Author Topic: Rep. Frank Calls Justice Scalia a 'Homophobe' (Read 1885 times)

Dos Equis · « **on:** March 23, 2009, 12:34:10 PM »

That is one obnoxious man (Frank). That said, this is something the supreme court probably does need to weigh in on.

Rep. Frank Calls Justice Scalia a 'Homophobe'
The Massachusetts Democrat told a gay online news agency that he hoped the Supreme Court won't ever get to hear a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act while Justice Scalia is on the bench.
By Lee Ross

FOXNews.com

Monday, March 23, 2009

powered by BaynoteMasscahusetts Rep. Barney Frank called Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a "homophobe" in an interview released Monday on a gay online news site, and said he hoped a challenge to a federal law widely disliked in the gay community will not be heard before the high court until new justices are seated on the bench.

Frank, who is gay, made the remark in responding to a question about legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. The 1996 law says the federal government and states have no obligation to recognize same-sex marriages even if other states allow them.

"At some point, [the Defense of Marriage Act] is going to have to go to the United States Supreme Court," the congressman, a Democrat, said. "I wouldn't want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has got too many votes on this current court."

Last month a controversial judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared the 12-year-old law unconstitutional. That's the second time a judge from the notably liberal court has made such a ruling.

But both rulings were administrative in nature and offered no precedent, thus making it unlikely they would be appealed to the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, a judicial marker has been set that has clearly drawn the interest of the gay community.

Scalia is no stranger to personal attacks and is a favorite target for gays because of his dissent in a 2003 case that overturned the nation's consensual sodomy laws.

In that case Scalia held the majority's ruling represented "a massive disruption of the current social order."

He went on to conclude that "the Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are immoral and unacceptable, the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity."

A spokesman with the court told FOX News that it is very unlikely the justice would offer a response to Frank's remark.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/23/rep-frank-calls-justice-scalia-homophobe/

BM OUT · « **Reply #1 on:** March 23, 2009, 01:11:08 PM »

Everyone who doesnt pass every single pro gay law is a homophobe.Thats the way libs fight.They cant debate the issues,they have to name call,then when you fight back in the same manor they cry for an end to the politics of personal destruction.

LurkerNoMore · « **Reply #2 on:** March 23, 2009, 01:36:24 PM »

Quote from: BILLY MIMNAUGH on March 23, 2009, 01:11:08 PM

Everyone who doesnt pass every single pro gay law is a homophobe.Thats the way libs fight.They cant debate the issues,they have to name call,then when you fight back in the same manor they cry for an end to the politics of personal destruction.

Boooh-Hoooo weepy weepy little boy.

Andy Griffin · « **Reply #3 on:** March 23, 2009, 02:16:32 PM »

I forget who it was, but when Barney first came out of the closet, one of his fellow congressmen referred to him as "Barney Fag." Sound like old Barney is still bitter.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #4 on:** March 23, 2009, 02:18:50 PM »

Quote from: LurkerNoMore on March 23, 2009, 01:36:24 PM

Boooh-Hoooo weepy weepy little boy.

Dude, you got destroyed defending your hero Barney Frank on the gay prostitution ring issue and you come back for more???

Dos Equis · « **Reply #5 on:** March 23, 2009, 02:38:30 PM »

Quote from: Andy Griffin on March 23, 2009, 02:16:32 PM

I forget who it was, but when Barney first came out of the closet, one of his fellow congressmen referred to him as "Barney Fag." Sound like old Barney is still bitter.

That was Dick Armey. Claimed he misspoke.

I think it's probably something they call him behind closed doors. Not cool.

Andy Griffin · « **Reply #6 on:** March 23, 2009, 02:44:08 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on March 23, 2009, 02:38:30 PM

Claimed he misspoke.

He meant to call him Barney Polesmoker instead.

Dan-O · « **Reply #7 on:** March 23, 2009, 03:26:50 PM »

Barney Frank & Beans.

P.S. Frank's a 'heterophobe'.

George Whorewell · « **Reply #8 on:** March 23, 2009, 03:55:41 PM »

Funny, it sounds to me like Barney the butt pirate is the one whining like a baby to some fruit cake magazine. Allegedly he wants to legalize gay prostitution also- but I have the feeling Scalia won't stand for that either.

LurkerNoMore · « **Reply #9 on:** March 24, 2009, 06:26:48 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on March 23, 2009, 02:18:50 PM

Dude, you got destroyed defending your hero Barney Frank on the gay prostitution ring issue and you come back for more???

Wrong.

I systematically took apart every single lie and exaggeration of that instance coming from the whining neocons. Proving once again that you can't argue with facts when your only tools are lies, deception, and blantant over exaggeration. Oh and of course, basic architecture principles. Such as apartments not having basements.

Come back, try again.

LurkerNoMore · « **Reply #10 on:** March 24, 2009, 06:28:43 AM »

Quote from: George Whorewell on March 23, 2009, 03:55:41 PM

Allegedly he wants to legalize gay prostitution also-

Just imagine how many Republicans it would keep out of jail and scandal if he did.

Of course, I am going to call bullshit on his "allegedly" notion. Surely you have a link to back this up? Hmm? No?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #11 on:** March 24, 2009, 06:31:38 AM »

Quote from: LurkerNoMore on March 24, 2009, 06:26:48 AM

Wrong.

I systematically took apart every single lie and exaggeration of that instance coming from the whining neocons. Proving once again that you can't argue with facts when your only tools are lies, deception, and blantant over exaggeration. Oh and of course, basic architecture principles. Such as apartments not having basements.

Come back, try again.

Wrong fool, in many areas, apartment houeses do have basements, and the fact is that it even worse if it were not done in a basement as opposed to his apartment.

If it were in a basement, maybe maybe maybe he could claim he did not know, but if it is going on in the next room?

Give me a break, you obviously have some personal relationship or secret fantasies about this fool.

LurkerNoMore · « **Reply #12 on:** March 24, 2009, 10:08:07 AM »

LOL @ crushing the neocon smear machine of LIES with simple facts and the only reply is I have a crush on him.

No wonder you can't win a point in an arguement with that third grade playground skill. Keep chasing your tail.. you might actually catch it sometime.

shootfighter1 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 24, 2009, 10:27:44 AM »

Barney Frank should be criticized for that remark. Thats not an acceptible way to speak to a supreme court judge.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #14 on:** March 24, 2009, 10:33:16 AM »

Quote from: LurkerNoMore on March 24, 2009, 10:08:07 AM

LOL @ crushing the neocon smear machine of LIES with simple facts and the only reply is I have a crush on him.

No wonder you can't win a point in an arguement with that third grade playground skill. Keep chasing your tail.. you might actually catch it sometime.

Its hard to keep track of the lies he told on this but the fact is that it went on under his roof and even the other congressmen did not believe him when he said he did not know about it.

Whether its in his basement or in the next room, only a fan boy would believe Barney did not know what was going on. It was his boyfriend for hecks sake!

Dan-O · « **Reply #15 on:** March 24, 2009, 11:50:15 AM »

Quote from: LurkerNoMore on March 24, 2009, 06:26:48 AM

Wrong.

I systematically took apart every single lie and exaggeration of that instance coming from the whining neocons. Proving once again that you can't argue with facts when your only tools are lies, deception, and blantant over exaggeration. Oh and of course, basic architecture principles. Such as apartments not having basements.

Come back, try again.

Here's Lurker's idea of a systematic taking-apart:

"It wasn't in the basement, it was on the main floor! Apartments don't have basements, dummy!"

"Frank was censured by his Congressional colleagues but he was never convicted of any crime."

And so on, and so on, etc. etc., blah blah blah.

Nit-picking irrelevant, inconsequential, piddly details does not constitute a "systematic taking-apart," it constitutes splitting hairs and getting hung up on tangential issues and semantics, all the while doing nothing whatsoever to refute the facts in question.

"Come back, try again."

BM OUT · « **Reply #16 on:** March 24, 2009, 11:56:03 AM »

Barney FAG paid a male prostitute 85.00 for a blow job.FACT!!!Barney fag had a prostitution ring operating out of his house.FACT.He claimed he was unaware of it.FACT!!!The congress reprimanded him.FACT!!!!SO,THE FACTS ARE WITH me NOT YOU.Barney fag is a disgrace,he was a main culprit in the housing market meltdown,has done nothing but disgrace the country at every turn and is a useless jerkoff.

Now,we arent crying at Barney Fag.We giggle at him.His cries like a bitch about scalia because he cant bully his way to queer mariage.Ha,ha,ha.No queers getting married FAG.Now,Barney Fag should go back and drop another 85.00 for a head job because hes to fucking ugly to pick up a man without paying for it.THATS FUNNY.

LurkerNoMore · « **Reply #17 on:** March 24, 2009, 12:28:14 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on March 24, 2009, 10:33:16 AM

Its hard to keep track of the lies he told on this but the fact is that it went on under his roof and even the other congressmen did not believe him when he said he did not know about it.

So the fact that it was in a basement and he was a pedophile and convicted are all made up? HAHAHAHAHAAAAA

Now this seems to be a completely different story than the one posted that I took apart piece by piece and exposed the neocons whining about.

Gee, look how the story now gets watered down when facts come into play. Interesting that people can't post simple facts about something with deliberately trying to distort the story or exaggerate what is known to be true in a failing attempt to justify their own agenda.

LurkerNoMore · « **Reply #18 on:** March 24, 2009, 12:29:51 PM »

Quote from: BILLY MIMNAUGH on March 24, 2009, 11:56:03 AM

Barney FAG paid a male prostitute 85.00 for a blow job.FACT!!!Barney fag had a prostitution ring operating out of his house.FACT.He claimed he was unaware of it.FACT!!!The congress reprimanded him.FACT!!!!SO,THE FACTS ARE WITH me NOT YOU.Barney fag is a disgrace,he was a main culprit in the housing market meltdown,has done nothing but disgrace the country at every turn and is a useless jerkoff.

Now,we arent crying at Barney Fag.We giggle at him.His cries like a bitch about scalia because he cant bully his way to queer mariage.Ha,ha,ha.No queers getting married FAG.Now,Barney Fag should go back and drop another 85.00 for a head job because hes to fucking ugly to pick up a man without paying for it.THATS FUNNY.

Ohhhhhh... so assuming that those are the FACTS, then if one (hahaha) were to say "Barney Frank ran a pedophile prostiution ring out of his basement and was convict"... that would be a true statement?

HAHAHAHAHAA... you guys cant' even win at your own game. HAHAHAHA

LurkerNoMore · « **Reply #19 on:** March 24, 2009, 12:30:41 PM »

See post above.. ^^

And then.... come back, try again.

Quote from: Dan-O on March 24, 2009, 11:50:15 AM

Here's Lurker's idea of a systematic taking-apart:

"It wasn't in the basement, it was on the main floor! Apartments don't have basements, dummy!"

"Frank was censured by his Congressional colleagues but he was never convicted of any crime."

And so on, and so on, etc. etc., blah blah blah.

Nit-picking irrelevant, inconsequential, piddly details does not constitute a "systematic taking-apart," it constitutes splitting hairs and getting hung up on tangential issues and semantics, all the while doing nothing whatsoever to refute the facts in question.

"Come back, try again."

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #20 on:** March 24, 2009, 12:37:20 PM »

Quote from: LurkerNoMore on March 24, 2009, 12:28:14 PM

So the fact that it was in a basement and he was a pedophile and convicted are all made up? HAHAHAHAHAAAAA

Now this seems to be a completely different story than the one posted that I took apart piece by piece and exposed the neocons whining about.

Gee, look how the story now gets watered down when facts come into play. Interesting that people can't post simple facts about something with deliberately trying to distort the story or exaggerate what is known to be true in a failing attempt to justify their own agenda.

http://newsbusters.org/node/8119

Check out that aritcle. you are the only one who believes Barney Frank did not know what was going on.

He paid this kid for sex and said he thought he was "going to be a liberal" and help him out. So being liberal now amounts to paying for gay sex???

You are completely embarassing yourself in this.

LurkerNoMore · « **Reply #21 on:** March 24, 2009, 01:22:26 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on March 24, 2009, 12:37:20 PM

http://newsbusters.org/node/8119

Check out that aritcle. you are the only one who believes Barney Frank did not know what was going on.

He paid this kid for sex and said he thought he was "going to be a liberal" and help him out. So being liberal now amounts to paying for gay sex???

You are completely embarassing yourself in this.

I never said I didn't believe that he knew what was going on. What I said was :

There was no basement.

There was no pedophilic nature to it. Do you know what pedophile means? Oh of course you do.. you're Republican.

He was not convicted or arrested.

He was acquitted by the Ethics committee.

He got a pop on the wrist reprimand.

Now what part of those are not true? Please. Tell me plain as day what part in BOLD are not true. Not contrast that with the little whiney posts about a different version from the neocons. Even that article you posted does not claim he was a pedophile or convicted.

And embarassing myself? LOLOLOLOLOLLLOLOLOLLLL I am not the one trying to justify the typical republican response tactic. Lie, smear, exaggerate, and when busted try to compensate for it by backpedaling and attempting to argue semantics.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #22 on:** March 24, 2009, 01:39:40 PM »

I never said I didn't believe that he knew what was going on. What I said was :

"There was no basement."

Does it matter? In fact, there being no basement makes his story even less plausible.

"There was no pedophilic nature to it. Do you know what pedophile means? Oh of course you do.. you're Republican."

The guy he paid for sex was later hired as an employee and was much younger than him. It probably does not meet the legal definition of pedophilia in of itself, but it still kind of creepy regardless.

"He was not convicted or arrested."

No he was not but he still admitted to paying for sex. So, he admitted to a crime but was not arrested for it.

"He was acquitted by the Ethics committee."

He was censured for his conduct.

"He got a pop on the wrist reprimand."

He obviously got a lot more than "pop" from his lover in his apartment.

Regardless, it is an old issue and he makes it come back to light by accusing others of fasle accusations himself.

George Whorewell · « **Reply #23 on:** March 24, 2009, 02:16:32 PM »

OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder. From a legal standpoint, statute of limitations bars many legitimate claims against other people for wrong doing.

So by your logic, OJ is a good person and Doctor's who commit malpractice where the patient doesn't bring suit within 2.5 years are good people who have impeccable reputations?

LurkerNoMore · « **Reply #24 on:** March 24, 2009, 02:25:32 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on March 24, 2009, 01:39:40 PM

I never said I didn't believe that he knew what was going on. What I said was :

"There was no basement."

Does it matter? In fact, there being no basement makes his story even less plausible.

"There was no pedophilic nature to it. Do you know what pedophile means? Oh of course you do.. you're Republican."

The guy he paid for sex was later hired as an employee and was much younger than him. It probably does not meet the legal definition of pedophilia in of itself, but it still kind of creepy regardless.

"He was not convicted or arrested."

No he was not but he still admitted to paying for sex. So, he admitted to a crime but was not arrested for it.

"He was acquitted by the Ethics committee."

He was censured for his conduct.

"He got a pop on the wrist reprimand."

He obviously got a lot more than "pop" from his lover in his apartment.

Regardless, it is an old issue and he makes it come back to light by accusing others of fasle accusations himself.

"Barney Frank is a pedophile that was convicted for running a prostitution ring from his basement."

Doesn't look like the facts support that statement by any means do they?
Gee.... EXACTLY as I said it didn't all those posts ago and it is taking you up to now to catch up with the rest of the class.