The pro-rape Democrats are at it again. They’ve gone on the attack again to help enable sexual predators gain access to womens’ restrooms. As Red State’s Brandon Morse reports:
After North Carolina passed what some are calling an “anti-LGBT law,” a handful of company heads have come down on the state and its lawmakers. Pepsi-Co CEO, Hewlett-Packard, Qualcomm, and others are already on record in opposition.
The most recent company to show its disapproval is the online money transfer company,PayPal. In response to the passage of the North Carolina law, the company has said it has ceased plans to open its new global operations center in Charolette.
“The new law perpetuates discrimination and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal’s mission and culture,” said PayPal Chief Executive Dan Schulman. “As a result, PayPal will not move forward with our planned expansion into Charlotte.”
But what does the new law, HB2, actually do?
It prevents those who identify as “transgendered” from using bathrooms that don’t match the sex on their birth certificates, giving HB2 the nickname, “the bathroom law.” By the way, this only applies to government buildings. Private businesses can still include whatever kind of bathroom they want.
Hundreds of mostly small businesses have shown their support for HB2, and Tami Fitzgerald of the North Carolina Values Coalition as accused PayPal of being another out of state corporation that is “trying to bully the state of North Carolina.”
The law is being called “discriminatory” by LGBT activists, and they claim it would open the door for further discrimination in the future. They aren’t wrong. The bill isdiscriminatory, but they operate under the assumption that all discrimination is bad.
For instance, it’s ridiculous to say that a man should be allowed to follow a woman into the bathroom because he claims he too is a woman.
Thankfully not all businesses are buckling to the powerful pro-rape special interest groups, via Sports Illustrated’s wire:
The NFL will not move its owners meetings in May out of North Carolina despite a controversial new law that critics say is discriminatory against the LGBT community, a league spokesman told ESPN’s David Newton.
“We embrace diversity and inclusiveness in all of our policies,” spokesman Brian McCarthy told ESPN. “The Panthers have made clear their position of non-discrimination and respect for all their fans. The city of Charlotte also has made clear its position.
“The meeting will take place in the city of Charlotte.”
The state’s new law, passed last month in just 12 hours, requires transgender people to use public bathrooms that match the gender on their birth certificates, rather than the one they identify with. Only transgender people whose biological sex has been changed on their birth certificate are exempt under the new law.
And I do have an issue with the headline, “NFL owners meetings stay in North Carolina despite controversial law” Seriously? This law is controversial, but the notion of towns helping to enable rapists isn’t? And Radical Leftist governors are showing their solidarity with rapists, even if their stances seem somewhat hypocritical, from National Review’s Matthew Hennessey:
Malloy must have enjoyed the afternoon of attention that the Indiana incident brought, because last month he leapt at another juicy opportunity to grab the mic and advertise his pristine virtue. This time it was North Carolina’s democratically elected legislature that no one in Connecticut was demanding be punished. Tar Heel State lawmakers drew the ire of righteous liberals everywhere when they passed a bill requiring that people use bathrooms and changing facilities according to their biological gender.
Did you know that Malloy made an official visit to Ireland last year, where abortion is still illegal? I hope his Planned Parenthood friends don’t find out. He also found time for a pit stop in Germany, where prosecutors are currently weighing whether to drop a charge carrying a three-year prison sentence on a TV comedian for “insulting” Turkey’s president with a satirical poem. Now that’s the kind of place that poses a real danger to Connecticut people when they visit.
Come to think of it, didn’t Dan Malloy and staff embark on an eight-day, taxpayer-funded trade mission to China in 2012? Yes, I think they did. And I’m pretty sure that it’s still significantly worse to be gay or transgendered in China than it is in Indiana, Mississippi, or North Carolina. Same-sex marriage is not legal in China and the depiction of gay characters on TV has recently been banned there.
And earlier in this post I mentioned Paypal allying itself wit the pro-rape forces, and Bradford Richardson at the Washington Times shines a spotlight on their hypocrisy:
PayPal drew a line in the sand when North Carolina enacted a law prohibiting people from using the restrooms of the opposite sex, but critics say that line got washed away on the shores of Malaysia, a nation that consistently ranks among the least LGBT-friendly in the world.
The company canceled its plan to build a global operations center in Charlotte after the passage of HB2, which CEO Daniel Schulman called discrimination against the transgendered. He noted that the move would cost North Carolina 400 well-paying jobs.
Richardson doesn’t stop with Paypal – he also points out Apple’s stores in Saudi Arabia and American Airlines doing business with those darling of the Radical Left, the organized crime organization that runs Cuba. If this makes the pro-rapers seem hypocritical, it really isn’t to them if you understand their mindset. Force has increasingly become the only thing that these bullies respect. They only attack soft targets who commit minor infractions like trying to protect women from stalkers – the regimes that imprison or kill gays, well, those are battles that can’t be fought with some hash tags and harassment. Personally, I find imprisonment and murder more serious that picking a bathroom, but there are some areas where the lefties and us have to agree to disagree.
Back to the title of this post, a year ago I was asking if the media was trying to incite Christians to violence by sending the message that if you kill enough lefties they’ll just cower and leave you alone. Obviously, what I suggested in my headline is ridiculous, and if you think I’m seriously proposing it you’re an idiot. But if you’re a Lefty and truly believe in defending gay rights you should be asking yourself some hard questions, ones whose answers you’re not going to like. And sadly, the fact that you won’t like the answers is exactly why you won’t ask.
Follow Brother Bob on Twitter and Facebook
Cross posted from Brother Bob’s Blog
Paypal operates in Yemen, in Saudi Arabia, in CUBA, in Nigeria.
In all those places homosexuality (much less cross-dressing) is highly illegal, even with death sentences.
Paypal held out coming into North Carolina until the state gave it huge financial ”incentives” (read ”tax breaks”) to move in.
BHObama once said, that If We Can Save One Child ‘We Should Take That Step’ so how about allowing more children to live out their lives free of the bad and permanently scarring damage of molestation?
Anyhow, Paypal could have whatever bathroom policy in NC it wishes.
So, what’s its problem?
Did the tax breaks end?
@Nanny G: Nope, it was bullying by the pro-rape Radical Left
I suppose that passes for humor on the right. At least, so one would hope.
You do realize that North Carolina’s “Bathroom Bill” isn’t really about this particular conservative homophobic hallucination, don’t you? What HB2 is actually about is consolidating republican power and control at the State House level, and denying any more progressive municipalities the leeway to deviate from the views held and the rules established by said elected state officials. The bathroom issue is just the cover story, used to rile up the base enough for them to become distracted from the bill’s far wider range of implications.
According to North Carolina law professor Brian Clarke, HB2 affects employee anti-discrimination laws in general, as well as the minimum wage issue:
In other words, it blocks any LBGT person from taking legal action if workplace discrimination centers on that particular personal issue. In backhanded fashion, it denies a specific class of people their full range of legal rights.
New North Carolina law impacts state’s minimum wages
@Greg: In other words, you’re fine with giving stalkers access to women’s bathrooms and locker rooms
What I said is that the range of legal consequences of North Carolina HB2 are much broader than what North Carolina republicans are pretending they are. That’s an entirely accurate statement.
No one was trying to give stalkers access to women’s bathrooms.
So, misinformation, misinterpretation, confusion, passion, and frankly, selective outrage and hypocrisy can all be rectified by executive order. Somebody should inform Barack Obama.
This law will not reduce the threat of rape. It will actually make it far easier for rapists to enter women’s restrooms.
Without this law, the only people using the women’s restroom were either non-transgender women or transgender women working very hard to “pass” (appear as a woman). A transgender woman who is not “out”, is not trying to “pass” as a woman, and is still presenting as a man, is obviously going to be using the men’s restroom. The whole idea of male rapists entering women’s restrooms while dressed as men, under the guise of saying, “Oh, it’s cool, I’m a transgender woman”, is asinine. Even without this law, women are completely justified in treating such an individual, transgender or not, as a man trying to get into the womans bathroom.
In this existing context, a potential male rapist can only “game the system” by actually playing the role of “transgender woman”. This requires (minimally) premeditation: the rapist must buy and dress up in woman’s clothing. And given how difficult it is for an adult male, without extensive hormonal treatement, to pass as a woman, the strategy is likely to bring a *lot* of attention to the rapist. This is particularly true for a rapist with the necessary build to enable them to easily/quickly overpower an adult woman (to commit rape in a restroom of public government buildings one would need to ensure there were minimal sounds of struggle or cries for help). Quite literally everyone who sees him (including the victim that he follows into the restroom) is going to stare hard, nudge their friends and point, and clearly remember the oddball-dude-dressed-up-as-a-woman. Transgender people can attest to this; most people have no shame when it comes to open, jaw-dropped staring at trans men or women who are doing a poor job of passing. Ironically, the plan would require the rapist to knowingly subject himself to the real risk of being assaulted because of his cover-story claim to be a transgender women.
So that’s what a rapist must go through without this law.
WITH this law:
Victim: “Hey, this is the Lady’s room! You can’t come in here!”
Rapist: “Yeah. [Sigh] I’m transgender, post-operative. That stupid new law says that since my birth certificate was marked female, I’ve got to use the ladies room or risk being arrested” [shrug] “Trust me, I hate this every bit as much as you do.”
I’m somewhat confused as to when having ANYBODY else in the same bathroom with you ISN’T a risk factor. Just because there are TWO people of the same gender occupying the same bathroom at the same time doesn’t mean that one of them, or both, isn’t there for the wrong reason. Two men, two women, what’s the difference? Think one of them in either case can’t be busy ogling the person in the next stall? The ONLY way to correct the perception that ANY two people are getting into mischief together in a bathroom is to limit every bathroom to one person at a time. That way, gender won’t be the big deal that it has now become. Then every last one of these silly bathroom laws can be burned at the stake.
@George Wells: Great point. I assume that male on female, female on male, male on male, and female on female on female rapes all happen in the same proportion?
@Brother Bob:
“I assume that male on female, female on male, male on male, and female on female on female rapes all happen in the same proportion?”
Does it matter? Are you suggesting that SOME rape is tolerable? Or perhaps you are only worried about actual rape and don’t give a crap about the psychological trauma that people are feeling when they don’t know what’s on the mind of the person standing next to them, much less what gender they happen to be. Don’t get me wrong: I ACCEPT that there is a necessary risk assumed whenever you decide to engage in a communal context. It’s just that I question the outrage focused on ONE particular risk when plenty of other ones are ignored. If we have created such a dysfunctional society that on the one side people are psychologically traumatized by taking a communal pee and on the other side are compelled to rape each other whenever they find themselves in a semi-private setting, we need to cough up whatever it takes to make enough bathrooms to let each person lock themselves in whenever they need to drop their trousers or their skirts.
@Brother Bob,
Stats? You want to talk stats? The law may reduce the frequency of male rapists posing as transgender women to enter women’s restrooms and attack women. What is the current frequency of this – what percent of male-on-female rapes occur in this context?
This leave aside what I mentioned in point #7: namely, the law now opens an entirely new venue for rapists. All the rapist needs to say is, “I’m a post-operative transgender man, but the law requires me to use the woman’s restroom.” The law LOWERS, not RAISES, the bar for how difficult it is for male rapists to enter women facilities.
If the words are too much, here’s a picture: this is an individual who is now legally forced to join your wife, sister, or daughter in using the woman’s room:
http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2015/03/14/trans-folks-respond-bathroom-bills-wejustneedtopee-selfies
@Kevin Kirkpatrick: I think you missed the point of my question – I’m trying to teach the lefty troll to think through his argument =8^)
@Brother Bob:
REALLY? Are you sure that what you’re REALLY doing isn’t just practicing your insults?
Because it sounds that way:
How can you teach anything when your entire monologue ignored the fact that HB2 concerned itself with much more than just bathroom politics. Thanks, Bob, for that glaring omission. Do you have to be a Republican “troll” to spin such lies?
I’ve been advocating AGAINST mixing true genders in bathrooms all along, and I’ve suggested a rational solution to this battle of conflicting concerns which does NOT make me a “troll.” I have ALSO advocated AGAINST the disingenuous conflation of bathroom etiquette with state anti-discrimination provisions, something that Tar Heel Republicans don’t understand.
Thanks, Bob, for further confusing this issue by neglect, as if the NC legislature needed your help.
@George Wells: The only rational solution is to have separate restrooms for biological males & females & for trannies to grow the f*** up. Women’s safety and not being creeped out trumps creepy guys’ insecurities – period. See Kevin K’s previous comment about the dangers that this trend poses.
If you’re so damned concerned about how the NC law was written (which I’ve acknowledged has problems in my post last night) you should speak up when towns pass laws allowing male sexual predators free reign in women’s rest rooms/locker rooms.
BTW, still waiting for those breakdowns by gender of rapists/victims.
@Brother Bob #14:
Don’t hold your breath. What you ask for is irrelevant.
I have already agreed that the bathroom issue needs to be addressed, and that, while what NC chose to do about it wasn’t my FIRST choice (because it doesn’t fix the problem, it just MOVES it around) it DID at least do SOMETHING. Y’all need to get over bashing people who are in basic agreement with you.
What the NC law did to ENCOURAGE discrimination against gays in general, and HOW they did it, is what I object to. You agreed that there are “problems” with the law, so what more are you arguing with me about?
In your initial statement you asserted that there’s equal risk of having men or women sharing rooms (hence my question about stats) and that the solution is to build nothing but single use stalls/locker rooms, etc. Why not just stand our ground, fight against this #WarOnWomen and mock the Radical Left over this delusion that getting men access to places where women get undressed is the next great civil rights struggle?
@Brother Bob #16:
Here’s my initial statement in its entirety:
I don’t see where I said that there was an “equal risk.” You made that up. My “what’s the difference” phrase referred to the fact that BOTH genders, and in fact ANY multiple-person scenario assumes some risk, and I went on to point out that there was only one complete solution, and I gave it.
There are a whole lot of people who are all Fxcked up over being in bathrooms with other people. It ISN’T a matter of what is or isn’t hanging between the other person’s legs. Ever hear of “shy kidneys”? I was in the Navy for 6 years, and I knew a number of guys who couldn’t go if there was someone else in the same room. Maybe their father beat them while they were being potty-trained… I don’t know… Then there are a bunch of evidently orientation-insecure guys who think that anyone else who is in the same bathroom at the same time is trying to steal a glance at their pee-pee, and THESE guys are also “shared-bathroomophobes.” I guess that they are somewhat leaning to the female end of the gender spectrum, because FEMALE bathrooms don’t have communal pee options like men’s facilities often do, opting instead for private stalls per person, a major contributing factor to long lines outside of women’s restrooms. Other countries let women squat communally, but apparently we don’t LIKE that. For whatever the reason, bathroom occupancy has ALWAYS troubled Americans, and there IS one solution to all the stupid #1/#2 “issues” that we have, and it ISN’T “standing our ground.” It’s putting in single-user bathrooms (and enough of them) and making access to them on a first-come, first-serve basis. If you’re going to fix a problem, FIX IT!
@Brother Bob:
OK, Bob, Your problem has been solved. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond decided that VIRGINIA’s bathroom law was unconstitutional. The Fourth Circuit covers North Carolina. AS the Virginia Law did NOT stretch as far as the North Carolina one did to void non-discrimination laws that protected gays – the MOST unconstitutional portion of the NC law – this decision pretty much kills the law you seek to protect. There is no conceivable rationale that would have the 4th Appellate deciding the NC case differently. Yes, North Carolina can appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, but what do you think would happen there? The best you could hope for would be that both Roberts and Kennedy would side with the other two conservatives on the bench, leaving a 4-4 split that would defer to the appellate decision that has already voided the law. Looks like you WON’T be getting all those individual stalls I offered after all. Too bad.
One other question: Why did you title this deceptive piece the way you did? The “bathroom” question is a transgender-rights issue, not a gay rights one, so what good would “killing or imprisoning gays” do? Or were you just doing what Trump does, throwing some logical turds into a fan to see what sort of interest the sound they make can attract? ‘Cause it didn’t work, did it?
@George Wells: Yes, individual stalls is a realistic solution – let’s just force every eatery, office building, stadium, convention center, etc. to completely retrofit every single restroom to accommodate a selfish, tiny percentage of our population.
Great idea – What’s your proposal for locker rooms?
And I can’t tell from your incoherent arguments about what you’re trying to argue about sexual assaults, although it sounds like you believe that letting men into places where women get undressed won’t cause problems.
As for the title of the post, it’s not misleading – try reading it through to the end.
@Brother Bob:
What, exactly, IS your pet peeve here?
Your piece at times seems to attack transgender people, at other times it attacks gay people, and elsewhere it attacks rapists. Why not throw in nudists and athiests?
You misrepresent the North Carolina law as being a law that only addresses bathroom selection, and it isn’t that at all. It voided all anti-discrimination laws that didn’t originate in the North Carolina legislature, and coincidentally, no such laws have EVER come from there. THAT was the part that gay people were concerned about, NOT the bathroom issue. Why do you persist in ignoring that fact?
You talk about TRANSGENDER bathroom use as if TRANSGENDER people are raping women, and THEY ARE NOT.
You talk about locker rooms – as being places where people are undressing in front of each other. And you think that a transgender person is going to go into such a place and openly disrobe in front of a bunch of men OR women? Guess again.
And did it occur to you that the REAL risk in that scenario isn’t coming from transgender people, it is coming from gay people that ARE NOT VISUALLY IDENTIFIABLE. The minute you put multiple, half-naked people in a room together, you create the risk that someone is going to get frisky. That North Carolina Law didn’t change that one bit. Why did you ignore THAT?
You suggest that killing GAY people would stop women from being raped by men, and there is NO way that that makes a lick of sense. In what Twilight-Zone, alternate reality illusion do you imagine gay men having ANY interest in women? You ignored that point too. At least you are consistent in ignoring the relevant flaws in your argument.
“Retrofitting” bathrooms would NOT represent a significant hardship, considering that the most pressing issue would involve replacing urinals with commodes. The number of individual accommodations would not change. Compared with the cost of settling a huge lawsuit, tossing urinals sounds quite attractive.
I read your title again, and I also reread your whole spiel of nonsense to boot, and I STILL can’t figure out exactly what ANY of it means. It contains so many false premises and errors of deductive logic that it cannot arrive at a conclusion that is supported by what you wrote. What you THINK is an argument is nothing more than a fiction that you’ve invented to follow a title that Donald trump’s outrageous rhetoric encouraged you to try. IT DIDN’T WORK!
The law you supported is void. You need to come up with another solution to the problem that you imagine really exists. Killing gay guys who are NOT raping women isn’t the answer.
Actually, I’ve addressed all of your queries and bizarre allegations via my original post and comments – you should try reading them. But then again, if you believe that I’m a Trump supporter you’re obviously not paying attention to what I’m been writing.
And apparently since your last rant Trump has joined you in the rapist enabling camp. I guess we’re done here.
@George Wells: You certainly have a lot of free time to battle here.
For the record—Brother Bob. O5, Kitt, A.V , Dr.Pete, David, Dr.J are not Trumpists.
Bill, Nanny, Petercat, RT are Trumpeteers.
@Rich wheeler #22:
I actually have very little free time. My contributions here come during rests between yard work – this morning I’m tilling and planting 80-foot rows of Illini Xtra Sweet corn – got three in so far. Sweating… Got a fan on me as we speak.
I don’t get obsessed with who is and who isn’t a Trumpeteer. I DO like to shed some light on some of the nonsense that passes for rational thought around here, and both Trump and Cruz have been pretty handy with the nonsense lately.
I DO love it when 05 unleashes on the Donald. Like Cruz has a chance. Boy, will she be pissed for the next 4 years. Will have to find her a boys restroom to go in…
@Kevin Kirkpatrick:
Keven are you saying that a ‘transgender’ must actually dress as a woman to be a transgender? Does the law make it clear that trannies must be wearing women’s clothes if they want to pass as a woman? Is the clothing of the person involved in the law even mentioned?
How would that be worded? Male transgenders that want to use a Women’s restroom must be dress in conventional women’s clothing. Hmmmm.
@Rich Wheeler:
You’re a lying, liberal POS.
Curious why Republicans have been obsessing over imagined threats posed by the presence of transgendered people in one bathroom or another – and have gone so far as to suggest that the solution is to kill gay people – when what they should REALLY be concerned about is how to prevent Republican pedophiles from gaining access to naked minors. Case in point – Dennis Hastert, Republican Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, 1999-2006:
Amazing that there are no statutes of limitation for unpaid student loans, or even for overdue library books, but after two years, a pedophile who diddled with little boys gets a free pass. Wouldn’t THAT be a better flaw in our laws to correct than ringing your hands over transgendered people’s access to bathrooms?
And amazing that Brother Bob, who bothered to create this terribly flawed article, hasn’t said a word about Hastert’s heinous crimes. What, Bob, too close to home?
@George Wells: Heh. It’s always fun getting lectures like this from someone who is going to vote for President someone who spent decades as the primary enabler for a sexual predator! The difference between conservatives and radical leftists is we have the decency to drop folks from our side who do wrong – you guys make excuses for and enable yours. Can’t wait for the next 2,000 word incoherent screed in response!
BTW, I’m not advocating killing gays – had you read the entire post you’d realize I was simply pointing out that it’s an effective way to shut up leftist cowards.
@Brother Bob:
You notice that George brings up Dennis Hastert. How convenient. Hastert has yet to be found guilty of any charges for messing with a minor, yet there is clearly one case that George could have referred to; Gerry Studds.
Studds not only was found guilty of buggering a 17 year old male page, but he took said page out of the country. He was censured by the entire Congress for his actions, actions that Studds refused to apologize for and when censured, turned his back on the entire body of the House. He only escaped prosecution because 17 is the legal age of consent in D.C. Hastert resigned. Studds refused to resign and his party affiliates took to the steps of Congress to defend him.
Need I mention Studds was a Democrat?
@George Wells:
You seem to be of the false impression that anyone here cares what you do. You are eat up with your own self importance, a false notion you truly need to dispel.
Well, then, nothing will have changed, will it? I have been pissed for the last 7 1/2 years that idiots like you helped elected Obama, the worst president in our lifetime.
I am quite sure you will be able to direct me to the “boys” bathroom. Pederasty seem to be rampant in people like you.
@retire05:
Hastert paid ONE lad $3.5 million to buy his silence. Oh, AND didn’t report extortion to the FBI. That pretty much amounts to a confession, wouldn’t you think? You have any rational explanation for what Hastert was up to that DOESN’T involve him being a predatory pedophile? Like maybe his young wrestlers NEEDED to have their genitals massaged by their drooling coach?
The sort of mischief that Hastert engaged in repeatedly should be condemned, no matter to which party the criminal belongs. I’ve condemned these sorts of crimes as harshly as is possible, and Hastert’s is no exception. I brought up Hastert’s case as an example of Flopping Aces’ mysterious silence on crimes committed by Republicans, leaving the seemingly preposterous impression that YOU think Republicans don’t break laws.
Studds’ case is not equivalent because he broke no law. I’ll agree that he acted inappropriately, but, as YOU agreed, he WASN’T found guilty of anything. AFTER the “affair” was made public, he continued to serve for another 14 years. Obviously, his constituency agreed with his fellow congressmen that he wasn’t guilty of a crime.
On the other hand, you have no complaint about the 2-year statute of limitations on pedophilic buggery?
You’re overly eager to excuse the dishonorable Mr. Hastert, I suspect…
@George Wells:
Yeah, Studds plied an impressionable 17 year old boy with alcohol and then had sex with said 17 year old. In these times, we could call that “date rape.”
Well, his constituency continued to elect other Democrats of low moral standards. And it speaks volumes that the Democrat party stood by Studds in his abuse of a person not old enough to vote, marry or join the military or even buy the booze Studds plied him with.
Where did I excuse Hastert? Why do you continue to put words in someone’s mouth that are not there while you accuse others of doing the same to you?
Hell is too good for Hastert IMHO. But you simply find Studd’s actions “inappropriate”. Who’s making excuses? But I’m sure that Harvey Milk, Buggerer of Boys, is a hero of yours.
@George Wells: 30
I wouldn’t excuse any offenses by a homosexual such as Hastert. You are incorrectly referring to him as a pedophile, I assume, to give the impression that he was not just a gay guy doing his thing. Pedophiles deal with prepubescent children and that usually does not include guys on the high school wrestling team. (excuse me for mentioning this as I’m quite sure you already know it) I do not think sex crimes should have a short statute of limitations, reasonableness should be applied.
@Redteam #32:
I don’t care what you call Hastert, “gay” or “pedophile,” what he did was a crime, and it should not be excused because it has been longer than two years since the crime occurred. Hastert broke a law, and evidently a number of them, and neither he nor his defense team has pleaded “innocent.” He’s begged for leniency on the grounds that he’s too old and infirm to serve sentence. Just another guilty Republican.
I wonder how Brother Bob wants us to stop “pro-right rapists”?
He’ll probably want to kill gays for this one, too.
(I read the whole thing, Bob, and it never got any better.)
@George Wells: Glad you read the entire post to the end, especially the part that stated:
Finally, a point on which we can agree!
And I take it that you’ve made your peace with the fact that you’re going to vote for President a woman who’s spent decades as the enabler for a notorious sexual predator?
@George Wells:
Actually, you do care. As you well know there is no resemblance or similarity between gay and pedophile. Being gay is not a crime, acting on pedophilia is a crime. You are advocating punishment for Hastert ONLY because he is a Republican because I know that you will argue all day that what he did is a normal act between two males. I think you are deliberately being hypocritical for political reasons only. The act that Hastert did is what happens every day in the real world where gays proposition young boys (post puberty) and you have always said that it is natural and not against the law. Why are you now all excited just because Hastert was a Republican (I’m going to propose that he was really a closet Dimocrat and is just now coming out).
@Greg:
Actually it is ‘all perverts’, not just stalkers.