Friday, November 2, 2012

Gay Talk Show Host Tells Gay Romney Supporter He Should Kill Himself



In 2009, talk show host Michelangelo Signorile told Pastor Steve Anderson [who hoped Signorile would get brain cancer and die because he is a homosexual] that he wished Anderson no harm because he [Signorile] upholds "human values". Apparently his "human values" have no room for gay Mitt Romney supporters

by Larry Simons
November 2, 2012

Recently, gay talk show host Michelangelo Signorile told a gay Mitt Romney supporter he should kill himself on his SiriusXM radio broadcast. After telling the caller, named "Wes", that Barack Obama was the clear choice for gay rights, Signorile said, "You went and voted for him [Romney]. It would have been much easier to go to the store and buy some arsenic and make a potion and take it. You know what I mean?"

Signorile added, "That would have been much easier than waiting for the slow, painful death that Mitt Romney will bring you,” Signorile continued. “You should not be allowed to vote."

Signorile then concluded by instructing the caller to, "Go to the drug store. There are plenty of things you could get. It’ll put you to sleep really, really easily, because that would be a better way than the convoluted, twisted way you’re [killing yourself]. You’re stabbing yourself in the back."

Listen to the segment


In Signorile's defense, the caller "Wes" did appear to be either severely braindead or pranking Signorile. Signorile had a point in being appalled that someone who was gay would vote against his own self-interests and choose Romney. My problem with Signorile's behavior toward the caller was that just three short years ago, during an interview with Christian nutball Steve Anderson, Signorile wished no harm to Anderson after Anderson had just wished Signorile would die from brain cancer for simply being a homosexual.

Signorile said to Anderson, "I don't take pleasure in that [Anderson being harmed] because I really do uphold human values."

Apparently Signorile's human values have limits. He has no room for gay Mitt Romney supporters. To Signorile, they are much more of a threat than whackjob pastors who wish death upon Signorile.

Signorile's interview with Steve Anderson
[go to 7:02 in the clip]


14 comments:

Anonymous said...

he himself will die with a lethal injection of aids trough the anus.

the_last_name_left said...

you know there was an election on? you didn't seem interested.

Barack Hussein Obama, the Kenyan Marxist Muslim bent on destroying America......despite all that he won and won convincingly

lol

Real Truth Online said...

You aren't even interested in your own blog. You havent posted shit in like a year. LOL. Why would I care about an election in which the results don't make a difference?

the_last_name_left said...

The results do make a difference though.

For example, they show that your guy, Ron Paul, hasn't got a hope.

It shows your beliefs are in the extreme minority.

It means you're out of touch, fighting for a view that America rejects.

It means despite you and your fellows doing all they can to create spurious BS about Obama you've has been seen-through by the electorate - and disregarded.

the_last_name_left said...

For someone who goes on about "the people" all the time you very easily dismiss their wishes.

THE PEOPLE have spoken.

And you don't want to hear.

rob said...

wow the last cock in mouth queenie fraud name left paid his library overdue charges. lol

Real Truth Online said...

"It means you're out of touch, fighting for a view that America rejects."

Do you realize what an idiotic statement that is? You're saying that if the majority of people supported gunning down politicians in Washington, then I'm "out of touch" and that act should happen because it's "what the people want"? As usual, you're a douchebag.

The election results, regardless of who won would have shown one thing and one thing only, that those who are really in charge made damned sure that both candidates were not much different in terms of the things that really matter: Both saying nothing about the Federal Reserve, both making sure the war machine continues, both making sure the Patriot Act stays intact, both making sure the value of the dollar stays at an all time low, etc.

All the election tells me is how the American people are out of touch with the Constitution and how government should run. Trying to make the point that my beliefs are "in the extreme minority" is based on plain ignorance. It implies that the majority is always right, and you'd have to be even a bigger moron than you already are to accept that as fact.

If there was a vote tomorrow of whether the US should invade England and carpet bomb it, for really no reason whatsoever---just because we love bombing countries---and the majority of US citizens voted to do it, are you telling me that would be fine and dandy with YOU?? Wouldn't that make you "out of touch" to NOT be fine and dandy with it?

You're a complete imbecile. That's why you haven't posted shit on your meaningless blog all year.

the_last_name_left said...

It doesn't make any difference?

Oh, but it does.

Here's one side:

----
"Obama repeated his oft-stated call for tax rises on earnings over $250,000 (£157,000), while urging Congress to extend existing rates for 98% of taxpayers.

"This was a central question during the election," said Mr Obama. "It was debated over and over again. On Tuesday night, we found out that the majority of Americans agree with my approach."
---

Whilst the other side says:

-
Speaker Boehner restated his party's opposition to tax increases.
-

And you say it makes no difference........

I understand your point about majorities not necessarily meaning something is right. Nevertheless, the fact a clear majority exists is the important and incontestable fact.

Moreover, the majority electing Obama is hardly comparable to a majority wanting to kill everyone.

So, the election results don't necessarily mean you are "wrong" - but they certainly do mean that your views are not shared by the majority - indeed, they rejected your position quite categorically.

And because "the people" reject your view you dismiss the election as irrelevant.

And because they don't agree with your views you dismiss them as "sheeple".

You claim to want liberty for those whom you deride as sheep.

But if they're sheep, surely they need looking after? If people are the idiots you dismiss them as then how could they ever cope with what you expect them to be?

I'd rather grant "the people" a modicum of sense, and accept that they've expressed their view (at least to some degree).

But no need to listen to me - just look at the election results! lol

the_last_name_left said...

Mr Boehner also cited a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on Thursday which warned the US economy would fall back into recession if no deal were struck on the fiscal cliff.

The analysis projected that the package of tax rises and spending cuts would cut the ballooning US deficit by $503bn (£315bn) through to next September, but also shrink the economy by 0.5% and cost millions of jobs.
----------------

Millions of jobs.

And yet it's nothing compared to what you advocated and what you wished to see happen.

You wanted "Year Zero" - slash everything.

How many millions would that put out of work?

Oh yes, you'd say eventually the jobs will come back, once all the crap has been washed away.

But that's what you want - to throw millions out of work - so that you can pursue your high-school understanding of libertarian economics. Sure, you promise that everything will be better one day........but even that promise is based on throwing millions out of work AND cutting state-benefits, lowering taxes, blah blah blah.

It'd be a nightmare. Obviously. And the people rejected it.

Romney is Ron Paul Lite economically, and it was rejected. Thank God! :D

Real Truth Online said...

"Moreover, the majority electing Obama is hardly comparable to a majority wanting to kill everyone."

Correction: The majority of VOTERS elected Obama...not the majority of American citizens.

"And because "the people" reject your view you dismiss the election as irrelevant."

It's not MY VIEW that I am defending, it is the CONSTITUTION. Most Americans don't have a clue what it says.

"Romney is Ron Paul Lite economically, and it was rejected. Thank God!"

Please explain this because I have no clue what the fuck it means. I cannot wait for your answer!

Anonymous said...

larry, you own this guy. the last cock in mouth queenie fraud name left doesn't have the smarts to debate with you.

Real Truth Online said...

That's what I thought. I expected you to ignore my last question...because you have no answer.

the_last_name_left said...

Romney is right wing economically - much closer to Paul than Obama.

Romney's positions:

---"in late 2008, Romney argued against a bailout with direct government loans of the auto industry."

-"a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution."

---"My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us."

----"Romney’s energy proposal called for aggressively expanding drilling for fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas, by easing federal regulations."

--- Romney suggested that responsibility for handling disasters should be taken from FEMA, the federal agency dedicated to disaster relief, and given to the states, or outsourced to the private sector

-Romney says a major contributor to America’s faltering economy has been what he views as excessive regulation.

---Romney opposed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare)

---Romney responded that it would be best not to try and stop the foreclosure process, to let it run its course and hit the bottom.

--- "proposals to reduce government regulation of business activity and to revise the federal tax code and federal trade and energy policies would foster an environment that would lead businesses to create 12 million jobs within his first four years in office"

---Romney criticized Obama's stimulus policy, saying that Obama "wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people."

--- Romney said he would seek income tax law reforms that he says would help lower federal deficits and would stimulate economic growth. Among the series of tax changes he has proposed are: reducing individual income tax rates across the board by 20 percent, maintaining the Bush administration-era tax rate of 15 percent on investment income from dividends and capital gains (and eliminating this tax entirely for those with annual incomes less than $200,000), cutting the top tax rate on corporations from 35 percent to 25 percent, and eliminating the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax.

etc etc


Real Truth Online said...

-"a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution."

Hmmm, I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with that.

---"My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us."

Again, what's wrong with this?? Oh, so you're saying since everyone doesn't fall for the global warming myth, they are nuts. Gotcha. You DO realize the Earth engages in these cycles every 20-30 years right? TIME magazine did stories about global FREEZING in the 70's.

----"Romney’s energy proposal called for aggressively expanding drilling for fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas, by easing federal regulations."

Again, what's the problem??

--- Romney suggested that responsibility for handling disasters should be taken from FEMA, the federal agency dedicated to disaster relief, and given to the states, or outsourced to the private sector

Being that FEMA has been so incompetent in the past [Katrina...] what exactly is wrong with this??

-Romney says a major contributor to America’s faltering economy has been what he views as excessive regulation.

I disagree with this. It has been one thing and one thing only: the Federal Reserve's excessive printing of money out of thin air, causing massive inflation.

---Romney opposed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare)

So do I. So does anyone with an inkling of intelligence. Government fails at everything else, but I want them in charge of my health? Nothing is to be FORCED onto the American people, period.

---Romney responded that it would be best not to try and stop the foreclosure process, to let it run its course and hit the bottom.

Exactly right. The free market takes care of itself.

--- "proposals to reduce government regulation of business activity and to revise the federal tax code and federal trade and energy policies would foster an environment that would lead businesses to create 12 million jobs within his first four years in office"

There's no way of knowing if that's true, BUT less government would mean less FEDERAL jobs which would be ok with me. It MIGHT lead to more private sector jobs but that is unknown.

---Romney criticized Obama's stimulus policy, saying that Obama "wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people."

I'm all for less government so I have no clue what's wrong with this.

--- Romney said he would seek income tax law reforms that he says would help lower federal deficits and would stimulate economic growth. Among the series of tax changes he has proposed are: reducing individual income tax rates across the board by 20 percent, maintaining the Bush administration-era tax rate of 15 percent on investment income from dividends and capital gains (and eliminating this tax entirely for those with annual incomes less than $200,000), cutting the top tax rate on corporations from 35 percent to 25 percent, and eliminating the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax.

Since the income tax is unconstitutional, this would be good, but they would just jack up sales taxes.

What you don't understand is that although Romney said these good things, I didn't believe him about doing these things. You state these things as if they are bad without explaining what is wrong with them. You just IMPLY they are bad with no explanation. You're a socialist. I will assume you're a socialist because you want free stuff from your government. Did it ever occur to you to go out and fucking WORK for it?