The bigots at the Blogging Tories are trying to justify the unjustifiable, defending the indefensible, and being their usual intolerant selves, in support of King Stephens political-homophobia.
I thought of commenting on these stupid remarks but thought better of it, let them speak for themselves they do it so well....hoisting themselves on their own petards so to speak....
International AIDS Conference
OK, so the International AIDS Conference is being held in Toronto. Apparently, Stephen Harper wasn't in attendance. Of course, the Libs and the NDP jumped right on the chance to bash our PM for his absence. My question is SO THE F*** WHAT? Do the NDP and Liberal leaders go to world conferences for other diseases: breast cancer? lung cancer? colon cancer? heart disease?
Get over it already!
P.M. Stephen Harper is not showing up at the AID's conference. Period. Deal with it.Surely all the time and effort spent weeping and lamenting over this turn of events could be put to better use. But of course we know the real reason behind the furor - political capital.Certain advocacy groups seem to be trying to send out a message via sympathetic MSM that our PM does not care because he is no...
Pediatric Shakespeare Scholars for Global Peace ......Stephen Harper hates you too.Yesterday in front of cheering crowds, Dr. Mark Wainberg, co-chair of the international AIDS conference currently underway in Toronto, lambasted Stephen Harper for not attending. The implication was that Harper doesn't care about the disease or its victims.For those of you who want to get a jump start on your protest organization and start making your "Harper hat...
There's a big AIDS conference going on in Toronto, Gian Gomeshi produced a little spoken word piece with appropriately haunting brit-pop background. Like you, I love spoken word pieces and Gian/Xian makes them rhyme, which to me, is much classier. Later in the day, the CBC asked its audience: should the Prime Minister not be at the AIDS conference? The issue is so important that he needs to be there to call attention to it. In a funny way, the fuss does the job of creating media buzz, giving the conference all it would get from his appearance in the first place. Besides, I doubt Bill Clinton and Bill Gates need any help in boosting an event's profile.
Also See
AIDS
Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
harper, AIDS, Arctic, bloggingtories, blogs, rightwing, bigots, intolerance, homophobia, Toronto, AIDSconference
25 comments:
You missed the mark big time with this post.
Not attending an AIDS conference DOES NOT equate to being either homophobic or bigoted.
Nice try, but you're dead wrong on this one.
I agree with Andrew. I'm not sure if we can conclude homophobia here on the part of the PM.
Cowardice, no question. Weak leadership, without a doubt. Self-righteous petulance, absolutely. But homophobia? Who knows. Just because he's an evangelical Christian doesn't mean he hates gays. And even if he hates gays, that doesn't mean he is homophobic. Right? Right?
It is terrifically insulting of you to use my blog as evidence of homophobia - did you read my post???
I know you mean well - but, give your head a shake. Insulting Gian Gomeshi amounts to nothing more than pop culture gossip. Homophobia? Ridiculous!
You forgot to add "hearsay journalism", and "professional sphincter" to your bio.
Dude, you are soooo off the mark. As a daily poster at Chucker's site, I am here to tell you that you could not be more wrong in your presumptive idiocy. Chucker's just about the most open-minded guy there is in the world, doesn't give a damn at all who a person is.
I'm also qualified to tell you that it's exactly your brand of pseudo-intellectual junk-talk that has hurt gays as a group more than Stephen Harper would ever even wish to. You think you're "helping", but you're just a (very big) part of the problem. Without dipsticks like you, we'd be further ahead in much quicker time.
You owe Chucker an apology. You don't even know what "homophobia" actually means.
And please, do spare us all the, "But I'M gay, I think I know homophobia when I see it" stuff. Because you don't.
PS. I think a lot of straight women and men would be really fascinated to hear your thoughts on this.
PSS. I'm really dying to hear what exactly in Chucker's post rings of "homophobia" to you.
I've known Charles, of and on, since we were in high school. That's more years than I care to admit ago.
To typify him or his post as intolerant towards homosexuals betrays the worst kind of knee jerk, hair trigger crap that makes the rest of us on the left spend half our time having to distance ourselves from extremists.
Thank you for muddying the waters. Thank you for behaving like the people who issued the edict against Rushdie.
In a word, thank you. By your actions you've saved me loads of time. Now people can clearly see the difference between the left and those who are professional intellectual hitmen.
The only one who got "hoisted on his own petard" was you my friend.
I can also vouch for Chucker. But why should we bother trying to prove anything to you? Who made you the judge and jury?
Diogenes Borealis makes a great example of a bigot giving homophobic support for Stephen Harper. Did you actually take the time to read the gentleman's blog?
You missed my point when I said Political Homophobia and linked to my column on Harper pandering to the social conservative right which is homophobic. And proudly so, one needs only to read about the whole anti-christian conspiracy by the likes of Joanne and Link Byfield to understand this, or perhaps some columns by the ex Alberta Report staffers who now dominate the MSM...do a technocrati search on my blog for Alberta Report....
As for being gay or straight, it is irrelevant if you are a consistant liberatarian which it is apparent none of the BT are nor is Harper or those in his Party who claim to be. Like our pal Monty Solberg, which I have blogged on here as well. See my article on SSM.
As for ChuckerCanucks comments yes I did read them and yes I did post them all sans the Hezbollah crap. His words stand for themselves.
I never said any of these fine right whing whiners was homophobic I said they supported Harpers decision not to attend the AIDS conference, which if you had read the links, I have already stated that AIDS is predominately a heterosexual disease....something Chucker Canuck might have read before he commented on his blog.
I am so glad he has so many friends.
As for Diogenes Borealis yes I did read his blog and thought it made as much sense as the dweeb who compared AIDs to breast cancer, colon cancer etc. While all of them are preventable and could lead to possible death, none of these diseases are equivalent to the plague that is AIDS. In otherwords
DB compared Harpers failure to show at the AIDS conference as equivalent to a Shakespeare conference.
Apparently Mr. Harper has claimed on many occasions to be a libertarian, I did not know he was a born again evangelical Christian, Cerbeus, I thought that was Stockwell Day.
Harper avoided opening the Outgames, that was a sop to his right wing bigoted base, however to not attend the AIDS conference is to equate AIDS with homosexuality in the minds of the fundamentalist right wing he is pandering to.
The fact is that this same fundamentalist right wing also hates all forms of sexuality not based upon their particular morality so you are all correct they are not just homophobic but sexphobic as well. But then again they are a cult of Thantos not eros.
All of which would have been much more on target about Charles and his post if it HAD BEEN ABOUT AIDS AND NOT ABOUT GIAN.
Jumping Jebus on a fucking Pogo Stick, unass your head and stop embarrassing the rest of us.
Boy Charles has a lot of friends, how am I embarssing you I don't know. But the BT are an embarssment overall, and I notice that outside of BBS none of you have commented on the other posts, that should be embarassment to all you 'right' thinking folks.
"You missed my point when I said Political Homophobia and linked to my column on Harper pandering to the social conservative right which is homophobic. And proudly so, one needs only to read about the whole anti-christian conspiracy by the likes of Joanne..."
Examples please.
Eugene, you are committing the same sin when you label BT's "bigots" for supporting Harper's decision not to attend the conference. You are making erroneous judgements about people's character, and grouping them all into the same mindset.
I personally don't care if you call me a bigot. I've been called much worse. But please don't call Chucker a bigot. We have had so many discussions on this and his views are quite different from mine. Yet we still respect each other and we have never called each other names.
Blogging Tories is a big tent. We are representative of many religions, ethnic backgrounds and sexual diversity.
And Cameron, don't worry. Nobody would associate you with the likes of this guy.
Eugene,
Here's what you've done:
You've said homophobia and bigotry. Then you've paused. Then you've provided a list.
This list includes examples of homophobia. And Charles.
This means you think Charles is homophobic. You can now move the goal post and say "oh but I meant political homophobia" (because, gosh, that's just like Homophobia Lite™ and everything is great now!) but 90% of your readers will look over your comment and say "well all these guys are homophobic nazis and if Eugene says so, then that's ok by me".
Oh, and the "right" thinking comment? Well done. Because everyone who thinks you are wrong on this specific issue is a right wing neocon fascist homophobe who spends his weekend shooting deer and beating their wives.
This pathetic dingy of a debating tactic crashes upon the shoals of, well me. The union member, University working, overly educated, secular, urban dwelling, left voting center lefty.
Damn. Another bit of shorthand cherry picking, lazy writing blown to hell by reality.
Totally lazy debating. No credibility here.
"Political homophobia" is a constructed concept that you just pulled out of your ass once every single commenter took the time to point out your casual laziness. There's no such thing.
Homophobia is homophobia. Jian Ghomeshi is Jian Ghomeshi.
Chucker has a lot of friends because he is accepting - of everyone. He is not exclusive and is not close-minded.
Chucker is not "homophobic" or "sexphobic", in any way whatsoever. Start talking about reality, and stop embarrassing gay rights proponents - they're actually trying to get some work done, rather than masturbating for everyone.
I'd be interested in hearing how Eugene labels this Blogging Tory.
If any of you took time to read my comments you would have noticed I was refering to Harper and his religious right wing base, not any partiuclar blogger you are a fan club of. The echo chamber is reverberating with your feigned outrage.
Well, by including Chucker in that "religious right wing base" by calling him a bigot, you're really out in left field!
Still waiting for examples, BTW.
Some of my friends are white, male, meat eating, christian, gun toting, right wingers. So there.
How nice for you.
You still implied/said that Charles was homophobic. By linking him to "Harper and his religious right wing base" you are making him out to be that as well.
If Chucker Canuck was principaled he would not be a member of the BT which includes a wide variety of proud bigots who excuse their bigotry as being Politically Incorrect. This is what Andrew at least has recognized which is why he quite the echo chamber that is BT. If Chucker Canuck was as 'liberal' as you all claim he would join the Progressive Boggers. But honesty is not the issue here is it.
Who the hell said he was a liberal?
You're dodging.
It's pathetic.
As for honesty, pot? kettle? pile of bullshit?
Troll on Cameron.
Oh Eugene, that's sweet.
First you used "some of my best friends are ..." now you've accused me of being a troll.
Look, on the horizon, is that the accusation of being homophobic?
The simple fact is that you implied that Charles' joke was homophobic, when he never actually talked about Harper not being there but about Gian's spoken word dealy.
If you'd read the comments before knee jerking to judgement you'd have noticed that the flow of discussion ended with Charles agreeing that it was not smart of Harper to have skipped the conference and that it sent the wrong message.
You would have also noticed that the whole post/comment thread was taken over completely by those you derided as "liberals", all of whom who ridiculed Harper for not being there.
I also note that some of the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" comments are starting to seem awfully prophetic, what with stuff like this.
Anyway, you've dismissed criticism by pointing to an ill defined term of your creation, suggested that lists and associations don't work the same on your blog as they do in, well the rest of the world. The rest of us are trolls, "liberals" and are bigots dismissing criticism by "having friends who are [insert descriptive term here]".
Thank goodness you're up for some honest debate.
Post a Comment