.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
EIB Bumpersticker

Friday, April 22, 2005


UH Daily Cougar Eddys, Liberal Columnists, and Eddy Cartoonist pissed over banning gay foster parents: GOOD!!!

Here we go again, all the socialists at the UH Daily Cougar minus Tyler Nelson of course, today go on the gay offensive openly supporting gay foster parents in the state hoping for the defeat of "an amendment tacked on to an already controversial bill to reform Child Protective Services takes aim at gay foster parents, who many lawmakers believe are somehow unfit to care for children." GOOD!!

In an era where liberals are clamoring for equal time in talk radio, the inept Daily Cougar EditorialStaff and the inept Daily Cougar liberal columnists ganged up on the righteous Tyler Nelson as if he were a young UH nymph at the Carminati's Bukakke party -- it was a one sided affair.
The excuse for the Univerity of Houston's daily newspaper was wrong in running the Friday Forum, the editorial cartoon, and the staff editorial practically all for one viewpoint, with nearly a smidgen for the opposing viewpoint in such a public record. This isn't the Soviet Union, of which I've actually met and befriended Soviet soldiers.

In both the Staff Editorial "Ban on gay foster parents is unfounded, unfair," and OPED 1 "Forum Friday: Family Matters in Texas," in which the tripe is thick touting, if they could get away with it, that gay parents are better that heterosexual parents and "it's the Republicans' goal to steal kids away from gays," as proclaimed by David Salinas -- where is the outrage there. It's mindful of the stupid Democrat argument that Republicans want to steal the food out of the mouths of babes. Pure poppycock.

The fear that these liberals are spreading to the UH weak minded students is astounding. When looking at this situation, I always give it "The Birdcage" test. How will it affect the kids? Even though the movie ends on a happy note, it still began with a lie. The DC liberals support of gay foster parents is one that is totally in the gays favor. Its their chance to expose the little crumbcrunchers in their young age, when they see two guys kissing each other or going at it on the living room couch.

The only sane person writing on the whole page, Tyler Nelson, speaks the truth when he says "the ban is necessary. Foster children need to be put in a stable home, one with a father and a mother." Foster children are the last children (like any should be) who need to be exposed to homosexuality at such a young age. They have no one in their lives they can go to ask the personal questions, like a mother figure, who can really get to the hearts of those kids. I know the gay males and lesbians will argue that they have a feminine side, but quite frankly its not feminine enough.

Nelson continues with knowing that "there are a lot of bad heterosexual homes out there as well, and foster children should not be put in such families. Protecting them is priority No. 1; after that, they need to be placed in a family that will teach them principles that will produce moral citizens."By continuing to expose foster children to gay households, the gays are getting their way by further breaking down society. Liberalism is the only tenet that will accepts crazy activist gays as actually contributing to the goodness of America, and by simply using the idea of 'what liberals are against is good for America,' the only choice here is to ban gay foster parents.

Sarah Morgan should stick to writing her worthless tripe on the environment. Morgan believes "sexuality should have nothing to do with adoption as long as the child is provided with a caring and supportive environment." But you cannot avoid sexuality when both parents are of one sex, the tripe that "children don't care about sexual orientation" is bunk, and when it comes to school functions, children know that their parents are different when the other parents have a man and a woman.

Giugi Carminati should stick to hating America, instead of caring for children she would have supported aborting in the first place. Her tripe is riddled with hateful and arrogant remarks for kids she only cares about because it involves gay couples. Nothing more.

Lynn Meyers' and David Salinas' tripe are equally hateful with Salinas' outright stating "Republicans thrive off attacking the weak to make themselves stronger," which is completely bunk. David Salinas continues his tripe by saying "when it's not the poor, it's minorities, and in this instance, it's gays."

Remember that there are consequences to actions. The environmentalists wackos have forced high prices, abortion has killed off 30 million social security contributors, and now gay foster parents will teach their children how to be gay. Where will that lead us?

Screw the libs!

"Gay foster children will teach their children how to be gay." Are you fucking kidding me? Gay foster parents, who likely received much pressure from their parents to be a certain way, have no intention on doing the same to their children.

"Better than straight parents"? Did anyone say that?

Funny you use the word "hateful" so much to describe the writers. Which is more hateful: severing happy families or criticizing those who wish to do so? Speaking of "hateful," look at the name of your website.
I did not say "Gay foster children will teach their children how to be gay." I said "gay foster parents will teach their children how to be gay."

Look, I liken the argument to the old debate of "heredity versus environment."

I see homosexuals as selffish people who didn't get a lot of things their way as kids, and this is there way of getting back at society, but raising gay kids.

If a gay couple has an "open" relationship by kissing and fondling each other in front of their kids, how else is the kid suppose to interpret that but as normal behavior.

The kids are already under enough pressure already being in a foster household, and you want to subject the kids to be under more pressure by allowing Gay foster parents to be seen with them in all aspects of society.

Kids can be cruel to each other, when one kid finds out he has two Daddys or two Mommies, then watchout, and the Gay parents will look to society as they blame when they should be looking to themselves.

I threw in the Gay parents being "better than straight parents" but with the liberals totally ruling the opinion page by 95% today, they might as well have said it.

And as far as the writers being "hateful," well they are. They have called for my death on repeated occassions, I have not openly called for them to die, except by their own hand.

You talk of me as a 'hater.' I'm a loather. Just as Bill Clinton loathed the military so I loath you.

If you would have read the fine print of my website you would have read that a-hole.

Lastly, I'm looking out for the kids in this debate. Given a choice, I would bet that the vast majority of kids would choice a man and his wife, OVER two gay guys as foster parents anyday, just for the sake of normalcy in their lives.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?