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: 169046
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
Comments (1-208) not displayed.
.
.
.
#209. To: lucysmom (#206)
If the states or congress enact a law that conflicts with the US Constitution, the court has and can strike it down. Since the US Constitution became the supreme law of the land. You're repeating yourself, Lucy. Answer the questions please: 1) Are you saying the citizens of California be damned - that any Issue & Referendum in ANY state is a charade? 2) That "gay marriage" is the "Law of the Land" of the USA? And since when??
Some day we may even brag about you Felatie...
What laws? There aren't any laws that say this. Wrong analogies. Affirmative Action, "Hate Laws," and "Gay" marriage are just a few examples of over-officious Federal overreach and violations of common sense and logic. A liberal-Left SCOTUS (which includes two lesbians) will guarantee far more tyranny.
I'll eschew the Spandex bike jumpsuit for a Spandex banana hammock. (No, my poster is NOT for sale.)
1) Are you saying the citizens of California be damned - that any Issue & Referendum in ANY state is a charade? No. I'm saying that the voters in an individual state can't override the US Constitution. Perhaps you think the US Constitution is a "charade".
Which makes you at odds with the left and right. Me too.
You are a wise man Pete. Flawless reading of the power elite's political tea leaves. Thanks, and Airborne!
Citing a fact is no brag. That is your spin. As for spandex, I used to race bicycles and had more then one goober with a micro sized brain scream out their car window others and I they saw in bike togs must be 'faggots.' You wear the clothing that most suits the activity. So, Yuck Fou.
When people oppress others cruelly and wrongly, it's time to get them back in line. If one person wants to commit to a life with someone else as a partner, more power to them. I live in a state that had an evil group called the Oregon Citizen's Alliance (OCA) that always tried to pass anti-gay ballot measures that generally went down in flames. So, I've had experience seeing others trying to steal someone else's social standing and sense of peace and well being to try to create a scapegoat to scare others to accept their religious or political agenda. You express the ethics of an oppressor and a thief, Stone. You can try to mitigate and minimize what you say, even try to put sugar on it; but your line of thought on this is still rank sewage.
I don't wear jumpsuits...everything is two piece... I don't use homo erotic imagery in every point that I make either.
Scalia and who else?
You don't have a package, do you dwarf?
No argument there,except for homosexual marriages not being any business of the government one way or the other,and your insistence on calling homosexuals "gay". There may be some gay ones,but the ones I have met and known don't seem to be all that happy to me.
"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)
Thanks,but it takes no special insights or abilities to see what has been going on. Ray Charles had to wear shades to keep it from hurting his eyes. Anybody that doesn't see it just ain't looking.
"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)
Well, I have nothing agaist gays and lesbians; none the less, that is very appreciated.
Perhaps you think the US Constitution is a "charade". Perhaps you think its a suicide pact? Just sayin...
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
If queer "marriage" isn't the business of government, than why isn't polygamy? Marriage with children (like Islam)? Marrying your aunt Tilly and uncle Joe at the same time? Hey - my "insistence on calling homos 'gay'" is not only a 1st Amendment right (lol - now you oppose THAT??), but homos are the ones who call themselves "gay." And no wonder they aren't "gay" (in a happy sense) - who would be getting poked with a pecker so much that they've got to wear Depends for the rest of their lives?
Ok - so you've just opined that "California Voters Be Damned" - and the process of I & R is a charade (but ONLY when the Left or Gays lose.) Perhaps you think the US Constitution is a "charade". No, but you, US Presidents, and Congress DO.
He used to be...Until he was beamed down from your space ship.
I'm sorry - it's been a while since I've understood Clingon.
What specifically were those "anti-gay" measures? I've had experience seeing others trying to steal someone else's social standing ... Huh? What "social standing" is that? Mine is "citizen." Is there some special designation I'm missing?
(phew!) What a relief that you're only ensconced in a two-piece Spandex cocoon. I don't use homo erotic imagery in every point that I make either. I'll concede your point; There are rare exceptions.
It's not spandex and if you were any kind of an athlete you'd know that.
Perhaps you think its a suicide pact? ROFLMAO! Looks like Boyeye is one of those "living document" peep-pulls!
"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)
It's not. The Mormon Church really punked out on this one,and bowed to the political power of the mainstream Christian cults. Marriage with children (like Islam)? In some states today you can legally marry at age 13 with your parents permission. Marrying your aunt Tilly and uncle Joe at the same time? Because government has a legitimate interest in banning blood relation marriages to prevent the birth of idiots. For one thing,congress couldn't stand the competition. Hey - my "insistence on calling homos 'gay'" is not only a 1st Amendment right (lol - now you oppose THAT??) Nope. If you want to look like a PC fool getting ready to step out of the closet yourself,go ahead.
"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)
Yes. Second Class Citizen. Someone with fewer rights than you.
"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)
Perhaps on day California voters will decide to ban posters calling themselves "Liberator" from the internet.
In some states today you can legally marry at age 13 with your parents permission. In 1880, the age of consent in Delaware was 7, in most states it was 10, while in Turkey it was 15.
Therefore, you can justify Muslim child-marriage because in Delaware in the year 1880 some crackpot decided it was alright? Geez, you ARE a champion moral relativist, aren't you LM? God help your daughter.
Spandex is not part of the uniformed activities of baseball, football, or Karate. Sorry, Vera Wang.
Tssk...Your fascist fangs are showing, Lucy.
Baloney. Queers can even tell people they're "Married." (Except that militant gays and you demand "official" designation.) Btw, if you want me to refer to you as "General Sneakypete," I will. No charge.
Liberator is so very typical of a lot of people. He believes that the world has always been the way he experiences it today and that any deviation from his narrow little corner of the world is an abomination. My ex-mother-in-law was just like him. Insular, myopic, and stubborn to the point that no facts or evidence could make her see the light.
Just noting the reality that a culture's idea of what is moral does change. In the US women activists worked long and hard to raise the age of consent. I wonder which side of the debate you would have been on had you been around in 1880. Would you have defended the age of seven or 10 as being the traditional and thus moral age of consent?
Are you being intentionally ironic or was that an accident?
He doesn't realize that he is a product of his culture and not of thought and choice.
How exactly was an obscure, odd 1880 Delaware marriage law considered a "traditional" moral age of consent in your mind? Your premise is the entire 4 quarts low in oil.
Says the poster calling for a ban of posters she disagrees with. Have you ANY idea that in MY country, there's a 1st Amendment?
Hypothetical is not actual. Have you ANY idea that in MY country, there's a 1st Amendment? You would defend your Constitutional rights and deny Constitutional rights to others - hypocrite!
Thanks for the courtesy ping... He believes that the world has always been the way he experiences it today and that any deviation from his narrow little corner of the world is an abomination. My ex-mother-in-law was just like him. Insular, myopic, and stubborn to the point that no facts or evidence could make her see the light. Cut the crap you pseudo-intellectual elite-wannabe. You're just another moral relativist bending over for the PC "Issue du jour" claiming he's anti-gubmit officiousness.
So sayeth the "hypothetical" anti-1st Amendment fascist.
Comments (250 - 275) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#210. To: Liberator (#208)
#211. To: jwpegler, A K A Stone, sneakypete (#205)
What laws say that you can't use the woman's bathroom, lead a girl scout troop, pose for Playboy, compete in the Mrs America Pageant, or pay basketball in the NBA?
#212. To: war (#210)
Some day we may even brag about you Felatie...
#213. To: Liberator (#209)
You're repeating yourself, Lucy. Answer the questions please:
#214. To: lucysmom (#213)
I'm saying that the voters in an individual state can't override the US Constitution.
#215. To: sneakypete (#147)
That's no way to build a law enforcement or political empire! First you have to convince the voters and taxpayers that they are in danger from a specific group of "outsiders",and then you have to come down hard on the "outsiders",busting heads and finding them guilty of various "crimes" to show the taxpayers and voters that you are doing your damnedest to protect them to get them solidly in your corner. Once you do that you can ask for more money and more power to "do more to protect them better".
#216. To: Liberator (#208)
"There are only two people I know who would brag about this... "
#217. To: A K A Stone (#151)
#218. To: Liberator (#212)
#219. To: Liberator (#211)
...which includes two lesbians...
#220. To: war, Liberator (#219)
Scalia and who else?
#221. To: Liberator (#211)
Affirmative Action, "Hate Laws," and "Gay" marriage are just a few examples of over-officious Federal overreach and violations of common sense and logic.
#222. To: Ferret Mike (#215)
You are a wise man Pete. Flawless reading of the power elite's political tea leaves.
#223. To: war (#218)
"I don't use homo erotic imagery in every point that I make either."
#224. To: lucysmom (#213)
No. I'm saying that the voters in an individual state can't override the US Constitution.
#225. To: sneakypete (#221)
Homosexual marriages [aren't] any business of the government one way or the other,and your insistence on calling homosexuals "gay". There may be some gay ones,but the ones I have met and known don't seem to be all that happy to me.
#226. To: lucysmom (#213)
(Edited)
I'm saying that the voters in an individual state can't override the US Constitution.
#227. To: Ferret Mike, sneakypete (#215)
You are a wise man Pete.
#228. To: Ferret Mike (#216)
As for spandex, I used to race bicycles and had more then one goober with a micro sized brain scream out their car window others and I they saw in bike togs must be 'faggots.'
#229. To: Ferret Mike (#217)
I live in a state that had an evil group called the Oregon Citizen's Alliance (OCA) that always tried to pass anti-gay ballot measures that generally went down in flames.
#230. To: war (#218)
I don't wear jumpsuits...everything is two piece...
#231. To: Liberator (#230)
What a relief that you're only ensconced in a two-piece Spandex cocoon.
#232. To: Badeye, lucysmom (#224)
Perhaps you think the US Constitution is a "charade".
#233. To: Liberator (#225)
If queer "marriage" isn't the business of government, than why isn't polygamy?
#234. To: Liberator (#229)
Huh? What "social standing" is that? Mine is "citizen." Is there some special designation I'm missing?
#235. To: Liberator (#226)
Ok - so you've just opined that "California Voters Be Damned" ...
#236. To: sneakypete, Liberator (#233)
Marriage with children (like Islam)?
#237. To: lucysmom (#236)
In 1880, the age of consent in Delaware was 7, in most states it was 10, while in Turkey it was 15.
#238. To: war (#231)
It's not spandex and if you were any kind of an athlete you'd know that.
#239. To: lucysmom (#235)
Perhaps on day California voters will decide to ban posters calling themselves "Liberator" from the internet.
#240. To: sneakypete (#234)
(Edited)
Yes. Second Class Citizen. Someone with fewer rights than you.
#241. To: lucysmom (#236)
#242. To: Liberator (#237)
Geez, you ARE a champion moral relativist, aren't you LM?
#243. To: Liberator (#239)
Tssk...Your fascist fangs are showing, Lucy.
#244. To: jwpegler (#241)
He believes that the world has always been the way he experiences it today and that any deviation from his narrow little corner of the world is an abomination.
#245. To: lucysmom (#242)
I wonder which side of the debate you would have been on had you been around in 1880. Would you have defended the age of seven or 10 as being the traditional and thus moral age of consent?
#246. To: lucysmom (#243)
Are you being intentionally ironic or was that an accident?
#247. To: Liberator (#246)
Says the poster calling for a ban of posters she disagrees with.
#248. To: jwpegler (#241)
Liberator is so very typical of a lot of people.
#249. To: Sybilsmom (#247)
You would defend your Constitutional rights and deny Constitutional rights to others - hypocrite!
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]