Local Fox news anchor forced to apologize after calling Rachel Maddow an "angry young man"

The comment happened roughly one month ago, just after the debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan An anchor for Fox affiliate WXIX-TV in Cincinnati is apologizing after calling MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow an "angry young man" on her Facebook page. Read more
hahahahahaha

Carmel, IN

#106 Nov 14, 2012
Ninthman wrote:
An Angry young man!!! That's classic. I LOVE it. It's absolutely fantastic. Democrats have no sense of humor. All they got right now is Benghazi..
An angry young man!!!..Perfect LOL
If you can't take a joke, go take a shit.
She's an angry UGLY man. Maddyke should be on the comedy circuit. She's a laugh a minute.
3OHY

San Jose, CA

#107 Nov 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Back-pedalling? I thought you sounded like a circus clown.
If any perceived adaptability and flexibility conflicts with your stagnant, rigid, self-validating emotional state, so be it.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#108 Nov 14, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never attacked him for his race. I've only attacked him for being a PROUD Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist.
So your a Beck conspiracy nut.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#109 Nov 14, 2012
3OHY wrote:
If my post directly addressing RustyS and his horrible assertions
AssertionS? Plural? He only said ONE thing about lowering the age of consent, and he wasn't even very clear about THAT. Maybe he meant lowering it from 18 to 16, like more than HALF of U.S. states allow. Maybe he himself IS 16 or 17, and feels he should be considered an adult. Did you even ASK him what he meant?
3OHY wrote:
results in several other homosexuals immediately attacking me, the subtext is obvious.
At NO POINT did I see anyone "attack" you. You got a few replies wondering why you were focusing on sex with children, and I'd have to wonder that too, considering how little discussion you had with RustyS about his comment. No one mentioned NAMBLA but you. Are you aware that there's a NAMGLA?
3OHY wrote:
Otherwise and for space limitation, I assert that all humans are indeed culpable for the misdeeds of all other humans, if they are silent, or respond by attacking those making a clear oppositional statement to a criminal. This would apply to any crime against humanity at any time in human history.
Oh. Brother.

Then you and I are guilty of the Holocaust, Rwanda and Bosnia. See you at the Hague.

This is a RIDICULOUS way of thinking. I don't even know how to process it. How do you LIVE with yourself, being so guilty of so much?
3OHY wrote:
Me assaulting those inclined to justify in any manner something unjustifiable is not condemning all homosexuals as partakers of that specific perversion.
"In any manner", as you use it, means something WAY too open-ended. Just because someone doesn't reply to something stupid or toxic doesn't mean they are trying to justify it. Just because you throw the word "NAMBLA" into your rants doesn't mean that everyone who opposes your OTHER ill-informed nonsense is a NAMBLA supporter.

And when you make posts like this one...
3OHY wrote:
Freaks, queers, what's the difference? You all call each other queers. You should be calling your fellows freaks, who start to dominate Topix discussions with their desire to lower ages of consent so they can have access to younger children
...then YES, you ARE trying to condemn ALL homosexuals of blanket criminality. If you want to convince us that this is not the case, then you need a DRASTIC change of tone.
3OHY wrote:
It is directed only to them.
Yeah, BS. You put MY name on your little list, as "defending NAMBLA desires for younger children". You'll direct your accusations at anyone who challenges ANYTHING you say.
3OHY wrote:
Any other generalized views concerning homosexuality can be addressed in other ways and other discussions.
If I see anyone with a intelligent, informed opinion, I'll keep that in mind.
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#110 Nov 14, 2012
3OHY wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion is an expression of the human need to understand its nature and reasons for any set of moral prerogatives. Thus, religion can be seen as a natural, human and cultural norm. The common human rejection of homosexuality is a separate, likely genetically learned behavior linked to furtherance and stability in the human experience. This is why variable secular and widely oppositional religious views incorporate the more fundamental rejection of homosexual behaviors and irrational rejections of norms establishing certain permanences in the human fabric. Like the falsehoods of Marxism, activist homosexuals, whenever they've been allowed to thrive without clear opposition, believe they can change human nature. It's a falsehood believed at an emotional level, rationalizing behavior, rather than a solid view of life itself. Now, various perversions of human sexuality will always be evident in human experience. It is the function of humans coming together to form government of their base inclinations, that defines civilization. For many hundreds of thousands of years, this inclination to self-preservation has always striven to limit, or eliminate the impact of anarchistic views challenging the core self-perceptions of the overall human community. Homosexuality is basically destructive to all of those human inclinations. The vast majority of human beings have, at their most core understanding of culture, rejected behavior and mental infirmities challenging that understanding. Given the "freedom" you desire, which is really license, the homosexual influence has always been ultimately negative to the human community. That is why your impacts and behaviors are opposed, not because of some "religious" bigotry.
LOL Total BS and bigotry..Is this some sort of Catholic cut and paste?...You lost it with 'genetically learned behavior' doesn't exist..could the word be 'instinct'?
3OHY

San Jose, CA

#111 Nov 14, 2012
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
AssertionS? Plural? He only said ONE thing about lowering the age of consent, and he wasn't even very clear about THAT. Maybe he meant lowering it from 18 to 16, like more than HALF of U.S. states allow. Maybe he himself IS 16 or 17, and feels he should be considered an adult. Did you even ASK him what he meant?
<clipped>
Yes, assertions. He also basically said and was seconded by others, that there should be more homosexuality practiced amongst "men, women, boys and girls." If you think for a moment someone capable of perceiving reality would involve themselves directly asking him "what he meant", you're as foolish as he.

Thus, your dishonesty in representing what actually was said and affirmed by others is indicative of a more generalized red herring approach to any and all discussions with anyone having oppositional views to your sick and perverted maladjustments, which, yes, are crimes against humanity.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#112 Nov 14, 2012
This trashy clown should have been fired.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#113 Nov 14, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never attacked him for his race. I've only attacked him for being a PROUD Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist.
LOL. But he's not. You don't know what those terms mean, and you just use them to avoid using racial slurs.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#114 Nov 14, 2012
3OHY wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. There is a clear correlation between the increased use of dope and the temporal increase in homosexuality in the same exact time-frame. Further, dope is almost universally used by homosexuals. Further yet, dope is commonly used by homosexuals to destroy and overpower natural inhibitions in their victims, those validated and sustained in a new deviant identity.
Aside from that, your logic is failing, as I said the reason for queers is "emotional retardation and stagnancy", which can be from non-dope reasons, too.
How far up your backside do you have to reach to pull this stuff out?
BTW, your homophobia is caused by your inability to deal with your own same sex attractions. How else can it be explained?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#115 Nov 14, 2012
lolol wrote:
I would think in this day and age of in-your-face gayness that maddow would be strutting proudly being seen as a male which she spends her life trying to emulate. i'm confused, do lesbians NOT want to be perceived as males now ?
Stupid, lesbians never wanted to be perceived as males, they are women who are sexually/romantically attracted to other women.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#116 Nov 14, 2012
3OHY wrote:
<quoted text>
So, now we have an expanded list of perverts on Topix defending NAMBLA desires for younger children, sometimes outright promoting them...
Rose's Law...

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#117 Nov 14, 2012
3OHY wrote:
Yes, assertions. He also basically said and was seconded by others, that there should be more homosexuality practiced amongst "men, women, boys and girls."
No, he most certainly did NOT. Your use of "basically" is as overly-broad as your use of "in any manner". What he said was:

"Men, women, boys, girls. It is a new world and new rules will prevail."

I don't see ANY indication that anyone should practice anything. You are "basically" adding your OWN sub-text. I see him simply speaking to a broad audience.
3OHY wrote:
If you think for a moment someone capable of perceiving reality would involve themselves directly asking him "what he meant", you're as foolish as he.
I think that someone who wants more detailed information would directly ask for it. Anyone who AVOIDS directly questioning someone about their views, is someone who is afraid to learn something that would contradict their preconceived notions of what they THINK that person means. You are advocating sticking your fingers in your ears and making assumptions, and you are CONDEMNING the practices of discussion, exploration and self-education.

I ought to be more reluctant to converse with you, for fear that you will make assumptions about what you think I "basically" mean, since I now know that you will not be inclined to ASK me what I might actually mean.
3OHY wrote:
Thus, your dishonesty in representing what actually was said
There's dishonesty in representing what's actually said? Verbatim quoting is untrustworthy now? You're the one who wants to re-translate people's words into what you think they "basically" mean.
3OHY wrote:
and affirmed by others
No one affirmed anything. Who? Where? When? There were people who wanted to know why you're talking about sex with children (and I wonder why you weren't limiting your discussion to RustyS, since he's the only one who came CLOSE to such a subject, not that you asked him to elaborate), and one person told you that they'd never met a NAMBLA member, nor known anyone who had. What is it you think was "affirmed", exactly?
3OHY wrote:
is indicative of a more generalized red herring approach to any and all discussions with anyone having oppositional views to your sick and perverted maladjustments, which, yes, are crimes against humanity.
So you ARE smearing ALL gay people with someone else's crimes. Of course, you must feel completely justified, if you believe that every person is guilty of everyone else's crime. What a messed up worldview.

What's TRULY sick is the focus that people like you put on same-sex crimes of pedophilia, as if it's somehow a WORSE crime, BECAUSE it's same-sex. It makes it appear that you feel that OPPOSITE-sex pedophilia is a LESS heinous crime, worth ignoring.

ANY sex with children, REGARDLESS of the gender, is criminal. You have absolutely no cause to depict this as a "gay" issue, or indicative of the gay community. If you have a beef with ONE PERSON, then go back and seek them out, and discuss the matter with THEM. Don't simply balk at the prospect of communicating with them, take it out on everyone else, and then proclaim that you've done your job. You did nothing but make an assumption and run with it.

Educating children that gay people are not worthy of hate, is NOT the same as promoting sex with children. Letting young people know that if it turns out that THEY are gay they still have an accepted place in the community, is NOT some form of hitting on kids.

You seem to oppose ANY form of education that gives gay people acceptance as the normal human beings we are, and you'll ascribe the most villainous of motives to anyone who dares challenge you.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#118 Nov 14, 2012
NoMoreUSA wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you didn;t read the part you so conviently left out. That post was NOT...again NOT for liberal filth such as yourslef. It was for former real USA citizens, not anti-Amerikan filth. Did you get that part that time? Go back and re-read that again.
...ok, now that that part has sunk in, you destroyed one Country, and by God you will not be allowed into another. You also will not be taking over a great many States, because they are now filing for sucession, and rightfully so. You may have detrioyed the Uniion, and ruined most of the landscape, but for some of the States, they are taking their land back, and if you get in their way? They'll just burn ya...quite luitersly? YEAH! With gas, with dielsel, with incinerators, or whatever they have to.
You fucking liberal filth have NO fucking clue...you never have, but the best part of all? Now you will finally learn something for the first time in your life...you're gonna learn how to suffer a very painful death, and more than a few of the people that are left there to do it might just decide to enjoy it and make it a slow one for ya.
That makes me soooo very happy.:-)
You are upset you have a black president.
We get that.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#119 Nov 14, 2012
The words FOX and NEWS are mutually exclusive.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#120 Nov 14, 2012
3OHY wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion is an expression of the human need to understand its nature and reasons for any set of moral prerogatives. Thus, religion can be seen as a natural, human and cultural norm.
The common human rejection of homosexuality is a separate, likely genetically learned behavior linked to furtherance and stability in the human experience.
Actually, it's due to a misunderstanding of how people reproduce. At one time, it was thought that a man's semen was "seed", that planted in a woman's womb, and that a man could run out of it.

What's a genetically learned behavior?
3OHY wrote:
This is why variable secular and widely oppositional religious views incorporate the more fundamental rejection of homosexual behaviors and irrational rejections of norms establishing certain permanences in the human fabric. Like the falsehoods of Marxism,
Marx was right when he said that religion is the opiate of the masses. The vast majority of people will accept stupid but sure sounding answers as opposed to accepting the fact they don't know something, and then struggling to find the answers. Mustache twirling villains exist only in the movies. Most people want to see themselves as good. And religion can make a person's hatred and vile acts seem good to them.
3OHY wrote:
activist homosexuals, whenever they've been allowed to thrive without clear opposition, believe they can change human nature. It's a falsehood believed at an emotional level, rationalizing behavior, rather than a solid view of life itself. Now, various perversions of human sexuality will always be evident in human experience. It is the function of humans coming together to form government of their base inclinations, that defines civilization. For many hundreds of thousands of years, this inclination to self-preservation has always striven to limit, or eliminate the impact of anarchistic views challenging the core self-perceptions of the overall human community. Homosexuality is basically destructive to all of those human inclinations. The vast majority of human beings have, at their most core understanding of culture, rejected behavior and mental infirmities challenging that understanding. Given the "freedom" you desire, which is really license, the homosexual influence has always been ultimately negative to the human community. That is why your impacts and behaviors are opposed, not because of some "religious" bigotry.
Your homophobia is caused by you inability to deal with your own same sex attractions. Your arguments above are laughable.
You can't provide a single actual example of how "the homosexual influence has always been ultimately negative to the human community".

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#121 Nov 14, 2012
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he most certainly did NOT. Your use of "basically" is as overly-broad as your use of "in any manner". What he said was:
"Men, women, boys, girls. It is a new world and new rules will prevail."
So, 3OHY read that, and the first thing he thinks of is men having sex with boys?

Gary

Bellingham, WA

#122 Nov 14, 2012
I have watched Maddow for as long as she has
been on MSNBC and have never seen her mad.

This moron is just another sore-loser
Fox propagandist. They still can't admit
that they were virtually 100% wrong about Romney
getting his landslide.
Fishpock

San Jose, CA

#124 Nov 14, 2012
luv Sarah Palin wrote:
<quoted text>
I could have sworn he was a man but now it looks like he isn't. My future daughter in law is a fan of this Maddow and it looks like this leftist has a commie trance over the youth and if you bad mouth "him" they stick up like rabid dogs for their male/female leader.
Sure looks like a male to me but what do I know I live in reality.
http://www.google.com/imgres...
Why do you go out of your way to mock. Why do you always feel the need to insult and demean. I honestly don't understand what your issue is. You can't really debate with someone who refuses to have any respect whatsoever for their opposition.
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#125 Nov 14, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
So, 3OHY read that, and the first thing he thinks of is men having sex with boys?
Yep, the bigot is out of the bag, so to speak..My favorite was 'genetically learned behavior'..unbelievable.
Barbara

Rockport, MA

#127 Nov 14, 2012
NoMoreUSA wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to say Adios illegal...I will definitely NOT be seeing you in hell. That is a place that is now reserved for you liberal savages and I'm definitely not in that camp. I was smart enough to dinstance myself from you worthless shit all my life, and will be doing so again in the afterlife as well. Save it for the like minded evil cancer you'll be hanging out with in Hell. You'll have an eternity to reflect on how you ended up there, and I'm sure it will be quite an awakening. Now go back to playing with your prepubescent boys or any of the other sick shit you bastards and whores engage in.
Ha ha ha. Is that the best you have? And talking about the afterlife? Ha ha ha. You are so funny!!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Indiana lawmakers try to quiet firestorm surrou... 5 min Quest 54
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 5 min Skankie Jizzho 17,820
News Fight over religious objection proposals shifts... 6 min TerryE 1
News LTE: In Open Letter to Clearfield Community, Lo... 16 min Doug 18
News Indiana officials look to stem religious object... 27 min Go Blue Forever 69
News Fight over religious objection proposals shifts... 34 min Cordwainer Trout 1
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 34 min Just Think 58,898
News Pediatrician Won't Treat Baby With Lesbian Moms 4 hr Brian_G 778
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 6 hr Blackburn 30,913
More from around the web