Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Dishonest Jack Cafferty: Sellig Out the Country Over Social Issues

Yes, Dishonest Jack Cafferty is at it again, You will remember Dishonest Jack? He was the partisan political hack on CNN who said that Republicans were "obsessed" with social issues because they answered CNN QUESTIONS at the CNN debate on social issues. Dishonest Jack made it clear, as if there were ever any doubt, that it was HE--and CNN--who were totally obsessed with social issues, even if it meant the contry going down the drain.


Yep. Good old Dishonest Jack Cafferty was at it again this Tuesday, in concert with the orchestrated, night long attack of Wolf Blitzer and CNN on Michele Bachmann. Waht is MicheleBachmann's "crime", according to Dishonest Jack? Well, Dishonest Jack--maybe having read my blog--is giving up the idea that it is WRONG to be putting social issues ahead of the "important" issues like the economy and jobs ("important", that is, except to Cafferty, Blitzer, Cooper and the other partisan political hacks on CNN). This Tuesday, Cafferty finally rellapsed into a kind of "honesty", and simply said that Michele Bachmann is WRONG on socil issues. That is, she does not agree with Cafferty, and Cafferty is willing to SELL OUT HIS COUNTRY rather than let a person with Bachmann's views on social issues be elected President. Yes, I know that Cafferty phrased this in this way: "Indpendents and others will nver vote for a person with Bachmann's views on social issues". Hey, I did not say Dishonest Jack had converted to HONESTY. He is still the same Dishoenst Jack. He is talking about HIMSLEF, and the peole at CNN. "Indpendents" is just Disonest Jack's way of referring to people who AGREE WITH DISHONEST JACK.


Look at how Dishonest Jack is SLANDERFING independents with Dsihonest Jack's own perverse dishonesty. Dishonest Jack has previously said that the economy and jobs are the IMPORTANT things facing this coutntry, presumbably along with spending, deficits and debt. What is Dishonest Jack saing (along with all of CNN)? He is saying that it DOES NOT MATTER if Mcihele Bachmann is right on the economy and jobs, which she is makig the primary basis of her campaign (along with the related issues--to her and to me--of spending, deficits and debt). Dishonest Jack is saing that "independents" would rather RUIN the country's economy rather than vote for a person with Michele Bachmann's positon on social issues, even if Bachmann knows how to SAVE TEH COUNTRY on the improtant issues.


Say what? Dishonest Jack, are you sure you know what you are saying.? How are you any different from a person who says that he or she wohn't vote for any pro-abortion person, no matter how right that person is on other things? You have CONDMENED that kind of person. Yet, you have CONVICTED yourself of being exactly that kind of person, AND of slandering independents by suggesting they care more about social issues than the fate of this country.


Yes, Dishonest Jack I know what you are, and what you are doing. You are a DISHONEST HYPOCCRITE, who simply is pushing his own position on social issues at the same time you opose Michele Bachmann under all circumstances. I don't THINK I think so badly of you that you would DOOM the country if you thhought Michele Bachmann had the answers on the economy and jobs, just because she did not agree with you on homosexual rights. But I admit, Dishonest Jack, that I am not sure. You amy be THT BAD. You are a dishoenst, despicable human being. And CNN remains The Liar Network.


By the way, Dihsonest Jack, you are an objectgive LIAR on homosexuality. You attempted to ridicule Michele Bachmann for suggesting that homoosexual conduct was a "choice". I know that is the mainstream media/leftist party line, except when it is not (see the movei, "Kinsey", or read my blog review of it, if it is still in the arcives). However, Dihonsest Jack, your positon is a LIE. No it is not a matter of opinion. It is a LIE. Homosexual conduct is--100% certain--a "choice".


Yes, it is absolutely true that NO ONE has to have sex. That includes homosexually inclined individuals. And I reject the idea that you are a "homosexual" if you do not have homosexual sex. Take me. I have been celibate more of my adult life than not. Now it is true that most people realize that is mainly becuase no self-respecting woan will have sex with me, even if I can avoid being so desperately afraid of the vicious creature thant I can't manage sex with her. Still, this is a CHOICE (hey, there are prostitutes out there). You can CHOOSE to be celibate, and I totally reject the idea that homosexual urges (if you have them) would make ou "homosexual",--even though celibate. Again, KINSEY (the heor of the modern sex culture) said that ALL men have homosexual urge. Kinsey's position--which, according to the movvie, included advocating homosexual EXPERMENTATION--was that ALL men hve a potential for homosexual sex and heterosexual sex (or, at least, almost all). It is just that most menn fell toward ne end of the line or the othre--most being more inclined one way or the other., but still with the POTENTIAL for conduct either way. That is my segue into the real LIE here. You may reject the idea that a man must remain celibate. You may feel that a man has a "right" to sexual expression". I am sure Dishonest Jack feels that way. And yo may reject Kinsey as being an aberration--obasessed wtih sexual experimentatiion. Yuo may even reject the TWIN study showing that 50% of the time that one identical twin was homosexual--raised apart--the otherr twin was HETEROSEXUAL. A strong genetic component, yes. But no "choice"? Not ture.


But what makes Dishonest Jack definitely a liar, along with the whole gay activist movement, is HISTORY. I have just been reading "Pochahantas"--a rather fascinating book. In passing, the book meantions James I--a Catholic kinf of England. He had SIX children, evidently. He also--later in life--had a definite preference for BOYS/MEN. You think he just discovered he was gay? Maybe. But this kind of example suports Kinsey more than it supports Dishonest Jack, does it not? But it gets wrose for Dishonest Jack--the man wihtout an honest, competent bone in his body.


We could go to ancient Greece, where homosexual sex was almost regarded as the highest from of love. But let us go to Rome. Juliuos Caesar--he of "Caesar's wife" and knonw to have cavorted with Cleopatra--is reported to have homosexual lovers. Then there is Mar Antony. Exactly what is it about Cleopatra? She seems to have a fixation for men with homosexual tendencies.. Or is it just that great military men are inclined toward both sexes? Look at Alexander the Great--bakc in that ancient Greece. But Marc Antony had a HAREM of both men and women. "Not a chocies", Dishonest Jack? You are objectively a LIAR. History proves you so. The source for this information, by the way, is Will Duran'ts masseve "Caesar and Christ".


Will Durant goes further, in "Caesar and Christ". Women in Rome were getting their nose out of joint because of the COMPETITION from pretty young men. Homoexual conduct was endemic in the Roman Empire. And not just for emperors. I do think it confirms my view of men and women that MEN can be BETTER WOMEN than women, if they put their mind to it. Yes, people "blamed" the Greek influence for the pervasive homosexual conduct in the Roman Empire. There is simply NO historical doubt that homosexual sex is a CHOCIE--at least for many.


Now is it a "choice" for everyone? Disregarding the choice of celibacy. Probably not, or at least not much of a choice. That, however, is true of lots of things (OBESITY, for example). Do we really want to encourage homosexual conduct for those many people for whom it IS a choice? I think not, although that is the subject of another article. It is enough for this article that Dihhonest Jack is proven again to be a LIAR. It is a fact that homosexual conduct has often been a choice, throughout history. That is not something that can be disputed. And Kinsey may well be right. It may almost ALWEAYS be some kind of a choce, even though there may be a strong inclination one way or another.


Notice that both ancient Greece and Rome were SDANE--as distinguished from Dishoenst Jack and the people of CNN. Homosexuality was widely accepted, if sometimes railed against in Rome. It was even EXTOLLED, in ancient Greece. But. Those societies had something in common with ALL of human hisotory, which made them sane. They did NOT have homosexual marriage. That is an insanity reserved for our time, which cannot be said of polygamy, incest, and similar experiments in marriage that human societies thought worth trying. The one experiment that NO significant human society thought worth trying was GAY MARRIAGE. That insanity has been reserved for uor time.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

No comments: