s as they eat shellfish–an abomination. Also mixing polyester and cotton is an abomination–and that’s not just my queer soul talking fashion. As a punk who only wears black, I’m the last man in the world to suggest what you should wear. Those who attack my family by opposing marriage and civil unions with their inheritance, custody, visitation, end-of-life etc. . . are picking and choosing.

              I would object to the distinction made between being gay and “actions.” Choosing to be with the one I love, raise our kids together, have a family photo on the desk, hold hands, attend functions together, or call him “babe” is no more a “lifestyle” than it is for straights. It’s simply living–hardly fair to suggest that it is akin to choosing to drink, do drugs, lie, steal, or cheat–things that hurt ppl around you. All my kids are straight, healthy, and both academically and socially advanced. My kids are proof of what a healthy family life provides to gays or straights who refuse to resign themselves to a life of loneliness and self-loathing as this distinction between being gay and “actions” would suggest that gays do.

              Most of the time, calling gay lives “lifestyle choices” is either unintentionally thoughtless or meant to degrade, condemn, and hurt. I’m sure that yours was neither. I just wanted to nit-pick over this too-easy distinction.

              • http://www.facebook.com/netmatrix David Hostetler

                Quoting Jesus: And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ ? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

                Perhaps you should read the whole thing before you say that Jesus didn’t talk about men and women being together. Gay is a choice plain and simple, it’s not a condition, you’re not born with it, it’s a choice.

                • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

                  I have read the whole thing many times, I studied for the ministry at one point–and I suspect that I’m far more conversant with the Bible than You–just a guess. This commonly cited passage isn’t necessarily exclusive. In the same way that when the Bible says that “no man should…” it does not exclude women. You might do well to read the passage of the roman that sought help for his “servant” that he loved very much–the greek word clearly indicates a lover. The NT goes out of its way to show how comfortable Jesus was with the pair as they dined and socialized. This isn’t the only example in either testament. Was the kingdom of Heaven about wielding man-made govt. to impose Pharisaical readings of your dead, dusty scroll onto others? You don’t seriously believe that Jesus would have behaved as hatefully or as dismissively as you with the suffering of gay families and gay youth–do you? Telling them that they wanted you to hurt them. He came so that you guys could force Americans to live a certain way? I seem to remember something about the dead letter that killeth, life in the spirit of the word. Have you substituted the “Word” for a dead-letter written text idol that you call “the word of God”? Have you traded your birthright, Kingdom of heaven and the living waters for a Pharisee’s child-like invoking of the law/bible? “But the Bible/Law says we get to stone the adulteress…” You don’t seriously think that the Religious Right resembles early Christians, do you? You might read the whole thing–with some understanding and context–before you charge that another is negligent for not repeating the same interpretation that you’ve been spoon fed. Read for yourself–it could eye-opening.

                  Now you say gay is a choice. Why would I choose to be hated–yes hated–by many people, to be fired from my job or , like me, the military after more than a decade of honorable service. Why do young gays kill themselves. Why do they choose to be homeless after their parents kick them out rather than simply change. That would certainly be the easier path if one could just choose. The countless hours of unanswered prayer that religious gays do begging to be made straight… You judge them too? You point with nose in the air: “they chose this…” WWJD?

                • http://www.facebook.com/netmatrix David Hostetler

                  You are right that Jesus would have been comfortable dining with gay men, just as he was with thieves, murders, prostitutes and tax collectors. Because Jesus came to save those that needed saving, not those that didn’t.

                  No, of course I don’t dismiss what evils men do to any of God’s children who have been lead astray. I will love a gay man just as Jesus did, but that’s not to say that I have to agree with his choice or make him feel good about it. Only to love him as one of God’s children.

                  I don’t know why you would choose it, but I know that you have. God did not make you in that way, else you and your “partner” would have proper reproductive organs. I don’t judge you, it is not my right to do. As for the prayers to be made straight. Do you suppose that when you pray for patience that God gives you patience, or does he give you things to be patient with. I think that people don’t see the obvious anymore, and that is why they have been led astray.

                  As for the “Word of God”.

                  John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

                  Revelation 22:18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

                  I want you to know that I don’t judge you, but I do find it in my duty to call you out when I think you may possibly be leading others astray by your loose interpretation of God’s word.

                • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

                  Wow. So many different places to start. So let me start by saying that I don’t think you’re hateful if my last post came across that way. It was written in haste. I believe you’re sincere, but that you can’t hear. Let he who can hear, hear. You justified believing the written text to be God’s word by using the written text. It is an idol of the original word–Jesus, in the very verse you cited. In the beginning was the word–and the word wasn’t KJV. This is the sort of idolatry that Jesus tried to teach against before he was reduced to a demi-god, magical character in your sacred text. Jesus points to the moon and you study his finger. Do you think Jesus would have gay parents divorce after 25 yrs raising kids? Again you mistake morality with following the Law like any other Pharisee: the thieves, murderers and tax collectors he ate with hurt people and needed another way–gays hurt no one. So dont argue that gay marriage will lead to pedophilia or incest–they hurt innocent ppl. No one is asking you to make gays “feel good about it” did you even read what I wrote before you shot back the canned reply? So the only proper way to live is naturally based on biology?–do you drive a car? Why do more than 312 observed species have homo sex? Is all sex about reproduction? This is about imposing your religious beliefs on others in the public sphere–something Jesus was against. His kingdom was not of this earth. Even when questioned by Pilate, Pilate saw him as no threat to Rome and its ways. Again, do you think that “christians” of the Religious Right resemble early xtians?

                • http://www.facebook.com/netmatrix David Hostetler

                  I never said that God’s word was the KJV, unfortunately, I don’t know ancient Hebrew, or I’d just read those texts. But of course, you would retort that His word isn’t the scrolls either. So since you want to throw away all of the rules and laws that God set forth and just believe that he’s a happy joyous God that doesn’t really have rules, you can do what ever you’d like. What I do believe is a God that create the whole world and everything in it, can control whether or not his Word becomes corrupt.

                  God did not create the animals to further His kingdom, so I don’t really care if they attempt “homo sex”. They also can’t write poems or create beautiful artwork, they are not like us. We are different and unique creatures.

                  If you do not want to follow the teachings of Jesus and the laws which of course he said he didn’t come to destroy but to fulfill, then so be it. But again, if you don’t believe what the Bible says, the fact that he says he wasn’t coming to destroy the laws doesn’t matter either.

                  I don’t think that most Christians today resemble early Christians. I believe that the Church is corrupted and that we need to get back to pure straight from the bible learning. Don’t believe it because the preacher says so, look it up for yourself.

                  As far as the “Religious Right”, I have no idea who that is exactly. There is one God and one truth, anything else is a lie. I do believe that our country was built directly upon these values and without them we will not survive.

                  Anyway, it’s been fun. Happy 2011.

                • http://www.facebook.com/netmatrix David Hostetler

                  I never said that God’s word was the KJV, unfortunately, I don’t know ancient Hebrew, or I’d just read those texts. But of course, you would retort that His word isn’t the scrolls either. So since you want to throw away all of the rules and laws that God set forth and just believe that he’s a happy joyous God that doesn’t really have rules, you can do what ever you’d like. What I do believe is a God that create the whole world and everything in it, can control whether or not his Word becomes corrupt.

                  God did not create the animals to further His kingdom, so I don’t really care if they attempt “homo sex”. They also can’t write poems or create beautiful artwork, they are not like us. We are different and unique creatures.

                  If you do not want to follow the teachings of Jesus and the laws which of course he said he didn’t come to destroy but to fulfill, then so be it. But again, if you don’t believe what the Bible says, the fact that he says he wasn’t coming to destroy the laws doesn’t matter either.

                  I don’t think that most Christians today resemble early Christians. I believe that the Church is corrupted and that we need to get back to pure straight from the bible learning. Don’t believe it because the preacher says so, look it up for yourself.

                  As far as the “Religious Right”, I have no idea who that is exactly. There is one God and one truth, anything else is a lie. I do believe that our country was built directly upon these values and without them we will not survive.

                  Anyway, it’s been fun. Happy 2011.

                • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

                  Take care.

          • Anonymous

            I think lifestyle choice refers to actions, where-as being gay certainly does not. For instance, there are many gay clergy who do not practice a gay “lifestyle.” Society has no right to condemn gay lifestyles when it does not equally condemn heterosexual marriages that are of no basis. Gay couples can be much more caring than heterosexual couples, and can be better parents. Gay children thrown out of heterosexual parent homes is as criminal as it is tragic.

        • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

          I also wanted to echo sadpanda: thanks for not allowing hateful rhetoric.

    • http://twitter.com/poonamdoshi Poonam Doshi

      Leave it to conservatives to use projection. Barron is a moron who thinks Republicans are out to defends gays’ interests. Hence why he has to name switch to “conservative”. Cenk’s point was that if they don’t even agree to your basic human rights, then the rest DOESN’T MATTER.

  • Lou

    Great video. Ryan Sorba and his ilk are definitely in the minority and give conservatives a bad name. I’m praying that they see the error of casting the first stone.

  • Anonymous

    The best line here was when he was being talked over and said he was much more comfortable in the company of heterosexual conservatives than being in the presence of gay liberals. Indisuptable. And likely confirmed by this terrible interviewer.

    So bring on this debate. Conservatives may not embrace the religious right, and will lose some of their votes. But in the end, it is conservative truths that will win the day. And that truth is in the Constitution. The liberals are afraid if this, so they will use this interviewer’s style of fear mongering to keep their base solid. They have long accused conservatives of the same. So let them have it.

  • expuma

    The democrats need to separate groups of people and make them feel like perpetual victims. They have even sub-divided the caucasian race into Latino and Arab although they are both simply caucasian, just so they can exploit them as victims. The MSNBC “dude” like most lefties sees this man as Gay and nothing more, not an American, not perhaps someone who wants to open a business or keep more of his hard earned income, not a man who preferers small government- to the left he is Gay and nothing more because thats the only way they can exploit him. They do the same to women; they have turned them into cheerleaders for abortion as if abortion is the most devine right they enjoy in this country, as if any of them are here as a result of abortion! The democrats should just call themselves demoguecrats. Divide and conquere so we can bring America it’s long awaited Marxist Utopia. Fat Chance! MSNBC is a joke, no one watches it anymore and this from a former democrat saying this. The democrats days are over, they know nothing of tolerance, nothing at all!

    • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

      I agree, that is precisely how the Dems see gays, women, blacks, and everyone else, as exploitable resources.

    • Looey323

      The Democrats can see divisions, I agree, and are good at manipulating these for their own benefit. The Republicans are good at getting important rich business people on their side and then talk money out of them.

      But instead being upset at the major parties, why don’t you look at the small parties which might agree well with your philosophy, and help them to grow as people learn that they exist and have good programs. Dermos and Repubs both started small and met the needs of their era.

      Be positive and helpful to fresh ideas, not negative at them all.

  • http://www.facebook.com/netmatrix David Hostetler

    I would support GOProud in as far as their fiscal and governmental views go. As far as their lifestyle choice I cannot stand with them. I believe that every person has the right to be treated with love and respect, that doesn’t mean I have to agree with them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=690210473 Daniel Murray

    Soldier on Barron. God Bless you.

  • Snake Plissken NYC

    It’s always identity politics with the left. For the feminine left, support for abortion is the singular test of fealty, and trumps the sexual “hijinks” of men like Kennedy and Dodd. For minorities, entitlement support. For gays, approval of a decadent lifestyle, which is not a strictly gay phenomenon. The MSNBC host’s attempt to demean the guest with laughter, and to quote another lefty, “dismissive, even derisive” was shameful. He refused to engage the guest on the issues conservative gays share with everyone.

  • Snake Plissken NYC

    It’s always identity politics with the left. For the feminine left, support for abortion is the singular test of fealty, and trumps the sexual “hijinks” of men like Kennedy and Dodd. For minorities, entitlement support. For gays, approval of a decadent lifestyle, which is not a strictly gay phenomenon. The MSNBC host’s attempt to demean the guest with laughter, and to quote another lefty, “dismissive, even derisive” was shameful. He refused to engage the guest on the issues conservative gays share with everyone.

  • HP Loveshaft

    The host may have well just asked, “Why aren’t you obsessed over a single issue? Why don’t you behave like a good little patronized minority should? Why are you contradicting my carefully crafted propaganda?”

    • libby

      You guys are seeing stuff that just isn’t there. Cenk Uygur was basically asking Barron how can he support a movement or a party which wants to deny him civil rights like marriage or serving in the military and which repeatedly wages a war against homosexuality. It was a fair interview.

      • Ryan C

        This implies that a gay person is nothing else. There are many, many issues on the political table right now and only a small percentage of them have anything to do with sexual orientation. Potential tax increases, environmental regulations that do more harm than good, bills stuffed to the brim with pork – these affect everyone. Look at California’s financial crises – and the recent deaths due to union misbehavior in New York – and it’s apparent that wherever liberals run the show, things go downhill. And the Democrat party, which has had strong majorities in both the House and the Senate for two years and control of the White House, barely squeaked DADT through at the last minute and did nothing else in two years. They didn’t need Republican support if they were united, but apparently they weren’t or were too busy pandering to other groups to care about the gay people they claim to support most. So an intelligent, self-thinking gay individual would realize that liberals not only push identity politics, but don’t even keep their promises, and they take an active role in keeping the economy in the crapper. Gay, bisexual, and straight people all need jobs and benefit from free markets, a thriving economy, and the rights of cities and states to allocate limited resources to meet their unique need with as little federal interference as possible.

        • http://twitter.com/poonamdoshi Poonam Doshi

          Cenk brought up basic human rights. If you don’t have those – then nothing else matters, no matter how big a tax cut. There’s no point in a huge tax cut – if you’re not even afforded the basic rights and benefits of marriage. Something the GOP and conservatives are completely against in comparison to liberals.

          • Anonymous

            He has is basic human rights. Can you explain how he doesn’t? Life, he’s alive and no one in the GOP is threatening to take that from him. Liberty, he is free, in a free nation, free to be in a relationship with whomever he chooses. Pursuit of happiness, he is able to make the same stake as any other person in this country, to build wealth, purchase land, and even raise a family. So how is it that the GOP is taking his basic human rights?

            • Niko

              I loled
              Gay marraige is illegal
              We have gays who are denied to openly be gay and fight for our country until recently (in which overwhelming majority of Repubs were again)
              Gays are segregated against in regards to jobs as well
              It’s like a black man after becoming a free man voting for someone who wants to lynch him because he agrees with their economic policies and such. Of course not that intense, but you get what i’m saying

              • Anonymous

                You obviously don’t understand basic human rights. Marriage, at least in the sense of the government providing a license that says as much, is a privilege. You have to pay for a license. It opens up to you some tax savings, etc. It is NOT a basic human right.

                To Gays in the military, I think DADT was crap, I think that it wasn’t necessary because it was always that way. You could have been gay in the military and never told anyone, and no one would have known. I DO think that if someone is openly gay, they should be removed from the military. Just the same as I think that anyone who openly runs any agenda should be it political, social, or economical, should be removed. The military is a homogeneous organism and anything that disrupts it should be removed.

                “Gays are segregated against in regards to jobs as well”
                BS, big time law suit. Not to mention that they can’t tell that by looking at you.

                “It’s like a black man after becoming a free man voting for someone who wants to lynch him because he agrees with their economic policies and such. ”

                That is quite possibly the most ridiculous statement I’ve seen. Black people cannot help their skin pigment. Gay’s on the other hand can choose not to be gay. Now before you give me some garbage on how they are “born” that way, let me just dispel that real quick. Just last night I met a woman who was gay, and no longer is. I have an aunt that was married for 15 years, had two children, and then decided to be gay. If you were truly “born” gay, neither of these could happen.

  • Anonymous

    “I disagree with his lifestyle choices.” What does that mean? Do you think he made bad choices for HIS life? – in which case, what business is it of yours?

    Do you think he made bad choices for YOUR life? He didn’t make choices for your life. Do you think his choices for his life would be bad choices for your life? – in which case, just don’t make those choices.

    Do you think he made choices that nobody should be allowed to make? – in which case, you’re just as bad as the left in wanting to compel people to live their lives according to YOUR choices.

    “I disagree with his lifestyle choices” is just a stupid thing to say.

    I’m not gay, I wouldn’t make those choices, but it’s HIS life, not mine – and not yours. Conservatives need to realize that social conservativism (unlike belief in limited goverment and market economies and strong defense) is a distinct MINORITY position in America. DADT is gone. Gay marriage is coming. Deal with it.

    • Looey323

      Disagreeing with lifestyle choices is part of a free society.

      I disagree with the lifestyle choice of a burglar. I am not ashamed that now you know I would not willingly adopt the lifestyle of a burglar. I also disagree with the rich person’s lifestyle of conspicuous consumption. My preference for the rich is the life style of Mr. LeTourneau, who gave away much of his income as it came in. Helped poor kids go to school, etc.

      My thinking is it is better to give your money beyond what you need to live and save prudently, to others who can benefit from it.

      Unfortunately, God has never allowed me to be tempted with an excess of money! Or maybe fortunately!!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BSMNA5Q6NZW5TC5K4YQ362C7AQ Chester Hunnihugger

    Skenk Ugly is a typical MSNBC thug. Can’t argue the facts so he mocks and derides like a freakin’ middle-school bully. When will NBC shut down MSNBC? They have to be losing money.

    • Niko

      Lol you say he didn’t use facts? You deny majority of Republicans voted against gay rights and they campaign on fighting against gay rights? Good one

  • Sabetsu333

    The MSNBC guy is a total a-hole.

  • David

    So noble of the “journalist” (who was snide, condescending and otherwise thoroughly despicable) to accept that gay people might possibly have different opinions!
    FYI– I’m a right-wing conservative, and I couldn’t care less about (and generally don’t wish to hear about) anyone’s sexuality. Unlike liberals, I really don’t much care for identity politics.

  • Anonymous

    Cenk is a moron !

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NBNBKTIUN66FGZAJASTMWUDKNE JohnK

    My answer to this host is that the democrat party doesn’t like FAT MEN. So why on earth are you a democrat? As a FAT MAN, how can you justify your support for a party that does not approve of you?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NBNBKTIUN66FGZAJASTMWUDKNE JohnK

    My answer to this host is that the democrat party doesn’t like FAT MEN. So why on earth are you a democrat? As a FAT MAN, how can you justify your support for a party that does not approve of you?

  • scottspiegel

    “Lifestyle choices”? Really?

  • robthomas

    LOL! Which party is trying to keep gays from marrying and serving in the army again??

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5GCKPSISSGV3BX62AO3IM4NGU4 Francis

    What are his lifestyle choices? And what do you disagree with?

    Oh, and CONSERVATIVES (Republican isn’t the correct word, it’s a conservative thing, not solely political party), are anti-gay. Period. So I don’t see exactly what this man is trying to go out of his way to say is different. Conservatives, Republican and Democrats, tend to be anti-gay bigots. If you don’t like the label, don’t be bigots.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5GCKPSISSGV3BX62AO3IM4NGU4 Francis

    Democratic and Republican anti-gay BIGOTS are going to continue to be called exactly what you are. Republican are filled with these CONSERVATIVE BIGOTS, and these bigots more or less run the Republican party. They go out of their way to discriminate against LGBT individuals and do not see them as equals or a legitimate, acceptable minority group. So therefore, you get labeled what you are. Republican party is, in general, an ANTI-GAY PARTY. Deal with it. And that goes for Obama, Michael Steele, Joe Manchin, all of these politicians on the right going out of their way to discriminate and rail against the gay community. You don’t support LGBT folks, then guess what, it’s either be or be against. You have created this fight and made yourselves the enemy. Don’t cry now because you can’t handle the heat.

    • DisturbingBehavior

      “You don’t support LGBT folks, then guess what, it’s either be or be against”

      If you’re not for something, you’re automatically against it according to your analogy. So, what about that “B” in LGBT, what are they? I guess some people just can’t stick with a choice. Doesn’t fit into your criteria, maybe it should just be LGT and drop the bisexuals.

      Or are you just a hypocrite when you allow one group (bisexuals) to be iffy on their choice to go one way or the other, but don’t allow others outside the LGBT group to be iffy on an issue? Gays can be just as bigoted as any other group : http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/04/bisexual-men-claim-bias-after-being-kicked-off-gay-softball-world-series-team/1

  • Anonymous

    What I love about all of these comments is that it appears that we are to believe that “gay” is not a choice and therefore they become a minority ( because they can’t change the way they are and are not the “norm” ), but then they are upset that they are considered a minority.

    Secondly they can’t even be proudly gay. They can’t just stand up and say “Yes, it is a choice and it’s my choice”. It has to be… “I can’t help the way I am”. Wrong, people can’t help being born with a particular skin pigment, they can’t help being deformed, they can’t help having a particular color eyes, or being taller or shorter than normal. These are mostly ridiculous arguments on here.

    Just because people don’t agree with your sexual orientation ( lifestyle choice ), doesn’t mean you can’t come together on other issues.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5GCKPSISSGV3BX62AO3IM4NGU4 Francis

      1) Sexual orientation is not a choice. Proven. People are born with a gay or straight brain.

      2)No-one is even concerned about minority status. Duh, LGBT individuals are a minority group. The whole point is, that they require equal rights regardless of this, and conservatives, Dem and most Republicans, are against this. Which is anti-gay and wholly un-American.

      3)Being proud in who you are doesn’t mean you stand up and say something not true. It doesn’t ultimately matter whether it’s a choice or not, but the FACT is, it isn’t a choice. And the FACT is, bigots like you use the “choice” argument against LGBT individuals.

      4)There is no such thing as agreeing or disagreeing with a sexual orientation. A sexual orientation is what it is. People are gay or straight. That’s all it comes down to. It isn’t debatable. That’s what bigots like you don’t seem to understand. You’re wrong. Being anti-gay is wrong.

      5)Humanity should come first before anything else. Why would anyone have such little self respect to associate themselves with individuals such as yourself who do not respect their humanity? Please. It’s about integrity and these GOProud members don’t seem to have any.

      • Anonymous

        “Sexual orientation is not a choice. Proven. People are born with a gay or straight brain.”

        What a load of crap. First off scientists don’t know nearly as much as they think about the human brain. Second, the best they could possibly say is that people who are gay have similar brain activity. Note: Some of these same scientists recently came out saying that conservatism is a brain problem, so I guess now we have an excuse too.

        What in the world is LGBT? You have equal rights as a human being. The church established marriage which it sees between a man and a woman. If you can’t get insurance for your partner, then tough. That’s private business which government needs no part in. As far as being un-American you’re just plain wrong. I’m pretty sure that there’s no clause in the Constitution to protect your right to marriage, or insurance coverage.

        “Being proud… doesn’t mean you stand up and say something not true.”

        Again, crap. Own your choice

        “There is no such thing as agreeing or disagreeing with a sexual orientation.”

        Uh, now you can dictate what I can and can’t agree with? This is a morality issue based on Biblical principle, and in the good book is says that sex between same sex is immoral. Sorry, but I can disagree.

        I respect the humanity of all people and I would show respect to a gay person same as I would to any other person. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with their choices, it simply means I need to treat them with respect as a human being.

        • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

          They cant get coverage for our spouses or kids because of your religious intrusion into the public realm. America is not a Christian version of Iran. The church did not establish marriage–nor is it uniquely judeo-christian–nor has it always been btwn a man and a woman. But polygamy, incest, and rape are condoned in your bible. I did not choose to be gay any more than those kids who committed suicide over the “christian” sponsored hatred they endured, anymore than homeless gay teens chose to be gay–1/4 of all homeless teen are gays kicked out of “christian” homes. Wouldn’t it be easier for them to change if they could, than to suffer the consequences of “christian” hate? I hardly think Jesus would be as callous. I did not chose to be gay any more than those young ppl praying nightly for God to make them straight did. I have tattoos all over my body, discriminate against me if you like for those. I chose to get those. I didn’t choose to be gay–but I refuse to be alone, self-loathing, and cowering in secret as you’d have me. To hide my family, kids, husband. You want to know why young ppl are leaving the church? Hatred and callous indifference are easy to spot–even if you call the “love” They’re not fooled.

          • Anonymous

            Didn’t you post this exact response further up in the thread? Do you have these saved on your computer? Read the Federalist papers, the writing of John Adams, Benjamin Rush, George Washington, and then tell me this isn’t a Christian nation. You don’t even know your own history.

            I don’t see how you couldn’t get coverage for your kids, unless you mean kids belonging to your partner, in which case he could get coverage. I could see that kind of discrimination going directly to court, so I’m calling your bluff on that garbage.

            You have a reference for marriage older than the Bible? What is it? Its funny because I certainly don’t recall rape being upheld as being ok in the Bible. In fact I believe I just read that if a man rapes a woman that he is to be killed. Now you could argue that they treated women as property or spoils of war, which might be true, but the alternative was death by sword or starvation as all of the men were killed and all of the livestock and grains seized.

            I also have tattoos, I got them before I had read about not doing those kinds of things to your body. I’m certain I will probably have to answer for them. The best I can do now, it not do it anymore knowing what I know.

            I don’t recall saying to hide, but I would prefer not too see two men, two women or for that matter a man and a woman making out in the street. If you’re not doing that then more power to you. The only point I’m making is that I don’t agree. And I fundamentally disagree with the garbage about it not being a choice.

            Let me make my case. You say you have children correct? Now did those children come from a previous relationship with a woman? If so, how could you possibly be gay and have no interest in women, yet be with a woman long enough to have multiple children? ( I assume multiples, because you said children and not child ). At some point in time you made the decision that men were more appealing to you than women. Therefore, you made a choice.

            • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

              I’m a history major, and your understanding of the founders must be drawn from fox news. Most were deists. Not fundamentalist Reich wing.

              When there are two parents raising kids together for 25 years… If one dies then his estranged distant family has more rights than the other who raised them? The estranged distant family member is also the only legal relative to make life or death decisions or inherit if there’s a conflict. Most of the very expensive “contracts that gays can make up” are rarely upheld in courts–especially in the more homophobic corners of this country if there’s a distant blood relative to challenge. You call bluff w/o even understanding or giving thought to the different family arrangements out there. No time to think when you’re too busy judging and imposing your religion.

              Just one example of marriage based on rape: “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:28)”

              Holding hands or having a picture on your desk is okay for straights then? Or is that in your face? Only the extreme elements among gays or activists are doing more.

              Did you choose to be straight? Could you choose to be gay? Nevermind that you wouldn’t. I don’t think too many of my straight friends could stomach the thought of being with a guy. LOL I feel that way about women. A lot of you guys are arguing that one could. That there’s some latent homosexual desire that must be guarded aginst. Sounds a little gay to me.

              As you’re going about judging me, our kids were planned. Some gays adopt and are the only parents the kids have, whether the law recognizes only one of them to appease “christians” or not. There was never a decision that men were now more appealing.

              • Anonymous

                “I’m a history major, and your understanding of the founders must be drawn from fox news. Most were deists. Not fundamentalist Reich wing.”

                You should get your money back. I’ve read the original documents from the 17 and 1800’s.

                “When there are two parents raising kids together for 25 years… If one dies then his estranged distant family has more rights than the other who raised them? The estranged distant family member is also the only legal relative to make life or death decisions or inherit if there’s a conflict. Most of the very expensive “contracts that gays can make up” are rarely upheld in courts–especially in the more homophobic corners of this country if there’s a distant blood relative to challenge. You call bluff w/o even understanding or giving thought to the different family arrangements out there. No time to think when you’re too busy judging and imposing your religion.”

                I’m sorry when did custody, which is what you are talking about, become you can’t get insurance because you’re gay? You can’t get insurance because you’re not the legal custody holder. If you can’t make a case for it in court, then that’s a court custody issue, not an insurance issue. Nobody can get insurance for children who they are the custodians of, gay or not.

                As for your proof of rape:
                From the NKJV “28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.”

                From the NLT “28 “Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, 29 he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver.t Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he may never divorce her as long as he lives.”

                From the NASB “28 “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,
                29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.”

                So unless you can translate the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic you’re debunked.

                Who said anything about a picture on your desk, or holding hands? Do it if you’d like. Just don’t get offended when people look at you funny. You are choosing something that is outside the norm and looked at by many people as immoral.

                Yes I could choose to be gay if I wanted to. The pleasure of sex can be achieved in many ways. In fact there is a whole industry devoted solely to it. I am not afraid of you saying that I might have to try not to be gay or to be tempted by it. Without going into too much of my own personal business I did have things happen which made me question it, but determined that it was not what I wanted.

                “As you’re going about judging me, our kids were planned. Some gays adopt and are the only parents the kids have, whether the law recognizes only one of them to appease “christians” or not. There was never a decision that men were now more appealing. ”

                You are literally mixing two different issues here. The law doesn’t recognize unmarried couples, gay or straight. This goes back to my original argument on marriage.

                • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

                  Gays are not mere custodians of their stepkids. The laws are put in place by “christians” specifically to exclude gays from covering their stepkids and spouses by limiting certain coverage to marriage and then denying them marriage, denying them custody of their own kids. I’m not mixing two issues. You just can’t or won’t see the link; A marriage in Iowa becomes worthless if a gay family travels over the border into Missouri. Again, by “christians” who want to hurt and isolate gays. I’ve been arguing in good faith, but it doesn’t look like you want to see this fairly. You absolutely must continue believing that gays “chose” so you can feel good about attacking them.

                • Anonymous

                  Let me clear up for you why it is a mixture of issues. If a man and a woman were together, but not married and the woman had children that did not belong to the man, and the man had no custodial rights to the children, he could not provide insurance for the children or the woman for that matter. That is not a gay thing, that’s a marriage thing. So that’s the insurance issue.

                  The other issue is that of gays being able to marry which as I said brings me back to the church and the idea of marriage. If it ever happens, I believe it will be quite a long time before marriage between like sexes is widely accepted as it is seen by the majority as being immoral.

                  Thank God everyday that you live in a country where it is just considered a social stigma vs. others in which you might be killed as soon as your lifestyle is discovered.

                • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

                  I’ve traveled all around the world and, yes, I am grateful. But that doesn’t mean I have to accept second class. Especially where my kids are concerned. While you’re technically right about the marriage, it’s a catch-22. You can’t deny marriage and then punish for not being married. My kids deserve equal protections and both of their parents’ benefits. As a libertarian, I would prefer that govt not recognize any civil marriage–just civil unions, and local communities/churches could govern the rite of marriage however they like. It could happen in our lifetimes. We’re running out of room here. LOL So let me end on positive note. Read some of your blog and we agree on a lot politically–just not this exactly. I’ll be tweeting some of your articles of interest to my followers. Please don’t take my heated words to heart–I’m just as cut-throat, take-no-prisoners debating my saintly, much-beloved, christian mom on the weather. We’ll likly come across each other again. So take care, this was fun.

                • Anonymous

                  No worries, I take it all with a grain of salt. If we all agreed life would be rather boring.

                • Anonymous

                  No worries, I take it all with a grain of salt. If we all agreed life would be rather boring.

                • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

                  I’ve traveled all around the world and, yes, I am grateful. But that doesn’t mean I have to accept second class. Especially where my kids are concerned. While you’re technically right about the marriage, it’s a catch-22. You can’t deny marriage and then punish for not being married. My kids deserve equal protections and both of their parents’ benefits. As a libertarian, I would prefer that govt not recognize any civil marriage–just civil unions, and local communities/churches could govern the rite of marriage however they like. It could happen in our lifetimes. We’re running out of room here. LOL So let me end on positive note. Read some of your blog and we agree on a lot politically–just not this exactly. I’ll be tweeting some of your articles of interest to my followers. Please don’t take my heated words to heart–I’m just as cut-throat, take-no-prisoners debating my saintly, much-beloved, christian mom on the weather. We’ll likly come across each other again. So take care, this was fun.

            • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

              I’m a history major, and your understanding of the founders must be drawn from fox news. Most were deists. Not fundamentalist Reich wing.

              When there are two parents raising kids together for 25 years… If one dies then his estranged distant family has more rights than the other who raised them? The estranged distant family member is also the only legal relative to make life or death decisions or inherit if there’s a conflict. Most of the very expensive “contracts that gays can make up” are rarely upheld in courts–especially in the more homophobic corners of this country if there’s a distant blood relative to challenge. You call bluff w/o even understanding or giving thought to the different family arrangements out there. No time to think when you’re too busy judging and imposing your religion.

              Just one example of marriage based on rape: “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:28)”

              Holding hands or having a picture on your desk is okay for straights then? Or is that in your face? Only the extreme elements among gays or activists are doing more.

              Did you choose to be straight? Could you choose to be gay? Nevermind that you wouldn’t. I don’t think too many of my straight friends could stomach the thought of being with a guy. LOL I feel that way about women. A lot of you guys are arguing that one could. That there’s some latent homosexual desire that must be guarded aginst. Sounds a little gay to me.

              As you’re going about judging me, our kids were planned. Some gays adopt and are the only parents the kids have, whether the law recognizes only one of them to appease “christians” or not. There was never a decision that men were now more appealing.

          • Looey323

            You WILL have religion intruding into “your” realm regardless. You have a system of belief, that you cling to, and judge the behavior of others by. And you learn it. You have the ability to learn right and wrong; morals, much more than animals can.

            Admit it; denying it you can not do much more than eat and sleep, and even that might be wrong.

            The public realm is a religious-based area, and your religion determines how you will behave there, and whether you will obey Society’s Rules or deny them and break them and be punished.

            You keep complaining about “Christian hate”, when if you ever checked out Christianity, you would know this is a falsehood. Christianity is characterized by love for other humans, and hatred for bad actions, ones that destroy love.

            You need to check into exactly what you are, obviously improperly, calling “Christianity”. Followers of Christ are not taught to hate other people; rather they are taught to hate the “sins” of other people. The hurtful deeds.

            You obviously have picked up false ideas through lack of studying what you so easily jump on the condemnation bandwagon against. You both condemn, and listen to other haters.

            You have never looked into what Christianity is, along with lots of other people. And you nort only do not know waht it is, but the power it has to change lives.

            I suggest that you not rant and rave against Christianity until you know it thoroughly, and what it can do for you IF you wish. You need to talk with people whose lives have been changed; they can be easily found if you wish to find them.

            • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

              I am thoroughly familiar with both the Bible and what most “christians” (note the quotes) do today. They are not very closely related. A lot of the “christian” love thrown my way is nothing but mislabeled hate. There are a lot of good christians(no quotes)–but they are not the majority. I did not attack christianity–just so-called “christians.” That’s what the scare-quotes mean: so-called. Weren’t you paying atttention?

              The ethical framework of the public realm is our constitution and respect for the inalienable rights we all have that precede it. That was the founders’ idea, even if they, themselves did not fully live up to it. Slavery being a good example. No doubt the 9/11 bombers dutifully read their holy book to justify their beliefs too. It is not “morality” to search a holy text for an excuse to condemn or exclude among other things–or weren’t you paying attention to Jesus’ attempts to teach morality? Ox in the ditch, the good samaritan, attempting stoning of the adulteress… Jesus 3, Holy book and Pharisees 0. There was recently a study that showed that atheists and agnostics tend to be more familiar with the Bible than church-going christians. You and I seem to be demonstrating that.

              • Anonymous

                This is a perfect example of how things get twisted by looking at the words, and not the idea behind the words. You see Jesus wasn’t trying to say that the law was incorrect, simply that common sense and the original idea must be applied to it. To work for works sake on the Sabbath is a sin, but to not water your livestock at the expense of letting them die on the Sabbath is foolish. Equally it is foolish to allow your brother to lie in a ditch broken and bleeding so to not make yourself unclean.

                Now, take that same idea and apply it to our Constitution. If you simply look at the words you might come up with several conclusions. However, if you read the debates of the Congress and Congressional committee you will fully understand the idea behind the words. To your comment on slavery, you should look up what Fredrick Douglass ( a freed slave ) said about the constitution after reading it. For example the 3/5 clause was meant to deter slavery, not to say that a Black man was worth 3/5 as much as a White man. Those opposed to slavery ( which were the majority ) used their majority to negotiate a handicap to the southern states. If they had opposed it entirely at that time, there would have been no union.

                • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

                  Finally lots I agree with! I’m a history major and the 3/5 comment is spot on–but it was a compromise with their ideals of all men being equal. Also, I am charging that “christians”, not christians are looking at the dead letter of the text. So far, we agree. Now what would Jesus have done knowing that a gay couple raised/are rasing 4 kids over 25 yrs. How should that family be treated? Do you accuse them of trying “to destroy marriage” or the country, do you compare them to pedophiles, claim that if they served in the military they would rape or accost fellow soldiers, claim that they are akin to murderers and theives, deny coverage to kids, deny final decision-making to their spouse and on and on? That’s what so-called christians are doing. But we hate the sin, not the sinner. It angers me to know that even my youngest son has experienced and noted the hatred disguised as love. Imagine being a gay family during one of these “protect marriage” campaigns that are going to be starting up here soon in PA, NC, WY, NH, & IN. Note where Jesus goes to the home of the Roman and heals the one he loved. As I said above, the greek clearly indicates a lover. The NT goes out of its way to show how comfortable Jesus was dining and socializing with the couple. He didn’t attack them. A fuller understanding of what Jesus tried to teach does not result in the Religious Reich. I agree with your argument. :)

                • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

                  Sorry about repeating that I was a history major… I thought your comment was from Looey. LOL. Especially after just winding down above. Please disregard the snide, but the arguments still stand. Take care.

        • umadbro

          And I’m sure God and the Bible could tell you more about life than science.

          • Anonymous

            Most likely. Being that The Bible is thousands of years old and still relevant vs. modern science which is hundreds of years old.

          • Anonymous

            Most likely. Being that The Bible is thousands of years old and still relevant vs. modern science which is hundreds of years old.

  • mark

    Wow. This Ed guy is a complete and utter moron. No wonder he has his own show. What a buffoon.

    • http://twitter.com/MerlinYoda Matthew A. Dirks

      That’s not Ed… that’s Cenk Uygur filling in for Ed. Cenk is probably most (infamously?) well-known for his regular hosting/co-hosting of news/political commentary vids on the YouTube channel “TheYoungTurks” which is pretty much just a pale imitation of MSNBC as far as I can tell.

      More on Cenk here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenk_Uygur

      • Niko

        His views are way more consistent with MSNBC and isn’t a corporate sellout unlike 99% of the anchors in mainstream media. He doesn’t hesitate to attack liberals as well as conesrvatives. If you watch his show on his actual website, Theyoungturks.com, you might find some informative stuff in there

  • mark

    Being gay is not a lifestyle choice, it is a sexual orientation. Sorry, but most Christians do not have any credibility when it comes to human sexuality. It helps to not be afraid of orgasms, for one.

    • http://twitter.com/MerlinYoda Matthew A. Dirks

      It’s a bit of both actually. Having particular urges towards the same sex (or even the opposite sex) doesn’t mean one necessarily has to act upon those urges. If that weren’t true, then there would be no such thing as celibacy.

      One’s “sexual orientation” (which I doubt is something that is as completely a function of genetics/biology as some would like everyone to believe) does not mandate that one necessarily act upon any urges or desires that are associated with any particular orientation. Choosing to do so is the “lifestyle choice” aspect. For example, persons that are heterosexual can make a choice to act upon their desires and will have made a “lifestyle choice” of their own.

      • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

        So the lifestyle “choice” that gays opt for is not to spend their lives alone, hiding, and hating themselves to appease folks like you who’d judge them for making a choice to have a life, to love, and be loved. Nice. Perfectly reasonable and fair-minded of you.

        • http://twitter.com/MerlinYoda Matthew A. Dirks

          I said nothing about anything you mention here. That’s just what you read into my statement. Please leave the dripping sarcasm at the door.

          I could care less what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. People are free to choose to live whatever lifestyle they want but others shouldn’t be beholden to accept that choice just because they themselves are happy with it. Personally I’m fine w/ gays/lesbians. I’ve dabbled with the thought that it’s just nature’s way of limiting the population of the species somewhat seeing as it’s pretty much biologically impossible for 2 women or 2 men to have offspring as a result of anything they could do themselves (outside of some sort of intervention of some very technologically advanced medical procedure).

          Every action has consequences be they good or ill. I’d say the mark of a mature individual is to take responsibility for the direct consequences of whatever choices they make in their life. However, that doesn’t mean they have to take responsibility for the actions of others that are circumstantially based upon their choices (especially those actions born out of someone else’s hate/prejudice).

          • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

            Re-reading your comment, it seems I may have read stuff into it that wasn’t there. Please forgive me. By “accept,” it now seems to me that you’re not suggesting that the campaigns against equal treatment for gay families in the public sphere are justified. My kids deserve the same benefits and advantages of having both of their parents recognized for all legal and administrative purposes. “Taking responsibility,” if I’m reading you correctly, isn’t about accepting the injustices that the Religious Reich would impose on my family. I can admit when I’m wrong. I seem to have misunderstood your argument and may still be–that’s unforgivable. But the sarcasm is free and I make no apologies. :) Take care

            • http://twitter.com/MerlinYoda Matthew A. Dirks

              Forgiveness given :-). It’s very easy to read common biases into “hot-button” issues … especially those that appear to be in stark disagreement on first glance. Lord knows I’ve probably done my fair share in the past. Most of my daily activities involve some form of problem-solving I just naturally take a “hands off”, logically-driven approach to most things, including “hot-button” issues such as those that affect the gay community. Unfortunately, without verbal and body language cues, it’s really hard to get a brief message on such a subject across without having to go into exhaustive and exact detail as to what I mean to the point that no one would bother to read it because the post was too long :-)

              As far as the “Religious Reich” goes, I can find little if any justification for hatred, either their specific brand or at large. About the only things, personally, that I could say I actually “hate” are unwarranted *acts* that deprive one of basic liberties (life, liberty, and property) and, to a lesser degree, certain acts that could lead to others to committing such acts (e.g. demagoguery). I would add “logical fallacies” in the mix, but they’re more “annoying” than something I actually “hate” and usually an unwitting accessory to a larger crime.

              On a personal note, if it were up to me you and your kids would have equal access as I’d take government completely out of the business of “marriage”. Instead, I’d make available “civil unions” to everyone regardless of the sex of the parties involved for the purpose of sharing property, child custody, and laying out anything else all parties involved should have mutual access to the other parties. Children would get benefits regardless of the number or sex of their parents/guardians as long they were otherwise eligible for said benefits based upon the new “civil unions”.

              Although, the “civil union” would probably more closely resemble a contractual agreement than any “license” because a “license” makes it sound like the government is giving me “permission” to do something I could not do without it (e.g. a driver’s license) and no adult should have to have “permission” to get married/wedded/joined (pick whatever term you perfer) to someone they want to spend their life with.

              • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

                Nice. I made similar arguments above. I’m also a libertarian and a philosophy major (History, Phil & Spanish w/minor in classical studies)–we might have a lot in common. I’ll follow you on twitter. You can decide to follow back or not. My name links to my google profile. I like the idea of civil unions for all legal stuff and marriages as private religious &/or community stuff. I’m a fairly logical, albeit passionate person, but the context of your post threw me off. Again, I feel awful about mis-stating your argument, if not for being sarcastic. Take care.

      • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

        Hasn’t the Catholic church demonstrated beyond any doubt the results of unnatural celibacy? Emotionally crippled, pathetic, grown men molesting little children, rather than having grown up, adult relationships. LOL While giving marital advice to others! But you’d impose that on gays? No, no, I know: they can “choose” to be discriminated against. WWJD? God bless, and all those fake pleasantries you like to exchange…

        • Anonymous

          I think you make a fairly good point, at least about forced celibacy. Paul said that only if you are able should you be celibate and that God provided sexual relations to remove the temptation to commit immoral sexual acts. The fact that the Catholic church forces these men to celibacy is just ludicrous.

          • http://twitter.com/MerlinYoda Matthew A. Dirks

            IIRC, celibacy wasn’t always a requirement to be in the clergy of the Catholic Church, but, as with most heavy-handed restrictions, there was some “scandal” involving something along the lines of drunken orgies and members of the clergy way back in the way-back machine such that the pope (over-)reacted by putting the kibosh on any clergy-members having any sort of sexual relations at all … which was basically no different than when a teacher punishes a whole class (unfairly) for the extreme actions of a few.

            (feel free to reply w/ specific details on this if you have any)

        • http://twitter.com/MerlinYoda Matthew A. Dirks

          I wouldn’t necessarily use the priests, bishops, etc. of the Catholic church as a representative sampling of anyone that choose a celibate lifestyle. If anything, their celibacy is only a contingency of the larger choice they made to enter into the clergy and would have less “motivation” (for lack of a better word) than someone that specifically chooses to be celibate (e.g. someone that has a average level of sexual desires but chooses not to act upon them with others for reasons of their own choosing).

          • http://www.google.com/profiles/thornecassidy Thorne Cassidy

            To avoid the hatred, discrimination, and villification directed at gays, would also be a contingency of a larger choice.

    • Anonymous

      Afraid of orgasm’s, are we back in the early 1900’s!

  • Mccx

    Obviously Cenk thought that he knew more about his guest than Mr. Barron knew about himself, and isn’t that typical liberal (or “progressive”) MO?

    Mr. Barron, on the other hand, was very patient, very profressional and did an excellent job of holding his ground and of making his point despite the constant interruptions and taunting by his blockhead host.

    To Cenk’s disappointment, Mr. Barron, did not say or express the things that Cenk wanted or expected to hear from a man who is openly homosexual, much less one who is also politically conservative. Therefore, Cenk, in reality, didn’t know a darn thing about what Mr. Barron is all about, and, unfortunately, chose to ridicule Mr. Barron about it.

    However, we all know exactly what Cenk is all about and exactly who he is. And we are led to believe that liberals are tolerant and all-inclusive? I certainly did not see that in this interview!

    Too bad the Mr. Barron didn’t remember to say that it was Bill Clinton and his Congress/Senate which first enacted DADT, and the Clinton Administration was anything but conservative.

  • Jdr0317

    Good lord, Cenk, stop patronizing this man.
    Does it not register in his mind that a couple of 50-60 somethings in Washington != conservatives in general? I associate w/ the libertarian wing of the GOP, and out here there’s no hostility towards gay couples. Most of us non-stance or campaign for gay couples.

    But I assume Cenk was just mad that Mr. Barron identifies as an American and not a gay person in need of Democrat help. Sad day. I just wish Cenk didn’t start screaming at every point (doesn’t he bash people like Glenn Beck for not allowing dissenting opinion? Those in glass houses…)

    • AudioVideoDisco

      I agree, in part. Cenk was unhappy with him identifying as a Republican more so than for being a conservative or anything else. Which, I suppose I can see, since many Republicans have actively opposed anything associated with gay rights, or what they call the “gay agenda.” (ie, DADT) And, the idea of gay people supporting a party which, in large part, does not support their demographic both through policy and, in the case of many, from a moral standpoint rooted in religion, does not seem to make sense. (This is completely independent of conservatism, to Cenk.)

      I do agree that he went about this interview the wrong way. He did not convey his point well, and ended up coming off as condescending. And that is distasteful. I dislike that kind of behavior from anyone, from Cenk to Glen Beck.

  • Adam12

    being gay is not a “lifestyle choice”

    You either are or you are not gay. You have no choice in this.

    Being conservative or liberal is a choice, i.e. Something you have some control over.

  • Anonymous

    Like a chicken fighting for Col. Sanders or a slave fighting for his master. Sad…

  • AudioVideoDisco

    My problem is, the question of the “gay agenda.” Does that mean, if someone who is gay wants to advocate for themselves politically? While I seriously doubt many Republicans personally dislike individuals because of them being gay, how could I say, I have no problem with that person being gay, although I don’t approve of them living they way they do and pushing their “gay agenda.” It seems a contradiction, to an extent. You think they’re sinners and you oppose them advocating for themselves politically, only supporting them if they’re supporting policy you like. It seems very self-serving and not particularly compassionate, though, I suppose, technically tolerant.

    The words “lifestyle choice” are also problematic for me – is it disapproval of how gay people are or that they act upon their desires? Is it questioning if being gay is a choice?

    It’s all well and good to say you tolerate someone, but only if they accept what you want in terms of how they live. Gay rights isn’t a “gay agenda” any more than civil rights was a “black” or “minority agenda.” Most people just want equality. And, if a woman, or a gay man, or an African-American or whoever wants to be conservative or liberal, that’s fine. But it’s silly to advocate for a party that is not advocating for your demographic. But, if you do, because you agree on other points, it’s your responsibility to voice your displeasure at their actions and encourage the party to change, that it may better represent its base. (And, if the Republican Party has really begun doing so through GOProud – sincerely, and not just to garnish votes, only to abandon promises later – then I applaud them.)

    Cenk’s Response (If you’re interested): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82BfKrAX7wo

    Also, as a disclaimer as to my perspective, I am a liberal female (I know, you’re shocked). And, I do listen to Cenk sometimes, though I don’t exactly agree with how he handled the interview, though I understand the point he was trying to make.

  • King_gonad

  • Anonymous

    An overwhelming majority of Republicans voted down the repeal of DADT. They overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage. For the most part, they do not support the gay “lifestyle” as Ann Coulter says. GOProud is a bunch of Uncle Toms. Idiots.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GILANEC6DJVSBHS7L4PX35DEHE James Malcolm

    Fucking gay faggot!! Ofcourse we don’t like faggots. Atleast the the libs think we do, right!!

  • Legodbold

    I really like this guy. I don’t have a problem with anyone’s lifestyle choices, as long as they don’t need my tax dollars to subsidize those choices. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!

  • Dennizen

    the reporter is a homophobic. fact!

    • Bruce

      You’re an idiot. fact!

  • Reality Bites

    The only reason that DADT took so long to pass was that the “supportive” Republicans lobbed a potential filibuster at the legislation which required 60+ votes to overcome. So to say that Republicans were the deciding factor in its passage is pure BS. Had the normal legislative process been able to proceed DODT would have been repealed with 51 votes YEARS ago.

    You can’t change reality with talking points, sorry.

  • umadbro

    I like how the writer of this article say that they “don’t agree with his lifestyle choices.” When does being gay or straight become a lifestyle choice? You are either attracted to the opposite sex, or the same sex, it is not a lifestyle choice no matter how much this site blinds themselves with this nonsense.

  • http://www.VimaxReview.com JonnyForever

    This GOProud guy is delusional as this very article makes obvious… “don’t agree with his lifestyle choices” ??? Being gay is not a lifestyle choice.

  • http://www.VimaxReview.com JonnyForever

    This GOProud guy is delusional as this very article makes obvious… “don’t agree with his lifestyle choices” ??? Being gay is not a lifestyle choice.

  • Bruce

    Lol, Cenk owned his ass. The Republicans filibustered DADT and this guy thinks they are on his side. “Hey 8 GOP members voted to repeal it. THEY ALL MUST BE IN FAVOR OF REPEAL IT THEN!”

    I think I know who the retarded one is.

    • AudioVideoDisco

      I don’t think anyone was “owned.” Cenk did have a good point he was trying to make. But to accuse anyone of being retarded is counterproductive when having a discussion.

      Point:
      I don’t care if you’re a conservative or liberal – don’t be an Ann Coulter.

    • AudioVideoDisco

      I don’t think anyone was “owned.” Cenk did have a good point he was trying to make. But to accuse anyone of being retarded is counterproductive when having a discussion.

      Point:
      I don’t care if you’re a conservative or liberal – don’t be an Ann Coulter.

  • MotleyStu

    I find this whole discussion absurd. Barron’s position is akin to a slave being partial to a slave owner’s point of view on some things, but still having one major contrasting difference. The majority of Republican’s don’t seem to look at gay’s with any level of respect. A straight man telling a gay man that the gay man has made a choice to be gay is comical, as if the straight man knows better, while science hasn’t been able to prove the point.

    And less government? Conservatives want to be able to choose when they want less government. You don’t want the government to interfere with our lives/advancing society, except when it comes to abortion, stem cell research, gay rights…

    Absurd. Yell at me all you want.

    • Anonymous

      Small limited Federal government. The state governments were always supposed to be able to regulate these types of things. Gotta read your history.

  • Bradley

    I’m a Conservative Republican, I served in the military, and I supported the DADT repeal and support gay marriage. Some Conservative Republicans aren’t blinded by misinformation concerning our friends in the gay community be it social or religious.

    I used to like Cenk, feeling that he put reason before emotion. But after this interview I don’t feel like I can support his world views when he obviously has a burning hatred for anything Republican. He hates us more then he claims the GOP hates gays. It’s hurtful to our country to continue to divide ourselves like this, and if Cenk doesn’t stop his politically oppressive ways he’s going to continuously find himself on the wrong side of history.

  • Sharkslove

    Yeah Republicans will throw gay conservatives a bone here and there to secure votes all the while voting against giving them the same rights as any other American. One point for Cenk!

  • mtm

    republicans have systemically blocked anything that supports gay rights……..to assume otherwise shows evidence what tools you are!

  • Calexander39

    I knew it. First day of a new Congress and they’re trying to smash health care reform. Plan #1 – Eliminate affordable health care for millions of Americans. Plan # 2 – Increase Michael Steele’s spending limit at Spearmint Rhino. Nice.

  • http://www.facebook.com/nabil.muhammad Nabil Muhammad

    this is even funnier than “Clayton Bigsby the black white supremacis­t.”

  • Maurizio

    I’m really surprised you guys are linking to this.

  • Joe

    I think the key here is the definition of the word tolerant. Newspeak indeed.

  • Anonymous

    so this is where bigots congregate.

  • Loxdemfiya

    DADT wouldn’t have passed without republican votes? HAHAHA!! The ONLY reason why it needed ANY republican votes is because the republican FILIBUSTERED it. Without that political parlor trick, the Dems didn’t need the republicans for squat!!

  • Loxdemfiya

    DADT wouldn’t have passed without republican votes? HAHAHA!! The ONLY reason why it needed ANY republican votes is because the republican FILIBUSTERED it. Without that political parlor trick, the Dems didn’t need the republicans for squat!!

  • Anovah

    Hooray for voting against your own self interests.

  • Anovah

    Hooray for voting against your own self interests.

  • Seth

    It’s hilarious that you claim that you are more tolerant than liberals, but right there in the story is the fact that 2 conservative groups are not participating in the GOP convention because GOProud is being invited. How does that demonstrate tolerance?

  • Seth

    It’s hilarious that you claim that you are more tolerant than liberals, but right there in the story is the fact that 2 conservative groups are not participating in the GOP convention because GOProud is being invited. How does that demonstrate tolerance?

  • Jerry

    Cenk was never better.
    Cenk put the obvious truth RIGHT IN THIS GUYS
    FACE without being nasty. The guy survived nicely
    and you’ve got to give Barron credit for being a
    proud conservative in the face of his parties
    backward (or as Ben Stein would say backwoods)
    history. It is a tribute to the republican PR
    machine for cooking up GOProud. The 2010
    elections were their 2nd PR propaganda coup of the
    young century. Rush, Beck, Coulter, Palin, Norquist…
    truly amazing.

  • Confused

    So you don’t like him and don’t agree with him, but you’re more tolerant than people who do accept him? Just want to be clear here.

  • Rob Berg

    WHAT?

    That gay conservative guy is delusional.

    That fat liberal guy was rude… but at least he was trying to point out how stupid the other guy was, that goes a long way with me.

    Still, there is something to be said about being graceful under fire… but I’ve found that kind of calm, ignorantly dismissive attitude these folks have to be excruciatingly annoying. It’s the kind of stupid that doesn’t really have any place in our society… yet we tolerate it because that IS what Jesus would do.

    Conservative values are flawed. So are Liberal ones – but for different reasons and as simplistic as “two wrongs not making a right” really is, the way we allow party politics to obfuscate the real issue of our individual failures should be criminal.

    We need to objectively identify our many failures and collectively work to fix them even if that means there will be no financial gain. Sadly our polluted souls will not allow us to forsake the mighty dollar that rules our existence… there is no money in it.

    Yet I have faith in the goodness of our collective. We are capable of so much awesome – and have accomplished so much, we can’t let ourselves destroy the civilization that enables our genius to continue. If we destabilize all of our progress will be halted and it could be years before we ever regain momentum.

    Or we could blow ourselves up.

    Exciting times.

  • Adren101

    Wow! I was so impressed with the gay guy. I agree with everything he said as a conservative. I especially appreciated the contrast between his dignity and respectful demeanor and the arrogant, snarky ass monkey who interviewed him

  • Niko

    As a TYT listener i think Cenk could have done better on this interview. If he got him on his own show he’d probably have a better time interviewing him. To be honest this was more mediocre material from Cenk, but that’s because of the restraints mainstream media has =/

  • SRI

    This goes to show that stupid people never know their stupid. The right is completely anti-gay. McCain lied about accepting the judgement of the military study and then being against the repeal of don’t ask-don’t tell. Hipocracy by the conservatives know no bounds.

  • SRI

    This goes to show that stupid people never know their stupid. The right is completely anti-gay. McCain lied about accepting the judgement of the military study and then being against the repeal of don’t ask-don’t tell. Hipocracy by the conservatives know no bounds.

  • Vella191

    COME ON, how can you be a gay republican when the party has overwhelmingly being anti-gay rights? Gay marriage, gay ppl in the military, discrimination laws…. The republican party consistently voted against gay ppl.

    GET REAL.

  • Vella191

    COME ON, how can you be a gay republican when the party has overwhelmingly being anti-gay rights? Gay marriage, gay ppl in the military, discrimination laws…. The republican party consistently voted against gay ppl.

    GET REAL.

  • Vella191

    COME ON, how can you be a gay republican when the party has overwhelmingly being anti-gay rights? Gay marriage, gay ppl in the military, discrimination laws…. The republican party consistently voted against gay ppl.

    GET REAL.

  • Cberns3

    “Look, as long as someone from GOProud is ok with me disagreeing with their lifestyle choices and perhaps even their gay agenda”
    Gay agenda? he said so himself he was born like this way, but lifestyle choices?
    Are u kidding me

  • silverrocket

    I LOVE how the right attempts to completely ignore the reality of the GOP’s stance on homosexuality…as if they support homosexuals and the gay agenda. This is as hypocritical and ridiculous as anything I’ve read…ever…proof positive that the spin-meisters on the right have absolutely not basis in reality, and will say ANYTHING in spite of every fact to the contrary. I mean, REALLY. C’mon. Amazing how reality has no basis for communication these days…while the facts are simply sitting there… in front of everybody to see. “Hey, it’s raining” (I’m sitting there, soaking wet) “No, it’s not. We’re actually in a desert. Boy, are you retarded to not see we’re in a desert.” “Hhhhmmm, you know…you’re right! We’re in a desert! Can you hand me that towel?”

    We are in deep doo-doo if it can’t be understood by everyone that the GOP hasn’t an interest in supporting the gay agenda. Am I missing something? Did I imagine the attempts of the GOP to stop DADT? Did I imagine that evangelicals, the back bone of the Republican party, claim that all homosexuals are going to hell? Actually, it seems those, (within either party) that are screaming about “family values” the loudest are more likely to enjoy getting blown by some queer. Thou doth protesteth too much…so maybe there is a connection between the GOP and gays that I should open my eyes to….that actually makes much more sense that what I’m hearing here.

  • Novoxhouston

    …if by attempting to look and see how are foreign policy may have been a catalyst for 9/11 is “un American” or “typically Liberal”….then what do you call simply ignoring what factors are at play within the context of foreign affairs? “Patriotic”? If it’s gotten to the point where ignoring our impact on the world, and simply sticking our heads in the sand, where there is no chance of error, then I am proud to be called “un-Patriotic”…I guess Bush removing troops from Saudi Arabia after 9-11 would be considered un-patriotic as well.