Skip to comments.STOP MAKING FUN OF DAVID BROCK'S (OF MEDIA MATTERS) SEXUAL ORIENTATION (Vanity)
Posted on 03/22/2012 4:32:05 PM PDT by Lazamataz
David Brock is Media Matters founder, and recently, I have seen many posts ridiculing him for being homosexual. David Brocks sexual orientation is not the issue. Making fun of it just lowers us to the level of the Lefts personal attack strategy. We can do better.
There is utterly no need to mention that David Brock is a giggling little donut-puncher, or a skipping lavender-scented pillow-biter. We do not need to mention that David Brock is a pearl-necklace adorned tumblebunny, nor do we need to say he is a limp-wristed prancing knob-jockey.
Never will it cross my keyboard to mention that David Brock is a petal-covered swishing basket-burglar, and you will have to wait a long time to see me say that David Brock is a effeminate queenie-baby genuflecting chicken licker.
No, you will never see me post that David Brock is a loafer-lightening grass-tickling pounder of fudge. NEVER! No, sir, you will not see me calling Brock a stool-pushed jolly-ranching graduate of the Assmasters school of backseat driving.
Why should we resort to mention that David Brock is a pink-sequin-adorned squeeze-friendly rectum-flagelator? What purpose does it serve to talk about David Brock being a Barbie hugging Broadway-showgirl tootsie-roll-eating lizard worshiper?
No sir. I won't ever post that David Brock is a rump-radar-pinging, butterbutt loving, feathered drag princess. No way. It is something that we don't do here. No way will I ever mention that David Brock is a crisco-hoarding, rainbow-prancing, Fucsia Puffed batty boy.
No sir. We are better than that.
You’ll have to change your tagline, I’m sure his type takes that personally.
Sausage Hiders unite!
At Media Matters!
I read your post twice.
I see no mention of gerbils.
The viewer public and readership deserve to know what motivate supposed objective reporters’ accounts of same sex marriage, gays in the military, teaching pre-schoolers in California about gay contributions to history, et al.
For an inflated 10% of the populace (not even 2%), they sure hold more than that number of chairs in newsrooms.
So I take it you like it? This is the first time I’ve ever had anyone claim ‘first response’ with pride. I may be getting to PJ’s status level...... :)
OMG, lol...I’m so glad we are above it.
I agree. Calling him a flaming Nancy boy would wrong and ill-mannered. It might even be a hate crime.
I am not a homophobe, so therefore wouldn’t dream of ever referring to the gentleman forementioned as a light-in-the-loafers, polesmoking fudgepacker; nor other such epithet which revealed his predilection towards being a prostate protein receptacle.
Once again, it falls to Laz to try to keep us all classy. How do you find the time for this with all of the volunteer work you do at the convent?
(Thanks for pinging me. I feel so special. And I noticed the “weird stuff” label. Nice job. :p )
Are you arguing that we need to be mentioning that David Brock is a gerbil-feeding flower sniffing rainbow-squatting bottoms-up boy? WE NEED TO STOP IT, not do MORE OF IT!
You should and I’d be proud! Thanks!
I did mention it in the post above this one, but I swore I never would.
No Butt ranger?
HOW WONDERFUL, and RIGHT in the spirit of this post! I will also add that we shall never speak of David Brock as a chalk-licking lavender sniffing cheeky merrymonkey pole-vaulter.
We need to keep this debate from discussions of Brocks faggotry. Is his drug abuse off limits?
this thread is gay....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.