Is Kagan a Lesbian?

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by Annee
...know its a deliberate attempt to shift focus.


That would be a typical CONSERVATIVE tactic...


call her a "BIGOT" too...that will win the arguement



I bet you dont like South Park




posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by wrathchild
 


Actually, I LOVE South Park... Been an HUGE fan since season 1, but what that has to do with the price of tea in China, I don't kno... Oh wait, you just shifted the focus again, didn't you!



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
not at all

You throw around the word "bigot"...

people who express honest opinions...expain themselves calmly..without hate or malice...maybe with a little humor thrown in and they get called "bigot"

kinda the same way south park likes to make a point...rather bluntly..

everytime a racial or sexual preference issue comes up..and you voice an opinion that may not be politically correct, or the device of humor is used someone will yell,"bigot"...then that ends the dialogue.

only one side of the point can be heard..because no matter what, "racist" or "bigot" will...as YOU put it...will be labelled upon us.

Yet you say you like south park...I dont get it...but I won't label YOU.


edited for explaining that was humor..no matter how a poor attempt it was

[edit on 12-5-2010 by wrathchild]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
General Reminder to All: Please stay Civil and remember the Terms and Conditions as you continue to post.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by Annee
...know its a deliberate attempt to shift focus.


That would be a typical CONSERVATIVE tactic...


This is absolutely true.

I am a 40+ year CA Republican (soon to be independent).

I was heavily into a no-holds-barred political forum for about 8 years. By the end I had switched sides because I found the Right disgusting and manipulative. If they couldn't discuss issues straight on - - they resorted to name calling and shifting focus to non-essentials.

Things like: "Hillary doesn't belong in politics because she has cankles" - seriously.

This is the same discussion.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
the liberal media enjoys goofy humor too..eg. Jon Stewart.

this person obviously..kagan...as alot of qualities worth discussing for different reasons. A dose of humor here and there..followed by plenty of decent discussion....probably more of a liberal thing than conservative...exept the politically correct stuff.

I dont know about you..its nice to have a chuckle here and there on this board..can get too serious sometimes.

besises..some of us say things that most people are are thinking anyway.
I'm sure Mr.Kagan will do a fine job in her new job.....or is it Chris Farley..dont remember the name.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
As a gay man, I feel that Ms. Kagan's sexual preference is pertinent to a discussion of her appointment to the USSC.
Just as others are free to wonder aloud as to whether she may have a "gay rights agenda" as some gays do, I'm free to wonder aloud as to whether she may have an "anti-gay rights agenda" as some closeted gays do.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23refugee

Just as others are free to wonder aloud as to whether she may have a "gay rights agenda" as some gays do, I'm free to wonder aloud as to whether she may have an "anti-gay rights agenda" as some closeted gays do.


Is she really closeted?

Not shouting it to the rooftop and not making a public announcement - - does not make someone closeted in my opinion.

I am not gay - but I did work at a company where I was the minority being a straight female.

FIRST thing I know is - - - gays are NOT a "group think". They are as diverse in their opinions about Everything - - including Outing a person.

From what I understand - - she does not hide her life from those she is close to and has close working relationships.

I am well aware of Michaelangelo Signorelli position that EVERY gay needs to stand up and be counted. But not all gays take that smae position.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


From what I gather, many who know her claim she has a lover, while friends insist that she's heterosexual. It very well could be that many have mistaken a close friendship for a deeper relationship.
I don't believe for a moment that the President is unaware that the average voter will percieve her as homosexual. So, she may as well be gay as far as public opinion goes.
There seems to be a virtual consensus feel that she lacks the experience required for this appointment. I can't help but view her as a token choice. Surely there are plenty of worthy candidates who agree with the President's politics. Why choose one that appears gay but doesn't view the issue of gay marriage as most (not all) gays do?
As for outing her, I didn't choose her haircut, she did.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by wrathchild
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


1 in 10 hmmmm....sure if thats the numbers you like fine.


I have seen numbers as high as 20% to 25% of the population, but that is just part of the special interest group propaganda to say hey we are a big portion of the population so we should be recognized above all those other special interest groups with “different” behaviors, that they themselves disagree with too.

So even at 1 in 10 one could then say that a random pick of ten people will show one of them is gay…maybe in San Fran, but the reality of un-sensationalized numbers is around 4% of the population, and I’m not sure having someone that might take a special interest in pushing the very personal agendas of 4% of the population is a good thing.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by 23refugee
As a gay man, I feel that Ms. Kagan's sexual preference is pertinent to a discussion of her appointment to the USSC.
Just as others are free to wonder aloud as to whether she may have a "gay rights agenda" as some gays do, I'm free to wonder aloud as to whether she may have an "anti-gay rights agenda" as some closeted gays do.


Actually that is a very good point, and I agree that if she felt she needed to go extremely the other way to prove her lack of support would be just as bad.

Hell, I think we all want a person that would give any subject a fair unbiased ruling, and I’m not saying she would not be that person. My main issue is we just do not know since she has written hardly a page on anything as to what her views are over an extended peroid of time.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


LOL... hilarious. I was actually waiting for the thread asking if she's really even a woman lol... When I first saw her on the news I said wow.. she looks like a man! Like .. Pat from SNL, male or female, no one knows!



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Wow. Unreal the number of people commenting and questioning this woman's gender, laughing about it even.
Not to mention the others calling to question her her sexual orientation - like it's even our business?

So, from the outside, what this thread reflects?

That if she was was 36-24-36 blond, 5'8 and 110 lbs with a good man on her arm she'd be credible and acceptable?

No wonder America is going to hell.

Looks like the majority of it's citizens - even the ones who post here and call themselves 'awake' - haven't even graduated beyond middle-school mentality yet.

geesh


peace



[edit on 13-5-2010 by silo13]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


I agree that the sexual preference of a private individual should be private.
However, she has chosen to enter the political arena.
If her sexual preference is none of our business, by that same token, the sexual preference of some thrice-married politician lobbying to protect the sanctity of marriage is none of our business.
If any discussion of sexual preference becomes taboo in politics, how will one call out the apparent hypocrisy of people like anti-gay rights proponent George Rekers?
How exactly will the insistence that sexual orientation not be part of public discourse help the residents of the 31 states where discrimination against gays is legal. Any refusal to broach this subject only helps enforce the status quo, leaving those people in the same American hell into which they were born.
Intentional or not, viewing discussions of sexual preference as either bigotry or as gays shouting from the rooftops essentially serves the same purpose.
Out of sight , out of mind.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by 23refugee]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Luca Brasi
 


Don't you think being a White Christian Male could skew their perception too? According to your logic, we should not only be worried that she is a lesbian, we should be worried that she's female. Guess it's a good thing she's not black, huh? Then we'd have to worry about that. I wonder what her religion is?

edit: grammar

[edit on 13-5-2010 by nunya13]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23refugee
reply to post by silo13
 


I agree that the sexual preference of a private individual should be private.
However, she has chosen to enter the political arena.

If her sexual preference is none of our business, by that same token, the sexual preference of some thrice-married politician lobbying to protect the sanctity of marriage is none of our business.


I don't think it is.

Isn't it illegal in this process to demand religious affiliation?

Even only just 60 years ago I remember the disdain for allowing anyone Jewish in political office.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


"Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details."

Since a few religions advocate the right of gays to marry, couldn't this question be construed as an illegal test of religious affiliation?



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23refugee
reply to post by Annee
 


"Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details."

Since a few religions advocate the right of gays to marry, couldn't this question be construed as an illegal test of religious affiliation?


I don't know. I'm very sick right now with strep throat - fever - bronchitis. That's more then my clogged up brain can comprehend at the moment.

Someone else is gonna have to answer that.

By the way - love Holly Hunter in Miss Firecracker.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Get upset much?

She's fugly.. and it's funny, because she's fugly.

Have a laugh.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by silo13
 


Get upset much?

She's fugly.. and it's funny, because she's fugly.

Have a laugh.


How Pathetic.

Let's all vote for Palin because she looks good in a bikini.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join