Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  poli-dicks

Scott Brown Wants Ted Kennedy’s Senate Seat. Also, He Hates Gays + Posed Naked

hunk1

Massachusetts State Sen. Scott Brown wants to graduate to the big leagues, and is making a Republican bid for U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy’s vacated seat. It’s going to be an all-eyes-on-the-prize sort of thing, since Kennedy was much loved, he just died, and he’s held the post for the last, like, 50 years. Did we mention Mr. Brown doesn’t want the gays getting married? What about the part where he posed naked in Cosmopolitan in the 80s?

If Brown were a lady candidate, posing nude (though, this is Cosmo 1982, so you can only see from the pubic region on up) in a major monthly magazine might cause a scandal. But Brown is a family values man!

Campaigning on the “small government” platform (he’s a Republican, we remind you), Brown used his Massachusetts Senate post in 2007 to vote for an amendment banning same-sex marriage. Because it ruins families! What doesn’t ruin families? Stabs at fame. Brown is the father of one-time American Idol contestant Ayla Brown, now a basketball player at Boston College.

Now, Brown’s campaign is a huge uphill battle. Massachusetts bleeds blue, and voters are going to need hypnosis to get ‘em to pull a lever for a conservative Republican. But if anything sells, it’s sex — and Brown’s campaign manager should begin printing yard posters with the Cosmo picture right away.

By:           editor editor
On:           Sep 16, 2009
Tagged: , , , , ,

  • 69 Comments
    • HiredGoons
      HiredGoons

      Wow. Even when he’s naked he looks like he’s wearing a suit. Fail.

      Sep 16, 2009 at 12:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      He’s my local state Senator and the man is a douche. I hope he goes down in flames (so to speak).

      Sep 16, 2009 at 1:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jason
      Jason

      Your choice – dead hooker or live boy.

      Sep 16, 2009 at 3:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rudy
      rudy

      Sort of sexless twenty years later.
      http://www.scottbrown.com/

      Sep 16, 2009 at 4:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Is it just me…but I think even if I didn’t know what his opinions are I would still that by looking at him that he would be a corpse in bed.

      Sep 16, 2009 at 4:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alan brickman
      alan brickman

      still hawt! too bad he’s a bigot…

      Sep 16, 2009 at 4:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • keith
      keith

      It is about time we have someone honest taking over Teddy’s seat. Massachusetts is full of moon bats that need to be removed. Deval & Barney have made this state a disaster and I am sick and tired of being taxed to death. 5% sales tax to 6.25% during a recession, so we can give big paying jobs to our neighbors. They are no different than the president. Lies, Lies, Lies. Scott will give us some confidence, because god knows we are lacking it in this state.

      Sep 16, 2009 at 5:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • taxpayer
      taxpayer

      alan Brickman sounds like the bigot in this blog. Looks like some of the moonbats are getting nervous that the state could get some order in areas of fiscal responsibility, accountability, reliability to constituents and those other words moonbat democrats have trouble pronouncing. As Obama says we need change, so get ready alan Brickman you’ll get it. What goes around always comes around.

      Sep 16, 2009 at 5:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rudy
      rudy

      @taxpayer: ” the state could get some order in areas of fiscal responsibility, accountability..”
      Yes, like during the Bush administration.

      Sep 16, 2009 at 6:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dfrw
      dfrw

      Well, I live in Massachusetts and he won’t be getting my vote with that R behind his name. I look forward to voting for the Democrat. Yeah, I am a proud, partisan liberal.

      Sep 16, 2009 at 7:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jesse
      Jesse

      Massachusetts DOES sometimes elect republicans, but only Pro-gay rights republicans.

      Unfortunately a lot of republicans lie and claim to be Pro-gay rights to get elected D:(Mitt Romney did it)

      But this guy is not gonna get elected,there is no way he will.

      Sep 16, 2009 at 8:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KK Bloom
      KK Bloom

      Hopefully he’ll go as far as his daughter did on American Idol…NOWHERE.

      And “Keith” and “Taxpayer” sound like one in the same. Moonbats? Seriously? Did you take a detour on your way to Limbaugh-land?

      Romney was enough of a right-wing douche. MA doesn’t need any more clones of him, thank you very much.

      Sep 16, 2009 at 10:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Froggystyle
      Froggystyle

      @ #7 Keith

      6.25% sales tax? Try the 9% I pay here in Nowhere Alabama
      and then I might feel pity for you

      and forgive my ignorance but, whats a moon bat? I’ve never heard that term before.

      Sep 16, 2009 at 11:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick Garies
      Patrick Garies

      Here in Texas, we’re paying 8.25% sales tax although we don’t have a State income tax, so I’m not sure how much difference that makes.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 2:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Swimmer - Chicago
      Swimmer - Chicago

      When he was young not so bad – but still a republican – yikes! As for taxes – Chicago 10.25% – quit whining in Massachusetts – it’s a great state that cares about its residents. Or move to Chicago and then you can complain about taxes!

      Sep 17, 2009 at 6:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian
      Brian

      Massachusetts State Sen. Scott Brown = Christian, Protestant. When he was very young he learned “homosexuals are WRONG.” Religion does that.

      Sep 18, 2009 at 10:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • libhomo
      libhomo

      What a pathetic hypocrite. He deserves to lose.

      Sep 26, 2009 at 9:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Questionable
      Questionable

      Hmm… why his body has no definition…and he does not look like not so genuine either. A so called straight guy posed in nude, is he a closeted gay case or so called bi? Really, not my cup of tea esp. when that pic really hurts my eyes.

      Jan 3, 2010 at 2:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • left coast rebel
      left coast rebel

      Predictable drivel here. It is always fascinating to see gays use homophobia as a political tool, ie. that Scott Brown posed ‘nude’ 30 years ago and that this should disallow him from office. Why do you think that it is ok to use such homophobic criteria? Are you a homopobic gay?

      Jan 10, 2010 at 1:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ho Hum
      Ho Hum

      I think it’s interesting that when a Republican is in his birthday suit in a magazine, 28 odd years ago, you don’t hear a thing about it from the media. However, if Martha Coakley had done this, you would see it being depicted and condemned on every Scott Brown Ad. If this is an example of family values and morality, I can’t wait to see their version of sobriety!!!

      By the way, could the lack of media interest in this little tid-bit of history having anything to do with the colleagues closing ranks, because of his wife???

      Jan 12, 2010 at 2:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Truth
      Truth

      Could have sworn he used to spend nights on his knees in the porno movie booths at Main Street Video. Why do people who hate themselves become Republican?

      Jan 12, 2010 at 9:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      If Brown wins, it will be partly because Obama angered the gay community by failing to act quickly to end DADT. Personally, I think he’s going to win.

      Jan 12, 2010 at 9:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick Garies
      Patrick Garies

      @left coast rebel: The only homophobia covered in this article is that of the candidate, Scott Brown, and his opposition to marriage equality. That alone is enough reason to vote against this guy; he doesn’t believe in equal treatment for all citizens.

      The photo seems to be there to poke fun at conservatives’ fear of blatant male sexuality and sexuality in general which should be cause for concern for this guy since these kind of irrational people make up his (Republican) voter base.

      @Jason: That would be sad. His Democratic opponent is the State attorney general, Martha Coakley, that filed a suit to overturn DOMA as unconstitutional interference in Massachusetts’ affairs. (The suit is still ongoing.) While we shouldn’t be voting for Democrats merely because they’re Democrats, we shouldn’t be opposing people that appear to be genuinely on our side either.

      Jan 13, 2010 at 5:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mary
      Mary

      I DON’T BELIEVE THIS BULL AND I AM A LESBIAN THAT VOTED FOR OBAMA AND WELL, THE TIME HAS COME THAT LIES BE PUT IN THEIR PROPER PLACE. I DO NOT LIKE THE DIRECTION THE COUNTRY AND THE WAY IT IS GOING AND I FEEL THAT SO WHAT HE POSED NUDE WHEN HE WAS A YOUNG MAN. IF I HAD MODEL LOOKS I WOULD TOO AND HE WAS YOUNG. HOW IS IT THAT WE CAN FORGIVE PRESIDENT FOR HIS THING IN THE 90′S AND I STILL LIKE BILL CLINTON AND RESPECT HIM AS A LEADER. THE LIE HERE THROWN OUT IS BY MALICIOUS PEOPLE . SCOTT BROWN DOES NOT HATE GAY PEOPLE. HE IS A DECENT MAN WITH A PRAGMATIC APPROACH OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE KNOWLEDGE AND WHERE WITH ALL TO HELP THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. I THINK OBAMA USED GAYS AND LESBIANS DURING THE CAMPAIGN TO GET VOTES AND HE PROMISED TO GET RID OF “DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL. OBAMA DIDN’T AND OUR BRAVE GAY MEN AND WOMAN CONTINUE TO SERVE SILENTLY AFTER ONE YEAR OF OBAMA. THE NUDE PHOTO IS NUTTIN AND I SAY IF YOU GOT IT AND YOUR YOUNG SO WHAT. I SAY AGAIN SCOTT BROWN DOES NOT HATE GAY PEOPLE AND PRESIDENT BARRACK OBAMA DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GAY MARRIAGE AND COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING TO LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE IN WASHINGTON D.C. AND HE DIDN’T, DID HE?

      Jan 13, 2010 at 6:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jbran
      jbran

      @Mary: Chill with the all caps, Mary.

      Jan 13, 2010 at 6:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mary Ann
      Mary Ann

      one more thing already, it’s January 113,2010 and I’m sick of this administration and let’ get to the real meat of the matter of Obama’s policies there isn’t any. he lied , several times during the campaign he tell us the American people HR will be televised on C span and he failed even after the owner Mr. Lamb offered to put in on C span last week so we can know what is in the bill and press secretary Gibbs answers a political journalist and (not Fox) if they will take the offer and Gibbs with his lip curled and obviously irritated by the question answers curtly ” I answered that question yesterday” and the fact is he did not. The same question posed to a visibly nervous Nancy Pelosi and unlike Nancy she answered with her big smile ( all is going to be right with the world) (sarcastic) “Oh I think it’s going to be wonderful for everyone”. HR reform needs to be but not like this, sweetheart deals,former DNC Howard Dean ridiculing the legislation and would not vote for it as it is. Let’s see, Obama tryint the master mind of 9/11 in NYC to relive the pain and suffering of those who lost loved ones. That is a political abomination and NYC doesn’t want it as it should be in a war court.This will cost millions to try this jerek. The same with the underwear almost Jet bomber terrorist on Xmass day and he gets lawyered up and protected by miranda rigthts and then Janet Napoltiano says “The system works” and Obama had to finally come out 3 days later and finally address the nation that we are at war with terrorist who hate us and hate the way we live and hate everything about the United States. Obama and supporters need to stop the blaming of the Bush and Cheney years because that is in the past and this is a new administraton. The buck stops with Obama and so far all the decisions he has made in the year of Jan 20 2009 until now. I’m now independent because the really closed minded people are those who are staunch Democrats or Republicans. I opened my mind and I heard a lot of people who are talented and independent ,conservative and republicans and Dems. that caught my attention. I’m sick and tired of people like Janeen Garofolo saying all tea party people are racist because of her closed narrow mind and those like her that is where actual Hate is evolved. The fact is there are good Dem.Repub.,independents,conservatives,moderates,whatever you as an individual identify with and it does not mean you do not want a Black man in the White House as I often hear this Janeen Garofola yepping all the time about. Listen Janeen,you would be amazed at the number of black friends I have personally for many years. I’m sick of it already and the fact is Obama is not the change I want. I also will say to all AGay and lesbians it is not a sin to support a republican or conservative or whomever. I’m sick of tired of the left using ,a party different from theirs and beliefs different from theirs here in American using Gays and Lesbians and Black people as scape goats to protect their own unintelligible bull shit that actually instead of opening your heart and reaching out to the other side, all I have seen created from these people are HATE CRIMES and the thing is we are all Americans and I think there is a better way to do business with each other . Diversity also means having the right to think and believe as you want without hating your own fellow American. I’m happy to say I have friends from all affiliations and it makes for feisty debates but never hate. I am a lesbian and yes I do support Scott Brown for Massachusetts Senator because I believe he has the best interests of the state and Americans at heart. I do not believe this lies that he hates Gays. I might add I recently heard a very prominent Gay man speak and the anger Gays and lesbians feel for President Barrack Obama not doing as he has promised for us and he could do more. I’m now calling him to account as I am for other issues that he do what he promised even though Obama himself does not support Gay marriage and what about HR on C span to name just a couple. Thank God for The Gay Patriot that it’s ok to be gay and be independent,conservative,republican and Democrat. This is American and we have these rights and I love my Gay friends,straight friends,African American friends and I’m Gay and support Scott Brown.

      Jan 13, 2010 at 6:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mary Ann
      Mary Ann

      ok i will chill with all caps.

      Jan 13, 2010 at 6:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mary Ann
      Mary Ann

      I agree with you Jason.

      Jan 13, 2010 at 7:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Same Crap
      Same Crap

      “If Brown wins, it will be partly because Obama angered the gay community by failing to act quickly to end DADT. Personally, I think he’s going to win.”

      What bullshit. Gays are nowhere as politically powerful as we think we are.

      And enough with your conservative vomit, Mary Ann. It’s like you got excited, decided to post every Republican talking point known to man, and for got the rules of proper sentence and paragraph structure. Coherence is a good thing.

      Jan 13, 2010 at 7:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      The problem for the gay community is that the gay male social scene is based on looks. Virtually everything about the gay male social scene is about how “hot” one looks. “Hot” is everything. It’s in all the marketing. The gay male social scene is based on this appearance fascism.

      Now you have a “hot” looking Republican and suddenly gay men go weak at the knees. It exposes us as being entirely trivial, stupid, and deserving of what comes to us.

      Unless we get away from this appearance-based culture within in our gay community, we will never earn the right to have equal rights or be treated seriously.

      Jan 13, 2010 at 7:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      We’re too much of an appearance-based community. Everything about our marketing is fantasy-based and has a heavy sexual tone. Now we have a hot-looking Republican who posed naked. Fits in with our interests, doesn’t it?

      Jan 13, 2010 at 7:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Same Crap
      Same Crap

      OMG. Get a grip. Brown will not win. This is a teabagger wet dream that will not come true. To the teabaggers who think you actually have a shot at this seat, get a clue, dolts.

      Jan 13, 2010 at 7:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      I’m a gay guy who will vote for Scott Brown. I find him too good looking to pass up. One day, I hope to go to bed with him.

      I want to be ravished by his pubes, basically.

      Jan 13, 2010 at 8:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick Garies
      Patrick Garies

      @Jason: Okay, you just lost all credibility, Jason. Is your real name Larry Craig? You and the Republican Party deserve one another. Have a nice honeymoon.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 3:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Josh Carter
      Josh Carter

      Wow. I gotta say, being a libertarian from a liberal area has taught me one thing, if anything, and that’s that for all the professed love, equality, peace, blah, blah, blah, that most “liberals” spout, at the end of the day, they are just as hateful and prone to prejudice as the worst of the other side.

      At what point did the degradation of one’s detractors–social or otherwise–become acceptable, or even wise? How bout you fools practice what you preach? One would think that a subculture so oppressed would figure out that once you can label someone, you can hate them, once you can hate them, then it’s ok to segregate them, then hurt them, then kill them, then they start firing up the ovens. Try looking at people like you so desperately want to be: LIKE HUMAN BEINGS! It doesn’t matter if they return the respect or not! If you don’t show basic humanitarian respect–even to “bad people”–you have no right to ask for it.

      Oh, and while you’re at it, you might want to start pressuring the liberals in power to dismantle the police state before your hypocrisy leads to a power shift, cuz ya’ll aint gonna like it if the same crap getting thrown at “teabaggers” by DHS/FBI/etc. is still around to get pointed back at you when seats like this start turning red….

      Jan 14, 2010 at 10:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tristram Shandy
      Tristram Shandy

      Why do you guys call Scott Brown a bigot when people like Obama, Hillary and Biden made a point to announce their stances against gay marriage?

      Jan 14, 2010 at 11:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bucky O'Hare
      Bucky O'Hare

      Is anyone else feeling the irony of gay people disparaging someone they don’t like by calling them a “tea bagger”?

      Jan 14, 2010 at 12:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick Garies
      Patrick Garies

      @Josh Carter: There is nothing but irony in your derision of “labels” even as you label yourself a “libertarian” from a “liberal” area. Those are both labels that are loaded, but used for convenience and apparently even you couldn’t avoid using them.

      If you had actually read Jason’s comments, you would have seen that such nonsense does not warrant a serious reply.

      @Tristram Shandy: Because many people are convinced that Obama doesn’t hate us, but is doing what is politically expedient (which is still sad). That and Obama is not actively persecuting LGBT persons like this guy, Scott Brown, (unless you count those pro-DoMA legal briefs) nor does he represent a party that has such persecution as part of its official party platform; standing by passively doing nothing and actively attacking people are two different things.

      That’s not to mention the other bad things about this guy, like his party being the party of lock-step “no”, filibusters, and tax cuts as solutions to creating jobs, fixing health care, etc.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 8:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dontblamemeivotedforhillary
      dontblamemeivotedforhillary

      Coakley better be wishing for a sunny day as internal DemocRAT polling has it as a statistical 5% difference. Ted Kennedy’s seat could go Repugnant if there is a snow storm! Hmmm, the weather on Tuesday will be: Partly Cloudy.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 8:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marc
      Marc

      Obama opposes gay marriage. Obama believes that marriage is between a man and woman. Obama was asked this question several times in 2008 and he always gave the same answer.

      Why is it that when a Democrat opposes gay marriage somehow gay people supposed to read between lines and think “no” really means “yes”? But, if a Republican opposes gay marriage he “hates” gays? He is beelzebub. We should plug our ears, shut our eyes, and think for ourselves no further.

      As I see it, there is only one kind of money in this world and it only works one kind of way. There is no special kind of money in which the currency collapses, the national debt is monetized, and gay people getting rich, while homophobes alone are in foreclosure on their mortgages.

      As I see it Obama is fkking up the money. We cannot afford this health care bill right now.

      This bill is not being pushed right now, right away because its good policy for any of us gay or straight. It is being pushed because it is great politics from Obama. It has to be done now, right now while Obama has sixty votes before the election cycle kicks in so we can all worship Obama greatness for an historic achievement, screw whether or not it bankrupts the nation.

      Did you hear him talking about Haitian relief… he kept saying things like, “I am sending…” “My teams will be on the ground…”

      “I” thought that it was the “United States” that is coming to the aid of Haiti.

      Somebody needs to go to Washington and give the ego in the rose garden a reality check. President Obama, its not all about you.

      If you can, vote Brown.

      BTW After Hillarycare failed in the 90s was that followed by soaring deficits and bad economy. Hmmm?…

      Jan 15, 2010 at 1:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick Garies
      Patrick Garies

      @Marc: +1 on health care except that I’m more worried about the bill not doing what it’s promised to do (I think it’ll do the opposite actually) than whether we can afford it or not. If it did what is was promised to do, it would pay for itself, but I don’t see it.

      I fail to see how Obama’s failures need to influence every election where he isn’t a participant though. That’s a recipe for failure. You’re essentially saying that the failure of one politician means that you should avoid all others by association with no regard for the merits of the person you’re going to be voting for instead. That’s vote by ignorance instead of comparison and people that vote like you are why we have such a screwed up system.

      Your “Hillarycare” claim is nonsense. It never went into effect so you can’t judge the effects (I don’t know the details so I can’t even speculate). We had a surplus followed by “souring deficits” and a good economy followed by a “bad economy” so apparently there’s no relation.

      Jan 15, 2010 at 2:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marc
      Marc

      @Patrick Garies:

      Obama is not just one politician, he is the president. His policies must be promulgated through the legislature. If you vote for candidates that support his policies, you are voting for his failures.

      Politics is a practical profession. What matters is how candidates will cast votes, not some broad sentimental notion of individual merit.

      Right now the country needs a US Senator who will force Obama to take the time to get it right for the country, not just for the president’s political score card. Presidents serve, they do not rule. Obama will be a better president if the people of Massachusetts give this president a lesson in the limits of his power.

      This is a young presidency. Its not the end of the world if this bill is not passed. Bill Clinton flourished in the wake of the defeat of Hillary care.

      “We had a surplus followed by “souring deficits” and a good economy followed by a “bad economy” so apparently there’s no relation.”

      I appreciate you reiterating my point. Then as now, the president is claiming his health care proposal had to pass or the economy would suffer. It was not true then, it is not true now.

      The best thing we can do for healthcare in America is get the economy and jobs growing again. We cannot do that if we accumulate such public debt that foreign nations doubt the credit worthiness of the United States for the first time since it was established by Alexander Hamilton in 1790.

      Did you miss the Chinese president Hu Jintao’s chilly reception of Obama in Beijing, publicly lecturing our president about US debt?

      Its about the economy, stupid.

      Jan 15, 2010 at 9:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick Garies
      Patrick Garies

      @Marc: “What matters is how candidates will cast votes, not some broad sentimental notion of individual merit.”

      I’m afraid things aren’t so black and white. You also need to consider what legislation they will allow to reach the floor or what legislation these members will propose and sponsor. Likewise, you need to consider what they will filibuster and oppose. You can’t vote for/against something that never gets voted on.

      You also need to consider pending legislation *after they’re elected* and how they will react to it. Plus you need to consider whether they will try to genuinely work with their peers to create genuinely good compromise legislation or proposals from scratch or stand by and merely say “not happening”.

      Republicans are in lock-step with their party, so it’s very telling as to what they will do by looking at others of that party in office; Democrats are more of a patchwork, so you more often have to weed out the bad and the good.

      I have no doubt that Brown would join in a lockstep filibuster of this dreadful health care bill, but the bill will probably be up for a vote before he gets in office, so that’s totally irrelevant unless the Democrats drag this out (which I don’t see happening consider that they worked up until Christmas Eve). (If it passes there might be a case that they could repeal it, but considering that neither party likes repealing anything…)

      “The best thing we can do for healthcare in America is get the economy and jobs growing again.”

      I don’t see how the Republicans are going to do any of that. Their solution to the economy is stimulus checks and tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy, neither which have been shown to be effective (that was also their solution to health care for working class families: a (totally absurd) $5000 tax credit).

      Somehow they think lowering taxes will cause businesses to hire when they have the alternative choice of taking the money and pocketing it. They initiated the bailouts that this administration continues in raising the deficit. Rather than reduce the deficit, they gave away stimulus checks and cut taxes. (Last I heard, Bush didn’t make a single payment on the national debt, a first in US history.) If we had gone with their idea of privatizing Social Security, it would have been bankrupted and destroyed by the stock market crashes.

      I have yet to see a single proposal by the Republicans past or present that will do either of those things. I don’t recall a single effective measure that came out of the Republican Congress (or just Republicans) related to the economy.

      The only solutions I see are regulation, infrastructure spending, reform, and repeal and I have seen virtually nothing of that from the Republicans. The Democrats are at least looking at all of them (except repeal it seems), but can’t do anything about any of them due to intra-party opposition and lock-step opposition from Republicans.

      I think it’s rather telling that you quoted someone who isn’t a Republican: “Its about the economy, stupid.”

      Lastly, while marriage equality/DoMA repeal probably won’t come up for a vote anytime soon, I just find it hard to vote for someone that doesn’t respect me as a person and further feels comfortable doing so. That includes anyone that comes up with excuses against marriage equality.

      Jan 16, 2010 at 2:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marc
      Marc

      @Patrick Garies:

      “Likewise, you need to consider what they will filibuster and oppose. You can’t vote for/against something that never gets voted on.”

      LOL. Yeah, you can. This is the whole matter of needing 60 votes for a closure vote. Do you read what you write???

      “Plus you need to consider whether they will try to genuinely work with their peers to create genuinely good compromise legislation or proposals from scratch or stand by and merely say “not happening”.”

      Another reason to vote Brown. Coakley will help push through this hasty partisan health care bill, that is no good sense or compromise.

      “Lastly, while marriage equality/DoMA repeal probably won’t come up for a vote anytime soon, I just find it hard to vote for someone that doesn’t respect me as a person and further feels comfortable doing so. That includes anyone that comes up with excuses against marriage equality.”

      For example, Barack Obama.

      Jan 17, 2010 at 2:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick Garies
      Patrick Garies

      @Marc: “Do you read what you write???”

      Yes. If you threaten to filibuster or oppose something, it may not come up for a vote at all or it may be modified so that it’s not as good. The good parts often end up not getting to a vote since so many things are dropped in response to the opposition’s threats.

      Perhaps I misunderstood what you said though. If you just want to kill the Democrat’s 60 vote “majority” this will do that, but I don’t see to what end. (Not really a majority since Democrats don’t vote in lock-step and have that idiot Independent Lieberman as #60. They’ve essentially killed their own legislation due to internal compromise and I expect them to lose it anyway if they actually allow this to pass. For some reason, I’m still expecting some Democrats to turn against it.)

      Further, 60 isn’t technically a magic number if they get a leader with more spine that will face filibuster threats directly. I would likely support Reid getting voted out even for a Republican since the Democrats might become more effective, not less, if they put up the right leader. That would drop the threshold to 50 plus the VP..

      Lastly, I still think your “merits don’t matter” comment is simply wrong. I don’t believe in vengeance voting. If I understand right, this vote is to break up the Democrat majority to make Obama a “better president”. You haven’t explained how that will make him a better president and that seems to be what your whole basis of voting for this candidate is. (In fact, you haven’t even addressed any of his merits in either his views or the Republican platform (that he likely holds) as far as I can tell; it’s just “vote for him since he’s not a Democrat to send a vague message” to paraphrase.)

      “Another reason to vote Brown. Coakley will help push through this hasty partisan health care bill, that is no good sense or compromise.”

      When is this election (I thought most were at end of year) and when is health care slated for a vote (soon?)? If health care goes to a vote first, then that *isn’t* another reason.

      “For example, Barack Obama.”

      You’re comparing apples and oranges here, I’m afraid.

      Unlike Brown vs. Coakley, neither candidate in the presidential race supported same-sex marriage (and no third party was viable). Coakley appears to. McCain did not. This is a lesser of two evils question.

      If I’m presented with two evil people to vote for, but one will at least address *some* of my interests, I will vote for that one if I feel that the outcome is important enough. It’s still hard to vote for that, but that’s reality in a two party system.

      Further, if I’m not mistaken, Obama’s position was that DoMA should be repealed anyway in contradiction of his “God’s in the mix” comment. That essentially means that he’ll support any LGBT legislation (by signing it) if not advocate for it. Sad but better than McCain.

      (Also worth noting that I wasn’t reading LGBT news or tracking the issues at the time that I voted for him so it wasn’t really in the picture.)

      Jan 17, 2010 at 3:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick Garies
      Patrick Garies

      To follow up on my last post:

      Okay, interesting. The election is Tuesday. I still think health care will likely fail either way though. I still don’t think it’s worth it to elect him for six years expressly to bring down this bill.

      Jan 17, 2010 at 7:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve O
      Steve O

      Here, I will summarize Patrick’s posts:

      “Blah blah I am a horribly biased one-issue voter blah blah blah Obama can’t hate gays even though he’s done nothing for gay rights because he’s so dreamy blah blah blah”

      Jan 17, 2010 at 7:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ossurworld
      ossurworld

      Believe it or not, there are gay people who do not support gay marriage. Scott Brown is the likely winner, despite the hate and venom spewing forth from “liberals” and the Iron Butterfly named Coakley who opposes abortion because of her religion. Irony always abounds in Massachusetts politics.

      Jan 17, 2010 at 8:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marc
      Marc

      @ossurworld:

      That is a good point. Some gay people think its heterosexual normative or some such sht you read in an easy talky soc class in college. You didn’t cheat on your bf, you are just a crusader against the fascist right-wing conspiracy to suppress queer identity.

      We are all supposed to want to rock it like Brian Kinney forever, right? I suppose anti-breeder polyamorous sexual liberty gays are all just really self-loathing gays? Ummm,… better not start that debate.

      On topic, the election is Tuesday. Let’s see if Americans still have a revolution in us.

      Jan 17, 2010 at 7:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob chase
      Bob chase

      Good looking at any age!

      Jan 18, 2010 at 3:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick Garies
      Patrick Garies

      @Steve O: “Blah blah I am a horribly biased one-issue voter”

      I read this as “it’s too much effort to justify my own opinions or reply to anything you wrote, so I’ll just dismiss someone else’s opinion out of hand while accusing him of being attracted to the president”. Bravo.

      “blah blah blah Obama can’t hate gays even”

      Steve O, please learn to read. I did not say “Obama can’t hate gays”, just that he’s much better than the alternative. For all the people insinuating that I should have voted for McCain, none of them has provided any justification for doing so.

      There is certainly a difference to being actively pro-LGBT, passively pro-LGBT, anti-LGBT, or a mixed bag. Obama seems to be somewhere between passively pro- and anti- despite his rhetoric. That sucks, but it was better than the alternative (and not on just LGBT issues alone).

      @ossurworld: “Believe it or not, there are gay people who do not support gay marriage.”

      Can you name even three that has spoken out against it and who identifies publicly as gay? Or is this just based on implication or anonymous posts? I can understand people not wanting to prioritize this, but not reject it out right (unless you’re also a religious nut). (It still isn’t a reason to deny it, but I figured I’d investigate your claims.)

      @Marc: “Some gay people think its heterosexual normative or some such sht you read in an easy talky soc class in college.”

      Is there supposed to be some hidden message in this? You’re seemingly denouncing pro-same-sex gays in favor of those that are against it then you turn around and denounce those that are against it with your Brian Kinney comment.

      Jan 19, 2010 at 6:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Terry Washington State
      Terry Washington State

      @left coast rebel: I want to agree with you. But just how many family values, christian, God and country republicans have been outed from the closet? Sure there’s been a democrat or two, but they don’t run on such “I’m above all that” platforms.

      I personally think he’s a nice looking man. I just don’t like prejudice in any form. I do hope he does not win. But understand the message that’s being sent.

      Try Washington State taxes Mass. Wow, you have a deal and have some form of health care already.

      Jan 19, 2010 at 8:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Francisco
      Francisco

      Brown wins!

      hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

      Jan 19, 2010 at 9:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • nancy
      nancy

      He’s wonderful!! even today he is soooo handsome. Nice to have a Republican in Mass. better than the dried up old folks in the past!!! and coakly, she’s an old dried up bird.

      Jan 19, 2010 at 9:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • chadnnocal
      chadnnocal

      Like all other Republicans he appears to have no balls in his cosmo spread.

      Jan 19, 2010 at 10:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Carl
      Carl

      A lot of what Jason said about superficiality is what a lot of people don’t want to say, or hear.

      Jan 19, 2010 at 10:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lee
      Lee

      Have any of you actually gone to the website and actually read what the Health care bill says? Or, have you all been just listening to the BS that is spouted on every TV and radio channel available? I have actually read a large part of it and it contains some scary stuff! One thing in there is that the gov. would have the right to check out your bank accounts to see if you have enough money to pay for an operation or something before you receive the surgery. How about that?? How about the tax on anything like a pacemaker, hip joint, or wheelchair? True, the actual tax would be on the manufacturer, however, they have to pass it on to the customer in a higher price as well as us having to pay the sales tax on top of that. That’s just a few of the things I have read in the bill. If the manufacturer can’t sell enough because of higher prices, then guess what, they either go out of business or cut way back. More jobs lost because of big government!! It’s a vicious circle.

      Now, if all of you are willing to let Big Brother have that much control and more, than you better move to a country that does that already. We don’t want that here in the U.S. What we do want, is fair pricing, TORT controls (so the lawyers don’t end up with all of the money), and no pre-existing conditions clauses. That would be a fair start. AND guess what? It didn’t take several thousand pages to say it. It is in plain English and easily understood!! However, the gov. won’t go for Tort control because they are all lawyers. Imagine that!!

      Sure, there are other things that need to be addressed in a reasonable health care bill, but one of those things would not be exempting certain states or groups from the need to pay their fair share of it. They need to pay for everything just like you and me. Special money grants wouldn’t be in the health care bill for an airport for 1 person’s plane to land at either!! What the hell does that have to do with health care?

      Maybe if the House and Senate are a little more evenly divided, the politicians would not be able to spend so much money on special interest things that have nothing at all to do with helping you or me, nor does it have anything to do with creating jobs or building the economy. Then maybe we could start working on the debt they have gotten us into. We need to stand up to them and tell them to stop spending so much. We have a budget limit, they should have one, too.

      We all need to spend a little more time building up our friends and neighbors, working together to make the economy turn around, and stop bickering. Can’t you all see that that is just what the politicians want? They want us to fight among ourselves. That will prove to them that they were right all along in thinking that we can’t do for ourselves and need them to control us. Wake up!!! Everyone is playing right into their hands!! Just stop the name calling, name labeling, and bickering. Start working together.

      Jan 19, 2010 at 11:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick Garies
      Patrick Garies

      @Nancy: Well, that sounds like an informed vote. Vote for a candidate because he’s handsome. This is why America sucks.

      @Carl: Either Jason is out of it, was joking, or is a hater posing as gay. If you can take “I want to be ravished by [Republican Scott Brown's] pubes” seriously, then you’re out of it too.

      @Lee: Yes, the current health care bill is terrible and should go down in flames and that’s just based on the parts that the MSM has been covering. They’ve basically compromised everything to conservative Democrats because the Republicans have joined in lock-step opposition and won’t seriously negotiate. Considering how terrible the bill was, I doubt all 60 Democrats and independents would have been willing to vote the thing in though and it probably would have assured Obama a one-term presidency had he signed a passed bill resembling the current Senate bill.

      “However, the gov. won’t go for Tort control because they are all lawyers.”

      You might want to look up the New Yorker (online) article “McAllen, Texas and the High Cost of Health Care” which seems to indicate that lawyers are not the reason for the high cost of health care, but that the cost is going up in large part because hospitals are becoming increasingly businesslike (i.e., for profit).

      “Maybe if the House and Senate are a little more evenly divided, the politicians would not be able to spend so much money on special interest things that have nothing at all to do with helping you or me, nor does it have anything to do with creating jobs or building the economy.”

      It would help if you would explain because I don’t see how. As far as I can tell, the primary problem is that corporations and other for-profit organizations are allowed to bribe (I mean “finance”) the campaigns of candidates for their own ends. Given that both parties are pro-business (the conservatives of both parties much more so), I don’t see how anything was solved tonight.

      (By the way, special interests is a really useless term since it covers pretty much everyone with a special interest…)

      “Wake up!!! Everyone is playing right into their hands!! Just stop the name calling, name labeling, and bickering. Start working together.”

      Well, in order to do that, we have to (A) dramatically improve education; (B) eliminate hate-based religion (probably solved by (A)); (C) stop business entities from bribing politicians; (D) somehow deal with the “I’ve got my cake; screw everyone else” types. As soon as you have a viable solution, I’ll support you, but I’m not holding my breath.

      Jan 20, 2010 at 12:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lee
      Lee

      Patrick,
      I still see lawyers as a major problem with the high cost of health care. They are ambulance chasers. I know they have a right to look for work wherever they can. However, they have too many nuisance suits that they take on. They should band together and refuse to litigate stupid things like clumsy, greedy, stupid people spilling hot coffee in their laps. Judges are just as bad and sometimes worse. Ridiculous monetary rewards for these things drives up hospital and Dr. fees for their insurance for their own defense, most of the time having done nothing wrong. They also have to cover themselves by doing more tests than necessary to cover their backsides. They have to be on the defensive. This ends up in costing more. There are some bonafide lawsuits that need to be heard, but the most of them are just the stupid stuff of people that don’t want to take responsibility for their own actions. Most of the money won goes into the lawyers bank accounts and very little goes into the accounts of the people that hire them. It just ends up wasting time and money.

      As far as I’m concerned, there should be absolutely no bribes, or financing for votes, or anything that remotely gives one person or group an advantage over another. There is too much of that. Getting a vote should be based on merit. However, since the world runs the way of bribes, etc., we’d be eaten alive if we didn’t!

      As for hospitals being run business-like and for profit, I would prefer that. They then can keep the hospital in good condition, buy new diagnostics equipment when it comes along, hire enough people to keep it running, and in the long run, provide better care to the patients. There is nothing worse than seeing peeling paint in a hospital. You then wonder where else they’ve not kept up, or tried to save money. (cleanliness, or do they reuse needles, are you getting real medicine or placebos, for example!)

      Some people say that they want socialized medicine, based on that like Canada, England, etc. However, they have obviously not talked to the snow-birds that come down from Canada to the southern US. If they had, they would then know that the Canadians get their health care taken care of in the US before they go back to Canada each spring. Just go to some of the travel trailer parks and ask.

      I see the current problem with health care reform in the house and senate as being that neither party will work with the other. For example, the Republicans offered a written health care bill that was only a couple hundred pages long. Ms. Pelosi absolutely refused to let it come to the floor to be voted on because it did not have enough government controls in it, nor did it have all of the pork in it. Since the Republicans do not have enough members to push to allow it to come to the floor for a vote, it is in limbo. The Democrats have adopted a few very minor issues of the Republicans just so they can say that they are working with them. I would want to see both and take the best from each side and come up with something that truly is worthy to be a bill, not some trumped up junk!

      I’ve written to Ms. Pelosi and told her that she should be ashamed of herself for running things the way she is. She is in a position in which she is supposed to be bi-partisan and working for the people, on both sides of the isle. Instead, she has a major case of self-importance and pedestal worship! She is suppose to be working for you and me, not her own self interests. We pay her! However, I will not vote for her when it comes time. She is way too self-centered.

      I’m being facetious when talking about both sides being a little more even and therefore not being able to spend so much money. I was hoping they would cancel each other out, just go home, and do nothing for a year. We could then, perhaps get spending under control because then they would not be finding ways to spend more! They feel that the only way to prove that they are working is to find ways to spend money, not save money.

      I absolutely agree that we need to better educate our kids. The gov. has dumbed down the tests and things to teach to the point that we lag way behind other countries in education. For example, many countries start formal education at a younger age than we do. Most of the kids start learning multiple languages at age 5 and 6. Many kids can speak 4-5 different languages by that age!! We are way behind other countries in math and science. Heck! We can’t even get our kids to read! Discipline is practically nil because of lawsuits over some 6 year old kissing a girl on the cheek or because a teacher is afraid of getting sued over speaking to a child in a firm manner. If the kids don’t learn discipline, how are they going to be responsible adults? However, this comes back to the government gaining control over our lives. If we can’t do it for ourselves, they will become big brother and do it for us. Tenure should be taken away from teachers also. They need to be a good teacher to be able to keep their job. This needs to be proven by the test scores of their students. Teaching based on tenure is a great way to get lazy teachers. I’m not saying that all teachers are that way, just enough that it creates a problem.

      Not all religion is hate based. There are some hate based people in the world that spout religion as their reasoning.

      C and D are the way I feel also. Good Day to you all!

      Jan 20, 2010 at 9:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marc
      Marc

      @Patrick Garies:

      “@Marc: “Some gay people think its heterosexual normative or some such sht you read in an easy talky soc class in college.”

      Is there supposed to be some hidden message in this? You’re seemingly denouncing pro-same-sex gays in favor of those that are against it then you turn around and denounce those that are against it with your Brian Kinney comment.”

      Do you have any idea what are trying to say? Whatever you are trying to say, I am pro gay marriage.

      In fairness, I wasn’t trying to make any point about gay marriage. I was joking about some the verbiage people throw around to justify sleeping around.

      Jan 21, 2010 at 1:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick Garies
      Patrick Garies

      @Lee: “I still see lawyers as a major problem with the high cost of health care.”

      I have to wonder if you read the mentioned New Yorker article or are just taking MSM talking points since it addresses a number of the points you mentioned. It’s been maybe a month since I read it, but IIRC, the article said the excessive testing issue was related to doctors getting paid more for requesting them, not lawyers.

      “They should band together and refuse to litigate stupid things like clumsy, greedy, stupid people spilling hot coffee in their laps.”

      As for the McDonalds case (which I haven’t looked at in depth and looked at eons ago), while the initial reward was ridiculous as for value, I believe the ultimate reward was dramatically reduced in the end. Unfortunately, this ultimate outcome is not what is conveyed to the public.

      I’m a bit on the fence about mega rewards; on one hand, large rewards do not directly correspond the level of wrong done while, on the other, if you fine a mega corporation like McDonalds like that (a drop in the bucket), they’ll probably just write it off as the cost of doing business and not fix the underlying issue.

      Further, a coffee should not be hot enough to cause third-degree burns and the lady only initially asked for the cost of her doctor bill; the mega judgment only occurred after McDonalds refused that relatively small sum. I also believe that this was a jury trial, so the problem (if you disagree with the ruling) still goes to education of the populace which are supposed to be a check on the government (and lawyers).

      “However, since the world runs the way of bribes, etc., we’d be eaten alive if we didn’t!”

      Right. Two wrongs make a right. What happens is that if you do it too, you have destroyed your standing to oppose it and this perpetuates the existing system.

      “As for hospitals being run business-like and for profit, I would prefer that.”

      The problem (also addressed in that article) is that it’s for profit and profit equals greed. Unless it’s required for profit, greed does not entail better service. It actually entails worse service as doctors suggest unnecessary procedures (that they then get a commission from); again, people get more service but not better service.

      Further, capitalist ideals based on competition do not work here since few people shop around for a doctor or negotiate prices with their hospital. Demand (as in supply and demand) often doesn’t have a limited value since people often place infinite value on their own lives.

      “Ms. Pelosi absolutely refused to let it come to the floor to be voted on because it did not have enough government controls in it, nor did it have all of the pork in it.”

      I’m not very familiar with this, but if it’s the tax credit plan, that plan was irresponsible since it primarily helps the wealthy (who don’t need it) and means that the government is giving up tax revenue without cutting costs. That’s essentially the same as the pork you mentioned since it means a higher deficit (“same costs + less taxes = deficit” just as “more costs – no cost cutting = deficit”).

      I don’t know enough to say if it should have gotten to the floor or not though.

      “I absolutely agree that we need to better educate our kids.”

      I agree in principle. The problem is a combination of government (as you say) but also of parents and theocrats. Some parents *expect* a nanny school where they do not have to engage their own children and they throw fits when their students are failed. Theocratic parents, politicians, and school boards try to fight the secular curriculum and embrace discrimination so that the questions involve “evolution vs. creationism (secular vs. religious)” rather than “how do we improve education?”. We waste a substantial amount of resources on football even though it has nothing whatsoever to do with education.

      “Tenure should be taken away from teachers also.”

      I don’t know about tenure. If you mean higher pay, better teachers should be paid higher, not for loyalty (this applies to corporations too).

      “This needs to be proven by the test scores of their students.”

      Test scores don’t solve this problem since, if you dumb down the test enough or give grading curves (which *will* happen if people’s jobs are staked on it), everyone will pass. This only works if you make the tests a really high bar and then it only works for the content of the test and if the test isn’t too standard (otherwise, people get taught more on how to take the test, not the subject matter like with the SAT or Texas TAAS/TAKS tests).

      “Not all religion is hate based.”

      That’s why I said “hate-based religion” instead of “religion”. Unfortunately, hate-based religion dominates; the rest are minorities. Nicer religionists have a bad habit of standing by in silence as their peers teach/perpetuate hate in the name of religion instead of telling them that what they are doing is wrong.

      It’s not just hate-based religion either, but those that believe in a theocracy even with good intentions. You can’t have a good government when people believe that you should be following, by law, a Biblical principle just because it’s in their interpretation of the Bible (and without some practical rationale unrelated to religion).

      Jan 21, 2010 at 1:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick Garies
      Patrick Garies

      @Marc: Okay, well, the apparent sarcasm was lost in the text or something.

      Jan 21, 2010 at 1:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CJ
      CJ

      He agrees with Obama’s gay marriage stance, which is the institution of a civil union for same-sex couples. =\

      I’m not sure why there’s so much hatred name-calling here. Ever heard about throwing rocks when you live in a glass house? We need to just chill out.

      Jan 22, 2010 at 10:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick
      Patrick

      It never fails to amaze me what truly ignorant sheep gay people are. They constantly bleep the mantra of the Democrats, attack on an unfounded personal basis like Keith Olbermann, yet never take a truly objective look at this party of empty promises. Intersting that Scott Brown holds the very same opinion about gay marriage as the “annointed one” …Barack Hussein Obama in that gay people should be relagated to civil unions but NOT enjoy the benefits of a fully recognized marriage. As an independent, I am quite pleased that this man won as I have paid close attention to what he stands for and the opinions he holds particularly his fiscal conservatisism. Also interesting is that many gay men in Mass. voted for him because he has demonstrated high ethical standards and integrity and is opposed to the governmet’s control over our health care. Can you imagine for one second what the government would have done with gay men if they had access to our health records during the early stagesof the aids crisis? Before you jump allover me, think about it. What president signed the defense of marriage act? Was it the “despised” George Bush or what it the “beloved” Bill Clinton. If you said Bush you would have been wrong. Open up your eyes and start to realise that you are merely pawns to the Democrats and no better or different to the lock step minority vote that they depend and rely upon to get elected. When they do get elected, you never will see them fufill their promise to you. Perhaps it might be time for a change of view.

      Jan 23, 2010 at 2:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick
      Patrick

      BTW …Mary Ann …way to go!

      Jan 23, 2010 at 2:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      Hey, Patrick, if you straight Brown supporters are going to come in here trolling as gay, you might try NOT opening a long post with “It never fails to amaze me what truly ignorant sheep gay people are.”

      Has troll written all over it, and guaranteed no one will read it. LOL

      BTW: Brown is a flash in the pan. Things are going to get very rough with the economy, and MA will wind up being embarrassed as hell over that vote. Brown got lucky. He’s going nowhere.

      Jan 23, 2010 at 3:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick
      Patrick

      Well Romeo … it seems that YOU read it. I have some sad and disappointing news for you. I am 100 per cent homosexual, and very comfortable in my own skin. In fact, I was an 18 year old boy at Stonewall when the riots broke out shortly after Judy Garland’s death. Yep, I am that queer. Just to inform you, gay sites like this exist through the efforts of my generation to obtain equal rights so someone like you can cast dispersions at me.

      I believe it to be necessary to observe objectivly when one is looking at the larger picture. When a group, such as gay people,is struggling and consistently failing to acheive its goals, one must consider the possibility that the path taken is in error.

      Interesting how you avoided the topic’s issue and in turn tried to make ME the issue. So very typical and thread bare a tactic is becoming apparent even to the densest of readers. So if you think I am “trolling”, for what I cannot imagine, have another ponder.

      On the other hand, by your accusations, it is quite clear that you are full of animosity, frustration and anger. Just take a look at the earlier posts of those who share what I can only surmise to be a like opinion to yourself regarding Scott Brown. Note that they stated that he in no way would win. Now, he did win in fact win and by a nice, comfortable and concede-able margin. So I have facts on my side whereas you have nothing but vitriol and assumably, hatred towards someone with whom you disagree. Time to grow up a bit son. My original line still applies and you have proven it to be true. The world is an even harder place to live when your head is up your butt. Your deepest and most honest apology is accepted.

      Jan 23, 2010 at 5:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve O
      Steve O

      Hey, Scott Brown won. Must be because Massachusetts hates gays!!

      Rabllerabllerabllerabble.

      Jan 23, 2010 at 11:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick Garies
      Patrick Garies

      @#64-Patrick: “Intersting that Scott Brown holds the very same opinion about gay marriage as the “annointed one””

      I believe I made the point above that the Brown v. Coakley and the Obama v. McCain races were not identical. Brown’s and Obama’s official views on same-sex marriage are similar, yes, but the races themselves were not the same.

      Really, I don’t understand why people like you fail to understand that the role of president and the role of senator are different and that the views of Obama & Coakley and McCain & Brown are different. Further, you go out of your way to cite Obama for his stance on same-sex marriage, yet HE WAS NOT RUNNING AGAINST BROWN. That was Martha Coakley who, we can presume, supports same-sex marriage.

      If I wanted another Obama, I would have been a proponent of Brown. I don’t.

      “As an independent, I am quite pleased that this man won as I have paid close attention to what he stands for and the opinions he holds particularly his fiscal conservatisism.”

      ROFL. Tax cuts when we’re trillions in debt are not fiscal conservatism. Pro-war machine stances are not fiscal conservatism. Bank bailouts are not fiscal conservatism. Corporate protectionism is not fiscal conservatism. I know that Brown supports at least the first one.

      Can you name even ONE fiscally conservative Republican policy from within the last 20 years? More importantly, can you name any actual fiscally conservative policy that Mr. Brown supports?

      “Democrats and no better or different to the lock step minority vote that they depend and rely upon to get elected.”

      So you’re saying that Latino, black, Asian, et al minorities supporting Democrats more often than not is organized obstructionism? I don’t buy it.

      “Perhaps it might be time for a change of view.”

      We’ve had that economic and anti-gay view for as long as I can remember. What is actually new here?

      @#67-Patrick: “When a group, such as gay people,is struggling and consistently failing to acheive its goals, one must consider the possibility that the path taken is in error.”

      So how has electing Brown helped us to achieve our goals?

      “Interesting how you avoided the topic’s issue and in turn tried to make ME the issue.”

      … followed by…

      “it is quite clear that you are full of animosity, frustration and anger [...] you have nothing but vitriol and assumably, hatred towards someone with whom you disagree. Time to grow up a bit son. [...] The world is an even harder place to live when your head is up your butt.”

      You deride the poster for criticizing you personally and making assumptions about you then do the same. Classic.

      “Just take a look at the earlier posts [...] Note that they stated that he in no way would win.”

      Which people said this in such unequivocal terms? I only see #11 with everyone else stating a desire for an outcome and that was four months ago back in September 2009 when Coakley was widely expected to win.

      Jan 25, 2010 at 3:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.