Note to those who marry wingnuts: your spouses will also throw YOU under the bus. Their hypocrisy overrides marriage vows. Ignorance of that is not a defense.

Oh the fun memories she now must have of all those lovely, wealthy, pompous elite meals staring at the woman who fucks her husband when she is not looking. Surely it was worth the price of being politically 'affluent'.

It is hard to feel sorry for someone who fully knew well what she married and waited 24 years to have a reckoning about it.
Not sucking a little cock in an airport bathroom? I thought *that* was what anti-gay politicians liked most.
I expected what @2 said. I did not expect this.
Beaver @ 2 - I think they prefer sucking a big cock in an airport bathroom.
Anti-gay politicians shouldn't be allowed within five miles of any SS action.
Haaaa, suffer.
Come on Dan, knocking up your mistress isn't an anti-gay-marriage-dude thing, plenty of gay marriage supporting men do that. Anti-gay-marriage male behaviors include hiring dudes from Craigslist, soliciting gay sex in public areas, and being a pedophile.
What everyone else said. Knocking up the mistress is ho-hum.
About the cows:

You make people more conservative by scaring them. And ranchers are already typically conservative for a dozen different reasons. So if you scare the ranchers into thinking the 'mos are bad somehow, then you win their support.

It doesn't matter if your argument makes sense. You just have to instill fear.
Champaign is a city in downstate Illinois (and possibly other cities as well).
@9 - we came to our senses last year, when we had the Non-Binding Plebiscite. SSM is legal here now, at last.

As was the case when Barnaby had to resign and re-contest his seat after forgetting to say that he was a New Zealand citizen, I am taking great personal joy in this. Barnaby and I hate each other: it really is a very mutual thing, and his personal attacks on me (for being foreign, for being "a consultant", for being "not even Australian", for understanding his ministerial portfolio better than he does, etc) tend to piss me off. So when things in his life go horribly wrong, I am happy.

What the article doesn't mention is that two new government jobs were created for Vikki after she left Barnaby's office. This looks distinctly illegal. Parliamentary rules specifically bar MPs from arranging jobs for family members and partners.

The government's only defence for him at the moment is that Vikki "was not his partner at the time". Even the Prime Minister is saying this. They were just fucking, and she was just pregnant by him. He was married to someone else, and that someone else was his partner. So that, apparently, makes it all OK.

ROTFL- like anyone really cares about Australia’s gay politics especially if they can’t even afford to live in their own city.…
The text in the original Australian:

Bossie was rooting that slag and gave her a sprog at the same time he was trash yarning the donut-punchers. Well, hoozeewozles!
@2, @3, @7, and @8:

You’re reading “anti-gay marriage” as merely “anti-gay,” thus missing the larger package. Sure, if he was merely stroking the anti-gay vote, we’d expect him to be sucking a little on the side. But he was pimping the whole family/marriage/children package for votes, so we should expect him to betray his marriage vows and hurt his existing children by destroying his family and *also* adding yet one more innocent little victim to the list he’s already created.

You simply have to match the expected behavior to the rhetoric, that’s all. Dan did a great job of that here.
Barnaby Joyce is a mongrel and a hypocrite, and while getting the staffer up the duff has caused much wtf Barnaby moments, it seems most of the politicians in Canberra won't call it because of glass houses or the like. As @12 says, the big issue is the (apparent) corruption of other members of parliament giving his bit on the side very well paying jobs once it became too hot in his office. @14: stone the crows mate, who taught you Australian? Some pommy bastard by the sound of it.
What Tensor says. "family values"

Also, about the "right to know their parents" thing- how is that an argument that has anything to do with gay marriage or gay families? It's an argument either against adoption in general or an argument for a certain kind of adoption reform (open records when possible, etc) but I don't see what even a wing nut could say it has to do with gay marriage specifically.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.