Thursday, July 12, 2012



Hate-filled enemies of "hate"

Hollywood and the American left love diversity, except when it offends their "progressive" value system.

Witness the reaction to actor Brad Pitt's mother, Jane, who publicly opposed President Obama's re-election. Mrs. Pitt's pro-life, anti-gay marriage statement to her local paper last week enflamed the Tolerance Mob. And her mere expression of dissident political views exposed the glittering hypocrisy of the left-wing "No H8" campaign.

In a letter to the editor for Missouri's Springfield News-Leader, Mrs. Pitt responded to another reader who argued that Christians should not support Mitt Romney because of his Mormon faith. Arguing for interfaith tolerance, she praised Romney's "high morals" and "business experience." The celebrity mom urged "prayerful consideration" from fellow Christians before voting for Obama -- "a man," she pointed out, "who sat in Jeremiah Wright's church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer, and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage."

Self-appointed Tinseltown anti-bigotry cops blew their tops. The Hollywood Reporter labeled Mrs. Pitt's letter "anti-gay." Gossip website Global Grind, founded by rap mogul Russell Simmons, called her "homophobic." Perez Hilton, an L.A.-based gossip website operator and hanger-on to the stars who fronts the "No H8" gay-marriage movement in California, pounced on Mrs. Pitt as "mommy dearest."

Hilton angrily scrawled across a photo of Mrs. Pitt with her son: "A vote for Romney is a vote for God." After taking obligatory potshots at Christians, Hilton, who calls himself the "queen of all media," fumed: "Ugh! How can one woman birth such a beautiful boy, but have such unattractive views???"

You want ugly? Hilton knows ugly. He's the same trash-mouth blogger and former beauty pageant judge who attacked Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean with misogynistic profanities in 2009 because she said she opposed legalizing gay marriage at the federal level in favor of states' rights to put the question up for a vote. "She lost not because she doesn't believe in gay marriage," Hilton railed. "She lost because she's a dumb bitch!"

You want ugly? When word of Mrs. Pitt's letter spread on social media late last week, Twitter lit up with a stream of death threats, smears and slurs. My Twitter curation site, Twitchy.com, compiled just some of the vile bile aimed at Mrs. Pitt......

The usual civility police were in their usual place when the No H8 bullies mauled Mrs. Pitt: nowhere to be found.

More HERE

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

Big fucking deal.

Anonymous said...

Stay class libs

Anonymous said...

Looks like all sides made full use/abuse of their 'free speech' rights!

Anonymous said...

Gays just don't get it. We don't hate gays. Period. We just don't want the historical and traditional definition of "marriage" to be changed to something it is not.

If gays want to have equality under the law, so be it. Have a "civil union" and legislate whatever rights you want to your heart's content. Just don't call it a "marriage" because, by all historical and traditional definitions, it is NOT.

Anonymous said...

"We don't hate gays. "

You hate gays.

Use the Name, Luke said...

You hate gays.

All hail the pathetic mind reader.

Anonymous said...

We have a constitutional right to hate, the left uses the lowest common denominator for hate, foul language and violence, whereas the intelligent use their words in a more creative and functionally informative way.

Anonymous said...

Luke, what's with the name calling? I thought that you were above that. Apparently not.

President Not Sure said...

Actaully, anon 2:50, gay people do currently have the same rights as straight people. The law does not say that I, as a straight man, can marry whoever I want just because I love that person. I am straight and I have the right to marry an adult human of the opposite sex and I do not have the right to marry an adult human of the same sex. Those are the same exact rights that a gay person has. If the law gave me the right as a straight man to marry another man, then a gay man could claim that he is being treated differently because he is gay.

Anonymous said...

4:24 exactly.

Anonymous said...

and what about polygamy? If you love 4 women at the same time why can't you marry all of them? That "Marry who you love" crap opens a lot of doors, what if you love your sister and brother? can you marry both at the same time? lol, try explaining that away.

Anonymous said...

What if? What about? What if? What about? ... ad nauseam.

Bird of Paradise said...

Liberals can be the most intollrent bunch of heathens around

Use the Name, Luke said...

4:24,

Not only does the law prohibit you from marrying someone of the same sex, but also your parent, your sibling, your child, etc., no matter how much you love them.

Also, laws prohibiting certain actions have absolutely nothing to do with "but I wanna!" For example, there are people who want to rob banks, or commit murder, or rape and pillage to their hearts' content. No one seriously suggests that those people's rights to do as they please are being violated.

Use the Name, Luke said...

4:23,

Consider what has to be known to make the claim by 3:10. Then maybe you will understand my response.

Anonymous said...

With thousands of religions, I'd think at least some of them are OK with gay marriage, just like some are ok with polygamy. Who's to say one is right and one is wrong. You? It's been said that fighting over religious beliefs is responsible for more deaths in history, except maybe for disease and old age.

One major problem is when the religious majority tries to tell the religious minority what to do. Of course, they have no natural right to enforce their views.

Possibly the bigger problem is when government gets involved, making laws saying what you can and can't do, giving and taking away benefits, and using force to support the majority religious views.

If there were no benefits or penalties for getting married or not, I doubt most people would give a crap over gay marriage. And if they did, I'd assume they be some superior feeling asses who think they know what's best for everyone else.

And you don't need to take this to extremes, talking about inbreeding or marrying animals or children.

Anonymous said...

And as usual, this topic has gone totally off-topic. Of course liberals are haters and liers, so they lie about how much they hate while hating more and more.

And it certainly doesn't sound like their tongues are being tied, so I don't know why this was posted here to begin with.

Dr. No said...

Anonymous 2:50 said...
"We don't hate gays..."

Speak for yourself. The only way to deal with gays who hate everyone who dares to disagree with them, is to hate them right back.

SUPPORT AIDS RESEARCH!
Not to find a cure, but to find a faster way of spreading it.

Anonymous said...

Such tolerant lovely people, gays are.
A church disagrees, they get death threats.
The mother of a famous actor disagrees with them, she gets death threats.
A group of mormons disagrees with them, the mormons get sexually assaulted.

These tolerant gays aren't people you probably want to be living next to. If you disagree with them, they'll likely poison your dog.

Anonymous said...

12:35 that is a ridiculous claim that you are parroting. Atheists have easily beat religion, with over 100 million killed in the name of atheistic communism. Another example is today, look at our prisons filled with murderers, probably easily less than 1pct murdered over religion, this disproves what you have parroted from some liberal professor.

Anonymous said...

people need to ignore that bitch perez hilton, he is a usless ignorant talentless whatever and needs to be put in the hollywierd garbage can.

Go Away Bird said...

Name OLIVER STONE and MICHEAL MOORE as two of the all time worst directors

Anonymous said...

You hate gays.

Luke said, "All hail the pathetic mind reader."

Luke, see Dr. No's post above.

Anonymous said...

Imagine how much worse the vitriol would be if she was a conservative's mother. I'll bet at least a few held back because of.Brad Pitt.

Anonymous said...

3:47 PM. You said it yourself "atheistic communism" - the noun being COMMUNISM not just atheism as though all a-theists (not believing in theism) were prone to be mass-murdering dictators. On the other hand, many atrocities have been committed IN THE NAME of a specific religion or denomination of a religion, both throughout past history and even ongoing today!

Anonymous said...

The law that defines marriage today is not immutable and can be changed, just as laws against inter-racial marriage were changed when there was sufficient public pressure to do so, and also dis-allowed polygamy (though other countries allow or disallow other arrangement for legal marriage). There is currently sufficiently strong pressure in most western countries to allow marriage regardless of gender, as well as race or religion, and several countries have gone ahead to institute full equality in legal marriage on those grounds.
The "slippery slope" argument is always brought up to oppose any change, but then logically there should be no legal marriage at all to prevent such slippery slopes. However, if there is ever a strong movement for polygamy or sibling marriages or pet-marriages, then the issues can be considered as when they might arise, which is far below the horizon of "gay marriage".

Use the Name, Luke said...

Anon 2:07,

Dr. No is not the person you responded to, nor is he me. His problems do not validate your erroneous assertion.

Anonymous said...

He spoke in generalities, not specifics. "you" did not refer to Luke or Dr. No. or Crazy Birds. "You" refers to a general group known as right wingers.

Use the Name, Luke said...

"You" refers to a general group known as right wingers.

Which is why the claim is pathetic. It's also why a single person (Dr. No) cannot validate a general claim.

Anonymous said...

we see their left wing hate daily, even on these boards. Why lie about it lefties? we can see it.

Kee Bird said...

Liberals just dont argue they simply argue