--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 7/30/06 3:53:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Well, I can't speak for her appearance on Donny Duetsch, but on > > Hardball it was quite obvious she was poking fun at liberal thought > > processes by holding a liberal icon up to that light of inquiry. > > "Holding a liberal icon up to the light of inquiry"?? > > Really? > > "The light of inquiry" is what she was holding > Clinton up to? > > And since when do liberals hold people "up to > the light of inquiry" by publicly speculating that > they're gay? > > It's conservatives who tend to think being gay is > somehow scandalous and terrible. > > Liberals tend not to think it's worth bothering > to speculate about. (Except in the case of > conservatives who moralize over what an awful > threat to society homosexuality is and then turn > out to be secretly gay themselves. Then it's > their ugly hypocrisy that is really the topic > > I think you miss the point she subtly made. Either defend the > concept that rampant promiscuous sexual encounters are a sign of > latent homosexuality or defend Clinton for having them.
Huh?? Why should I do either? > I don't think Ann really thinks Clinton is > gay. No, I don't either. > I don't think many people do.< I've heard a number of times > liberals speculating that Condi is "really" gay and a few > others as well. Not *responsible* liberals. Remember the > fellow that was accused of being a ringer in the White House press > corp for the Administration? He was accused of being gay for no > other reason than to try to embarrass the administration. He not only *is* gay, he was a gay prostitute, had a semi-pornographic Web site advertising his services (complete with nude photos and, er, measurements, as well as information about his circumcision status). He had no serious journalistic credentials, and he was a right-winger who made a big deal of his Christian principles. Again, it was the hypocrisy involved. > Remember Kerry's comments about Mary Cheney in > the debates? Do you think Kerry was really concerned for Mary > Cheney or was hoping he might embarrass the Cheney's on national > TV for having a lesbian daughter. He intended to embarrass Cheney for the Bush administration's stance on gay marriage, actually. His concern was for gay rights in general. Mary Cheney was long since out, at that point, by the way. Kerry wasn't blabbing any secrets. See, the slur that Kerry wanted to embarrass Cheney because he has a lesbian daughter comes from the perspective that having a lesbian child is something to be embarrassed about. As far as Kerry and most liberals are concerned, it isn't. To the contrary, having a gay child who is publicly out and an activist, as Mary Cheney is, is something to be proud of. > It happens more by liberals than you think and not > strictly to point out hypocrisy. Well, that certainly wasn't what happened in this case; and I can't recall seeing it from any responsible liberal for any other reason than to point out hypocrisy. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
