Gay 'barbarians' descend on Marcus and Michele Bachmann's clinic State, National, International, posted by kyle, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2011 at 12:39 am
If I remember correctly there was a thread concerning California becomes 1st state to require teaching of gay history. The contentions were brisk, but one side of the argument for teaching gay history was to reduce the violence against gays. There are two points I want to discuss with the Town Forum on the recent "Barbarian" actions against Michelle Bachmann:
1. Isn't the glittering of Michelle Bachmann's husbands office an intolerant and violent act against a group of people with different ideas. The same violent acts that gay individuals are against.
2. Michelle Bachmann is a member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Minnesota's 6th congressional district. Doesn't it set a terrible precedent if we allow or condone violence against any candidate running for political office. This is not a prank, this is a criminal act. An individual who threatened Nancy Pelosi was rightfully arrested and many were outraged. I would hope the same outrage crosses the isle.
MB does not represent my views. But I respect her right to run for office and voice her views peacefully without fear of violence. I do not feel she or her family should be dishonored with violence either on a personal level or political level. It sets a dangerous precedent.
Posted by steve, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2011 at 9:15 am
kyle-you've highlighted the double standard prevalent in most 'progressive' or liberal political causes. It seems to be an arrogance that they are so right and justified in their cause that the rules don't apply to them. As you've no doubt surmised, the hypocritcal 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude, is their mantra. If you question them, then you're considered 'intolerant'. Well, so be it....you can't have it both ways.
Posted by Julie, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2011 at 4:16 pm Julie is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
First, no, "glittering an office" does not represent the "same violent acts that gay individuals are against". While I disagree with "glittering" a person or an office, I do not view it in the same vein as the truly violent acts that have been aimed at gays. I'm not even sure I consider it "violent" period. It's more like "inappropriate" or "annoying". Maybe if the glitter gets in your eye it would sting.
Second, Steve...really? You think hypocrisy is limited to "progressives" and/or "liberals"? You think only those groups think "that the rules don't apply to them"? Obviously you only hear what you want to, because there are MANY examples of hypocrisy throughout the entire political spectrum.
Third, While I don't condone the glittering. I repeat, I DON'T CONDONE IT.... can you not see why gays would be SO angry? I read that Bachmann considers gays as being "barbaric", or as having some sort of "illness" that can be "prayed" away. I can't even imagine how that must feel to a gay person. Thank goodness those types of comments weren't directed at a group that would respond in a *truly* violent manner.
Posted by Sunshine, a resident of the Happy Valley neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2011 at 6:28 am
We need to work on banning rice-throwing at weddings. Rice-throwing is just like all other ugly, violent acts that are carried out by leftist unionists.
As far as violence directed at gays, that's a union fantasy. We live in a nation where everyone is treated equally. This has been so ever since Martin Luthern King bonded with the corrupt unions to boycott all-American stores.