If You Only Watch FOX News This Didn't Happen

[NJ Stinks]

Ken Mehlman outed himself Wednesday. Howard Kurst, host of CNN's Reliable Sources, said today that the FOX News station did not report it.

The words "Fair and Balanced" take another hit. What else is new? :rolleyes:

[xtb]

You sure about that?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/25/republican-party-chairman-ken-mehlman-admits-hes-gay/

[boxcar]

Ken Mehlman outed himself Wednesday. Howard Kurst, host of CNN's Reliable Sources, said today that the FOX News station did not report it.

The words "Fair and Balanced" take another hit. What else is new? :rolleyes:


You're pathetic, NJ! This is the best you have? :rolleyes: Do you have any idea of how many newsworthy stories are either ignored or under-reported by the In-the-Tank-for-Obama Media?

If anyone took a "hit" here, it was you! :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[rastajenk]

What's Mehlman got to do with Fox? He work there or something?

[GameTheory]

That actually looks like it might be unedited AP report. It has the usual liberal slant (e.g. "anti-gay ballot measures" for what are presumably initiatives to uphold traditional marriage) which I thought was strange coming from FOX.

[JustRalph]

The subject of this thread has been the weekly Meme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme) on several different websites. All Liberal of course.

I am not sure why it is such a big deal if someone in Bush's posse was gay ?

Just because they didn't blast it from the rooftops the Left finds it odd?

I am sure they didn't report on several other sexual stories involving former Bush cabinet members either..........because nobody cares.......as long as there is no story, nobody cares. No adultery, no scandal, no criminal charges, then it's not a story.

[GameTheory]

The subject of this thread has been the weekly Meme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme) on several different websites. All Liberal of course.

I am not sure why it is such a big deal if someone in Bush's posse was gay ?

Just because they didn't blast it from the rooftops the Left finds it odd?

I am sure they didn't report on several other sexual stories involving former Bush cabinet members either..........because nobody cares.......as long as there is no story, nobody cares. No adultery, no scandal, no criminal charges, then it's not a story.But he's Republican! And gay! Republican and gay! Come on, that's news!

[PaceAdvantage]

If FOX news did not report it, then NJ should be happy, as this would mean FOX is treating gay folks exactly the same as hetero folks...meaning...it doesn't matter one way or the other...all equal...why should it be news?

All hail FOX NEWS.

Once again, it's the liberals and the liberal media that is segregating a certain segment of the population....what a shock...

[mostpost]

If FOX news did not report it, then NJ should be happy, as this would mean FOX is treating gay folks exactly the same as hetero folks...meaning...it doesn't matter one way or the other...all equal...why should it be news?

All hail FOX NEWS.

Once again, it's the liberals and the liberal media that is segregating a certain segment of the population....what a shock...
It's news because Mehlman was the architect of the strategy of getting referendums on same sex marriage on the ballot in eleven states in 2004. Thereby motivating the Republican base to get out and vote. It is pretty well documented that that was the difference in Ohio.

What we have is a gay man preying on the fears of uneducated people in regards to sexual orientation, by trying to marginalize the very group he belongs to.
On the one hand we have the liberals who are trying to include gays and lesbians in the institution of Marriage. On the other hand we have conservatives who are trying to exclude them. Then we have you, who are trying to convince us that by including them we are segregating them, and you by excluding them are welcoming them. Seriously?????

[Tom]

You two guys are a gas!
Hard to believe you are not post this nonsense as a joke.
No one could be that out of touch. :D

But the one FACT we take fro this thread is that once again, CNN lied to take a jab at their far superior rival organization. tsk tsk tsk....liberal lying. Whodathunkit?

[HUSKER55]

IT IS NOT LYING...THE CORRECT TERM IS CREATIVE THINKING

[NJ Stinks]

You sure about that?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/25/republican-party-chairman-ken-mehlman-admits-hes-gay/

Xtb, the "FOX News station" refers to a TV station - not an AP article buried in their website.

[NJ Stinks]

But the one FACT we take fro this thread is that once again, CNN lied to take a jab at their far superior rival organization. tsk tsk tsk....liberal lying. Whodathunkit?

Wrong. CNN didn't lie. Once again. :rolleyes:

[NJ Stinks]

It's news because Mehlman was the architect of the strategy of getting referendums on same sex marriage on the ballot in eleven states in 2004. Thereby motivating the Republican base to get out and vote. It is pretty well documented that that was the difference in Ohio.

What we have is a gay man preying on the fears of uneducated people in regards to sexual orientation, by trying to marginalize the very group he belongs to.
On the one hand we have the liberals who are trying to include gays and lesbians in the institution of Marriage. On the other hand we have conservatives who are trying to exclude them. Then we have you, who are trying to convince us that by including them we are segregating them, and you by excluding them are welcoming them. Seriously?????

Well said as usual, Mostpost. These guys may get it in another lifetime. :rolleyes:

[bigmack]

Ken Mehlman outed himself Wednesday. Howard Kurst, host of CNN's Reliable Sources, said today that the FOX News station did not report it.

The words "Fair and Balanced" take another hit. What else is new?
Hey Lamebrain, his name is Howard Kurtz, not Kurst. Your confusion is breathtaking.

The same How Kurtz who writes for The Washington Post. Howie is continually pointing fingers @ Fox yet he has stated that he see's no bias in Keith Olbermann. :lol:

And is quoted saying:

KURTZ: Aren't 99 percent of Washington journalists hard-working folks who aren't whack jobs or cheerleaders for one side or the other? :lol:

Fox not reporting a Rep is gay. :eek: Wow. Big scoop there. Nice work. You gonna TP a house later tonight? :p

[PaceAdvantage]

It's news because Mehlman was the architect of the strategy of getting referendums on same sex marriage on the ballot in eleven states in 2004. Thereby motivating the Republican base to get out and vote. It is pretty well documented that that was the difference in Ohio.

What we have is a gay man preying on the fears of uneducated people in regards to sexual orientation, by trying to marginalize the very group he belongs to.
On the one hand we have the liberals who are trying to include gays and lesbians in the institution of Marriage. On the other hand we have conservatives who are trying to exclude them. Then we have you, who are trying to convince us that by including them we are segregating them, and you by excluding them are welcoming them. Seriously?????Are you trying to say that ALL gay men and women are for same-sex marriage?

Hmmm....stereotyping as well....

[GameTheory]

What we have is a gay man preying on the fears of uneducated people in regards to sexual orientationErr...because an "educated" person couldn't possibly disagree with you, i.e. if they disagree they are uneducated, and therefore not worth debating. A liberal doesn't even need to think about whether the other side has any legitimate arguments. Liberals are just right, period.

On the one hand we have the liberals who are trying to include gays and lesbians in the institution of Marriage.SOME liberals, remember a LARGE majority of Americans still do not support gay marriage. And they are trying to CHANGE marriage, something that has been "non-gay" for all of recorded civilization. But no debate needed -- liberals are always right cause they are educated.

On the other hand we have conservatives who are trying to exclude them.They are already excluded, and always have been (for all of recorded history). So mankind has had it wrong for thousands of years, but it oh-so-obvious that liberals in 2000-something America have finally got it figured out. But no debate needed -- no case needs to be made other than "inclusion, inclusion". And even more important, the people don't actually get a say in the matter, despite their overwhelming opposition. After all, this isn't a democracy or anything.

Seriously?????What is like to have the mind of a 4-year old in the body of an adult????? It's fascinating!

[bigmack]

What is like to have the mind of a 4-year old in the body of an adult????? It's fascinating!
Welcome aboard. :ThmbUp:

With the quality of your posts you may very well garner the coveted 'two-cheek award'

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/8_29_10_18_50_19.png.

[NJ Stinks]

Hey Lamebrain, his name is Howard Kurtz, not Kurst. Your confusion is breathtaking.

The same How Kurtz who writes for The Washington Post. Howie is continually pointing fingers @ Fox yet he has stated that he see's no bias in Keith Olbermann. :lol:

And is quoted saying:

KURTZ: Aren't 99 percent of Washington journalists hard-working folks who aren't whack jobs or cheerleaders for one side or the other? :lol:

Fox not reporting a Rep is gay. :eek: Wow. Big scoop there. Nice work. You gonna TP a house later tonight? :p

You are bundle of information. :sleeping: :sleeping:

[NJ Stinks]

They are already excluded, and always have been (for all of recorded history). So mankind has had it wrong for thousands of years, but it oh-so-obvious that liberals in 2000-something America have finally got it figured out. But no debate needed -- no case needs to be made other than "inclusion, inclusion". And even more important, the people don't actually get a say in the matter, despite their overwhelming opposition. After all, this isn't a democracy or anything.



I'll bet slavery was around for a long time too. :rolleyes:

[GameTheory]

I'll bet slavery was around for a long time too. :rolleyes:I bet the arguments for getting rid of it were pretty good too. It was probably worth the effort to actually make them instead of just calling the opposition names and shutting off discussion.

[toetoe]

preying on the fears of uneducated people



Thank you. I was considering how to pithily describe the modus operandi of the Izquierdistas. You put that very well.

[mostpost]

Err...because an "educated" person couldn't possibly disagree with you, i.e. if they disagree they are uneducated, and therefore not worth debating. A liberal doesn't even need to think about whether the other side has any legitimate arguments. Liberals are just right, period.
Plenty of educated people disagree with me. Some of them are even right. But some people have no clue about some subjects. They think with their emotions. They base decisions on fear. Mehlman played on that fear to achieve a political gain.

SOME liberals, remember a LARGE majority of Americans still do not support gay marriage. And they are trying to CHANGE marriage, something that has been "non-gay" for all of recorded civilization. But no debate needed -- liberals are always right cause they are educated.
A large majority? Prop 8 passed in California 52% to 48%. If that was a large majority than Obama's victory was a landslide. Maybe it's time to change marriage. Maybe it's time to include everyone who loves someone. Marriage once excluded people of different races. We changed that. Those that opposed that change also claimed it would destroy our civilization.
They are already excluded, and always have been (for all of recorded history). So mankind has had it wrong for thousands of years, but it oh-so-obvious that liberals in 2000-something America have finally got it figured out. But no debate needed -- no case needs to be made other than "inclusion, inclusion". And even more important, the people don't actually get a say in the matter, despite their overwhelming opposition.
What you seem to have missed is that my reply was to Pace Advantage's accusation that liberals were segregating a certain segment of the population. I questioned how including could be segregating. Of course, as usual, I received no response, just more drivel.
After all, this isn't a democracy or anything
Democracy does not give the majority the right to oppress a minority no matter how many members of that majority are in favor of the oppression.
What is like to have the mind of a 4-year old in the body of an adult????? It's fascinating!

What's it like to need to insult people instead of having an honest discussion?

[mostpost]

Thank you. I was considering how to pithily describe the modus operandi of the Izquierdistas. You put that very well.
I had no idea what that meant, so I googled it. Who knew wikipedia had a spanish language edition. :confused: :confused: :confused:

[NJ Stinks]

I bet the arguments for getting rid of it were pretty good too. It was probably worth the effort to actually make them instead of just calling the opposition names and shutting off discussion.

I don't recall calling anybody names.

[Lefty]

What you liberals tend to ignore is that most top level democrats are also against gay marriage, incluing Obama himself. Now there's your story!

[johnhannibalsmith]

Well said as usual, Mostpost. These guys may get it in another lifetime. :rolleyes:

Poorly said in this particular case.

I know that there is something seemingly hypocritical about a gay fellow not leading the charge to shape policy that would contradict the will of his constituents, but represent the truth in his heart...

(it rarely happens, these types of situations... [new sarcasm icon here])

... but come on - if the guy (or some other liberal guy or gal or both) had (HYPOTHETICALLY, in lieu of the actual scenario) never once mentioned religion, referenced bibles, quoted scripture... whatever... in his public persona, and had fought hard to preserve what he perceived to be a distinct separation of church and state and was supported and re-elected for such conviction...

...but ten years later, he was reported to be a lifelong member of St. Joseph's on 12th and 31st and who attended services eleven times a week...

...would he be a scumbag traitor to his faith or a guy who respected not only the seperation of church and state, but the seperation of his life from his duty as a representative to his constituents?

I know there's something different about it, or it seems that way - that concealing his sexuality and then legislating "against himself" seems sleezy and sensational... but I don't know... I don't care if he's gay or not - so I'm not so interested in the lies that he tells himself that don't pertain to me if he's at least acting consistently and in accordance with what he purports to be the "truth"... that's enough of an accomplishment and a step up from most, I think...

[NJ Stinks]

John, first I hope all is well with you. I haven't seen one of your posts in a while.

Now about this gay guy. I don't care if he is gay either. What I do care about is that now he is for gay marriage. Or at least he finally got around to saying it out loud. It's like Cheney. When he might have been able to influence policy, he kept his mouth shut. Now he says he wants his daughter to be able to marry. Thanks for nothing, Dick.

I know Republicans here in Jersey who go to Vegas multiple times during football season. Nothing like getting down on ND in October and all that. But they don't want Atlantic City casinos to handle sports bets. Something about the masses being unable to control themselves.... :rolleyes:

All I know is if I was gay I want the right to be married. It's as simple as that. The straight folks that can and do marry are like the guys who can afford to fly to Vegas. They get their cake and eat it too. Those who can't afford Vegas or are afraid to fly - well those poor slobs will just have to do without getting down on Northwestern in October.

Hey, it's late. we're both struggling with the analogies! :)

[Lefty]

stinks, you need to come to realize that not all gay people want gay marriage.
Why do you want to pick this scab? There's so many crooked dims now you should think about. Need some hints let me know.

[TJDave]

SOME liberals, remember a LARGE majority of Americans still do not support gay marriage. And they are trying to CHANGE marriage, something that has been "non-gay" for all of recorded civilization. But no debate needed -- liberals are always right cause they are educated.

They are already excluded, and always have been (for all of recorded history). So mankind has had it wrong for thousands of years, but it oh-so-obvious that liberals in 2000-something America have finally got it figured out. But no debate needed -- no case needs to be made other than "inclusion, inclusion". And even more important, the people don't actually get a say in the matter, despite their overwhelming opposition. After all, this isn't a democracy or anything.


Where were these staunch supporters of traditional marriage during the last 60 years, or so?

It's not OK for gays to marry yet we, as a society, have systematically eroded the value of marriage? Cohabitation, bearing children out of wedlock and no fault divorce are now the norm.

This is the pot calling the kettle. Pure hypocrisy.

[boxcar]

Where were these staunch supporters of traditional marriage during the last 60 years, or so?

It's not OK for gays to marry yet we, as a society, have systematically eroded the value of marriage? Cohabitation, bearing children out of wedlock and no fault divorce are now the norm.

This is the pot calling the kettle. Pure hypocrisy.

You are right. However, should we diminish the value even more by legalizing same sex marriages? Two wrongs = a right, does it?

Boxcar

[TJDave]

should we diminish the value even more by legalizing same sex marriages?

Any encouragment of marriage between consenting adults strenghtens not diminishes its value... Unless we assume that the societal benefits of marriage are not evident with respect to homosexuals.

Prove to me that gays are more likely to be promiscuous married than single and I'll support your position.

[cj's dad]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is what God intended;

2 guys lying in bed b---ing one another in the a---ole !!

[TJDave]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is what God intended

And how does this affect civil marriage?

[Canadian]

Prove to me that gays are more likely to be promiscuous married than single and I'll support your position.


I would say that gay men would be about 1000x more promiscuous that a straight couple. Lesbians probably would be less promiscuous.

[JustRalph]

It's not OK for gays to marry yet we, as a society, have systematically eroded the value of marriage? Cohabitation, bearing children out of wedlock and no fault divorce are now the norm.

This is what ails us on many many different levels. Especially in Minority families.

[boxcar]

Any encouragment of marriage between consenting adults strenghtens not diminishes its value... Unless we assume that the societal benefits of marriage are not evident with respect to homosexuals.

Prove to me that gays are more likely to be promiscuous married than single and I'll support your position.

What makes you think promiscuity per se s the issue? How 'bout just plain ol' sexual perversion and abnormal, depraved human behavior? That works for God, so it works for me.

Boxcar

[TJDave]

How 'bout just plain ol' sexual perversion and abnormal, depraved human behavior?


These perversions are practiced by heterosexuals, as well. They are also, BTW, legal. I don't recall any ballot initiative which precluded heterosexual couples engaged in such depraved behavior from marriage.

Perhaps we need a proposition which would deny or invalidate marriage for anyone who engages in anal sex...Or, maybe a prop 69? ;)

Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

These perversions are practiced by heterosexuals, as well.

And scripture is silent on those kinds of "perversions" -- probably because all heterosexual practices within the framework of marriage are sanctioned by God, which is not the case with homosexual behavior which is considered deviant and is an abomination to the Lord.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
preying on the fears of uneducated people


Are you complaining that you have taken advantage of?