moonbattery.gif


« Open Thread | Main | That 3 AM Call »


March 24, 2009

Barney Fwank Denounces Supreme Court Justice as "That Homophobe"

Remember that to liberals, "homophobe" is the worst possible insult after "racist." Here is degenerate Democrat Congresscreep Barney Frank — from whose home a homosexual prostitution ring was operated — denouncing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as "that homophobe":

A people that allows itself to be ruled by wretches like Frank deserves the worst, and that's exactly what we're getting.

On a tip from the Knights of the Dumb Table.

Posted by Van Helsing at March 24, 2009 8:38 PM

Comments

If you're a liberal gay, and are lacking an argument against someones views/stance, default to: Homophobe.

Its easy and it always works! Its amazing Billy Mays doesn't endorse Ad Hominem Homophobia!

Posted by: Cheesecake at March 24, 2009 8:46 PM

Barney Fag.

Posted by: David Waldman at March 24, 2009 10:57 PM

"Sitting on a park bench,
Eying little boys with bad intent.

Snot running down his nose,
Greasy fingers, smearing shabby clothes.

Hey, Aqualung"

Posted by: forest at March 25, 2009 4:18 AM

Did anyone see the friendly repartee between Fwank & Obama in the doorway just before Obama walked to the teleprompter for the news conference?
Lots of giggling and arm touching.
One is a grade'A' pri*k and the other one is a co*ksuc*ing but*fu*ker!
They're running the country.

Posted by: Shooter1001 at March 25, 2009 6:00 AM

Democratic tactic #3 - Distraction. Another attempt to distract all the attention he has recieved from the media after getting his hands cought in the cookie jar AGAIN.


Dodd & Frank

Posted by: TED at March 25, 2009 6:23 AM

Someone needs to punch that heterophobe Frank in the face. What a classless buffoon. How is fatass gets re-elected every time is beyond me. I couldn't stand to look at him or listen to his marble mouth at all, much less vote for him. Surely there are better candidates to unseat this clown.

Posted by: nitrain at March 25, 2009 7:01 AM

Actually, Scalia has demonstrated homophobic tendencies. In Lawrence v Texas, which would have made gay sex illegal, Scalia suggested that "being gay was contagious" Also in 1996, he compared homosexuality to "murder and polygamy". Furthermore, Scalia has repeatedly blasted the majority for signing onto what the right has called the homosexual agenda, which promotes the rights of LBGT communities.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 25, 2009 7:35 AM

Distraction 101 - Obamonopoly

Posted by: TED at March 25, 2009 7:53 AM

What you tolerate, you deserve.

Posted by: Henry at March 25, 2009 8:03 AM

Actually, Scalia has demonstrated homophobic tendencies. In Lawrence v Texas, which would have made gay sex illegal, Scalia suggested that "being gay was contagious" Also in 1996, he compared homosexuality to "murder and polygamy". Furthermore, Scalia has repeatedly blasted the majority for signing onto what the right has called the homosexual agenda, which promotes the rights of LBGT communities.

Shocking! He should support all perversions! Whatever was he thinking?

Actually, thanks for pointing this out. I'm now officially a Scalia fan. Scalia for President!

Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 25, 2009 9:54 AM

Perversion? Give me a break. Gays and Lesbians are born the way they are, and do not choose to live a life where "homophobes" like yourself would ridicule them. Jay, thank you for showing your inept grasp of societal and community issues.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 25, 2009 10:10 AM

Listening to old BARNSMELL FREAK will lead to a fatal amount of boredom

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at March 25, 2009 11:44 AM

Is there scientific evidence that 100% confirms that homosexuality is inborn as a sexual trait that cannot be refuted as a disorder? I'd like to see it, honestly.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 25, 2009 1:05 PM

Is there scientific evidence that 100% confirms that homosexuality is inborn as a sexual trait that cannot be refuted as a disorder? I'd like to see it, honestly.

Let's even assume it's true for the moment and go a step further. What happens when a pregnancy screening is developed to help soon-to-be parents decide if they want to bring a homosexual into the world or have an abortion?

(That sound you hear is moonbat skulls exploding.)

Posted by: cowlove at March 25, 2009 1:13 PM

By golly, cowlove, that IS an interesting question.
But to return to Scalia.
Scalia is the hope of the US in this; he advocates the plain meaning of statute - what it says, not what you think it means based on your understanding or misunderstanding of history.
Consequently when a lot of legislation comes up from Obama it will be scrutinised, not praised. Likely the Supreme Court will not roll over like spaniel dogs to be tickled.
Get the picture? It's not about homosexuals. It's about ALL pending legislation. Typical technique. Pour fire on the judge.

Posted by: James McCrudden at March 25, 2009 2:23 PM

cowlove said -
"What happens when a pregnancy screening is developed to help soon-to-be parents decide if they want to bring a homosexual into the world or have an abortion?"

So cowlove, would that be "homocide"? heh

Posted by: CharlieDontSurf at March 25, 2009 4:17 PM

So cowlove, would that be "homocide"? heh

My personal belief is that abortion is morally wrong. That has nothing to do with my question though. I was simply carrying out two beliefs that leftists hold and carrying them to their logical conclusion in the form of a question. I can only assume you're part of the audience I was posing it to, since your answer was to turn it around in reference to my beliefs with presumed ridicule ("heh").

At any rate, maybe a brave lefty troll can muster up an answer to my question.

Posted by: cowlove at March 25, 2009 4:31 PM

"At any rate, maybe a brave lefty troll can muster up an answer to my question." -cowlove.

I would not recommend hanging by the thumbs waiting for an answer.

Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2009 5:14 PM

Perversion? Give me a break. Gays and Lesbians are born the way they are, and do not choose to live a life where "homophobes" like yourself would ridicule them. Jay, thank you for showing your inept grasp of societal and community issues.

So what exactly is a perversion, then? Or do you deny that perversions exist? And how does choice come into it? Did Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, or Ed Gein choose to live as they did?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 25, 2009 7:25 PM

cowlove, such testing would probably be banned, because it would lead to what the left would deem a "hate crime." they practice selective morality you know.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 25, 2009 8:40 PM

they practice selective morality you know.

I know, that's why I relish the opportunity to throw it in their faces and demand an answer.

Would they really be so bold as to call it a hate crime? Doubtful, because that would imply abortion can be wrong. They'd probably argue from the point of view that only a bigot would abort for that reason, but that fails for two reasons:

1.) It still implies curtailing their view of women's rights based on their personal beliefs (a big no-no in lefty-land), and

2.) It shines a bright light on all those abortions performed for similar reasons, such as Down's Syndrome and a host of other genetic mutations.

But yeah, like Jim said, I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for an answer. It's always easier for leftists to ignore true debate and wait for a chance to spew hate and ridicule instead.

Posted by: cowlove at March 26, 2009 5:29 AM