Quote: 24BingoSince he made the Out 100 three years running, I'm going to go ahead and doubt that.
He's not Gay until he outs himself, that's
how it works. Anything else is rumor and
inyourendo. (inuendo, you see what I
did there?)
Quote: terapined
I think a report a day on what Drudge thinks of the current issues would not be to much to expect.
Then it would not be news or a "report" it would be commentary and an editorial.
That's..... Disappointing.
Quote: ams288I didn't know Drudge was gay....
That's..... Disappointing.
Yeah, funny thing...who gives a shit? Gay, straight, whatever...he delivers the product promised and does it well.
No one seems to worry much about his sexuality. Well, except those who just have to do so...as I know you don't!!
Quote: EvenBobQuote: 24BingoSince he made the Out 100 three years running, I'm going to go ahead and doubt that.
He's not Gay until he outs himself, that's
how it works. Anything else is rumor and
inyourendo. (inuendo, you see what I
did there?)
Who gives a crap whether he is gay or straight?
He provides something people want to see and he is successful.
Quote: 24BingoSince he made the Out 100 three years running, I'm going to go ahead and doubt that.
Being "gay" isn't something to be "guilty" of, of course, but why would anything but a statement from the person that is supposed to be "gay" be acceptable? Does he have to declare for one team or the other to remain eligible? This strange desire to make everyone express their bedroom preferences is ridiculous and always has been. I don't care whether a person is in the closet, out of the closet, can't find the closet, or whatever.
Is there a definitive statement from him declaring "gayness"? If not, he should be left alone and any of those folks who just feel the need to "out" people should mind their own business.
I don't like perp walks (innocent until proven guilty) and being gay isn't a crime...so why not give those who may or may not be so alone? I know what someone will say...oh, heavens, he has a position not supported by many gays that is odd with us, so he needs to own his sexuality...no, gay, straight, bi, asexual, or whatever, he has the right to have his own opinions and be left alone.
Quote: RonCQuote: 24BingoSince he made the Out 100 three years running, I'm going to go ahead and doubt that.
Being "gay" isn't something to be "guilty" of, of course, but why would anything but a statement from the person that is supposed to be "gay" be acceptable? Does he have to declare for one team or the other to remain eligible? This strange desire to make everyone express their bedroom preferences is ridiculous and always has been. I don't care whether a person is in the closet, out of the closet, can't find the closet, or whatever.
Gays can be so amusing. One minute the gay lobby (and "Out" is surely part of that) says to stay out of their bedrooms. The next minute, they stick their own nose in someone's bedroom and declare him gay. FWIW I see no evidence in Drudge being gay. He is male, single, and reclusive. That means nothing.
Heck, if I had that kind of cash and celebrity I'd be reclusive too. No privacy, constant threats, total hassle.
Or is it because he wears a fedora?
Perry has ended his bid very early on. He just never could get any traction and pretty much everyone remembers how inept he was as a candidate last time plus he did nothing over the cycle since then to make an impact; I didn't think he ever had a shot.
There isn't a huge impact when someone with little support drops out but it will be interesting to see where the people who supported him end up in the polls moving forward. Which candidate excites them enough to take the place of the one who was their favorite? Not much percentage-wise, of course, but it will be interesting to see because it could indicate a candidate who is gaining more traction.
Meanwhile, Hillary continues to not be able to figure out how to shed the email server issue. Perhaps telling the truth, continuing to tell the truth, and stopping some of the changing answers would help. If there is nothing criminal, perhaps just owning the issue, admitting that you made a mistake, and weathering that storm would help. Answer the committee's questions, answer the news people's questions, and answer them the same.
It isn't usually the event, it is the cover-up...
Y'all know I see Obama as a poor President; I see him as more Presidential than Hillary by a long shot. She totally lacks Bill's charm and doesn't seem to have the ability to shed controversies as skillfully as he did.
Quote: RonC
There isn't a huge impact when someone with little support drops out but it will be interesting to see where the people who supported him end up in the polls moving forward. Which candidate excites them enough to take the place of the one who was their favorite? Not much percentage-wise, of course, but it will be interesting to see because it could indicate a candidate who is gaining more traction.
More will follow before IA as is common. In 1996 Pete Wilson was in it all of 3 weeks or so. That was before most people were online so harder to sustain back then; I had hopes for him but the fix was in for Dole. I still say what this does is make room at the "adults table" for Carly, at least at the debates.
Quote:Meanwhile, Hillary continues to not be able to figure out how to shed the email server issue. Perhaps telling the truth, continuing to tell the truth, and stopping some of the changing answers would help. If there is nothing criminal, perhaps just owning the issue, admitting that you made a mistake, and weathering that storm would help.
She cannot do this, it would end her hopes in an instant. What is the truth? Anyone who worked in an office with email and phones knows the reason. Well, anyone with half a brain......
Office email is monitored, controlled, and most important, retained. I knew from the first time I had a company email not to put anything I did not want read on it. We were even told it was monitored, as if I had to be told. Some folks have to be told, though, including a VP who sent out the Paris Hilton tape. Ditto phones. Company phone, someone might be listening. While they did not care about a few personal calls, I never made a one, I went mafia-style to a public phone or used my cell.
Hillary did not want her emails being read unless she allowed it. This is simple stuff to understand. Most liberals understand what I am saying but want to keep saying "WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE" over and over so the LIVs tire of the whole thing. But it is finding legs now. She is stuck. It was too calculated to say, "Ooops" as if she ran a fantasy football pick on the work email.
Quote: RonCQuote: EvenBobQuote: 24BingoSince he made the Out 100 three years running, I'm going to go ahead and doubt that.
He's not Gay until he outs himself, that's
how it works. Anything else is rumor and
inyourendo. (inuendo, you see what I
did there?)
Who gives a crap whether he is gay or straight?
He provides something people want to see and he is successful.
I'm of the opinion that hypocrites who peddle anti-gay rhetoric and then turn out to be a closeted gay themselves should be sent adrift on an ice floe.
Quote: ams288Quote: RonCQuote: EvenBobQuote: 24BingoSince he made the Out 100 three years running, I'm going to go ahead and doubt that.
He's not Gay until he outs himself, that's
how it works. Anything else is rumor and
inyourendo. (inuendo, you see what I
did there?)
Who gives a crap whether he is gay or straight?
He provides something people want to see and he is successful.
I'm of the opinion that hypocrites who peddle anti-gay rhetoric and then turn out to be a closeted gay themselves should be sent adrift on an ice floe.
If that were the case, and no one here has done anything to provide proof of this person being a closeted gay (someone saying he got an email but not showing the email does not equal proof...), perhaps the compassionate liberals might want to help him instead of killing him, as you suggest. There are gays and straights out there who are tortured by their sexuality and can't accept it; should we ice all of them, too?
Quote: RonCThere are gays and straights out there who are tortured by their sexuality and can't accept it; should we ice all of them, too?
I'm ignoring the "straights who are tortured by their sexuality" portion cause I have no expertise in that....
As for the gay portion, my comment was perfectly succinct. I only feel this way about the hypocrites who push anti-gay rhetoric.
Like former Congressman Aaron Schock. Ice floe. ✔️
Maybe I shouldn't mention positions...
(EvenBob made me say it)
Quote: RonCAnti-gay agenda is a code term for anyone who disagrees with the gays on ANY position.
Maybe I shouldn't mention positions...
(EvenBob made me say it)
Too bad no one said "anti-gay agenda"...
That really does not differ from your own "anti-gay rhetoric."Quote: ams288Too bad no one said "anti-gay agenda"...
Why, you got something against polar bears?Quote: ams288Quote: RonCQuote: EvenBobQuote: 24BingoSince he made the Out 100 three years running, I'm going to go ahead and doubt that.
He's not Gay until he outs himself, that's
how it works. Anything else is rumor and
inyourendo. (inuendo, you see what I
did there?)
Who gives a crap whether he is gay or straight?
He provides something people want to see and he is successful.
I'm of the opinion that hypocrites who peddle anti-gay rhetoric and then turn out to be a closeted gay themselves should be sent adrift on an ice floe.
Quote: ams288Too bad no one said "anti-gay agenda"...
I wasn't addressing any specific comment; I'm so sorry that you took it as such.
What I am saying is that if you hold a single position in conflict with the gay agenda, you are somehow branded as anti-gay or even homophobic.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThat really does not differ from your own "anti-gay rhetoric."
It's completely different.
I would never use the phrase "anti-gay agenda." That would imply that there is some "secret gay agenda" that we are trying to push. That is and always has been complete right-wing nonsense.
It is either a distinction without a difference or another of those items that require further investigation.Quote: ams288It's completely different. I would never use the phrase "anti-gay agenda." That would imply that there is some "secret gay agenda" that we are trying to push.
Jindal took a page out of Trumps own book on how to get some free press.
Just start the day by taking a leak in Trump's cornflakes.
They say all free press is good,
They also say don't tug on Superman's cape.
We'll see how this works out soon enough I guess....
Quote: TwoFeathersATLSpeaking of cornflakes ( another post from years ago I just read ),
Jindal took a page out of Trumps own book on how to get some free press.
Just start the day by taking a leak in Trump's cornflakes.
They say all free press is good,
They also say don't tug on Superman's cape.
We'll see how this works out soon enough I guess....
Jindal has no chance. But I must admit his attacks on Trump were at least entertaining...
Quote: ams288
I'm of the opinion that hypocrites who peddle anti-gay rhetoric and then turn out to be a closeted gay themselves should be sent adrift on an ice floe.
What "anti-gay" rhetoric has Drudge pushed?
What rhetoric of any kind has he pushed for that matter?
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat "anti-gay" rhetoric has Drudge pushed?
What rhetoric of any kind has he pushed for that matter?
This story is on drudge today...doesn't look like "anti-gay rhetoric" or "agenda" to me...
"The singer pointed to studies showing that emerging economies which protect LGBT rights have a higher gross domestic product per capita. He says "so being tolerant and inclusive is not only the morally right thing to do, for the new Ukraine, it's the smart thing to do.""
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_UKRAINE_ELTON_JOHN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-09-12-11-31-14
So I am assuming that some of the links are to things that contain positions that are not favorable to the gay agenda, so that makes it anti-gay.
Most people would just assume the guy has made a good business linking news stories to a web page. Maybe with a bit of a slant, but what news deliverer today has no slant at all????
Quote: RonC
So I am assuming that some of the links are to things that contain positions that are not favorable to the gay agenda, so that makes it anti-gay.
WINNER WINNER, CHICKEN DINNER!
Quote:Most people would just assume the guy has made a good business linking news stories to a web page. Maybe with a bit of a slant, but what news deliverer today has no slant at all????[/q
The guy has an amazing ability to put up news you would never look for yourself but can't wait to see. His headline writing ability while yellow is the best in news. I imagine he has 100 or so sites he checks and the rest are links people send. I've send a few links, a few of the stories showed up. I am not arrogant enough to think it was my tip, he probably gets multiple emails every second and filters any links sent. When he gets so many he probably checks them out.All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
personally updates the page 100 times a day, so it's
constant relevant with the newest stories. It's a huge
amount of work, but he makes 10's of millions a year
from advertisers, it hot site to sell your product on.
2mil unique hits a day? There are 25 MILLION total
hits a day, the ads get seen over and over. So far
this year it's 8.6 billion hits.
Quote: EvenBobI heard Drudge say in an interview that he sometimes
personally updates the page 100 times a day, so it's
constant relevant with the newest stories. It's a huge
amount of work, but he makes 10's of millions a year
from advertisers, it hot site to sell your product on.
2mil unique hits a day? There are 25 MILLION total
hits a day, the ads get seen over and over. So far
this year it's 8.6 billion hits.
10s of millions a year? That's a lot of money.
I'm willing to bet the FBI's recent raid on rentboy.com hit Drudge's interests hard...
Especially for someone whom no one who is consequential "pays attention" to:Quote: ams28810s of millions a year? That's a lot of money.
"The only people who read/take Drudge seriously are intense right-wingers. No one else pays attention."
Some posters seem unable to resist smearing said aggregator without any basis. Responses are a natural occurrence.Quote: mcallister3200Man, politics are pathetic. We've got multiple pages now solely bickering about a freaking link aggregator, I mean come on....
Quote: mcallister3200Man, politics are pathetic. We've got multiple pages now solely bickering about a freaking link aggregator, I mean come on....
The good thing is that is just as easy to block the thread as it is to complain about it!!
It'll come back to the election at some point...most long conversations go in a bunch of different directions.
Quote: ams288
I'm willing to bet the FBI's recent raid on rentboy.com hit Drudge's interests hard...
Just a question, does a statement like this mean it is OK to make derogatory comments about gays now? Not that Drudge is gay (he has never said he is and no proof that he is) but you seem to think so.
So, can I now ask, "Wow, with rentbooy,com being taken down, where is Barney Frank going to find a date this weekend?"
Quote: AZDuffmanJust a question, does a statement like this mean it is OK to make derogatory comments about gays now? Not that Drudge is gay (he has never said he is and no proof that he is) but you seem to think so.
So, can I now ask, "Wow, with rentbooy,com being taken down, where is Barney Frank going to find a date this weekend?"
Of course not. The double standard does not allow for that. People who have not acknowledged or been proven to be gay can be "outed" without recourse but the other 97% cannot possibly say anything bad related to the sexuality of someone gay.
Quote: AZDuffmanJust a question, does a statement like this mean it is OK to make derogatory comments about gays now?
Not for you.
I'm gay so I can get away with it.
Double standard? Probably. Deal with it.
Quote: ams288Not for you.
I'm gay so I can get away with it.
Double standard? Probably. Deal with it.
Interesting. Statements like this seem to indicate that some in the gay population does not want "equality"--they want "superiority" of some sort...the ability to say whatever they want about someone's sexuality without proof or admission and to be able to get away with it. Ridiculous.
Quote: RonCInteresting. Statements like this seem to indicate that some in the gay population does not want "equality"--they want "superiority" of some sort...the ability to say whatever they want about someone's sexuality without proof or admission and to be able to get away with it. Ridiculous.
Nah.
It's kinda like when a black guy uses the "n" word. They're allowed to. But if you did you'd be a racist. They're taking it back.
I'm allowed to make a joke about a hypocritical right-wing closeted gay anytime I feel like it.
Once again: get over it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/tech-company-no-indication-that-clintons-e-mail-server-was-wiped/2015/09/12/10c8ce52-58c6-11e5-abe9-27d53f250b11_story.html
This is not good news for Hillary at all. At best, this gives the story more staying power; at worst, things will be found that sink her ship. Most likely, it will be something between the two extremes. None of it is good news. It associates her name more and more with words like "liar", "dishonest", and "untrustworthy"...a problem for her already:
"Of those polled, 178 used "liar" for Clinton. After that, they were most likely to say "dishonest" (123) and then "untrustworthy" (93). The first positive words didn't appear until the No. 4 term, "experience" (82), and the No. 5 one, "strong" (59)."
...The results come from a Quinnipiac University survey that polled 1,500 people.
http://www.businessinsider.com/quinnipiac-poll-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-donald-trump-words
Quote: ams288Nah.
It's kinda like when a black guy uses the "n" word. They're allowed to. But if you did you'd be a racist. They're taking it back.
I'm allowed to make a joke about a hypocritical right-wing closeted gay anytime I feel like it.
Once again: get over it.
Again, you aren't making jokes about a "hypocritical right-wing closeted gay" because you've shown neither proof nor admission by that person that they are indeed gay. It is an allegation, not a fact. If it were a fact, it may be different.
The similarity with the "n" word is almost as silly of a thing, if it weren't so serious. Either the word is repulsive (and I think it is) or it is not. Using it keeps it alive and it is a word that should disappear from ALL of our vocabularies. There is nothing good or right in the name, it is a derogatory term and you can't use it in any way to make it a good thing. We have people trying to remove every Confederate flag because it is viewed as "racist', yet using a term that is clearly racist and divisive is okay. That is not some position that you should either strive for, defend, or try to use as a way to justify your position.
Over it? Nah. I'll continue to fight double standards where they exist.
Yet for some reason it got no play in the media and everyone is still only talking about the prior outlier poll that showed her tied or losing.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-democrats-claim-resounding-latino-support-over-gop
Curious.
Quote: RonCInteresting. Statements like this seem to indicate that some in the gay population does not want "equality"--they want "superiority" of some sort...the ability to say whatever they want about someone's sexuality without proof or admission and to be able to get away with it. Ridiculous.
Correct. If someone asked what he himself was going to to what with rentboy closing you would hear screaming about personal insults, probably demand sensitivity training. Yet he is happy to act like it is a 5th grade schoolyard and call a guy gay for the fun of it just because he does not like him.
And then he wonders why I have zero respect for the gay movement. A huge part of the population misses this kind of thing. Gay "activists" have always demanded respect yet offered none. Sadly, nothing new to report.
Quote: ams288A new poll released yesterday shows Hillary once again beating all Republicans.
Yet for some reason it got no play in the media and everyone is still only talking about the prior outlier poll that showed her tied or losing.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-democrats-claim-resounding-latino-support-over-gop
Curious.
Might have to do with the fact that it is a Pravda er DNC er MSNBC poll?
Quote: ams288A new poll released yesterday shows Hillary once again beating all Republicans.
Yet for some reason it got no play in the media and everyone is still only talking about the prior outlier poll that showed her tied or losing.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-democrats-claim-resounding-latino-support-over-gop
Curious.
I'll gladly talk about it. Yes, it does show Clinton leading head to head battles with Republican front runners, but it actually shows Joe Biden doing BETTER against all of them on both ends of the poll:
Biden as the candidate:
Biden 50%, Rubio 42%
Biden 50%, Bush 42%
Biden 54%, Cruz 39%
Clinton as the candidate:
Clinton 50%, Rubio 44%
Clinton 49%, Bush 45%
Clinton 52%, Cruz 41%
This speaks volumes for the direction of her candidacy. She is not as strong as someone who is not even in the race at this point. She wasn't just the darling of the "D"; she was clearly expected to win by a large margin when this all started. Even her opponents knew it would be a long uphill battle against her. Now she is not as good a candidate as someone who isn't even one yet...
Like her race against Obama, she was strong early. My opinion is that she'll hang on and possibly be the candidate but in a much weaker position than she started in. While the polling suggests she can still win, there is a long way to go from this point and she is not going in the right direction.
Maybe the major liberal network news folks aren't covering this because it isn't all that great for Hillary...
Quote: RonCI'll gladly talk about it. Yes, it does show Clinton leading head to head battles with Republican front runners, but it actually shows Joe Biden doing BETTER against all of them on both ends of the poll:
Er.... You can't be serious. Biden isn't even running officially. Of course he'll do better.
A theoretical candidate always does well. Then when they get into the race and get their hands dirty their numbers start going down.
Quote: AZDuffmanMight have to do with the fact that it is a Pravda er DNC er MSNBC poll?
Are you saying MSNBC releases partisan polls?
I guess we should all listen to you, the guy who thought Romney was gonna win as late as election morning 2012, on which polls are reliable....
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/
Marist, who worked with MSNBC on the new poll AZDuffman implies is slanted, had a Republican lean in 2012.
Quote: ams288Not for you.
I'm gay so I can get away with it.
Double standard? Probably. Deal with it.
Quote: RonCInteresting. Statements like this seem to indicate that some in the gay population does not want "equality"--they want "superiority" of some sort...the ability to say whatever they want about someone's sexuality without proof or admission and to be able to get away with it. Ridiculous.
I think the response from ams was a bit extreme. He's just stirring the pot getting the righties riled up.
Here is my view on gays. By the way not gay, not that there is anything wrong with it :-)
The only thing that makes them different from me is what goes on in the bedroom.
I view the bedroom as an area of privacy for everybody. Totally none of my business
Other then that, gays are just like everybody else in society.
By excluding everything private, how can I be anti-gay, they are just people like me.
Therefore I don't see the logic in being anti-gay.
Gay Marriage, nobody lost rights, just some people gained rights. I don't understand the logic against gay marriage because nobody has lost rights by gays gaining the right to marry.
The bottom line for me is how can you be anti gay if for the lost part you cant determine if a person is gay. Yes there are flaming gays but your average gay is actually a low key guy.
Quote: ams288Er.... You can't be serious. Biden isn't even running officially. Of course he'll do better.
A theoretical candidate always does well. Then when they get into the race and get their hands dirty their numbers start going down.
Yes, I am serious. While I understand your quick dismissal of Biden, I would say that most, if not all, of the negative stuff on him is out there already. Much like Hillary, other than the email stuff, he has been in the public eye for years and every misstep has been recorded and reported. He isn't someone from coming out of nowhere to run.
Quote: ams288
A theoretical candidate always does well. Then when they get into the race and get their hands dirty their numbers start going down.
For example, Hillary Clinton..........
http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/donald-trump-jimmy-fallon-tonight-show-stephen-colbert-1201591884/
And Sanders is kicking Hill's flabby cellulite ass in NH:
https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/09/13/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-cbs-battleground-poll/
That's too funny...