Here’s the story:
http://gawker.com/5739023/gays-finally-get-a-chance-to-grind-with-andrew-breitbart
Also:
:eek:
Wow, can this guy sound any more gay?
I’m not sure I see your point.
He sounds gay, therefore … what, exactly?
If we already know he’s a dishonest political operative (what’s the opposite of an oxymoron?), how does suspecting he might be gay, or accusing him of sounding gay, add or subtract from that conclusion?
In short, this pit is lame and stupid.
Roddy
Are you thinking of “redundant”?
There ya go. Or maybe tautology.
Or maybe “tautological redundancy”?
That he’s a big ol’ hypocrite, though I guess that’s not unusual for those of his ilk these days.
Also in one breath he says he’s supposed to gays defending their country, but in the next says they’re welcome in his “big tent.”
What’s being pitted here?
I meant to say “opposed to gays defending their country” not “supposed.”
D’oh. :smack:
Well there’s this:
But it’s also really more of a laughing my ass off thread, but I figured any thread involving Breitbart will inevitably draw a great deal of derision, so that’s why I put it here.
GD material, potentially. It highlights some potentially game-changing fractures within the conservative coalition.
Why did he name three bands where, AFAIK, 100% of the members are heterosexual? The Eighties was a pretty gay decade, couldn’t he have tried harder?
Brietbart didn’t say he’s opposed to DADT or gay marriage - he said he’s not using the event to endorse them. I don’t see a problem with that, and I support both gay marriage and the repeal of DADT.
I would think that a major Republican figure supporting the gay community at a large Republican conference would be something that everyone would celebrate.
The gay activitist left is scarier than Al-Queda? Does that mean the TWAT’s going to shift to San Francisco now?
The lesbians will be happy, at least. 
Maybe he could send his erstwhile protege with the video camera to infiltrate the gay lefty activists. Be worth it just to see how he dresses up to pass for gay.
He’s supporting the gay community’s right to be far-right conservatives, while pointedly not endorsing their rights to join the military or get married. And he compares gay activists to Al Qaeda. That’s, like, one step up from “some of my best friends are gay.” If that. I think I’ll leave the party hats in the closet for the time being.
No, he didn’t say that. He said “I am not endorsing gay marriage, I’m not endorsing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I will be the harshest critic of the activist gay left, who I fear more than al-Qaida.”
He did not indicate specifically what he meant by “not endorsing” gay marriage or DADT. Maybe he meant that he does not support them in general, or maybe he merely meant, as you speculate, that he’s not using this particular event at CPAC to promote support for them, or maybe he meant something else.
I incline towards the former interpretation, based on what he said after that: “But for these people not to exist in a two-party system, for you to tell them they’re not welcome in the big tent, I have a huge problem with that […]”
That sounds as though what he means is “Hey, even though I oppose the agenda of the ‘activist gay left’, I think the conservative movement should not pass up opportunities to welcome like-minded gays.”
(The group in question, GOProud, defines its own “conservative agenda” in contrast to “the approach of the left”. Their list of “Legislative Priorities” says nothing about gays in the military, and their only stance on gay marriage is that they oppose a federal constitutional amendment prohibiting it.)
Daresay there are a few things you should be leaving in the closet . . .
I think he’s saying it defensively. He’s saying "“I’m anticipating that people will assume my support of GOProud at CPAC is because I support gay marriage or DADT repeal, but I’m telling you that’s not why I support them showing up”. He’s not actually expressing his opinion of gay marriage or DADT repeal.
And I’m also somebody who doesn’t get why this OP was opened. I mean, there are a lot of reasons to pit Andrew Breitbart, but I think he’s on the side of the angels here.
Depeche Mode I can almost see, but the Cure & New Order gay? Whut?
Yeah, I mean, come on! Or at least a band widely thought to be gay. Erasure maybe? No, never mind them. How do you not mention the Pet Shop Boys?
He’s the result if Perez Hilton and Dale Gribble had a son. I’ve always assumed James O’Keefe is his butt-boy; the way O’Keefe planned to seduce Abby Boudreau it’s very clear he hasn’t got a clue how to convince a woman to sleep with you, and Breitbart having his back on his legal problems is probably more literal than symbolic.
I detest Breitbart so much that I don’t even like Orson Bean for having defended him as “a good guy and a great dad”. (Breitbart’'s married to Bean’s daughter.)