David Schuster wipes his A** with Nat'l Org for Marriage's Brian Brown -Excellent!!

[tomm2thumbs]

Run time: 04:46 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkbFscAwQ1I   Posted on YouTube: May 02, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: May 02, 2009 By DU Member: tomm2thumbs Views on DU: 2959

 
B - EAUTIFUL ... thanks Schuster! Could it be we are witnessing another confused Ted Haggard in the making?

[MrModerate]

1. Let's see if I read Schuster's subtext correctly:

"You and your organization are lying homophobic sacks of shit suffering from a creepy fascination with what goes on in other people's bedrooms . . ."

Is that it?

[tomm2thumbs]

2. yes, and are strangely attracted to the male couple down the street

I like how he threw that in - as if it isn't obvious

[Divine Discontent]

3. thank you, David... thank you... eom

[countmyvote4real]

4. Good on David. n/t

[urgk]

5. Methinks Brian doth protest too much.

Not that a straight man can't hunch over and purse his lips like that. It's just not very likely.

In which case, I wish him well and the chance to divorce, then marry whomever he wants.

On a side note, he looks a little like Chris Farley as the mall girl.

[bc3000]

6. I thought the anti-gay guy held his own pretty well there.

wipes his a**? That's going way too far. Schuster may have come out on top, but not by much. His insinuation that the guy was gay because he is threatened by gay marriage was childish and didn't win him any points in my book.

I think he should have done more to force a response on his point that they basically changed the entire meaning of the quote from the legal experts by selectively quoting it. He brought it up enough, but then would lose focus. I thought the car analogy was good, he should have stuck with it.

[tomm2thumbs]

7. no pun intended I'm sure

[valerief]

8. Wow, he wiped his ass. It's strange seeing non-bigoted journalists

call these conservative jokers on their bigoted positions. I never expected to see David Shuster or Lawrence O'Donnell giving it back to the RW's the way they dish it out.

Is this a new trend?

[pretzel4gore]

23. too late

Obama is president, and the majority (who defied the pignewsmedia, who preferred mr magoo) is being defrauded at greater rate even then before. Too bad mr magoo mcain didn't win. Fascism rules, and there aint a darn thing anyone can do about it. Had presidente magoo won, the people might have noticed the problem (rightwing reactionary control of newsmedia, constant lies hiding truth from people)

[CAG]

9. Brian is also a spokesman for greasy hair product.

[jgraz]

10. The problem in these interviews is keeping up with the lies

Here are a few that Schuster missed near the end:

The American people are not overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage.
Marriage is not a "great social good" in and of itself.
Modern, western-style marriage is not and has never been a "near human universal".
There will not be "wide-spread consequences" from allowing same-sex marriage.

That's four huge lies, blurted out in about 7 seconds.

[geckosfeet]

19. The lies were flying fast and furious. It's like they think if they use the msm to

fling their spam at everyone that it will stick.

That poor youngster was simply spouting the party line. He looked like a nordic storm trooper.

[donheld]

11. "Ted Haggard in the making?"

I think it's already done.

[Tutankhamun]

12. Brian Brown does have a strange fixation upon gays, and he actually looks like Ted Haggard.

[bowens43]

13. conservatives are such bigoted assholes........ nt

[GreenTea]

14. Schuster is truly under-rated....he's excellent!

[ejpoeta]

18. what happend to his show!! they replaced his show with the ed show

and then schuster no longer has his own show. what gives!!

[Liberal_Christian]

15. I AM A CHRISTIAN that knows Mr. Brown is full of shit

Jesus Christ does in fact mention the sanctity of marriage. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT MENTIONED but guess what is; ADULTERY AND DIVORCE. Those were the ONLY things mentioned that were considered an offense to the "sanctity of marriage". This just proves that this should not be a governmental issue. Why? Because passing legislation preventing or outlawing ADULTERY and DIVORCE is just as RIDICULOUS as passing legislation preventing gay marriage. I would be VERY interested to know how many of these protestors against same-sex marriage are "guilty" of ADULTERY and DIVORCE. I can think of two off the top of my head; Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. According to JESUS CHRIST, people who commit ADULTERY and DIVORCE are more to blame for sacrilege against the sanctity of marriage. Yet these people are passing for that legislation; gee, I wonder why. Who ordered the steaming heaping pile of double-standard?

[Grinchie]

16. Schuster nails it with a simple example that puts the burden on B Browns insecurity.

[ejpoeta]

17. redefining marriage is going to hurt marriages?? ummm....

the only way that MY marriage or anyone else's would be hurt by this is if they are already having problems and they blame it on this. No one is forcing this clown to divorce his wife and go marry the gay couple down the street. As a matter of fact, i'd say that DIVORCE hurts marriage more than anything else. maybe instead of fighting the rights of citizens of this country they should go around trying to make it so no one can get divorced. Now THAT would help marriage, wouldn't it.

[olegramps]

20. There is a simple solution to this controversy

When will Americans get smart and adopt the solution that most Europian countries have adopted.
The marriage contract should be solely under the contol of the state.

No minister should be able to conduct a legally binding marriage, just as they are not allowed to conduct a divorce. If people wish to have some religious service then fine let them have their service, but marriage should be regarded as being a legal contract that religious ministers do not have the authority to conduct.

For me this solves the problem that religious people have with same sex marriages in which they what to impose their religious beliefs on every American. The controversy should be taken out of the religious sphere and regulated sole by the state that has the power to inforce its provisions. The state issues the license and should not delegate authority for its enactment. The state certainly does not relegate its authority to religious ministers in regard to divorce nor should it relegate its authority for enactment of the marriage contract. It should be regarded as a legal contract without any religious implications.

[Fearless]

21. Do we really see what this means??

Contextually it puts up a MASSIVE backstep by the National Organization for Marriage and other such groups. Do you see it? It's almost as if they've conceding the fact that bigotry will no longer be tolerated in the ways that it once was: outright hatred of non-heterosexuals. They seem to be reeling and looking for another way to attack the issue. I don't know. It may be semantics but maybe a key tactical change. We'll see.

[newmac]

22. Doug Lay Cock??? WTF??

WTF?