New Huffington Post Column

Bingo!

that piece is so fucking awesome! this part, mr cesca, gave me “i will follow you into battle right now” chills. (i wish i knew how to do that box thing)”Whether or not you agree with the spirit of hate crimes legislation, it’s not an issue that lends itself to political hackery. And it doesn’t really matter if these are crimes against a hundred people or a thousand people or if it’s just one boy in Laramie – or two black men in Texas — this is legislation about real people who were (or will be) killed for no reason other than for being perceived as different.Vote for the bill or vote against it. Support it or denounce it. Make your case with due respect for what this sort of thing involves. Just don’t play politics with it.”COMPLETE AWESOME!

I’m not a fan of hate crimes legislation, but that post was made of pure win.

Well said, Bob.Just for grins, I think you should update GDAB’ers with the follow-up hate email we know you’ll receive…

joanna, this site has enough ladies looking for a good time. get the fuck out of here. we got dibs!

ahhh man…i was gonna have fun with that one bob! =)

Good post, Bob. I had just gotten in to that whole argument with a buddy from high school. I asked him to point out for me where in the bill it specified protections for pedophiles. He had just bought in to the whole talking point and never troubled himself to look into it himself.

People:I read Bob’s theories (that the Republican amendment was intended to (1) insinuate that homosexuals are pedophiles and (2) that Dems would protect pedophiles), but — dumb f’g me! — I didn’t see where in his article those theories are supported. Other than Republicans are bad and Dems are good.Was that the “support?” Personally, I think that the amendment was bullshit because of the definition of “sexual orientation.” But how did it insinuate what Bob claims?As I say, call me dumb or whatever, but I just want to understand that claim.

So if someone took Rush Limbaugh’s face and beat it into a bloody pulp, would he seek the government’s protection as a pedophile?

@John: It’s not a theory. That’s what happens. 1) Reps introduce amendment. 2) Dems vote against it. 3) Reps claim that Dems are voting against it because they love pedophiles. That seems fairly straightforward to me.

JOHN -For over twenty years Republicans have insinuated that pedophiles are homosexuals. They have consistently conflated the two concepts to the point of using the terms interchangeably. Bob did not have to tell us this because we have all seen this over and over. They apparently think this way because they see both homosexuality and pedophilia as deviant behavior and therefore think that conflating the two is justified. They also insist that being gay is a lifestyle choice.The facts and science do not support their position.The facts are that around 92% of pedophiles are heterosexual. This is not surprising since 8% of all humans are homosexual.Homosexuals are not considered deviant by Science and modern Psychology. About 8% of people are born gay. It has always been this way. It is not a choice. Why would anyone chose to be gay? There are extreme disadvantages to that choice. I would not choose to be gay because I don’t like the idea of being beat to death by vicious knuckle-dragging inbred morons. How could anyone think that anyone would choose to be gay? The notion is absurd at face value.The only people I see calling this legislation a bad idea are the same people that would have cheered when the Nazis gathered up the Gay in Germany and executed them. Intolerant, xenophobic fascists. Persecution of Homosexuals is one of the warning signs of fascism.