United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Ann Coulter To Headline 'Homocon' Event For Gay Conservatives
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/ ... er-to-headline-a_n_673313.html
Published: Aug 6, 2010
Author: Nick Wing
Post Date: 2010-08-06 18:42:53 by Skip Intro
Keywords: None
Views: 158622
Comments: 275
Ann Coulter To Headline 'Homocon' Event For Gay Conservatives Conservative pundit and unlikely gay ally Ann Coulter is set to headline the first annual Homocon, "a party to celebrate gay conservatives" put on by GOProud, the "only national organization representing gay conservatives." The festivities are scheduled to take place in New York City on September 25. "The gay left has done their best to take all the fun out of politics, with their endless list of boycotts and protests. Homocon is going to be our annual effort to counter the 'no fun police' on the left," said Christopher Barron, Chairman of the Board of GOProud, in a statement. "I can't think of any conservative more fun to headline our inaugural party then the self-professed 'right-wing Judy Garland' - Ann Coulter." "I can promise you, Homocon 2010 will be a hell of a lot more fun than chaining yourself to the White House fence," Baron pledged, making light of an incident earlier this year where gay soldiers protesting the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy chained themselves to the gates of the White House. In choosing Coulter, the organizers of GOProud appear willing to ignore her past transgressions against the gay community. The conservative pundit was condemned by gay-rights groups in 2007 when she notoriously called then-Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot." And earlier this year, Coulter railed against "irritating lesbian" Constance McMillen for challenging the sanctimony of heterosexual-only proms. But Coulter's selection probably won't be surprising to many gay rights groups who have pointed out that GOProud sometimes exhibits self-destructive behavior. Earlier this year, the gay conservative group planned a fundraiser with Doug Manchester, a California businessman and hotelier who donated $125,000 to anti-gay marriage Proposition 8. That fundraiser was held earlier this month in an event that GOProud called an effort by Manchester to "make financial amends with the gay community," which had mounted a boycott of Manchester's hotels and accused him of treating his gay employees poorly.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
If they could get Lindsey Graham to come too they could crown them the King and Queen of Homocon, although I don't know which would be which.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
Are you a candidate, skippy?
No such thing as a conservative faggot. That is like having a pro choice pro lifer. An oxymoron.
Apparently, once again you're wrong.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
No I am right as usual. Just like some faggots pretending to be married. You can stomp your feet and have some faggot judge say your married. But two men can't marry. Conservatives can't be faggots. Maybe pretending to be conservative.
LOL! Are you a queer afraid to come out of the closet skippy boy? You sure have a problem with ALL women on the right don't you boy? Come on faggot! let your freak flag fly! It's the 21 st century NOBODY cares.
Quoted by PDS insane assholes every where.
No Stone, you're wrong, as always, unless you want to prove the entire article is a lie. Have at it.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
Maybe there are some freaks meeting. But they aren't conservatives. You can't be a conservative and a faggot. Impossible. Now you can be a republican and a faggot. Example Lindsey Graham.
It's funny Stone, but even the freaks at Free Republic disagree with you.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
Who besides a faggot like you, skippy, even gives a shit?
I am smarter then the freepers. Oh and Megan McCain isn't a conservative. She isn't even a real republican.
I disagree, but I suppose it depends on one's definition of conservative. Mike Church (a libertarian leaning, constitutional scholar/talker on Sirius/XM) had a lesbian call in to his show the other day. She was an older woman from Texas - who basically said in her drawl "I've been this way all my life". She went on to say she lived a very quiet life with her "partner". She had nothing but scorn for those homosexuals who march in parades and "get in your face" with their homosexuality. She claimed to be a conservative - and in fact sounded very much like one. Personally, I don't like homosexuality. But as someone who leans libertarian myself, I don't see where it's my business to make life any more difficult for someone like the lady in Texas. Put simply - live and let live. If she ain't gonna bother me, I won't bother her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new elephant boss The last gasp of a dying Republic is a "living, breathing Constitution."
WRONG! There is no such thing as a politically conservative bible thumper. Being a conservative means that you are for individual freedoms and reducing government control over the private lives of individual citizens. That is 180 degrees off from what bible thumpers want.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
I know you are a fundie,but you CAN'T be so ignorant as to think that marriage is tied to religion. You can marry in a civil ceremony with no representative of any religious cult in attendance. I will grant you that the state has no right and lacks the power to demand that any religion be forced to conduct a wedding ceremony for homosexuals or anyone else they don't like. Freedom is a two-way street.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Nor is it any business of the state.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Sure you are....(chuckle)
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Jethro Tull to Rotara
The irony is...um...overwhelming...
Marriage is a man and a woman. Period. The govt doesn't have the power or right to change the meaning of words. May all faggots that claim to be married get aids.
Queers already possess the freedom to be with whomever they want, and freedom to make a commitment to whomever they want. They just don't have the right (or social consensus) to redefine the language and the act of "marriage" by dictatorial fiat.
No they don't, but then they and queers have already hijacked the words: gay affirmative vibrant community (off the top of my head)
There is no such thing as a politically conservative bible thumper. Being a conservative means that you are for individual freedoms and reducing government control over the private lives of individual citizens. That is 180 degrees off from what bible thumpers want. Wrong. You've just described a libertarian. There are social constraints that have always be "conservative" which is defined by the lack of change or a status quo within a social standing. Stone happens to be right with respect to "oxymorons." A few of the primary tenets of political "conservatism" within the context of American politics are "pro-life, "pro-marriage" (between man & woman), and "pro-gun." Individual queers may have conservative leanings, but as a demographic they are as liberal/fascist as any group in the US.
If a queer is pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-traditional marriage, he actually could be considered conservative. Are there any around? I'm sure, but just not many.
That's what makes them freaks.
She had nothing but scorn for those homosexuals who march in parades and "get in your face" with their homosexuality. She claimed to be a conservative - and in fact sounded very much like one. This is an example of the exception to the rule where there can actually be "conservative" homosexuals.
WHERE is the definition of the word marriage given as a joining of men and women exclusively? What government does NOT have the right to do is tell individuals who they can or can not marry. That is about as personal a choice as anyone will ever make in their entire lives,and of no legitimate concern of the government. This IS the conservative opinion. You seem to have religious dogma confused with government authority. We do NOT live in a theocracy,and with any luck at all we never will. May all faggots that claim to be married get aids. Besides being a truly sick thing to say,it is also a distinctly non-Christian thing to say. You should be ashamed of yourself.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Queers already possess the freedom to be with whomever they want,and freedom to make a commitment to whomever they want. No,they don't. They don't have the freedom to marry whoever they want. We are either all free,or none of us are free. A government that has the power to tell you who you can't marry also has the power to tell you who you MUST marry.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Wrong. You've just described a libertarian. Which is what a conservative really is. The Founding Fathers were all libertarians,and being a conservative means holding to the traditional values and thoughts of the people who established our form of government. Individual queers may have conservative leanings, but as a demographic they are as liberal/fascist as any group in the US. Gee,I wonder why? It's not like anybody that CLAIMS to be a conservative is making them feel unwelcome by wanting government to treat them like second class citizens,or wishing they would die.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Why are you missing this? "Marriage" is the definition of an official partnership between a man and a woman. Has been forever. They and you apparently want the "freedom" to arbitrarily redefine both the language and humankind's traditions. Because a bunch of nuts loves their dogs doesn't mean the state must recognize "marriage" it their case, does it? Or monogamy?
And if you noticed, there we no homosexual "marriages" during the time of the Founders. WHY NOT? YES - being a conservative DOES mean "holding to the traditional values and thought of a people who established out gubmint" - THE FOUNDERS. Minimal gubmint. Representative gubmint and consent by and for the People. But that's all now apparently a past "tradition." Anybody that CLAIMS to be a conservative is making them [queers] feel unwelcome by wanting government to treat them like second class citizens,or wishing they would die. Who are you kidding? Queers now have "special rights." Affirmative action. Corrupt judges. Look at them wrong and you can be arrested for "Hate Crimes." Man, you are waaay off base on this issue.
lol, you'd still be there kissing ass and looking for friends if they didn't get tired of your bullshit and ever increasing kookiness.
Were you ever in the music or song writing business? ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol
They just don't have the right (or social consensus) to redefine the language and the act of "marriage" by dictatorial fiat... More importantly, there weren't any government marriage licenses at the time of the founders. Of course the government has already changed the act of "marriage" by dictatorial fiat. Historically, marriage was a contract between two families, usually under the auspices of a religious authority. At the beginning of the progressive era in the late 19th century, state governments starting to nullify common law marriages and began to exert more control over marriage. By the 1920s, 38 states had laws prohibiting whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. In the 1960s, governments started using their power over marriage to force "no- fault" divorce laws on all of us. As is the case with everything government touches, it has destroyed the institution of marriage. 50% of Americans between 25 to 29 are unmarried. Almost 40 percent of children are born to unmarried parents. The government has no business regulating who can get married. They certainly have no business requiring a license to validate that a couple is married.
As long as there are certain rights, benefits, and protections that go along with marriage, the government does have an interest in who is married.
How does she enter into this discussion?
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
That's your definition and you are welcome to it. The question is, do you have the right to impose your definition on the rest of humanity? May all faggots that claim to be married get aids. Stuff like that gives Christians a bad name.
Absolute bullshit. You are displaying exactly the kind of warped logic that has allowed the government to grow into the Leviathan behemoth that it is today. Legally, marriage is a contract. The government has one role in contracts -- that of the arbitrator of last resort in a contractual dispute. In many cases, the government doesn't even perform this role anymore. When I went through my divorce we used private arbitration. The government's only role was register the agreement about assets and children that came out of the private arbitration. The government certainly has no legitimate power whatsoever to bestow any special "rights" or "benefits" to married people. The government's only legitimate role in society is to protect the natural rights that all humans have as a result of being human.
How would one prove that a dog has freely consented to marry?
Many Native American tribes accepted same sex marriage.
You made a new contract and it was blessed by the court. If a dispute arises, the court will enforce the contract, or bless its modification. If human beings were always rational and fair, there would be no need for the courts to get involved. A benefit of marriage is the right to inherit. A friend recently discovered what a mess that can be when the union is not blessed by the state. Her partner's family did decide that she could keep the entire mortgage on the house since more was owed than it is now worth - everything else however, the family decided belonged to them.
You made a new contract and it was blessed by the court. If a dispute arises, the court will enforce the contract, or bless its modification. Which is what I said -- their only role is the arbitrator of last resort. A benefit of marriage is the right to inherit. A friend recently discovered what a mess that can be when the union is not blessed by the state. ROTFLMAO. People inherited long before there was a central state "blessing" marriages. Of course, people can inherit from unmarried individuals too. Even within state's "blessing" (you crack me up), the government has screwed this up as well. A Will is public instrument that is published when you die and can be challenged by any schmuck with a shyster lawyer. Did you know that? Most people don't understand this. The only way to make your death and inheritance a private affair is by creating a trust (I know this because I've done it at the advice of my attorney). The normal way that people handle their estate, with a Will, enables the government to leave them open for all kinds of trouble in the courts. Nothing that you've said is a legitimate argument for government control and licensing of marriage. In fact, just the opposite is true.
Not entirely true. I have seen and heard references to a "marriage" of a engine and transmission in a car or truck that didn't come with that engine or transmission. I have also never seen where the term is LEGALLY limited to a partnership between a man and woman ONLY. WHERE is it restricted to only male and female relationships,other than in the minds of fundies? They and you apparently want the "freedom" to arbitrarily redefine both the language and humankind's traditions. I have no interest in redefining anything. It is people like YOU that want to redefine it to meet your religious beliefs. Because a bunch of nuts loves their dogs doesn't mean the state must recognize "marriage" it their case, does it? Dogs get married. I read of one case where a man married his horse. In neither case does your religious cult have to recognize the marriages. Or monogamy? What does monogamy have to do with it? The subject was marriage,and WELL over 50% of the marriages in this country are not monogamous. Some were never intended to be monogamous from the beginning,and in others at least one partner is stepping out on the other.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Probably because nobody ever tried it. Mostly because the superstitious fundies that controlled local governments would have murdered them. There were also laws against blacks and whites marrying. Do you think THOSE laws were based on Constitutional principles? Queers now have "special rights." Affirmative action. Corrupt judges. Look at them wrong and you can be arrested for "Hate Crimes." Yeah,all because people like you are singling them out for special treatment and denying them their rights as citizens. Man, you are waaay off base on this issue. No,I'm not. All I am doing is saying ALL citizens should be treated equally by the government,and their rights and freedoms as individuals need to be respected. What's wrong with that?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Comments (42 - 275) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Skip Intro (#1)
Queen of Homocon
#3. To: Skip Intro (#0)
#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)
No such thing as a conservative faggot.
#5. To: Skip Intro (#4)
#6. To: Skip Intro (#1)
#7. To: A K A Stone (#5)
No I am right as usual.
#8. To: Skip Intro (#7)
#9. To: A K A Stone (#8)
#10. To: Skip Intro (#9)
Free Republic disagree with you.
#11. To: Skip Intro (#9)
#12. To: A K A Stone, Skip past go, go directly to jail, do not collect 200 (#3)
No such thing as a conservative faggot.
Same as the old jackass boss
#13. To: A K A Stone (#3)
No such thing as a conservative faggot. That is like having a pro choice pro lifer. An oxymoron.
#14. To: A K A Stone (#5)
You can stomp your feet and have some faggot judge say your married. But two men can't marry.
#15. To: Ignore Amos (#12)
I don't see where it's my business to make life any more difficult for someone like the lady in Texas.
#16. To: A K A Stone (#11)
I am smarter then [sic] the freepers.
#17. To: Skip Intro (#0)
(Edited)
#18. To: sneakypete (#14)
#19. To: sneakypete, A K A Stone (#14)
Freedom is a two-way street.
#20. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#18)
The govt doesn't have the power or right to change the meaning of words.
#21. To: sneakypete, A K A Stone (#13)
No such thing as a conservative faggot. That is like having a pro choice pro lifer. An oxymoron.
#22. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#5)
Conservatives can't be faggots. Maybe pretending to be conservative.
#23. To: Skip Intro, A K A Stone (#9)
It's funny Stone, but even the freaks at Free Republic disagree with you.
#24. To: Ignore Amos, A K A Stone (#12)
A lesbian call[ed] in to his show the other day. She was an older woman from Texas - who basically said in her drawl "I've been this way all my life". She went on to say she lived a very quiet life with her "partner".
#25. To: A K A Stone (#18)
Marriage is a man and a woman. Period. The govt doesn't have the power or right to change the meaning of words.
#26. To: Liberator (#19)
#27. To: Liberator (#21)
Being a conservative means that you are for individual freedoms and reducing government control over the private lives of individual citizens. That is 180 degrees off from what bible thumpers want.
#28. To: sneakypete (#26)
They don't have the freedom to marry whoever they want.
#29. To: sneakypete (#27)
(Edited)
[A liberatarian] Which is what a conservative really is. The Founding Fathers were all libertarians,and being a conservative means holding to the traditional values and thoughts of the people who established our form of government.
#30. To: Liberator (#23)
That's what makes them freaks.
#31. To: Liberator (#29)
(Edited)
if you noticed, there we no homosexual "marriages" during the time of the Founders...
#32. To: jwpegler (#31)
The government has no business regulating who can get married. They certainly have no business requiring a license to validate that a couple is married.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#11)
Oh and Megan McCain isn't a conservative.
#34. To: A K A Stone (#18)
Marriage is a man and a woman.
#35. To: lucysmom (#32)
(Edited)
As long as there are certain rights, benefits, and protections that go along with marriage, the government does have an interest in who is married.
#36. To: Liberator (#28)
Because a bunch of nuts loves their dogs doesn't mean the state must recognize "marriage" it their case, does it?
#37. To: Liberator (#29)
And if you noticed, there we no homosexual "marriages" during the time of the Founders. WHY NOT?
#38. To: jwpegler (#35)
When I went through my divorce we used private arbitration. The government's only role was register the agreement about assets and children that came out of the private arbitration.
#39. To: lucysmom (#38)
#40. To: Liberator (#28)
"Marriage" is the definition of an official partnership between a man and a woman. Has been forever.
#41. To: Liberator (#29)
And if you noticed, there we no homosexual "marriages" during the time of the Founders. WHY NOT?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]