GOP Lobbyist Drafts Bill To Ban Gay Players From NFL

  • metta

    Posts: 39165

    Feb 24, 2014 10:56 PM GMT
    GOP Lobbyist Drafts Bill To Ban Gay Players From NFL

    http://instinctmagazine.com/post/gop-lobbyist-drafts-bill-ban-gay-players-nfl
  • metta

    Posts: 39165

    Feb 24, 2014 10:59 PM GMT
    https://www.facebook.com/jack.burkman.5?fref=ts
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2014 11:20 PM GMT
    Let's all sing it together...

    "WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!?" icon_lol.gif

    Jack "Jerkman" BurkmanWe are losing our decency as a nation. Imagine your son being forced to shower with a gay man. That’s a horrifying prospect for every mom in the country. What in the world has this nation come to?

    “If the NFL has no morals and no values, then Congress must find values for it.”


    #notajoke #parodyofitself
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2014 11:36 PM GMT
    This is just a Republican lobbyist. BUT, we will see which Republican lawmakers introduce this as legislation. Then let the games begin.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2014 11:54 PM GMT
    LOL, this will go about as far as the idea of the Redskins changing its name...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 12:08 AM GMT
    YourName2000 said
    I do think the tide is turning on our issues though, and those that have 'made hay' by using us as a wedge issue to acquire votes are finding that strategy isn't effective anymore.

    Whether they find it effective or not, it's becoming clear that many Republican candidates are already starting to play the "gay card" once again as they did most effectively in 2004. The Karl Rove strategy, that worked very well.
  • turtleneckjoc...

    Posts: 4685

    Feb 25, 2014 12:50 AM GMT
    This keeps up, we'll be as progressive as Uganda.

    Why do elected or non-elected Republicans waste precious energy on things like this? Why?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 12:51 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    ART_DECO said
    YourName2000 said
    I do think the tide is turning on our issues though, and those that have 'made hay' by using us as a wedge issue to acquire votes are finding that strategy isn't effective anymore.

    Whether they find it effective or not, it's becoming clear that many Republican candidates are already starting to play the "gay card" once again as they did most effectively in 2004. The Karl Rove strategy, that worked very well.

    My representative to Congress would never support such a thing.

    Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)

    http://ros-lehtinen.house.gov/

    Whether she supports it or not (and actually she has in the past), her mere presence in the US House helps to give Republicans a majority.

    So that they decide who will be the Speaker, at present anti-gay Boehner, and select the Republicans who will head all the committees. Most of them homophobes, Creationists, and every kind of wacko. We read it in the news every day.

    But I love this argument: MY member of Congress is OK, it's those OTHER Republicans who are the problem.

    Well, guess what - you vote for one Republican, you vote for them all. And give them the majority they need to push their anti-gay, anti-environmental, anti-middle class, pro-corporate and 1% agenda. But I know you'll never concede this simple reality of US politics.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 12:55 AM GMT

    So, how exactly is this being fiscally conservative? Does anyone know how much in taxpayer dollars these bills have swallowed up?


  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Feb 25, 2014 1:02 AM GMT
    "Horrifying"?

    Why?

    What a fevered, obsessive imagination this guy must have. Should see help.

    And WHAT A SURPRISE - he's a GOP operative...

    How I wish the GOP would find something useful to do.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Feb 25, 2014 1:04 AM GMT
    Art wrote: "Well, guess what - you vote for one Republican, you vote for them all. And give them the majority they need to push their anti-gay, anti-environmental, anti-middle class, pro-corporate and 1% agenda."

    Unfortunate, but true. I never thought I'd be a party-line voter, but these days I wouldn't vote for a Republican dog-catcher.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 1:23 AM GMT
    I love how he is comparing boys taking showers with men. First off, NO CHILD IS SHOWERING WITH THE NFL...

    And if these guys are forced to shower with a gay man than FUCK THEM, they make more money in a day than some people make in their lives!

    icon_rolleyes.gif

    Republicans- Don't let government control out lives, except when it comes to who we marry, who we do business with, who we work with, who we live next door too, and who we play with...

    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 1:36 AM GMT
    tazzari saidArt wrote: "Well, guess what - you vote for one Republican, you vote for them all. And give them the majority they need to push their anti-gay, anti-environmental, anti-middle class, pro-corporate and 1% agenda."

    Unfortunate, but true. I never thought I'd be a party-line voter, but these days I wouldn't vote for a Republican dog-catcher.

    The very phrase I routinely use.

    Because vote for one Republican, and you vote for them all. The Party of No, of Party-line votes, the Party of Conformity, that has litmus tests, that expels Moderates who don't conform to the extremist policy.

    You vote for a Moderate Republican, and you've actually voted for an Extreme Right Teabagger who's in control of the Party agenda. Because that's how the Party operates today.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 1:38 AM GMT
    This is the most dead on arrival bill. A waste of time. Will be squashed in a minute by a court on 14th Amendment issue. No discussion.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Feb 25, 2014 1:40 AM GMT
    "How does this square with "small government" "government getting in the way of business" "needless regulation"?"

    You don't understand!

    1) The only "small government"they want is one without Democrats.
    2) It's not "getting in the way of small businesses" to load the dice for large corporations and the rich - it's just ignoring them.
    3) A regulation is only needless if
    a) It interferes with Big Business
    b) It interferes with electing GOP candidates
    c) It's promoted by a Democrat


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 1:43 AM GMT
    NJDewd saidThis is the most dead on arrival bill. A waste of time. Will be squashed in a minute by a court on 14th Amendment issue. No discussion.

    It's not a bill yet, just something a Right Wing lobbyist is proposing.

    But it does show how Republicans think. And maybe one of them will actually submit a bill for this. They get paid by the lobbyists, they must produce or lose their money & perks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 3:09 AM GMT
    jq2n83.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 3:12 AM GMT
    GIF_154426_en_que_momento_le_parecio_bue
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Feb 25, 2014 4:12 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    Well, guess what - you vote for one Republican, you vote for them all. And give them the majority they need to push their anti-gay, anti-environmental, anti-middle class, pro-corporate and 1% agenda. But I know you'll never concede this simple reality of US politics.



    This simply is nothing but Liberal B.S. --- no more true than ALL Democrats are good and think alike. I'd like to think you are smarter than to paint EVERYONE in ANY party with the same broad brush, but sometimes I wonder.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 7:05 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    I disagree with almost everything you wrote.

    I wouldn't expect or have it any other way. If I wrote the sky was blue you would contest me. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 7:12 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    ART_DECO said
    Well, guess what - you vote for one Republican, you vote for them all. And give them the majority they need to push their anti-gay, anti-environmental, anti-middle class, pro-corporate and 1% agenda. But I know you'll never concede this simple reality of US politics.



    This simply is nothing but Liberal B.S. --- no more true than ALL Democrats are good and think alike. I'd like to think you are smarter than to paint EVERYONE in ANY party with the same broad brush, but sometimes I wonder.


    It's not IQ that worthy of debate with regards to this one, it's EQ.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 7:13 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    ART_DECO said
    Well, guess what - you vote for one Republican, you vote for them all. And give them the majority they need to push their anti-gay, anti-environmental, anti-middle class, pro-corporate and 1% agenda. But I know you'll never concede this simple reality of US politics.

    This simply is nothing but Liberal B.S. --- no more true than ALL Democrats are good and think alike. I'd like to think you are smarter than to paint EVERYONE in ANY party with the same broad brush, but sometimes I wonder.

    You guys keep using this fallacious argument of generalization. Whereas we are talking about majorities, and realities.

    But I know you are trying to conceal that reality, behind sophistic arguments. Well, I won't play that game, sorry.

    The truth is the reality, which you'd like everyone to ignore. Republican officeholders are doing all the bad things we say they are. And your response that: "Well, ALL Republicans don't think and act that way" is a total evasion of the issue.

    No one said ALL Republicans do, to include voters, but a majority of those in office ARE producing these horrors. Now can you address THOSE Republicans, who have control of your Party? That would be refreshing, and a little more honest.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 7:15 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    ART_DECO said
    Well, guess what - you vote for one Republican, you vote for them all. And give them the majority they need to push their anti-gay, anti-environmental, anti-middle class, pro-corporate and 1% agenda. But I know you'll never concede this simple reality of US politics.

    This simply is nothing but Liberal B.S. --- no more true than ALL Democrats are good and think alike. I'd like to think you are smarter than to paint EVERYONE in ANY party with the same broad brush, but sometimes I wonder.

    You guys keep using this fallacious argument of generalization. Whereas we are talking about majorities, and realities.

    But I know you are trying to conceal that reality, behind sophistic arguments. Well, I won't play that game, sorry.

    The truth is the reality, which you'd like everyone to ignore. Republican officeholders are doing all the bad things we say they are. And your response that: "Well, ALL Republicans don't think and act that way" is a total evasion of the issue.

    No one said ALL Republicans do, to include voters, but a majority of those in office ARE producing these horrors. Now can you address THOSE Republicans, who have control of your Party? That would be refreshing, and a little more honest.


    Who is "you guys"?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 7:26 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Who is [sic] "you guys"?

    Make an educated guess. And please stop trying to derail the topic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 7:30 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    freedomisntfree said
    Who is [sic] "you guys"?

    Make an educated guess.


    "Who is [sic] "you guys""

    no .... no [sic] about it, I meant singular. Who is that you're talking about?

    And please stop trying to derail the topic.