NYC's stone wall dems laid out the welcome mat for harold ford jr. only instead of reading welcome, ANTI-GAY LIAR was written across it in big black letters. jr. was full of empty political rhetoric like most politicians, and the crowd was generally belligerent (i.e. real queeny). the way he was treated wasn't fair or reasonable, but i won't lose any sleep over it. what seems worth mentioning is this;
"asked if he agreed with the ruling in lawrence v. texas, ford had to ask for clarification on what the case was about. the room erupted in groans. several attendees I spoke to were forgiving, recognizing the case title might not have reverberated outside our community. though, i think it's worth pointing out that it probably indicates ford didn't quite get all the way through his recommended reading of the LGBT community for dummies. (or as one less charitable person put it on twitter: 'to be fair, it was in 2003, when ford still hated the gays.')"
ford just isn't going to be successful at wooing new york state LGBTs so long as he doesn't bother to educate himself about basic landmarks within the gay civil rights movement. someone on his staff could have easily wikipedia-ed "US gay rights" and the first sentence of the second paragraph in the entry explains the essential facts of the case. unfortunately for him, this misstep exposes his shallow interest in LGBT issues.
[via]
"asked if he agreed with the ruling in lawrence v. texas, ford had to ask for clarification on what the case was about. the room erupted in groans. several attendees I spoke to were forgiving, recognizing the case title might not have reverberated outside our community. though, i think it's worth pointing out that it probably indicates ford didn't quite get all the way through his recommended reading of the LGBT community for dummies. (or as one less charitable person put it on twitter: 'to be fair, it was in 2003, when ford still hated the gays.')"
ford just isn't going to be successful at wooing new york state LGBTs so long as he doesn't bother to educate himself about basic landmarks within the gay civil rights movement. someone on his staff could have easily wikipedia-ed "US gay rights" and the first sentence of the second paragraph in the entry explains the essential facts of the case. unfortunately for him, this misstep exposes his shallow interest in LGBT issues.
[via]
6 comments:
to be fair, i had to click on the link to know exactly what lawrence v texas was too.
anti-gay liar seems a little harsh. settle down fags.
i'm just RIGHT NOW getting around to watching milk, so maybe my gay card is going to be suspended.
literally right this second.
wait a second...joel, you're gay?
aaaaaaaaaHAHA aA ha Ahaahh ahahAH a ahahhah.
yeah i thought matt lee told you... oOOoops
CTM
Post a Comment