Jump to content

NJ Democrat Calls Philadelphia Eagles "Gaybirds"


Max

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Charles Mainor, a Democratic member of the NJ Assembly, issued an apology after posting on his Facebook page that the Philadelphia Eagles are "gaybirds."

http://www.boston.co..._gaybirds_post/

Not surprisingly, Mainor said that it was a friend of his who actually wrote the term "gaybird." The assemblyman then reminded everyone that he has gay relatives (which is very reminiscent, IMO, of how Rick Santorum told the public that he has gay friends).

This story is over 24 hours old, but not one of the liberals who love to trash the "homophobic" GOP has yet to post this story. Furthermore, the outrage in the homosexual community seems to be but a blip on the radar screen. I guess a simple fact of life is that when a Democrat makes anti-gay comments he is truly sorry about it (and probably didn't even mean any harm in the first place), but when a Republican makes such statements it is proof positive that the party is obsessed with hating gays morning, noon, and night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Is this Democrat:

- known for supporting anti-gay legislation

- known for making anti-gay comments

- known to have heavy ties to anti-gay organizations

?

If not then that's why he hasn't had as much criticism.

I should also point out that the media WORSHIPS Chris Christie, who is anti-gay to the point that he used animus against gays to help get elected (going on about how he would block gay marriage, so vote for him) and has continued to do so while in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Not sure what exactly this adds to the conversation, but I have plenty of Democrat Facebook friends, female as well as male, who on game day have no qualms tossing the "Cowgirls" and "Tony Homo" about. When it comes to sports, playfully politically incorrect/inappropriate chauvinism seems to be non-partisan, just ignorance all around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

SFK, I perfectly understand your point, as you have never been partisan. Though this has nothing to do with you, the fact of the matter is that some in the gay community would be hyperventilating if a Republican ever made such a comment (even if it was made in the context of a sporting event). While the Democrats have a s#itty record on gay marriage, that pretty much is ignored by these people, while they hold steadfast in their belief that the #1 goal of (the vast majority of) Republicans is to persecute the gays.

Thanks for explaining the "logic" that it's OK to use anit-gay slurs so long as you pretend to be an ally to the homosexual community.

It wasn't hatred against gays that got Christie elected. (If the people in NJ hate gays--and if hating gays is what the GOP is all about--then Republicans would win every single statewide election in NJ; instead, Christie was the first Republican to do so in twelve years.) Christie only won because of the gross incompetence and unpopularity of incumbent Jon Corzine, a filthy-rich man who is currently under investigation for his role in the demise of the Wall Street firm formerly known as MF Global.

Furthermore, why the double standard on gay marriage: Christie is an evil person for opposing it, yet Obama gets off scott-free for not supporting it. Given this, it is no wonder why the Democratic Party takes the gay vote completely for granted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Carl, I really don't understand why you are going out of your way to defend this homophobic Democratic lawmaker. At the very least, can't you condemn what he said?

And it certainly is a big leap to suggest that Christie won because of anti-gay sentiment (simply because he campaigned against gay marriage). Christie won by nearly 100,000 votes, which is four times the amount the much more moderate Republican Christine Todd Whitman won by in the 1990s. None of the mainstream political analysis attributed Christie's victory to homophobia; rather, NJ's poor economy and high tax burden were the main issues. (Since the economy is still poor, Christie is in real danger of losing re-election, regardless of what he does on the issue of gay marriage.) While this may come as a surprise to some, most swing voters don't spend a great deal of time thinking about the "dangers" of gay marriage; rather, they care about pocketbook issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This isn't about the lawmaker at all. I've never heard of the man and I doubt anyone cares about him outside of the local politics he's involved in. It's a stupid comment from this man and I don't like it.

You mentioned that you didn't understand why "liberals" or "the homosexual community" were not spending more time complaining about him, compared to a Republican. I asked what his background on this issue was, and compared him to a man that many Republicans worship as a god.

And yet Christie still went out of his way to make gay marriage an issue. Not sure what that says about him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Carl, thank you for finally condemning the comment made by the NJ Democratic Assemblyman. Regarding Christie, I just don't see how he went "out of his way to make gay marriage an issue." (He did mention that was one issue that he would fight against, but--unless he was completely lying--I would expect that Obama would fight against any attempts to make gay marriage the law of the land as well.) In all seriousness, you don't mean to suggest that gay marriage was the core theme of Christie's campaign? (Because most observers will tell you that Christie's main focus was on economic issues and taxes.) Furthermore, since Christie is not the first NJ Republican to oppose gay marriage, why was he able to win a statewide election in NJ when so many others failed? (Given your conclusion that gay marriage was the most important issue to the homophobic voters of NJ, shouldn't Republicans then win every single statewide election there?)

RCSNJ, I apologize for my rudeness, but I think that relatively mild criticism of Obama on gay marriage isn't all that meaningful if the homosexual community continues to give their near-universal support to the president on election day. For the life of me, I just don't understand why the gay community doesn't field more pro-gay marriage candidates in presidential primary elections (if they ever want to be taken seriously within the Democratic Party), or threaten to form a new political party altogether. (These are tactics that the far-right has successfully used for decades.) The sad fact of the matter is that the current crop of gay and lesbian leaders are doing a terrible job when it comes to advancing their agenda.

I can't recall any prominent gay leader call Obama "homophobic" for opposing gay marriage, whereas that label appears to be routinely applied to any Republican who is against marriage equality. And the media as well likes to give GOP candidates a grilling on this issue (like they did at a recent debate) while allowing Democrats to not have to answer for their positions on this issue. (This double standard even goes beyond the mainstream media; for instance, four years ago, McCain was given holy hell by Ellen when he appeared on her talkshow because of his position on gay marriage. Yet, when Obama--whose position on gay marriage is the same as McCain's--was on her show, he was asked questions such as what tunes were currently uploaded into his I-Pod.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
    •   Thanks for sharing these. I wonder if Charles might have been in the running for Adam. I know Preacher was a bit of a bad boy at times on EON, but Neal seemed to be a step down, and Robert Lupone had played a similar part on AMC. Given the huge cast turnover at this point I wonder who thought they had been there long enough to go.  Laura Malone/Chris Rich would get a remote within the next year. 
    • Interesting.  It seems to allude to that statement that Warren Burton made around that time about some AW actors getting special treatment.  I wonder who was resentful about not getting to go. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy