moonbattery.gif


« Countermoonbat Yard Sign | Main | Historic Flag Now Considered "Extremist" by Authorities »


May 12, 2009

Chicago Sun-Times Denounces Its Readers

Recently the elitist moonbats at the Chicago Sun-Times attempted to push the homosexual agenda, which the establishment media has made its own, by publishing a picture of lesbians smooching on the front page. This will inevitably lead to men smooching, soon to be followed by other acts best left to liberal imaginations. Appropriately, readers reacted with anger. The Sun-Times responds:

A photo of two women kissing, which ran on the front page of Tuesday's Sun-Times, offended many readers, perhaps including you. We received plenty of calls and e-mails.
The photo, no doubt, also pleased more than a few readers, although admittedly we didn't hear from many of them. …
Our own view is that this photo belonged on Page One — it was played just right — reflecting the big news of the day: Gay marriage was now legal next door in good ol' heartland Iowa.
When the Iowa Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by a Republican judge, has legalized gay marriage, it's difficult to see how a photo of two lesbians kissing after getting hitched is inappropriate, even in a family newspaper. …
We're not troubled by the photo, but by the idea that people in Iowa are more open-minded and tolerant than we are in Illinois.

In other words, we and militant left-wing judges are going to ram depravity down your throat, and if you don't like it, we'll sneer at and insult you. The paper even crows triumphantly that readers' children have already been corrupted, so it doesn't matter what they see.

Yet these condescending, bullying degenerates wonder why no one buys their fishwraps anymore.

On a tip from MP.

Posted by Van Helsing at May 12, 2009 10:22 AM

Comments

wow - the Sun times - with it's half sized newspaper - must think that Gay Boys in Bondage have the adverting dollars to keep them from going bankrupt.
I bet they get more than one subscription cancellation over this.
I can hear them crying - but since we lost more readership, we need taxpayer subsidies to survive!
Won't our Dear Leader help us???

& did you see the news flash that Miss CA can keep her crown because Trump thinks her position on gay Marrakesh is the same position that Obama has?
read all about it

Posted by: blue at May 12, 2009 10:40 AM

damn spell checker
for Marrakesh read marriage

Posted by: blue at May 12, 2009 10:41 AM

Typical Libtard fish wrap. We represent the thinking of about 10% of the population, but "we're in charge now", so y'all WILL conform to our way of thinking and, if you don't, we'll label you as homophobic, racists, or some equally guttural moniker and go about our task of bringing the United States to its proverbial knees. We've got George Soros and his big bucks on our side and now we've got a president who believes just as we do (and don't even suggest that Obama is against same-sex marriage. He votes "present" on that one, but would never veto legislation enacting same at the national level!). Add that to the fact we control everything in D.C. and, well, you get the picture....

Posted by: Dell at May 12, 2009 10:47 AM

Next up at bat. Human-Animal marriages. If an ape knows sign language and wants to marry and have sex with a human - then that should be ok too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-animal_marriage

Posted by: World Peas at May 12, 2009 10:54 AM

Gay Marrakesh, LOL, I like it better. Sounds like one of those "pride" parades.

Posted by: Karin at May 12, 2009 11:05 AM

The more emotional liberals get, the more correct they believe they are.
The gay agenda really gins up a liberal's emotions bc they can attach homosexuality to civil rights. Liberals are comfortable in their understanding that the majority was once against civil rights for blacks just like the majority is now against rights for gays.
Liberals miss the obvious fact that there is absolutely no comparison between the two groups.

What the liberal doesn't miss however, is that pictures of lipstick lesbians in a mainstream newspaper (or whatever it is) will open up the door for all manner of public depravity and disgusting human behavior.

With which the liberal is similarly comfortable.

Posted by: Fiberal at May 12, 2009 11:17 AM

It was not Iowans being "more open minded and tolerant" it was judicial activism at its best. There was not vote of the PEOPLE, as the left would love to tout.

Posted by: Intolerant at May 12, 2009 11:27 AM

Nothings cahnged in CHICAGO its still the WINDY CITY run by a whole bunch of liberal demacratic windbags like RICHARD DAILEY and its liberal paper the CHICAGO SHUNNED SLIMED

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at May 12, 2009 11:44 AM

Someone at the Sun-Times should check the demographic of the readers of the Chicago Sun-Times. I am willing to bet that most of them are “over 40” which is why newspapers are dying in this country. The people who “overwhelmingly” (read here 57% but mostly because they have not actually thought about the implications of it) also “overwhelmingly” don’t subscribe to newspapers like the Sun-Times. These people make my skin crawl because of their preachy smugness.

Posted by: Michael K at May 12, 2009 12:57 PM

So...uh...Sun-Times, how's that bankruptcy working out?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 12, 2009 12:57 PM

So would you have a government agency formed to monitor which pictures the newspaper should be able to publish? Or wait, you want to make gays an illegal population? Because they obviously chose to be that way, just as you and I chose to be straight. OK, OK this is starting to make some real sense now.

And I mean, why wouldn't some choose to be gay? Its so much better! We all know that every day is just one big pride parade for the homos.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 12, 2009 1:36 PM

Imagine the horror that a flyover state may be more tolerantly progressive than those in Obamaland towards the body orifices-challenged. Meanwhile in less important news the US Treasury is being robbed, the keystone cops are running the country and the Taliban could get control of Paki nukes.

Posted by: IOpian at May 12, 2009 1:46 PM

Well, I can tell you that I won't be canceling my subscription - given that I haven't bought a copy of the Sun-Times since sometime in the 1980's, I can honestly say I've seen nothing in it that offends me...

Posted by: Rob Banks at May 12, 2009 1:52 PM

Yes, there are much more important stories out there. You're 100% right!

Posted by: Anonymous at May 12, 2009 1:53 PM

If it offends you, cancel your subscription. whose ramming anything down your throat? judging by the number of homoerotic pictures posted on this site, it would seem that you actually enjoy this 'depravity' you speak of.

homosexuality exists. deal with it you sissy.

Posted by: Brandon at May 12, 2009 3:26 PM

"We're not troubled by the photo, but by the idea that people in Iowa are more open-minded and tolerant than we are in Illinois."

Wow, alienating your readers with obnoxious condescending sneering, good idea Mr Professional Journalist. Here's a thought: if you have to be so insufferably smug about how much smarter you are than all the regular schmoes you condescend to, try not being truly, catastrophically incompetent at your job first.

Posted by: Smorfia48 at May 12, 2009 3:35 PM

My guess is that there were only two or three letters objecting or supporting the picture, but they decided to make an issue of it in order to be "relevant" and "edgy". It wouldn't be the first time.

There was a time when two women could hold hands and kiss in public but people would'nt think twice about it because:

A} They're good friends
B} They're related
C} They're THAT WAY? Nah, they wouldn't be so obvious about it if they were

Women don't publicly show affection for each other today because of the "sexual revolution" and because the "womens' liberation movement" became all about SOCIALIST POLITICs.

Thanks, Liberals. Because you joined forces with the fools who wanted to "shock the squares", what was once private and personal has become a public spectical with your "cheerleaders" screaming "LOOK! LOOK AT THAT! THIS IS ART! THIS IS WHAT FREEDOM IS ALL ABOUT! THIS IS WHAT WE THINK OF BUSH!"

Thanks a lot, you jerks.

Posted by: KHarn at May 12, 2009 4:23 PM

Didn't the whole cultural revolution come about for a reason? Didn't something lead up to it?

Or did it just come out of nothing?

Posted by: Brandon at May 12, 2009 5:18 PM

The cultural revolution came about because a bunch of spoiled children had no appreciation for Western civilization and culture. So they did their level best to tear it down. Then they all got law degrees and became politicians. We call them "Clintons." They taught the next generation of revolutionaries. We call them "Obamunists."

Posted by: PabloD at May 12, 2009 8:36 PM

people in Iowa are more open-minded and tolerant than we are in Illinois.

Uh moron a panel of judges is not the people, the people of Iowa voted against gay marriage and the panel of judges over ruled them some democracy huh.

Posted by: Oldcrow at May 12, 2009 8:42 PM

KHarn sez:

"My guess is that there were only two or three letters objecting or supporting the picture, but they decided to make an issue of it in order to be "relevant" and "edgy"."

My God, I think you're right! Two women kissing isn't that shocking. We see it socially all the time. And wouldn't that be the most pathetic, creepy thing for the Sun-Times to do, to make up a controversy out of whole cloth? How do they sleep at night or look in a mirror? This sounds like something a mentally ill teenage girl would do.

Posted by: Karin at May 13, 2009 6:44 AM

Yeah, newspapers have their back against the wall. Its incredibly surprising that they would, oh I dunno, try to sell more papers by covering a controversial topic. That IS the capitalist way, yes?

I'm uncertain what you're proposing here. Passing a law forbidding newspapers to cover certain stories? Forbid them from taking certain photos?

Oh that's right, you're proposing nothing at all, you're just bitching. OK, sorry to interrupt. Please continue, ad nauseum, no solutions.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 13, 2009 7:28 AM

Anon, under KHarn's theory, and which I'm open to, the controversial story was made to be that way, yes, to sell more papers. This is pathetic, and unworthy of a newspaper which wants to consider itself serious. I'm not bitching, and I have a solution: I will not purchase this paper or visit its online site.

Posted by: Karin at May 13, 2009 8:20 AM

SInce its likely you don't live in the Chicago area, that's not an issue. And the story wasn't fabricated, and it is historic, even if you personally may not find it important.

So basically, if there's a story you don't like, you'd rather turn your head and pretend that it isn't there. Wonderful solution.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 13, 2009 8:29 AM

"Anonymous at May 13, 2009 8:29 AM"

I knew a former communist agitator who worked in the sixtys; he told me that they all had orders to COMPLAIN about anything and everything but NEVER offer solutions to problems.

The Liberal movement is the communist sucessor since they took up the anti-American heritage banner. You Liberals have never offered any solution to the world's problems, unless it hurt the US, or promoted socialism in some way.

Posted by: KHarn at May 13, 2009 3:11 PM

And if the Sun-Times circulation goes down any more, you can expect to see "goat.se" on the front page soon. And you'd better not be closed-minded and intolerant about it. Especially if the Iowans aren't.

He was born that way. It's what he chose.

Posted by: anonymous at May 14, 2009 8:26 PM

Cancelled my scrip to Chicago Trib & Sun Times on the same day back in April 2007. They both keep calling me to take the paper, I tell them I'm a bitter clinger and don't want that trash in my house.

Posted by: Carol at May 15, 2009 5:53 AM

If it offends you, cancel your subscription.... judging by the number of homoerotic pictures posted on this site, it would seem that you actually enjoy this 'depravity' you speak of.

homosexuality exists. deal with it you sissy.

Posted by: Brandon at May 12, 2009 3:26 PM
________________________

Brandon: In that you've gone to the "you are closeted self-loathing homos" card, the 99% likely response when gay activists are offended, I'm going to assume you are a gay "rights" activist. You've also displayed the other "tell" - missing the point of the discussion because someone said the word "gay" in it.

To an activist, any discussion involving homosexuality is a teachable soapbox moment in which you can allegedly shame all the homophobes. Not working here.

The point of the discussion was, if the paper wants to run gay PDA photos on page 1, many people will cancel their subscriptions.

Screeching "cancel your subscription, deal with it !!!!!!" doesn't really address the issue the rest of us adults were discussing - should we feel sorry for fishwraps that go BK after they deliberately antagonize and patronize their readership with teachable soapbox moments showing them how they are ignorant bigoted hayseeds.

I feel sorry for you. You are obviously so uncomfortable with your own sexual preferencees that you feel you must force the rest of us to not only tolerate you, but to actively endorse, promote, and legitimize your choice on page 1 of the paper.

Posted by: societyis2blame at May 15, 2009 6:47 AM

Excellent response to the troll societyis2blame. When are the "gay marriage" activists going to realize that the reason why so many are in opposition is their incessant demand that it is called marriage. Unfortunately they also erode their credibility with the bigot-type counter arguments.

"We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage." - Elton John.

To Brandon:
Marriage exists, deal with it. You want the tax breaks? No problem. But unless you plan to marry a woman it's not a marriage, no matter how badly you want it to be. It's not to say it can't be as sacred, but it simply isn't marriage.

Posted by: Wow at May 15, 2009 11:35 AM

A question I've always had for the Prop. 8'ers out there is if such a thing is to succeed, what makes it different than legalizing polygamy? It is a serious question, and many I've asked have not considered the fact and are abhorred by the idea of legal polygamy. I don't see how it's any less of a right for them than it is for the homosexual. I think someone posted here as well that if a primate is deemed capable of consent how is it any different? Once you open Pandora's box...

You sissy. (lol at Brandon's ad hominem attack)

Posted by: Also at May 15, 2009 11:40 AM