1. Even though the WaPo supported the ridiculously stupid Iraq Invasion, this only serves to reinforce Dennis’s point.

2. Unregardless, the WaPo is Teh Liberal because it is. It just is! Ergo, they need to report on even more fag-haters for balance. Or something.

Ok, whatever, even conceding that for purposes of the argument, it doesn’t change the fact that the WaPo is decidedly liberal, and an overwhelming number of their reporters are liberal. Especially when it comes to social issues.

I’d love to debate you too, Dennis, but I have a strict rule against debating dumbfuck issue-duckers who can’t stop apologizing for racist assholes and other bigots. It’s more of a hang-up than a self-imposed rule. My sincere apologies.

I’d love to debate you; it’s just hard when you aren’t at all coherent.

It was a bit refreshing to see you throw out a different grievance though, so that’s a good thing, just next time try to tie it in with something that’s in the same area code as far as relevance. I’ll try my best to help you.

Hey, a lot of parents weren’t (and still aren’t) too thrilled about Brown v. Board of Education. Those people are called “Wingnuts” (and other stuff).

I don’t have a problem with the kid, and I don’t have a problem with his winning the contest.

You just have a problem with assholes who do have a problem with “the kid” and him winning the contest not getting enough ink? Awesome!

Newsbusters didn’t link to the ‘Glittering moment of inclusiveness’ article, but Tim Graham wrote that it was inside the paper in the Metro section, and that was the title, not the subtitle. His point is that the title could’ve read something like ““Not Everyone Is Celebrating Moment of GMU Drag-Queen Moment of Controversy”, but instead used ‘this glittering moment of inclusiveness’. So those were the WaPo’s words. The called it a glittering moment of inclusiveness, and not everyone was celebrating it. What’s hard to understand about that? I googled it and apparently it looks you are the only one to take issue with it that I can tell.

I’ve read the WaPo article three times now and it seems fair to me, but it’s also a fair point to make that only one person with an opposing viewpoint was quoted. The rest of the article was very favorable for the individual and for the selection.

And Oliver, the WaPo is very liberal, even if they weren’t as forcefully against the war as you would’ve liked. Their reporting for or against the Iraq War has very little to do with how they stand on social issues and inclusiveness in general with whether or not they are a liberal outfit. When it comes to social issues, they are very liberal.

Puh-lease.
——-

Parthy, not to ignore you, but I think that answers your question too. I don’t have a problem with either article, WaPo’s or Newsbusters. I don’t have a problem with the kid, and I don’t have a problem with his winning the contest. I just don’t think the Newsbusters article was incorrect in stating which side of the coin the WaPo writer was on and that the article wasn’t quite fair and balanced. Guy’s just stating his opinion. There’s a website on the Left we all know of that does the exact same thing. Opinionated commentary on a few facts.

Ed, you’re bloviating again, only very badly this time. You tilt at windmills frequently. Is there no one in your immediate vicinity who you verbalize your frustrations to in order to get those demons out of your system?

I made no judgments about the man in question’s lifestyle, and I won’t. I know the school is growing like crazy and is struggling with a regional/national identity, one that was aided greatly by an amazing run to the Final Four a few years ago. I only imagine this, but my guess is a fair amount of kids that go there and their parents aren’t too thrilled with that publicity, whether they care either way about the kid in question or not, or are ambivalent. I don’t think that article did justice to that concern to the degree I think it exists.

But I only addressed the two articles and said I disagreed with Oliver’s supposition. You, on the other hand have to make something up about me to make a point. It’s really about the only way you know how to argue.

Dennis, you lost in 1964 and you’re losing again. And that’s a good thing.

Oh noes, a university elected a drag queen as its homecoming queen! Democracy strikes again! This is worse than Loving v. Virginia! Suck it, bigot Dennis!

I suppose the WaPo should give equal time to people opposed to “race mixing” and whatnot (you know, Republicans like we see at Palin rallies). Maybe to Creation Science as opposed to Evolution (hell, the NYT did just that).

Sorry Dennis, gay people exist. And they’re people too. Get over it, bigot.

How exactly did the post not lend weight to the other side? They did so in the subhead. Is your issue with the words ‘glittering moment of inclusiveness?’ The ‘glittering’ part is a little schmaltzy and excessive, but you can’t argue that the moment is not inclusive.

Cons would not be satisfied with that story until it said “Godless Gay Rapes Our Eyes With Drag Display”.

And is this the same “liberal” Washington Post that was a cheerleader for the war and publishes false columns by George Will?

1 Samuel 15:3
Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.

I don’t get that. The story’s already out and everywhere, so whether WaPo reports on it or not hardly matters. NewsBusters issue is the liberal slant afforded to it.

Reading both articles it seems their issue definitely is with the reporting, and they say so. The headline is “Work that Tiara, Boy!” and then “Not Everyone Is Celebrating Glittering Moment of Inclusiveness”, so it’s fair to assume from that headline and sub-headline that the paper is saying it was a glittering moment of inclusiveness, just that not everyone is celebrating it as such. Then the article goes on to talk almost solely about the acceptance of the young man and his background, and the president of GMU being fine with it also. Only one person’s views who disagreed with it was written about, and even then, only briefly.

There’s no hint of anyone’s insecurity with their own sexuality in either article, other than the young man’s when he was in high school. Just a problem someone has with a liberal newspaper glorifying an alternative lifestyle and not giving equal weighting to both sides of the issue. Nothing more, nothing less. Happens every day.