« JMDD SAYS CHAP'S FAMILY IS "IN PLAY" |
| SENATE PREVIEW- TEN DAYS OUT »
October 27, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b13369e200e54eff7fdb8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference JAY O'BRIEN'S GAY BAITING:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Republicans, the party of:
What a great party, how do I join?!?
October 27, 2007 at 12:45 PM
When you don't have a positive record of accomplishment to run on what else are you going to do?
Not Harry F. Byrd, Sr. |
October 27, 2007 at 12:58 PM
I think even the most homophobic voter could see that O'Brien is taking Barker's comments out of context.
When are these Repubs gonna learn that last minute "my opponent loves gays" is a recipe for failure?
Church Hill Dem |
October 27, 2007 at 01:14 PM
So baiting of blacks and Jews is still OK, as long as you and your "pal Joey" do it, right?
Not Jim Moran |
October 27, 2007 at 02:30 PM
When will Barker get it? The Constitution outlines 3 basic functions of government.
1 - promote gay hatred
2 - go to war
3 - cut taxes.
Jesus wouldn't have signed it if anything else had been in it.
October 27, 2007 at 02:37 PM
Tatum -- that's funny, and absolutely right, according to some people I know...
October 27, 2007 at 03:04 PM
Yeah. I saw a documentary on Fox History.
October 27, 2007 at 03:58 PM
Not Jim Moran:
Moran is not on the ballot this year... O'Brien IS. O'Brien gay-baited THIS YEAR and made a conscious decision to do so based on willful misreading of statements out of context. This is not based on issues or ideology or the merits of sound policy, or even a record of accomplishment, all of which are legit campaign considerations. O'Brien's flyer is instead founded on shameless, crass political opportunism...
The voters will have their chance to register their opinions of Jim Moran next year. But this year it is our turn to render our verdict on Jay O'Brien. For one I say it is time to send Jay O'Brien home to show that demogoguery does not pay!
October 27, 2007 at 04:38 PM
Well now. Isn't it interesting that about the same time this flyer was going out, BVBL posted a "funny" picture of George taken at the Equality Fairfax candidate forum and James Young linked to it and accused George of supporting the "radical homosexual agenda". And when I called them on playing the gay smear card James tried to change the subject and branded me a liar. Just a coincidence, or a coordinated gay-baiting campaign among Greg, James and O'Brien?? Reeks of Karl Rove/Bob Marshall/Victoria Cobb tactics...
Donkey Breath |
October 27, 2007 at 05:23 PM
Is hate all these people have? Have they no shame? Have they no decency?
October 27, 2007 at 06:09 PM
"Is hate all these people have? Have they no shame? Have they no decency?"
Answers: Yes. No. No.
October 27, 2007 at 06:46 PM
I know this will fall on deaf ears..., but there is no "gay baiting" as far as I can see in the material. O'Brien rightly raises the question as to whether government funds should be used to promote a lifestyle to a captive and impressionable audience in the schools that many parents may disagree with.
We all know that any truly open discussion of homosexuality in the schools would never be allowed under such a program. Anything short of a discussion that shows it in a "positive light" would be disdained as "hatred" by the administrators who are chained to the political correctness crowd. Much like many of the comments here above.
When will you all learn that disagreement and a desire not to use public finding for controversial issues in the public schools does not equate with "hatred" and "bashing"?
If a true open and honest discussion of the subject at an appropriate age were indeed to be allowed, I think far fewer pepole would have an issue with it, including Jay O'Brien. Unfortunately based on past attempts including some of the comments of George Barker I see, this kind of common-sense and judgement-free approach would never be considered.
Rtwng Extrmst |
October 27, 2007 at 07:12 PM
It looks like Delegate Ebbin's PAC is raising money to fend the anti-gay extremists off. https://secure.actblue.com/page/stopjayobrien
I believe his Virginia Progress Fund PAC was the largest contributor in the race to defeat Dick Black in 2005.
Equal Justice Supporter |
October 27, 2007 at 07:45 PM
So, Donkey Breath, you've decided to spread your damnable lies here, too. You must be one of the consultants advising this reckless and dishonest course. Good pseudonym. Obviously, the moonbats that the Move-On Dems have foisted upon Virginians are largely afraid to reveal their true intentions to the electorate, so instead, they offer only attacks.
Here's what you said at BVBL: "Seriously, Jay and James Young and Greg must be getting real worried about George’s campaign for Senate if they are pulling out their favorite smear tactic this late in the game. When in trouble, play the gay card. Sorry boys, won’t work this time."
The readers should know that he cast his aspersion in a thread IN WHICH I HAD NOT EVEN PARTICIPATED!?!?! I had, however, posted a link in which I noted that "Apparently one reason why George Barker's only campaign strategy is to attack Jay O'Brien for one minor and utterly fixable misstep [i.e., his vote in favor of Governor Timmy's! imposition of abusive driver fees only on Virginia drivers] is because, in addition to being an advocate for socialized medicine, Barker is a proud advocate for the radical homosexual agenda" --- as evidenced by his comments at the forum (Greg reported that Barker had said "he would support Gay Marriage at the Equality Fairfax debate. George said he would support legislation to create Gay-Straight alliances in high schools").
I responded by noting at BVBL that "I’ll respond a little more directly: Seriously, Donkey Breath must be a moron if he believes that it’s a 'smear tactic' to identify someone as an advocate for the radical homosexual agenda. If identifying someone’s agenda to mainstream perverse behavior is a 'smear,' then perhaps it is a 'perverse' political position to hold.
"If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that I am calling or have called Barker a homosexual (I do not speak for Greg or JL), then you, sir, are a damnable liar. I don’t know enough about Barker to speak to the issue one way or the other (I believe that I have heard that he is married), and unlike many, I try very hard not to pontificate with certitude about things about which I am ignorant.
"Perhaps you should read what I have said before you engage in your 'smear tactic' (whether it is your favorite or not, I am not in a position to comment)."
That is not "chang[ing] the subject." It is refutation of your ridiculous misrepresentations. Point. By. Point.
I fully expect Ben to attack the tactics of his fellow Dems when he leaves Full Partisan mode when this election is over .... and the electorate imposes upon them the terrible consequences of serial lies.
James Young |
October 27, 2007 at 09:22 PM
James, You are the master of smear spin, aren't you? You know exactly what I meant in the original post and you did try to change the subject to make you the victim by suggesting I might be saying you were calling Barker gay. I never implied that and you know it but by throwing it out there so you could deny it and call ME the liar is just priceless. And cheesey. And certainly your style.
I notice too you don't even defend yourself from the accusation that I did make that you and Greg were maybe part of a coordinated attack of gay related lies about Barker for and/or with O'Brien. Gee, a post and a link long after the EF event that is published at the same time an attack piece is sent out in the district...Just proves the original point that you and your right wing buddies play the gay card every chance you get in these races. You are obsessed with this thing you made up and call the radical homosexual agenda and you just can't help yourself. Which makes you even big loser than Jay.
Donkey Breath |
October 27, 2007 at 09:58 PM
"Donkey Breath," you're pathetic. But I repeat myself. "Coordinated attack"?!?!? I have spoken to NO ONE in the O'Brien Campaign, save for Jay himself, for weeks. I don't even read his campaign e-mails. And my comments to him on that occasion had nothing to do with Barker's comments endorsing the radical homosexual agenda, of which I was not even aware at the time. It had more to do with Barker's sleazy, dishonest television ads. Your conspiracy-theory fantasies simply have no basis in truth. Of course, your current claim that this is what you intended is nowhere stated, and is not even implied, in your original comment. Presumably, a reader with enough competence to come across your comment is competent enough to recognize that fact.
I saw Greg's story. I put it in context. The context that Barker is such a radical that he has to hide his true agenda behind sleazy, dishonest, one-issue television ads ("That's all we need to know").
As for whether you "might be saying that [I was] calling Barker gay," you accused me of a "smear." In context, that was all that you COULD have meant (though why an advocate for the radical homosexual agenda such as yourself would consider that a "smear" is curious indeed), since the only thing that I did do was identify truthfully Barker's position on an issue, which cannot, by hypothesis, be a "smear."
And awwwww, "Donkey Breath" calls me a "loser." As opposed to whom? Someone so irrelevant and cowardly that he posts under a pseudonym?
You really just make it up as you go along, don't you?
James Young |
October 27, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Speaking of the "radical homosexual agenda," James Young really needs to read Wonkette.
October 27, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Promotion of the homosexual lifestyle does not belong in public schools. Period.
October 27, 2007 at 11:04 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that most the most uninformed of individuals always seem to find courage in anonymous name calling whenever someone does not agree with their point of view.
Are the merits of any argument you might have regarding an issue so thin that they might buckle under the slightest scrutiny? Is the purpose of the name calling to deflect from any analysis of your opinions or is it an attempt to sidetrack debate because of your fear of inadequacy?
You remind me of the child on the playground who punches his classmate then runs to hide behind the skirt of the teacher, trembling that the truth might come forward or that he may be found later without security.
Having read the flyer in question, I see that it is filled with accounts of Mr. Barkers past statements. If he dos not hold these positions then you should argue on his behalf. If he does and you agree with him argue that point, but the childish name calling is really petty and useless. Stand up like a man, debate your points without fear, if you feel you can.
October 27, 2007 at 11:18 PM
I'm confused. Does George Barker actually support GLBT lifestyles being taught in the public schools????? If so, WHY is it a problem with pointing that out? How is that hateful? I saw NOTHING in the flyer that was bashing anyone.
Tobias Jodter |
October 28, 2007 at 12:34 AM
You guys are going to have to explain to us EXACTLY what you mean by "promoting" GBLT lifestyles.
At the present time, most public high schools in the county have a gay-straight alliance club. Is that "promoting?" Would you like to abolish such organizations?
Public school kids are taught in health class that there is such a thing as homosexuality. They are not taught that it is evil. Is that "promoting?"
October 28, 2007 at 01:15 AM
You know, that gay-hating, secretly-gay Republican has become such a cliche--seriously, are there any gay-bashing Republicans out there who AREN'T gay themselves?--that you would think all Republicans would just shut up about it for their own good.
For example, George, when you advise someone to "stand up like a man" I want to ask, "do you mean, take a wide stance?"
You're just making it too easy for us. Frankly, you've become little more than a joke, fodder for endless Wonkette postings and SNL skits.
October 28, 2007 at 01:29 AM
LAS, if public schools teach about homosexuality, but leave out the little part about it being abnormal, then they're promoting it.
October 28, 2007 at 07:45 AM
And this is why I so enjoy these blogs. Doesn't take much to get James and his boyfriends worked up into a lather...mention his name and BAM, he's there. Takes the freakin bait EVERYTIME. His own personal circle jerk..Talk about pathetic. (Donkey Breath snorts and laughs into his cereal). What a bunch of foot tappers...
PS: And like everyone doesn't already know who Donkey Breath is...HEEEE HAWWW
PPS: And just for the record, the candidate forum remarks made by Barker are on tape and available at the Equality Fairfax website..go listen for yourself and see who the real liars are.. and while you are there, you might listen to Rust, Hunt and Devolites-Davis (all republicans) also embrace the radical homosexual agenda... guess that makes JMDD a fag hag??
Donkey Breath |
October 28, 2007 at 09:49 AM
How ignorant of the law are James and Greg and their other prurient friends, anyway? Family Life Education is mandated by state code, and parents can opt-out if they so choose.
"Legislation to create Gay-Straight Alliances" is an even more hilarious fabrication. Are you boys not familiar with federal equal access law? Here's a clue: It's what protects the right of students to have Bible study clubs. Students have exactly the same right, no more, no less, to have Gay-Straight Alliances. No legislation needed.
You boys become more desperate by the hour.
October 28, 2007 at 10:47 AM
I am of the opinion that the schools should not be teaching anything regarding homosexuality, transgender and the like. I personally believe these are issues that the family should deal with of their own accord. I do not think that taxpayer money should pay for after school programs that support these issues and organizations, just like I do not believe they should support programs that support skinheads, KKK or any other extremist organizations or their agendas. These types of organizations have no relation to advancing education as it is publicly understood and defined.
To promote the argument that these students have a “right” to have these organizations; taken to the extreme; would obviously give rise to some absurd after school experiments that I do not believe most of you would agree is appropriate.
Does holding these views make me a “gay basher”? or a “skinhead basher” or a “racist”? I think not. These are just my opinions, and if I was running for an office (which thank God I am not) then I would have to validate these opinions based on my own personal belief system.
Because I hold these beliefs does that make me “joke fodder”? I suppose that if one is typing in this blog to make jokes much “fodder” can be found on either side. I for one was speaking about the issues and facts of which many of you seem to be afraid to discuss and instead wish to make jokes to avoid having to validate the opinion you hold.
This being said I will choose to end my part of this one sided debate because you seem to have no arguments to substantiate the opinions you hold. Only bad jokes and name calling. Maybe there will be a time when you are able to express your positions in a more mature and sentient manner, and I would be happy to discuss those with you when you and your friends grow to that level.
October 28, 2007 at 11:17 AM
First of all, George, you are talking about two separate issues, one having to do with the curriculum (Family Life Education which is required by VA code and which parents can choose to opt out from) and extra-curricular clubs, which must all be treated the same according to federal law. You seem to be conflating these into one issue.
Any curriculum about sexuality needs to be factual. Someone up the thread mentioned something about teaching that some sexual orientations are "abnormal." If what is meant by that is merely statistical, that the majority of people are straight, that's factual. If the person meant some other meaning of the term "abnormal," however, that would be an opinion, an opinion that has been discredited by the major medical professional associations (APA, AMA, etc). In curriculum, it's not acceptable to tell the students things that aren't true. Telling them that everyone is heterosexual, or that there is something wrong with GLBT people would be telling them something that's not true.
Extra-curricular clubs are intended for the expression of viewpoints. If, for instance, some students wanted to start an "Ex-gay" club, their right to do so is protected by federal law, just as Gay-Straight Alliances are. I'm sorry, but neither you or I get to decide what extra-curricular clubs are allowed based on what beliefs we have or what ideas we agree with.
I hope this helps you understand this more clearly.
October 28, 2007 at 02:07 PM
"Telling them that everyone is heterosexual, or that there is something wrong with GLBT people would be telling them something that's not true."
That's pretty funny -- a liberal advocating that right and wrong is discernable truth. Come on over to the side of light and right. We've got room for you.
October 28, 2007 at 02:47 PM
I get the fact that Jim Moran is not on the ballot. The POINT of my remark was, given the black and Jew-baiting that goes on around here, the sudden "outrage" in this case is rather selective. We might also note that Jim Moran has been a topic of conversation in other recent posts.
With this level of reading comprehension, it is no wonder we needed the No Child Left Behind Act!
Not Jim Moran |
October 28, 2007 at 03:48 PM
Schools teach about war. Are they promoting war? They teach about slavery? Are they promoting slavery? They teach about terrorism? Are they promoting terrorism? They may sometimes teach about gay-bashing. Are they promoting gay-bashing? What about teaching the holocaust, racism, crime, climate change, so on and so on. They teach these subjects because they are out there and so students will be prepared to make informed judgments when that time comes.
October 28, 2007 at 06:24 PM
I'm sorry, I.P., but I don't believe we know each other; therefore you are in no position to be attributing (albeit meaningless) political labels to me.
Furthermore, what you have said ("advocating that right and wrong is discernable truth") doesn't seem to have anything to do with my comment, which concerns the requirement that curricular content be limited to medically and factually accurate information. I suppose you could make a "right vs. wrong" argument in favor of this requirement, but that seems redundant.
October 28, 2007 at 06:57 PM
I would feel better if the schools stuck with trying to teach English, math, history and science. If they did that correctly then they would have their hands full and we may have a better educated group of young people.
October 28, 2007 at 08:43 PM
I am sorry I missed this doozy of a thread.
So many lies, so little time.
FACT: George Barker has NEVER advocated "promoting" the "radical homosexual agenda" whatever the hell that is. If you are talking about AGE-APPROPRIATE FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION that includes discussion of gay/lesbian relationships, and GIVES ALL PARENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO OPT THEIR KIDS OUT, then that's another story.
George Barker did not say, at the EF Forum, that he supports gay marriage. Wish that it were true. What he did say is that he supports formation of a domestic partnership registry to allow gay couples to secure certain specific rights made available to them by law, as the ATTORNEY GENERAL assured us would be possible under the so-called "marriage" [hate] amendment.
So, how's about it boys? Are you going against your beloved Attorney General Bobby "Taliban Bob" McDonnell on his opinion? Or are you, just like him, and likely to lie to everyone before an election and turn around and say something different?
Doug in Mount Vernon |
October 29, 2007 at 08:16 AM
No worries, David. I didn't expect you to understand the connection betweeen your comment about GLBT rightness/wrongness/truth and my reply. I just found it really funny... precisely BECAUSE you didn't understand what you were saying.
October 29, 2007 at 09:10 AM
Up to your old shenanigans, I see.
You know, I thought that Christ and his followers were taught that false witness was something to guard against.
Be careful, from what I understand of God as your ilk see it, you could be in for a bumpy afterlife.
But then, those of us who actually paid attention to the message of Christ are a little more forgiving...
Doug in Mount Vernon |
October 29, 2007 at 11:33 AM
O'Brien's flyer just states facts doesn't it? It doesn't appear that he is "gay bashing" at all.
October 29, 2007 at 04:19 PM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
(URLs automatically linked.)
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address