Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

+1. Not a single, specific example of LG voting to harm gay people. Lots of innuendo that he could be blackmailed since he is gay. Which interestingly! Used to be a justification for not allowing gay people to have security clearances until it was shot down as discriminatory. My take away: the left is now promoting discrimination against gays.

+2

21:09

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.[/quote]

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?[/quote]

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.[/quote]

+1. Not a single, specific example of LG voting to harm gay people. Lots of innuendo that he could be blackmailed since he is gay. Which interestingly! Used to be a justification for not allowing gay people to have security clearances until it was shot down as discriminatory. My take away: the left is now promoting discrimination against gays. [/quote]


Lol. HE VISITED PROSTITUTES! I'm 100% sure this is automatic disqualification for security clearances. It is illegal and immoral. His constituents deserve to know that their lawmaker breaks the laws. [/quote]

You would be 100% wrong. If visiting a prostitute was a disqualifier for a security clearance, we're going to have to shut down the special operations command. The military has a ton of cleared people and it's not exactly a boy scout troop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

Why would being gay shame him?

So you are in favor of outing gay people? That's okay with liberals?

I'm not a liberal. But there is a big difference between outing someone and shaming them. You claimed that people on this thread are trying to shame him. Why would hiring sex workers of the same sex shame him? Either there is nothing wrong with this or there is. Which is it?

False dichotomy. Gay people don't owe you an explanation of their preferences. And given that the world is hostile to them, outing them as gay, against their wishes, is a violation. It's called consent.

I'm sorry but there is no legal basis for this "consent." You don't have to get someone's consent to say truthful things about them in public. You seem like you want to ironically throw liberal talking points into this discussion. But you aren't doing it right. And I'm not a liberal so I don't care about vague notions of "consent."

Anonymous wrote:I'm getting tired of being more woke than the liberals on this thread. Do better.

YES! Up is down and down is up, apparently!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

+1. Not a single, specific example of LG voting to harm gay people. Lots of innuendo that he could be blackmailed since he is gay. Which interestingly! Used to be a justification for not allowing gay people to have security clearances until it was shot down as discriminatory. My take away: the left is now promoting discrimination against gays.

+2

-4

He voted to confirm conservative Supreme Court Justices, who went on to rule that bakers can discrimimate against people based on their sexuality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

Why would being gay shame him?

So you are in favor of outing gay people? That's okay with liberals?

I'm not a liberal. But there is a big difference between outing someone and shaming them. You claimed that people on this thread are trying to shame him. Why would hiring sex workers of the same sex shame him? Either there is nothing wrong with this or there is. Which is it?

False dichotomy. Gay people don't owe you an explanation of their preferences. And given that the world is hostile to them, outing them as gay, against their wishes, is a violation. It's called consent.

Agreed. I would say every person on this thread demanding he be "outed" is hostile to not only him, but gay people in general. Forcing someone to come out? WTH?

I'm getting tired of being more woke than the liberals on this thread. Do better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

+1. Not a single, specific example of LG voting to harm gay people. Lots of innuendo that he could be blackmailed since he is gay. Which interestingly! Used to be a justification for not allowing gay people to have security clearances until it was shot down as discriminatory. My take away: the left is now promoting discrimination against gays.

Lol. HE VISITED PROSTITUTES! I'm 100% sure this is automatic disqualification for security clearances. It is illegal and immoral. His constituents deserve to know that their lawmaker breaks the laws.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

Why would being gay shame him?

So you are in favor of outing gay people? That's okay with liberals?

I'm not a liberal. But there is a big difference between outing someone and shaming them. You claimed that people on this thread are trying to shame him. Why would hiring sex workers of the same sex shame him? Either there is nothing wrong with this or there is. Which is it?

False dichotomy. Gay people don't owe you an explanation of their preferences. And given that the world is hostile to them, outing them as gay, against their wishes, is a violation. It's called consent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

Why would being gay shame him?

So you are in favor of outing gay people? That's okay with liberals?

If they're *Republican* gay people, it's absolutely ok to out them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

Why would being gay shame him?

So you are in favor of outing gay people? That's okay with liberals?

I'm not a liberal. But there is a big difference between outing someone and shaming them. You claimed that people on this thread are trying to shame him. Why would hiring sex workers of the same sex shame him? Either there is nothing wrong with this or there is. Which is it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

Why would being gay shame him?

So you are in favor of outing gay people? That's okay with liberals?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

+1. Not a single, specific example of LG voting to harm gay people. Lots of innuendo that he could be blackmailed since he is gay. Which interestingly! Used to be a justification for not allowing gay people to have security clearances until it was shot down as discriminatory. My take away: the left is now promoting discrimination against gays.

+2

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. There's no mess to clean up and no revelation. The media has outed LG more times than I can count. It turns out that he's a moderate Republican with a fairly moderate constituency who doesn't care about his sexual preferences as much as you do.

While Trump has certainly not helped unite the country, you're being hyperbolic about the views of most Republicans and certainly about LG. Speaking of Pete Buttigieg, he was the best Democrat on the ticket. He wasn't electable in the primaries because too many Democrat voters rejected him for being gay. Google LG's comments about how ludicrous that is.

The inescapable fact is that this thread is set up to attack a man for being gay. And that all the conservatives responding on this thread find it vile for him to be attacked for his sexual preference. And the liberals are actually hoping that he will suffer for daring to be gay without bowing to them. So while the GOP has its share of Neanderthals, it sounds like Democrats only support gays and minorities in order to get votes. No votes, no support. We see you.

No moderates support Trump. I stopped reading your post after I saw this statement.

You people! So funny. You really do live in a tiny, windowless, suffocating echo chamber, don't you?
-DP

Anonymous wrote:DP. There's no mess to clean up and no revelation. The media has outed LG more times than I can count. It turns out that he's a moderate Republican with a fairly moderate constituency who doesn't care about his sexual preferences as much as you do.

While Trump has certainly not helped unite the country, you're being hyperbolic about the views of most Republicans and certainly about LG. Speaking of Pete Buttigieg, he was the best Democrat on the ticket. He wasn't electable in the primaries because too many Democrat voters rejected him for being gay. Google LG's comments about how ludicrous that is.

The inescapable fact is that this thread is set up to attack a man for being gay. And that all the conservatives responding on this thread find it vile for him to be attacked for his sexual preference. And the liberals are actually hoping that he will suffer for daring to be gay without bowing to them. So while the GOP has its share of Neanderthals, it sounds like Democrats only support gays and minorities in order to get votes. No votes, no support. We see you.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS. Nailed it, PP.