« Michael Jackson's Past Comes Back To Haunt Him | Main | Teen Arrested In Minnesota Shooting Plot »

Liberals repeal 13th Amendment

The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows:

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

That amendment no longer applies to gays. As noted here, gays are now the property of the left. They own your prissy little asses. So if you don't toe the party line and get too uppity with your massas, they will do all they can to destroy you.

So, let's sum things up: the attitude of conservatives towards gays is "do whatever the hell you want, just keep it in private. And no, you aren't getting married, so forget about that." The liberals say "we're all for you, we'll give you whatever you want, just so long as you do exactly as we say. Otherwise, we'll fry your faggot asses -- and not in a way you'll like."

This is a logical expansion of their ownership of blacks -- look how Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are treated. And the day they find a black lesbian who happens to be a Republican...

J.

[Kevin adds] It should come as no surprise that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's first interview with an online media outlet was given to the site [The Raw Story] that employs the blogger who put GayPatriot out of business - Mike Rogers [rawstoryq]. If (as the old axiom goes) you are known by the company you keep then Reid has decamped to the headquarters of the politics of personal destruction...

Update: It appears that pet troll "Clive Tolson" has decided to hijack this thread into yet another Schiavo discussion. Tolson, there are plenty of other threads on this page for that topic. This ain't one of them.

In response to his provocation, I've taken the highly extraordinary (at least for me) action of deleting comments. I don't like doing that, Clive, but I believe you left me no choice.

The only thing I like even less than deleting comments, Clive, is banning people. Don't push me. I've said repeatedly that I'm NOT discussing the particulars of the Schiavo case. That extends to comment threads on postings I make. Take your arguments elsewhere -- there are plenty of other fora even on this page for that.

J.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Liberals repeal 13th Amendment:

» ResurrectionSong linked with Gay Patriot and the 13th Ammendment

» Say Anything linked with Left-Wing Gay Witchhunt Continues

» Spartac.us linked with The New Pollution

» Darleen's Place linked with 'All your gays belong to us'

» The Politicker linked with WTF?

» Pirate's Cove linked with The Tolerance of the Left

» The Art of the Blog linked with Conservative Gays v. the Gaystapo

» Illuminaria's Voice linked with Clinton Doesn't Deny Running for President

Comments (32)

And when did you become so ... (Below threshold)
julie:

And when did you become so interested in prissy little gay asses, Mr. Jay?

"Otherwise, we'll fry your ... (Below threshold)
Rob Hackney:

"Otherwise, we'll fry your faggot asses -- and not in a way you'll like."

Damn son, for once I think I agree with those lefties!

There needs to be consequences for people that flout traditional, sane and healthy ways of living.

Whew! Jay definitely took h... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Whew! Jay definitely took his pills today! Dat's some hot stuff dere!

Jay, you appear to have gro... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Jay, you appear to have grown a *little bit too much* given your Wizbang anniversary announcement. I sense flamboyance. "Prissy little asses" is just bursting out of the leathah-clad words.

~;-p

So, is Mehlman really gay, ... (Below threshold)
Boyd:

So, is Mehlman really gay, or are they just slinging baseless mud?

Not that I give a crap either way. In fact, I withdraw the question. It makes no difference to me.

There needs to be conse... (Below threshold)

There needs to be consequences for people that flout traditional, sane and healthy ways of living.

Oooh, Rob Hackney...when you bring out the fire and brimstone, it gets me so HOT for you! Come here, ya big gay-bashing studmuffin you!!

Now, Zero, all Rob is sayin... (Below threshold)
julie:

Now, Zero, all Rob is saying is that too much fried faggot ass and you'll wind up with a quadruple bypass like Clinton. That's why a sane and healthy guy like Rob serves his prissy faggot ass RAW.

I never saw anything in the... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

I never saw anything in the Constitutio or this amendment that had any referce to gays.

So where are you guys coming from?


Cindy

(nothing relevant)... (Below threshold)
Clive Tolson:

(nothing relevant)

(nothing relevant)... (Below threshold)

(nothing relevant)

Now, Zero, all Rob is s... (Below threshold)

Now, Zero, all Rob is saying is that too much fried faggot ass and you'll wind up with a quadruple bypass like Clinton. That's why a sane and healthy guy like Rob serves his prissy faggot ass RAW.

Silly Julie. Everyone knows faggot ass is best served sauteed in olive oil and garlic with a side of Julienne fries. Light, yet flavorful - just the way mom used to cook it.

(nothing relevant)... (Below threshold)
Clive Tolson:

(nothing relevant)

Wow, "ADD" much? How did we... (Below threshold)
Darby:

Wow, "ADD" much? How did we go from the 13th Amendment back to Terry Schiavo?

(nothing relevant)... (Below threshold)
Rod Stanton:

(nothing relevant)

(nothing relevant)... (Below threshold)

(nothing relevant)

(nothing relevant)... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

(nothing relevant)

(relevant)This who... (Below threshold)

(relevant)

This whole thing with the two sites instrumental in pushing for GayPatriot's silence is their last ditch effort toward taking the control they've been missing. If you can't vote them out of your way under the law, then shame them, intimidate them, and as a last resort, take away their rights. After all, they're sub-human, right?

My apologies, Jay, in being... (Below threshold)

My apologies, Jay, in being the first to respond to Clive's attempt to hijack the thread.

I should know better.

Hijack! Don't you know? It'... (Below threshold)
clive tolson:

Hijack! Don't you know? It's all about me. Me. Me. Me. All the time. Me. I'm the epitome of narcisssim and a real drip at parties. Me.

Jay Tea writes: S... (Below threshold)
s9:

Jay Tea writes: So, let's sum things up: the attitude of conservatives towards gays is "do whatever the hell you want, just keep it in private.

This is a joke, right? It would be more accurate to say, "the attitude of conservatives toward gays is, 'back into the closet, you wogs! oh, and don't think we aren't watching you, either.'"

The whole reason for wanting to keep gays in the closet "where they belong" is so they can be blackmailed with threats to expose them. The last thing conservatives want to see if gay people who can't be blackmailed with threats to expose them publicly as gay people. This explains two things: 1) why they want gays to be locked up tight in the closet; and 2) why they get so prissy about campaigns to "out" closeted gay conservatives working to help put all gays and lesbians— conservative, libertarian, liberal, green, communist, apolitical, monster raving loonie, etc.— back into the closet.

Who wants to pOwn who here?

I think the <a href="http:/... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I think the Jawa Report pretty well dissects (um, bad word, given the times, I write as to my own choice of words here, avoiding irrelevancy) the body of evidenciary behaviors here...but, about "the attitude of conservatives towards gays", no, it's not about silencing or closeting "them" but about "them" insisting they have political "rights" to sexualities and sexual behaviors and such that makes them...um, not a minority, not a protected class as a disability...um, then what? They're "gay" so society has to, umm...you can see that many of us continue to miss the importance of continuing to discuss homosexuality and why it's supposedly something of such importance that it's paramount to the national discussion.

Have any of you considered the joys of heterosexuality? Let's have a discussion about the ins and outs and ways and means of being a heterosexual. Which is to share here that I experience being really discriminated against by "gays" who insist on making "gay 'rights'" the issue of discussion. What about us hetereosexuals? A lot of families and folks and all have a lot of issues there and related to discuss, so why aren't we? And what is so wrong with discussing any focus on the family? I mean, talk about discrimination, you can barely even mention the word, "family" without there following a huge hullaballoo, particularly on the internet...

About Mellman, he says he's not "gay," not "homosexual," so that's enough for me. And I (still) think the guy is attractive.

I think what has been prove... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I think what has been proven, if anything has, about this issue is that a lot of homosexuals use the internet far more than anyone else. Meaning, their percentage of individual use tips past the percent of individual hetereosexual's use of the internet, at least for purposes of PROMOTING HOMOSEXUALTY. Most heterosexuals don't write about heterosexuality, while most homosexuals (use the internet) to write about homosexuality, promoting a false sense of higher numbers of homosexuals by comparison...

Example: one hundred people use the internet.

Of that one hundred, three are homosexuals and ninety-seven are heterosexuals.

Of the three homosexuals, each of them writes about homosexuality on the internet during discussions about much of anything social, political, referential, personal, etc.

Of the ninety-seven hetereosexuals, two of them write about heterosexuality in discussions about politics, religious, etc. while the remaining ninety-five heterosexuals write about the economy, politics, references, the social, etc. without any sexual references at all, much less to or about heterosexuality.

Jay: a hint here...<... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Jay: a hint here...

Whatever you write that you do not want or desire or intend on a public blog site, whatever trolls focus on what you write as target will write about that. Try suggesting on a thread that ONLY one thing and ONLY one thing only is to BE discussed, and, presto, trollage will attempt to discuss something else other than...and vice versa.

It's not the topic or topics, it's the behavior that typifies a type of internet user. Some people just can't resist the behavior and, thus, it's deemed trolling. Give the alternative a try and see what happens, say.

-S- writes: but, ... (Below threshold)
s9:

-S- writes: but, about "the attitude of conservatives towards gays", no, it's not about silencing or closeting "them" but about "them" insisting they have political "rights" to sexualities and sexual behaviors and such that makes them...um, not a minority, not a protected class as a disability...um, then what?

Um... anytime you want to start making sense, we can have a discussion.

Over at The Jawa Retort, about the only thing that begins to make the point you're vaguely dancing around is this quote:As Rob at Say Anything puts it: "They’re telling us, with their actions, that if you’re gay in this country you can not support the Republican party or any aspect of the political right and if you do support that sort of thing you will be persecuted."

More accurately, the referenced actions are telling you that you can be gay and support the Republican party, or any other aspect of the political right wing, but not if you want to stay in the closet. Heterosexuals don't get to keep their sexuality in the closet either— so it's not like there's any discrimination against homosexuals going on, you know.

If Republicans and other conservatives were not interested in keeping gays and lesbians locked up in the closet, then they wouldn't be squealing like stuck pigs every time one of their gay friends is called out into the open about who they are.

Republicans could put an end to these shenanigans yesterday— by actually living up to their conservative principles and purging their party of the homophobic bigots who want to keep gays and lesbians locked up in the closet where they will forever be second-class citizens and the threat of blackmail can always be used against them to insure their compliance with whatever other criminal conspiracy needs doing.

But no. Having a cadre of gay and lesbian apparatchiks suborned to their will and panicked at the thought of their carefully constructed cover identities ever being blown is just too tempting for Republicans to resist.

Admit the truth. It's the first step toward breaking the cycle of addiction, you know.

s9: I maintain the policy ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

s9: I maintain the policy and behavior on the internet of remaining out of the nonsense, and that includes responding, even trying to respond, to much if not all that you write on Wizbang, or anywhere else.

Sorry, looks like the ants gobbled up yer, um, bait.

Mike Rogers doesn't represe... (Below threshold)

Mike Rogers doesn't represent left leaning gays any more than Bruce Carroll (GayPatriot) represents right leaning gays.

I don't agree with Rogers reaction, but GayPatriot's "Gay Terrorist" post was over the top - and could be perceived as threatening. If Rogers did what GP is claiming he did, GP should be able to get a restraining order against Rogers.

This was a good comment pos... (Below threshold)

This was a good comment posted on the Independent Gay Forum on this topic.

Calling someone a "terrorist" would probably be a cause for a libel lawsuit; it certainly isn't in the normal realm of the back and forth of vigorous political debate.

GayPatriot went over the top and beyond decency, and it sounds like Rogers did as well (the proper response would be to contact an attorney, not to harass your opponent at his place of employment).

This whole thing is a soap opera and both sides deserve each other.
Mike Silverman

GayPatriot's "Gay Terror... (Below threshold)
julie:

GayPatriot's "Gay Terrorist" post was over the top

No, it wasn't. But, obviously, that is opinion.

- and could be perceived as threatening.

Anybody could perceive anything as threatening, but that doesn't mean it is.

If Rogers did what GP is claiming he did, GP should be able to get a restraining order against Rogers.

Maybe, maybe not. I would say not.

Calling someone a "terrorist" would probably be a cause for a libel lawsuit;

Absolutely not.

it certainly isn't in the normal realm of the back and forth of vigorous political debate.

Uh, yes, it is.

GayPatriot went over the top and beyond decency,

No, he didn't go over the top. And beyond decency? [eye roll]

and it sounds like Rogers did as well (the proper response would be to contact an attorney, not to harass your opponent at his place of employment).

My advice to Gay Patriot is to have his attorney send him a letter putting him on notice. If there is any further contact, then get a restraing order.

This whole thing is a soap opera and both sides deserve each other.
Mike Silverman

I thought your name was Eva, Mike!

Julie - I copied and pasted... (Below threshold)

Julie - I copied and pasted Mike's post from the Independent Gay Forum over here. I wanted to give it proper attribution.

My name is Eva Young. I have a blog: Lloydletta's Nooz as well as being a featured blogger over at Outlet Radio.

It is NOT terrorism to make a terms of service complaint against a user of an ISP. I do this all the time for spammers. Spammers do NOT threaten my physical safety, but they DO waste my time, which I resent. In the case of Lime Shurbet, Rogers - or someone else - made a TOS complaint - which got his first ISP to drop him - without investigating.

Rogers (Blogactive) and Carroll (GayPatriot) are disputing the facts of this case. Both bloggers have their own set of strong supporters. I find Rogers outing campaign appalling and partisan with a double standard towards democrats and republicans. However Rogers has done some real reporting. This is a recent example.

I have personally experienced an anti-gay activist targetting me at work by complaining to my boss and boss's boss about things I had posted online. I've also had a fellow gay elist member target me at work - because I was Republican.

So, does 'nothing relevant'... (Below threshold)
Clive Tolson:

So, does 'nothing relevant' mean censoring comments Jay doesn't want to hear?

Mike Rogers gives an on the... (Below threshold)

Mike Rogers gives an on the record interview:

http://centralfront.blogspot.com

I also have been covering this on Lloydletta.

No, "Clive," it means that ... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

No, "Clive," it means that the comment wasn't relevant to the topic at hand. My postings, my rules. You wanna talk about other issues, feel free -- somewhere else. Plenty of other forums for that here and elsewhere.

Deal with it or go elsewhere, Clive. SO not in the mood for your whining.

J.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy