Even though the hunt is over and she’s straight. But that does not satisfy Peter! Look, see:
We should note that (Solicitor General) Elena Kagan’ reported zealousness for the homosexual activist cause does not depend onher being a lesbian. In fact, these days some of the most vocal pro-homosexual activists are “straight” (e.g., actress Judith Light)
The mom from Who’s The Boss really gets under Peter’s skin, what with the way she went to work while the swarthy Italian houseboy stayed home and wore aprons and stuff.
Ideological bias is the most important factor in evaluating Kagan’ suitability for the nation’ highest court, but clearly a newly seated, suddenly “out of the closet” Justice Kagan
or even a Justice Kagan whose lesbianism is slowly revealed over a period of years
It all started with a wink in Sotomayor’s direction during oral arguments. Three years later, a casual brushing-up-against in chambers. And then one day, a decade later, the first kiss. All under the watchful eye of Porno Pete’s second camera, the first, of course, being used as always, to shoot covert footage of buttholes at leathersex events.
For that matter, an officially “closeted” Justice Kagan whose homosexuality nevertheless becomes an open secret on the Supreme Court (wink, wink)
Scalia will never tell.
Anyway, that’s the Peter part, which is of course followed by a Matt Barber part.
Shall I make fun of it?
Well, okay, twist my arm.
I don’t see how liberal media-types can write, what with those uncalloused, milky-soft little digits all bundled in bulky kid gloves and all.
Bam Bam knows best that for journalists, it’s best to have thick, rough man fingers, you know, for probing purposes. Helps make Right Hooks, you see. Bam Bam is also entirely unconcerned with chafing, so ladies and gentlemen, protect yourselves.
Oh, when the target of their “reporting” is a conservative politico, or even Tea Party Joe, off come the gloves.
With their milky-soft little digits.
But when it’ one of their own—-when circumstances require that a fellow liberal undergo a modicum of journalistic scrutiny—-its simpatico most sublime. Out with the inquiry; in with the Huggies and tushie powder.
Why won’t the liberal media ever diaper and powder conservative ass? I mean, David Vitter gets his, but not from the media. I sense a double-standard!
Media, here’ your question: “Solicitor Kagan, do you identify as a lesbian?” Ms. Kagan, your answer is simpler still: “Yes” or “no.”
I think, confronted with the meaty calloused fingers of Bam Bam Barber, anyone would reply “yes.” I’m certainly a lesbian now.
Pipe down, lefties. Yes, it is relevant.
Oh noes, he told us to pipe down. Thus begins a column in which Matt Barber already understands that he’s writing total crap, and seeks to “argue back” against the liberals in his head.
Most liberals would disagree, but despite “progressive” protestations to the contrary, character does, in fact, matter.
Yes, but sexuality has nothing to do with character, according to science and reality, which trumps the meaty, calloused ramblings of a failed insurance agent who’s let his wrestling body go.
A majority of Americans still consider sexual morality—-or a lack thereof—-a pertinent factor in contemplating one’ fitness for any public service—-chiefly, perhaps, a lifetime appointment to our most supreme earthly court.
In space court, anything’s a go.
Every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology have established that homosexual conduct is among other volitional behaviors rightly filed under “sexual immorality.”
Every major group of people who claim imaginary sky friends, thousands of years of history (just like slavery!), and…wait, biology? But homosexuality is found throughout nature, and the latest studies are finding that it very well may play an important evolutionary role. Try again, Allstate reject.
If we had a judicial nominee — widely believed a compulsive gambler—-tapped to preside over gambling cases, would it not matter?
Interesting, but no. Gambling can be an addiction. Sexuality is simply sexuality. Again, science!
If we had a nominee credibly rumored to use medical marijuana who might someday rule on the legality of medical marijuana, wouldn’t such information be germane?
Heaven forfend one of those damned cancer patients start thinking about quote-unquote THEIR rights.
And before you liberals throw out that favorite red herring: “By this logic, Clarence Thomas shouldn’t rule on cases involving race or sexuality because he’ a black heterosexual male”—-remember: skin color is a neutral, immutable characteristic. Being black is what someone is.
So is being gay, and none of your meaty calloused whining to the contrary will ever change that, due to This Is Reality. Love it or leave it.
On the other hand, being “gay” is what someone does. It involves feelings and changeable behaviors. Homosexual conduct is more akin to the aforementioned gambling or pot smoking behaviors than it is to skin color
Only in the echo chamber into which Bam Bam is writing, which grows smaller every single day, due to the fact that homophobes tend to be old and close to death, on average.
(and for those in the lifestyle, especially men, sodomy most definitely involves rolling the dice).
I’ve never played that game. How does the scoring work?
“black” or “heterosexual” to “gay” is to compare apples to oranges. Understandably, many African Americans find this disingenuous comparison tremendously offensive.
But yet the actual Civil Rights leaders who are still with us tend to understand the comparison. Coretta King, before her death, famously made the connection. Bam Bam, though, only really likes black people who are as bigoted as he is.
Moreover, “heterosexual” is the state of sexual normalcy.
It’s the majority, yes. Just as the majority of people in the United States are white (for now). And just as the majority of insurance agents don’t get fired for writing homophobic wanking screeds on the internet using their company’s name.
It’ our God-given design.
There remains no credible or replicated scientific evidence to the contrary.
Wrong. Use the Google. It is your friend. In fact, every study that’s come out recently is starting to paint a picture of homosexuality as being a completely normal variant in both humans and other mammals.
Even Darwin’ theory of evolution, which imagines “survival of the fittest,” would seem to bolster this self-evident truth.
Might seem that way, if you’re a scientifically illiterate idiot working at a school whose “science” department teaches intelligunt desine.
Still, Kagan’ “sexual orientation” remains the pink elephant in the room:
Wait, she’s a gay man? Because if I were a meaty-fingered bigot writing an anti-gay article on the internet, I would have called it the “flannel elephant in the room.” I mean, lord. But this is just another case of “yep, liberals are still the only ones who have a sense of humor, as a general rule.”
Can a sitting justice, potentially engaged in the homosexual lifestyle
But only if that hot clerk returns her texts. Until then, it’s “potential.”
be trusted to rule on cases that might well grant special preferred government status to some—-including that very justice–
That would be turrble, really, if we were finally going to sue the government for the Gay Lane on the interstate I’ve been arguing for, but as the only cases to come before the court will be those involving equal rights, I think we’re okay.
while, at the same time, eliminating certain free-speech and religious-liberties rights enjoyed by others? (i.e., hate-crimes laws; the Employment Non-Discrimination Act; constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act; constitutionality of “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell,” etc.)
How casually he lies.
Newsflash, fundamentalists: You’re not special. There is nothing about you that deserves the preferred status you currently enjoy due to your completely chosen religious lifestyle of willful ignorance, a stubborn rejection of education, and a head-in-the-clouds approach to reality.
In April, CBS News published an online column identifying Kagan—-should she be confirmed—-as the “first openly gay justice.” The White House pounced, demanded CBS remove the article and called the assertion “false charges.” CBS dutifully complied, tail twixt legs
They were protecting themselves from the meaty calloused fingers, you see.
But yeah, they took it down, especially because it was written by Ben Domenech, a known plagiarist.
Whereas every liberal hack on the planet tripped over one another to demand Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard and, most recently, George Rekers divulge the most intimate details of their own bizarre (allegedly) sexual appetites, with Kagan, they’ve suddenly lost interest.
Because she’s not a hypocrite like the men Bam Bam mentioned. God, I feel like I’m teaching kindergarten sometimes when I respond to these people. “But why DON’T I put the glue in my nose?!” Because you just don’t.
The White House has Kagan wrapped-up tighter than Barney Frank in a bustier.
The homophobe’s tell, and the utter negation of all Christian fundamentalist simpering and bitching about how they love gay people, is that he can’t make it through a column without making juvenile gay jokes.
The answer, for instance, might explain why Kagan drop-kicked our brave men and women of the armed services in the solar plexus, during a time of war, by banning military recruiters from Harvard while dean of the law school.
I know this a family blog and whatnot, but the only proper response to that is “Bullshit, you liar.” And it’s obnoxious because he knows he’s lying. You know what God hates in the Ten Commandments? Liars. Know what didn’t make the cut? Gays.
The next two paragraphs are quotes from Newt Gingrich and Ed Whelan, both of whom are also lying, and also insane. This information is easily available, as well, on the aforementioned Google. You just have to make sure you’re reading the majority of people who are not liars, and steer clear of homophobic wingnuts who wouldn’t know the truth if it invaded their nether regions with meaty calloused fingers.
So, Ms. Solicitor General, if in fact you are “totally not gay,” as some of your friends and your president claim, then it’ my hope that a few Republican U.S. senators might take the time to introduce you to a nice fellow by the name of Phil A. Buster.
Um, wait, you want to filibuster her for being straight? Is it me, or does this seem to have more to do with opposing anything Obama does, by any means possible, like a Teabagger with Tourette’s, rather than any principled sort of opposition based on facts and legitimate concerns based on human thought processes?