Conservative group OneMillionMoms.com, an offshoot of the American Family Association, doesn't like that JCPenney has hired Ellen DeGeneres as their new spokeswoman. Not because of her dance moves or jokes on her talk show, but because she's gay.
More »
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
20 comments:
I wish people would leave Ellen alone. I happen to like this gay person. And her talent.
Her real name is spelled Ellen Degenerate.
They have a right to speak their mind and if they don't want Ellen Degenerate then they should say so.
J. C. Penney shouldn't have a no talent queer as their spokes(wo)men
Anonymous said...
Her real name is spelled Ellen Degenerate.
February 4, 2012 5:41 AM
And your real name is spelled ASSonymous.
Just because you don't agree with the gay lifestyle doesn't mean you are hateful. The gay society wants people to be tolerant of them yet they can't seem to tolerate opposing views.
My personal opinion of them does not negate the fact that some possess talent.
She is absolutely worthless as a human being. She's a homosexual with a big mouth and no morals.
We don't want no lebanese in the tea party.
"We don't want no lebanese in the tea party" And apparently proper grammar is a no no also. Do you haters really need to confirm your ignorance? I think it's very apparent from your hate filled rhetoric. Ellen is a kind and gentle person. Why is her sexual preference any concern of yours? I think that hate gives you a reason to NOT look inside your own heart and fix your flaws. We all have flaws but a sexual preference is not one of them. They are dictated by our DNA
12:40
The FACT that the brain disagrees with the anatomy is proof that there is a mental defect at play.
Nothing more , nothing less.
10:02 Lmao That is funny and true leave Ellen alone she helps alot of people who are having a rough time in life.
@1:35 No, your logic is flawed. What someones preference is, and what one is attracted to... is not relegated nor is it dictated by their body parts.
Were your argument to be true, it would hold that we would only be attracted to those most likely to be able reproduce.... in women that would be big hips, ample amounts of fat... think "rubenesque". In men... if it were strictly based to physiology and biology.. men would not have one partner.. EVER... we are designed for constant reproduction.. and based on your logic we would respond more like animals.
In fact we know love does not work this way... nor does attraction in human beings. Very often we choose a single partner (this is a societal mores.. much like marriage... which contradicts biology in men)... and quite often we choose a partner based on our "feelings" or "attraction" to that person.... not their ability to procreate.
2:35
If your arguement were true mankind would have dies off years ago.
In fact brian anatomy is hard wired into us for that very reason you dismiss.
Queer behavior is abnormal and contrary to biology, and as such is a defect.
@ 3:41 The argument states nothing about propagation... and only applies to the idea that "preference", "attraction", and "feelings" have little to do with the biological need for reproduction... and the point directly addresses the assertion that it is a "mental defect" or "mental flaw" as in terms of "what is natural".
The argument I pose makes no claim or statement to the propagation of the species... which clearly we have no problem with.
Even if 99% of the population were not breeders... the species would still survive due to the 1% that were... so your argument that we would have died off has no merit.. and is indeed just a strawman.
If homosexual behavior was un-natural and contrary to biological development... claims of homosexuals that is was "natural" could be falsified if such behaviors were not found in other species.... in fact... such behaviors are found in other species... so to call it "not natural" is a fallacy.
I think you would be better served to argue that it is not "socially acceptable" or "societally normal"... you *might* have merits in that argument, though it would have no weight in its legitimacy as an argument.
Reality and Facts... it's hard to argue with them.
She is absolutely worthless as a human being. She's a homosexual with a big mouth and no morals.
February 4, 2012 11:37 AM
That is a harsh statement don't ya think?
I feel it is untrue as well. I don't think anyone is totally worthless.
I may not necessarily agree with her lifestyle, I don't have to, but I think she is a fine entertainer.
4:33
And for ever in the recorded history of mankind queers have been banished and treated they way they should for their vile and discusting behavior.
Only now with the libtards defining political correctness has there been an effort to try and marginalize the queer behaviour and force it upon a society that will never accept it.
@ 4:33 um... what? I really am confused as to exactly what it is you are trying to say... it's not really that clear.
To clear things up... I am very ideologically/politically conservative... so your attack at me being a "libtard" is nothing more than ad hominem.
Your assertion of political correctness is also confusing... what exactly are you postulating here? Correct me if I'm wrong... but you are arguing that because I support and defend the FACTS.. I am being politically correct?... you are really vague.
I differ in your assertion that "queer behavior" is being "forced" upon society... it has always been here... and has always been discriminated upon. At one time people argued that integration of the races was an outrage and that society would never accept it... but look at society today.
Do me a favor. Articulate ONE.... just ONE... coherent, well formed argument in your favor. At least at that point you'll be on the playing field.
I made a mistake.. the reply was supposed to be addressed to 5:30
@ 5:30 um... what? I really am confused as to exactly what it is you are trying to say... it's not really that clear.
To clear things up... I am very ideologically/politically conservative... so your attack at me being a "libtard" is nothing more than ad hominem.
Your assertion of political correctness is also confusing... what exactly are you postulating here? Correct me if I'm wrong... but you are arguing that because I support and defend the FACTS.. I am being politically correct?... you are really vague.
I differ in your assertion that "queer behavior" is being "forced" upon society... it has always been here... and has always been discriminated upon. At one time people argued that integration of the races was an outrage and that society would never accept it... but look at society today.
Do me a favor. Articulate ONE.... just ONE... coherent, well formed argument in your favor. At least at that point you'll be on the playing field.
Wow what hateful words i am considered very Conservative/Right Wing but i dont get all the anti gay crap.....just because a person is gay or lesbian or Transgender for that matter why should you care unless you are gay... Personally i find Ellen very funny and extremely smart honestly people that spew all this hate crap do not understand what it is that makes themselves hate a person because of a sexual preference. Its the same if two gays want to marry.... honestly who cares it does not affect you and your marrage.... And gays are not terribly horrid creatures out to get you..... not once have i ever taken my family to say Rehoboth which is if i remember a largely gay town....not once have we ever had a bad experience because someone was gay
Post a Comment