Internet sources claim anti-gay Senator to be outed

[WillowTree]

It's always sadly amusing when leftwing whackjobs who supposedly Celebrate Diversity dance a jig at the prospect of somebody they dislike being attacked for Being Diverse.

let's see if you can follow this...

no one cares if he's gay. at least no one on the left....

they care if he's gay and spends his time trying to divest other gays of their rights.

it's the hypocrisy that's the problem... not the 'diversity'.

nice try.

I can follow this. It's like when obama bitches about rich people and then lives like rich people or like when jeramiah wright bitches about white people and then move into a gated white community,, just like that..

 

[Revere]

Graham is no conservative. He supports cap and tax and amnesty.

So what? Pricing a quantity to better reflect social costs is a market mechanism; same principle as the pollution taxes favored by Milton Friedman. And supporting amnesty just makes him Reaganesque.

Reagan was wrong.

Friedman did not buy into the crap that C02 was a pollutant.

Market mechanisms are not created by government.

Now help us get rid of Graham, mkay?

 

[Revere]

Typical Greenbeard shape shifting. He can't defend his bullshit on its merits, so he drags seeming political adversaries into the equation who seem to support his lame ass ideas.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

This wouldn't surprise me. I always assumed he was gay. However,calling him "Anti-Gay" is a big stretch at best. I also don't see what purpose this serves. So he's gay? I just don't think people care about this stuff like they used to. Looks like only the stupid Wingers on the Left will be making a big deal out of it. For the rest it will be much ado about nothing. Life will go on.

 

[Synthaholic]

It's always sadly amusing when leftwing whackjobs who supposedly Celebrate Diversity dance a jig at the prospect of somebody they dislike being attacked for Being Diverse.

let's see if you can follow this...

no one cares if he's gay. at least no one on the left....

they care if he's gay and spends his time trying to divest other gays of their rights.

it's the hypocrisy that's the problem... not the 'diversity'.

nice try.

I can follow this. It's like when obama bitches about rich people and then lives like rich people or like when jeramiah wright bitches about white people and then move into a gated white community,, just like that..

What makes a community 'White'?

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't get why these republicans always have to hide it, just come out. If they did come out, they would save a lot of time and heart ache.

And who exactly is causing the heartache?

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's always sadly amusing when leftwing whackjobs who supposedly Celebrate Diversity dance a jig at the prospect of somebody they dislike being attacked for Being Diverse.

Seems to me the attacks are all coming from the right. Being "outed" is not necessarily an attack - call it tough love or an effort to eradicate hypocrisy.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's always sadly amusing when leftwing whackjobs who supposedly Celebrate Diversity dance a jig at the prospect of somebody they dislike being attacked for Being Diverse.

let's see if you can follow this...

no one cares if he's gay. at least no one on the left....

they care if he's gay and spends his time trying to divest other gays of their rights.

it's the hypocrisy that's the problem... not the 'diversity'.

nice try.

Gays have the exact same rights as everyone else. And you know it.

The idea that they are somehow some underprivileged class is utter nonsense. It's just an attempt for the left to manufacture a cause.

 

[chanel]

What "gay rights" Jillian? Specifically.

• Support the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. (Aug 2008)
• Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
• Rated 0% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
• Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
• Rated 11% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
• Amend Constitution to define traditional marriage. (Jun 2008)

I see gay marriage three times and gay adoption once. The others are also redundant By the HRC standard, Obama and Clinton would also be "anti gay"?

I don't know jack about Lindsey Graham, but I'm getting sick and tired of the labels. Oppose abortion? Anti-feminist. Oppose reparations? Racist. Oppose illegal immigration? Bigot... etc. It's getting old and obnoxious.

If the man is a practicing homosexual, he is clearly not "anti gay'. "Outing" people is disgusting and frankly, gay people should be opposed. People have a right to privacy and to come "out" if and when they choose.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

trlrtrash13 wrote:

That being said, my suggestion to homosexuals is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Not your sexual preferences, your political party. They might let you in the military, but they will fight tooth and nail to use your sexuality against you if you don't have a "D" in front of your name.

I'm good, that's a fight I'm winning.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's always sadly amusing when leftwing whackjobs who supposedly Celebrate Diversity dance a jig at the prospect of somebody they dislike being attacked for Being Diverse.

let's see if you can follow this...

no one cares if he's gay. at least no one on the left....

they care if he's gay and spends his time trying to divest other gays of their rights.

it's the hypocrisy that's the problem... not the 'diversity'.

nice try.

Gays have the exact same rights as everyone else. And you know it.

The idea that they are somehow some underprivileged class is utter nonsense. It's just an attempt for the left to manufacture a cause.

Are you lying or simply woefully ignorant?

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

It's always sadly amusing when leftwing whackjobs who supposedly Celebrate Diversity dance a jig at the prospect of somebody they dislike being attacked for Being Diverse.

let's see if you can follow this...

no one cares if he's gay. at least no one on the left....

they care if he's gay and spends his time trying to divest other gays of their rights.

it's the hypocrisy that's the problem... not the 'diversity'.

nice try.

Gays have the exact same rights as everyone else. And you know it.

The idea that they are somehow some underprivileged class is utter nonsense. It's just an attempt for the left to manufacture a cause.

When we're finally able to marry and adopt EVERYWHERE, than you will be right.

 

[Political Junky]

let's see if you can follow this...

no one cares if he's gay. at least no one on the left....

they care if he's gay and spends his time trying to divest other gays of their rights.

it's the hypocrisy that's the problem... not the 'diversity'.

nice try.

Gays have the exact same rights as everyone else. And you know it.

The idea that they are somehow some underprivileged class is utter nonsense. It's just an attempt for the left to manufacture a cause.

Are you lying or simply woefully ignorant?

That's a hard one.

 

[Revere]

Come on, hurry up! When are the homosexuals going to knife Lindsey?

 

[SwingVoter]

this is news?

guy makes Barney Frank look like Mike Ditka

 

[bodecea]

Come on, hurry up! When are the homosexuals going to knife Lindsey?

Why would we do that?

 

[Gadawg73]

Tort reform is a liberal idea. No true conservative would ever vote to give a special interest group more benefits and protections from the government and take away rights of the citizens.
That is a no brainer and anyone that claims to be a conservative and supports tort reform has no clue what conservatism is.
Very disturbing, scary.

 

[Jarhead]

Tort reform is a liberal idea. No true conservative would ever vote to give a special interest group more benefits and protections from the government and take away rights of the citizens.
That is a no brainer and anyone that claims to be a conservative and supports tort reform has no clue what conservatism is.
Very disturbing, scary.

It depends on how you look at it and how you apply it.

My idea of tort reform is to ensure one has fear of fianncial repercissions if their lawsuit is deemed by a judge to be frivilous.

As you know, Inusrance companies analyze the cost/benefits of defending a suit...and many realize that it would be becost effective to settle as opposed to follow through with the suit; even if it is a sure win.

With this knowledge, Ambulance chaser attorney's with nothing better to do, "take the chance" and charge the client nothing to bring a suit...and only ask for a percentage of the settlement.

In the end, sure...an insurance company can counter sue for puntiive damages and court costs...but from an image standpoint....that would never be in the best interest of the insurance company.

So to me, to allow a judge (or a jury or peers) to determine if a suit is frivilous and levy on the false complaintant a fine that is forwarded to the defendant for his/her time and costs...and not have it be awarded via a counter suit....would most certianly minimize frivilous lawsuits WITHOUT interfering with ones right to sue.

 

[chanel]

If tort reform is a liberal idea, why are so many Dems against it? Because they are lawyers perhaps?

"Direct tort costs account for almost 2 percent of GDP in the United States—that's the highest in the world," said McQuillan. "These high costs impact American businesses when firms have to divert revenue to fight lawsuits. But all of us ultimately shoulder the burden through higher prices and insurance premiums, lower wages, restricted access to health care, less innovation, and higher taxes to pay for court costs."

"If lawmakers want to put people back to work, without costing taxpayers another penny for so-called 'stimulus', they should enact needed lawsuit reform," added Abramyan. "Job growth was 57 percent greater in the 10 states with the best tort climates than in the 10 states with the worst tort climates."


Read more: And the Best, Worst States for Tort Liability Costs Are...

 

[Gadawg73]

Tort reform is a liberal idea. No true conservative would ever vote to give a special interest group more benefits and protections from the government and take away rights of the citizens.
That is a no brainer and anyone that claims to be a conservative and supports tort reform has no clue what conservatism is.
Very disturbing, scary.

It depends on how you look at it and how you apply it.

My idea of tort reform is to ensure one has fear of fianncial repercissions if their lawsuit is deemed by a judge to be frivilous.

As you know, Inusrance companies analyze the cost/benefits of defending a suit...and many realize that it would be becost effective to settle as opposed to follow through with the suit; even if it is a sure win.

With this knowledge, Ambulance chaser attorney's with nothing better to do, "take the chance" and charge the client nothing to bring a suit...and only ask for a percentage of the settlement.

In the end, sure...an insurance company can counter sue for puntiive damages and court costs...but from an image standpoint....that would never be in the best interest of the insurance company.

So to me, to allow a judge (or a jury or peers) to determine if a suit is frivilous and levy on the false complaintant a fine that is forwarded to the defendant for his/her time and costs...and not have it be awarded via a counter suit....would most certianly minimize frivilous lawsuits WITHOUT interfering with ones right to sue.

True as I worked for one of the best trial lawyers on the nation in the early 80s as his investigator. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund a med/mal case and the lawyer fronts all of the $$. And they win only 15% of them. Extrememely difficult to win a med/mal case and you MUST have another doctor as an expert to state there was negligent care and that the stndard of care was not sufficient to get past summary judgement before the judge, years before the case goes to a jury.

Under Ga. law you could have a doctor kill a woman that never worked, so she has no future earnings claim, and all you get is $250,000.00 damages capped after the medical bills.
A life is worth more than 250K.
Either you want insurance companies running the courts or juries.