[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Why will Kamala Harris resign from her occupancy of the Office of Vice President of the USA? Scroll down for records/details

Secret Negotiations! Jill Biden’s Demands for $2B Library, Legal Immunity, and $100M Book Deal to Protect Biden Family Before Joe’s Exit

AI is exhausting the power grid. Tech firms are seeking a miracle solution.

Rare Van Halen Leicestershire, Donnington Park August 18, 1984 Valerie Bertinelli Cameo

If you need a Good Opening for black, use this.

"Arrogant Hunter Biden has never been held accountable — until now"

How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion

Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men

Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK.

South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel

Today I turned 50!

San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee

Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas

Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport!

Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park

Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next'

Will it ever end?

Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar?

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version

There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 158713
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 252.

#3. To: Skip Intro (#0)

No such thing as a conservative faggot. That is like having a pro choice pro lifer. An oxymoron.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-08-06   19:34:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

sneakypete  posted on  2010-08-07   6:16:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-07   10:17:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

sneakypete  posted on  2010-08-07   10:32:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-07   10:48:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Liberator (#29) (Edited)

if you noticed, there we no homosexual "marriages" during the time of the Founders...

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.

jwpegler  posted on  2010-08-07   11:43:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: jwpegler (#31)

if you noticed, there we no homosexual "marriages" during the time of the Founders...

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.

True dat. Gubmint seems to feel that have the right to intrusion by dictatorial fiat for any reason.

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.

Interesting....

In the 1960s, governments started using their power over marriage to force "no- fault" divorce laws on all of us.

That was an arrangement facilitated for business reasons (lawyers got rich), and social re-engineering reasons (NWO Commie/Blueblood Elites.) The end result has contributed to the destruction of the family.

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.

*Just as long as the arrangement is between a man and woman*

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-08   16:40:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: Liberator (#67)

Just as long as the arrangement is between a man and woman

That's up to the people who want to marry, their families, and their religious institutions, not the government.

Leftists have always sought to replace the authority of the family, church, business, and chartable institutions with the power of the state.

Real conservatives have historically viewed the family, church, business, and charitable institutions as bulwarks against the creeping authoritarianism of the state.

It's so funny to me to hear so-called "conservatives" argue that the state should be able to usurp the power of people, families, and churches. Quite frankly, the primary problem with this country is the almost none of the people who call themselves "conservative" are actually conservative.

jwpegler  posted on  2010-08-08   17:12:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: jwpegler (#72)

That's up to the people who want to marry, their families, and their religious institutions, not the government.

This is so simple: "Marriage" = Man + Woman.

Now if you don't the government deciding on its new definition, then WTH is the government involved NOW?? Same sex marruage has NEVER been recognized in this Republic for over 200 years.

Leftists have always sought to replace the authority of the family, church, business, and chartable institutions with the power of the state. Real conservatives have historically viewed the family, church, business, and charitable institutions as bulwarks against the creeping authoritarianism of the state.

Yes, I hear ya.

t's so funny to me to hear so-called "conservatives" argue that the state should be able to usurp the power of people, families, and churches. Quite frankly, the primary problem with this country is the almost none of the people who call themselves "conservative" are actually conservative.

Did it ever occur to you that you're missing something here?

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-08   17:23:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: Liberator (#76)

ame sex marruage has NEVER been recognized in this Republic for over 200 years.

A.) The country largely never had marriage licenses until the 1920s so there was nothing "official" to recognize, and

B.) You're wrong:

A Boston marriage, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, was an arrangement in which two women lived together, independent of any man's support.

Some women did not marry because men feared educated women during the 19th century and did not wish to have them as wives. Other women did not marry because they felt they had a better connection to women than to men. Some of these women ended up living together in a same-sex household, finding this arrangement both practical and preferable to a heterosexual marriage. Of necessity, such women were generally financially independent of men, due either to family inheritance or to their own career earnings. Women who decided to be in these relationships were usually feminists, and were often involved in social betterment and cultural causes. with shared values often forming a strong foundation for their lives together

jwpegler  posted on  2010-08-08   17:39:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: jwpegler (#80)

A. NATURE "recognizes" marriage between male and female.

B. (not bragging, but) I'm Right.

If women wound up together, it was NOT "marriage."

Sheeesh....

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-08   17:42:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: Liberator (#82) (Edited)

NATURE "recognizes" marriage between male and female.

Then let nature deal with it, not the government.

Nature has a great punishment for homosexuality -- your gene pool dies because you can't have kids.

Why is this any of your business or the government's?

It's not.

jwpegler  posted on  2010-08-08   17:46:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: jwpegler (#86)

Why is this any of your business or the government's?

It's not.

Sticking "gay" in front of "marriage" requires Governmental redefinition, regulation, and licensing. GET THAT??

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-08   17:52:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: Liberator (#90)

Sticking "gay" in front of "marriage" requires Governmental redefinition, regulation, and licensing. GET THAT??

You're the one who doesn't GET IT because your head is stuck so far up the government's ass that you haven't had a breath of fresh air in your entire life.

The government doesn't have to to redefine anything. It just has to get out of the way and let people live their lives.

jwpegler  posted on  2010-08-08   17:57:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: jwpegler (#94)

The government doesn't have to to redefine anything. It just has to get out of the way and let people live their lives.

You ARE aware this very issue was already decided upon in California by its citizenry via Issue & Referendum, right?

ONE single GAY Judge stepped in and negated millions of those legal votes.

Do you know this?

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-08   18:02:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: Liberator (#97)

You ARE aware this very issue was already decided upon in California by its citizenry via Issue & Referendum, right?

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If 100% of Californians voted to pass a law that was in conflict with the Constitution, that law would be null.

In 1963 California's prop 14 allowing housing discrimination based on race, religion, gender, marital status, age was struck down by the SCOTUS because it violated equal rights and protections as set out in the US Constitution.

lucysmom  posted on  2010-08-08   18:13:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#150. To: lucysmom (#101)

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If 100% of Californians voted to pass a law that was in conflict with the Constitution, that law would be null.

Are you saying the citizens of California be damned - that any Issue & Referendum in ANY state is a charade? That "gay marriage" is the "Law of the Land" of the USA?

Since when??

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-09   7:18:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#206. To: Liberator (#150)

Are you saying the citizens of California be damned - that any Issue & Referendum in ANY state is a charade? That "gay marriage" is the "Law of the Land" of the USA?

Since when??

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.

We are not a democracy, we are a republic. The founding fathers were just as opposed to mob rule as they were to monarchy.

lucysmom  posted on  2010-08-09   10:42:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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??

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-09   15:55:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#213. To: Liberator (#209)

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?

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".

lucysmom  posted on  2010-08-09   17:57:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#226. To: lucysmom (#213) (Edited)

I'm saying that the voters in an individual state can't override the US Constitution.

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.

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-10   11:08:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#235. To: Liberator (#226)

Ok - so you've just opined that "California Voters Be Damned" ...

Perhaps on day California voters will decide to ban posters calling themselves "Liberator" from the internet.

lucysmom  posted on  2010-08-10   12:18:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#239. To: lucysmom (#235)

Perhaps on day California voters will decide to ban posters calling themselves "Liberator" from the internet.

Tssk...Your fascist fangs are showing, Lucy.

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-10   12:41:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#243. To: Liberator (#239)

Tssk...Your fascist fangs are showing, Lucy.

Are you being intentionally ironic or was that an accident?

lucysmom  posted on  2010-08-10   12:59:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#246. To: lucysmom (#243)

Are you being intentionally ironic or was that an accident?

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?

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-10   13:07:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#247. To: Liberator (#246)

Says the poster calling for a ban of posters she disagrees with.

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!

lucysmom  posted on  2010-08-10   13:10:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#249. To: Sybilsmom (#247)

You would defend your Constitutional rights and deny Constitutional rights to others - hypocrite!

So sayeth the "hypothetical" anti-1st Amendment fascist.

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-10   13:13:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#252. To: Liberator (#249) (Edited)

Sybilsmom

Attacking a kid...how special...

war  posted on  2010-08-10   13:19:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 252.

#255. To: war (#252)

ROFL

Liberator  posted on  2010-08-10 13:23:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 252.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com