Free market bitch slap!

Greg Gutfeld To Open A Gay Bar Next To Ground Zero Mosque To Cater To “Islamic Gay Men”


No, this is not a joke. In fact, it is instead one of the most brilliant pieces of provocations in recent years. Greg Gutfeld from Fox News’ Red Eye announced today via his blog that he is actively speaking to investors and plans on opening a gay bar next to the controversial mosque being built near Ground Zero in New York. To make matters worse (better?) the bar will be specifically designed to cater to homosexuals of the Islamic faith. God, this is going to be an exciting block.

Here’s Gutfeld’s entire post which he will expand upon during tonight’s Red Eye:

“So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it’s all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.

As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque – after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law – who can stop them?

Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I’ve decided to do the same thing.

I’m announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps – but still want to dance.

Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.

My place, however, will have better music.”

Hot Air contacted Andy Levy who reiterated that Gutfeld is serious. And, on his blog, Gutfeld points to the lack of humor in the post as further proof of his intentions (although, I think he’s under estimating himself. That last line about the music is hilarious).

I, personally, think it’s a brilliant idea. I absolutely abhor all of this anti-mosque nonsense currently going on in this country. It’s disgusting bigotry plain and simple. However, just because I support Muslim Americans in their fight against anti-Islam prejudice, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get a few dings for their religion’s own prejudice against homosexuals. If you want to be treated fairly, you should treat others fairly as well. Still though, the only thing that would make this plan perfect would be if Gutfeld created a chain of gay bars and plopped them down next to churches and synagogues since it’s not like those religions have been super open-minded.

Insomniacs around the country already know that Red Eye is underrated genius. If Gutfeld goes through with his plan, hopefully it will be enough to finally thrust them into the satirical limelight with Stewart and Colbert like they deserve.
 

Anaesthesine

Angel of Distemper
Next, a gay bar in the Vatican - whoohoo, bring on the go go boys!

I truly believe that if we have enough gay bars in enough neighborhoods, we can finally achieve world peace.

:D
 

Anaesthesine

Angel of Distemper
No, it's not funny (the fact that American conservatives treat all things gay as either a joke or a threat just points out how petty and mean they can be), but it is a GREAT idea.

Things like this sometimes have a way of becoming a reality - a gay bar that caters to Muslims would be a beautiful statement about what it means to be an American, and a monumental embrace not just of tolerance (sorry Worm, it's a good thing), but respect.
 
...I once had a mate, who didn't like the fact that i Knew some "Dirty Queers"
(...His words , not mine.....), and enjoyed their company_Funnily enough, he stunk to high Heaven.... and his teeth were BADDDDDDD......The "Boys in the band" were always incredibly Hygienic!!
 

Black Cloud

Case Sensitive
I've known some gay Muslims. They were good dancers. Most of them had to go back to their country after college and get married to a lady and have babies. I see them on Facebook.
 

Worm

Taste the diffidence
(sorry Worm, it's a good thing), but respect.
I never said tolerance was a bad thing. I said it was building your house with straw knowing Hurricane Sarah is on the way. Liberalism isn't wrong, it's weak, pathetically weak, which is why "It can't happen here" will be America's epitaph. :)
 

Anaesthesine

Angel of Distemper
I never said tolerance was a bad thing. I said it was building your house with straw knowing Hurricane Sarah is on the way. Liberalism isn't wrong, it's weak, pathetically weak, which is why "It can't happen here" will be America's epitaph. :)
You expressed such contempt for the notion of "tolerance" that I could practically hear you spit. ;)

I'm just wondering, if you think that tolerance is such a weak force (and I must admit, the word is a bit namby-pamby), what would be the strong force? What would constitute an appropriately muscular version of Liberalism? What kind of house could withstand a perfect storm of fear, ignorance and fancy pageant walking?
 

Worm

Taste the diffidence
You expressed such contempt for the notion of "tolerance" that I could practically hear you spit. ;)
Well, just look at this issue-- the "mosque" (sic) at Ground Zero (sic).

What is tolerance doing? What is the other side doing? Who is controlling this conversation?

Them.

And yes, I'm using that word to conjure images of a 1950s sf B-movie.

It isn't tolerance per se that's the problem. It's the notion that tolerance can somehow form the moral basis of collective politics. It seems to, but it never survives serious stress tests. The only unifying energy that exists among today's liberals is mockery of Red States. They've got guns and Bibles and a whole lot of crazy. Who do you think is going to prevail when push comes to shove-- after our own uniquely American version of the Reichstag fire breaks out, which at this point is a certainty?

I'm just wondering, if you think that tolerance is such a weak force (and I must admit, the word is a bit namby-pamby), what would be the strong force? What would constitute an appropriately muscular version of Liberalism? What kind of house could withstand a perfect storm of fear, ignorance and fancy pageant walking?
A murderous desire for love.
 
Last edited:

Anaesthesine

Angel of Distemper
Well, just look at this issue-- the "mosque" (sic) at Ground Zero (sic).

What is tolerance doing? What is the other side doing? Who is controlling this conversation?

Them.

And yes, I'm using that word to conjure images of a 1950s sf B-movie.

It isn't tolerance per se that's the problem. It's the notion that tolerance can somehow form the moral basis of collective politics. It seems to, but it never survives serious stress tests. The only unifying energy that exists among today's liberals is mockery of Red States. They've got guns and Bibles and a whole lot of crazy. Who do you think is going to prevail when push comes to shove-- after our own uniquely American version of the Reichstag fire breaks out, which at this point is a certainty?
The gun totin', god fearin' opposition bearing the torches this time has just as little focus as the liberals who mock them. They aren't fighting FOR anything. They have no leader, no vision, and no underlying, coherent ideology. There may be a fire at the Reichstag, but the resultant power grab will not result in anything other than the rise of the "Free Market/Jesus is King/Get Outta My Yard" coalition (who, by the way, have no design sense whatsoever).

I'm not trying to minimize the threat, but a multi-cultural version of fascism will not last long. Tolerance is like water eating away at limestone. It takes a while, but eventually the stone will crumble.

A murderous desire for love.
:thumb:
 

Worm

Taste the diffidence
The gun totin', god fearin' opposition bearing the torches this time has just as little focus as the liberals who mock them. They aren't fighting FOR anything. They have no leader, no vision, and no underlying, coherent ideology.
The beauty of reactionary politics is that they don't necessarily need any of that (though they've got some of the items on your shopping list). All they need are primal emotions like fear and anger to unite them. Forces of reaction may not have viable political solutions but they can rack up a body count. Given our current capacity for inflicting massive casualties on populations, I don't want to let this tantrum play out.

Tolerance is like water eating away at limestone. It takes a while, but eventually the stone will crumble.
Ancient Chinese proverb, right? :)

One important aspect of such wisdom is the element of time. How long would we have to wait until the mountain is washed into the sea? What will be left for any of us?

Put more concretely, did the United States return to sanity after George Bush's two terms? Not really. Not at all.

Look at this "mosque" controversy. Here you've got lots of people engaged in a conversation about freedom of religion, tolerance, respect, and so on, but few realize that we have already taken a giant step backward merely by debating whether or not a "mosque" is offensive. You know lower Manhattan. The Cordoba Center may as well be in Buffalo. But a couple of demagogues and Fox News have swept up thousands of Americans in a fake controversy. It doesn't matter which side is right at this point. They've got people talking about mosques as if they were-- categorically-- Al Qaeda Disneylands.

We're right, they're wrong, yet we're losing and they're winning. Simple as that. We keep ceding ground in the certainty that after enough time passes people will come to their senses. They will, sure. But what must we endure in the meantime?

Aside from Internet Cassandras, that is. :)

I just saw footage of a right wing candidate in Florida applauded after talking about internment camps for illegal immigrants. It's pretty obvious where we're headed. Tolerance will stop this the way Kleenex taped to the barrel of a gun will stop a bullet. We need another option.
 
Last edited:

malvachat

My eyes are now open
Anyone paying attention the last couple of weeks has heard multiple reports about plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero. It's been labeled a "victory mosque", described as towering over the memorial to the victims of 9/11, and as being the pet project of a terrorist-sympathizing, Muslim imam. All of this would be cause for Americans to get upset, and no surprise, polls show we are.

But what if what we're being told are gross distortions mixed with bold faced lies?

Three simple fact checks help put the flap in context:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/...010/08/the_great_ground_zero_mosque_hoax.html
 

Anaesthesine

Angel of Distemper
The beauty of reactionary politics is that they don't necessarily need any of that (though they've got some of the items on your shopping list). All they need are primal emotions like fear and anger to unite them. Forces of reaction may not have viable political solutions but they can rack up a body count. Given our current capacity for inflicting massive casualties on populations, I don't want to let this tantrum play out.
I have to agree with you, bloodshed seems like an increasingly likely outcome of all this nonsense: given the state of the economy, racial tensions and election-year political hysteria, I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.

Still, there's a difference between violence and a coherent, viable political movement. Reactionary folks on the right may wreak havoc, but they do not have the leadership or unity of purpose to form a functioning alternative system of government (especially since they're fighting against the whole notion of government in the first place).

Ancient Chinese proverb, right? :)
No, modern American wishful thinking.

Look at this "mosque" controversy. Here you've got lots of people engaged in a conversation about freedom of religion, tolerance, respect, and so on, but few realize that we have already taken a giant step backward merely by debating whether or not a "mosque" is offensive. You know lower Manhattan. The Cordoba Center may as well be in Buffalo. But a couple of demagogues and Fox News have swept up thousands of Americans in a fake controversy. It doesn't matter which side is right at this point. They've got people talking about mosques as if they were-- categorically-- Al Qaeda Disneylands.

We're right, they're wrong, yet we're losing and they're winning. Simple as that. We keep ceding ground in the certainty that after enough time passes people will come to their senses. They will, sure. But what must we endure in the meantime?
This is one of the saddest, scariest things I've seen in a long time:


I just saw footage of a right wing candidate in Florida applauded after talking about internment camps for illegal immigrants. It's pretty obvious where we're headed. Tolerance will stop this the way Kleenex taped to the barrel of a gun will stop a bullet. We need another option.
Here is part of what President Obama had to say last night, at a dinner celebrating the beginning of Ramadan:

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country," Obama said, weighing in for the first time on a controversy that has riven New York City and the nation.

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100814/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_ground_zero_mosque_obama

I'm thinking that the s**t storm that is about to erupt over this is going to prove your point about tolerance - in the short term it is a weak force compared to fear and hate. Still, I don't see any other viable option, do you?

That same s**t storm is going to prove my point about religion, however (which is very small comfort): The lunatics on both sides are going to get us all killed.

It was fun while it lasted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Worm

Taste the diffidence
Still, there's a difference between violence and a coherent, viable political movement. Reactionary folks on the right may wreak havoc, but they do not have the leadership or unity of purpose to form a functioning alternative system of government (especially since they're fighting against the whole notion of government in the first place).
This is true.

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country," Obama said, weighing in for the first time on a controversy that has riven New York City and the nation.


Well said, as always. But unless Obama said something I haven't heard yet, he missed an opportunity to tell Americans what the real problem is: cynical, opportunistic demagogues like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, backed by Fox News. Like I said, it's a case where Obama (and Bloomberg, surprise surprise) are 100% correct and yet the other side is scoring a victory. The entire purpose of the disinformation campaign against Cordoba House was to play to the Republican base for the mid-term and 2012 election cycles, and in that sense it succeeded. Now, as you rightly say, Obama has chosen sides and he will be tarred with the same brush. It won't be long now before we're hearing about his middle name, Jeremiah Wright, and all the rest of it.

Still, I don't see any other viable option, do you?
Yes. A murderous desire for love.

There are people trying to think of a new way. It's true that the next viable option does have to be invented. Nothing else has succeeded on a large scale, in most key respects, as well as Western liberal democracy has, and in many cases (the USSR) the 'other option' proved to be a terrifying, bloody failure. But one thing we should all recognize is that the domination of late capitalism relies on the systematic destruction of alternatives to itself, both in reality and in our perception of reality. The fact that we cannot imagine a viable alternative speaks to its total ideological triumph, not to an actual lack of alternatives. They do exist, and there is some consolation in knowing that whatever must be invented from scratch will likely come from the best, most central strains of thought in our civilization and not beamed in from a colony of megabrained aliens in outer space. We don't need a monolith to appear on the White House lawn. I suspect the answers are right in front of us and need only be rearranged a little to reveal to us a path toward finding the viable option.
 
Last edited:

Anaesthesine

Angel of Distemper
Well said, as always. But unless Obama said something I haven't heard yet, he missed an opportunity to tell Americans what the real problem is: cynical, opportunistic demagogues like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, backed by Fox News. Like I said, it's a case where Obama (and Bloomberg, surprise surprise) are 100% correct and yet the other side is scoring a victory. The entire purpose of the disinformation campaign against Cordoba House was to play to the Republican base for the mid-term and 2012 election cycles, and in that sense it succeeded. Now, as you rightly say, Obama has chosen sides and he will be tarred with the same brush. It won't be long now before we're hearing about his middle name, Jeremiah Wright, and all the rest of it.
Well, now we find ourselves in one of those terrible conjunctions in history: Barack Hussein Obama, our first black (or mixed-race) president is believed to be Muslim by a surprisingly large number of American voters, despite all evidence to the contrary. The overtly racial campaign against his character has been wildly successful, and he has been painted as an outsider and a threat. He is in a uniquely poor position to call for tolerance for Islam, and any criticism he has for the overtly racial demagoguery that the Republicans are so good at will simply backfire with the people who he wishes to reach the most.

Yes. A murderous desire for love.

There are people trying to think of a new way. It's true that the next viable option does have to be invented. Nothing else has succeeded on a large scale, in most key respects, as well as Western liberal democracy has, and in many cases (the USSR) the 'other option' proved to be a terrifying, bloody failure. But one thing we should all recognize is that the domination of late capitalism relies on the systematic destruction of alternatives to itself, both in reality and in our perception of reality. The fact that we cannot imagine a viable alternative speaks to its total ideological triumph, not to an actual lack of alternatives. They do exist, and there is some consolation in knowing that whatever must be invented from scratch will likely come from the best, most central strains of thought in our civilization and not beamed in from a colony of megabrained aliens in outer space. We don't need a monolith to appear on the White House lawn. I suspect the answers are right in front of us and need only be rearranged a little to reveal to us a path toward finding the viable option.
I certainly hope you're right Worm, but history has taught us a terrible lesson over and over again - the course of human events is depressingly cyclical.

Say it with me: "Klaatu Barada Nicto..." ;)
 

Worm

Taste the diffidence
any criticism he has for the overtly racial demagoguery that the Republicans are so good at will simply backfire with the people who he wishes to reach the most.
Right. Exactly. As the Shirley Sherrod case showed, they are calling the shots. You just articulated, in a fair and accurate manner, why they are more powerful than we are. Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is held hostage by Fox News, Sarah Palin, and Newt Gingrich. They're winning. They're winning because they control the national conversation. Liberals have nothing to offer.

Say it with me: "Klaatu Barada Nicto..." ;)
Say it with me: "¡Que se vayan todos!"





Quand irons-nous, par-delà les grèves et les monts, saluer la naissance du travail nouveau, la sagesse nouvelle, la fuite des tyrans et des démons, la fin de la superstition, adorer— les premiers ! — Noël sur la terre !

[When will we journey beyond the beaches and the mountains, to hail the birth of new work, new wisdom, the flight of tyrants and demons, and the end of superstition; to adore— the first!—Christmas on earth!]

- Rimbaud
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom