NEWS: Gayest Secretary Of State?

POLITICS: Gayest Secretary Of State?

Rumors have been floating around about Condoleezza Rice’s sexuality for years. Her marriage status has driven many of the rumors and now a new book by Washington Post diplomatic correspondent Glenn Kessler has revealed some interesting information about her past living situation.

It turns out that Condi owns a home with another woman. They also shared a line of credit together. I know what you’re thinking, “Who doesn’t share a line of credit and buy a home with a buddy?” You have a good point, false person I created.

It’s easy to explain. Bean and Rice met while they were at Stanford together. Like most women, they bonded over football.

The two became best friends. At one point in Bean’s life, she amassed a large amount of medical bills and needed someone to help her rebuild her credit. Condi stepped up. Coit Blacker also aided them. He is an openly gay Stanford professor. So, it was a pretty typical situation with two unmarried, football loving women hooking up with a gay man to buy a house.

Later, Coit sold his share of the house to Condi and The Bean. (That will probably be the name of the sitcom) Neither Condi or The Bean were married, it was just a couple of ladies owning a house together. Both remain unmarried to this day.

Kessler has no knowledge of a hot, sexual relationship between the women. He can only confirm that the two are friends. After Bush’s term is over Condi will return to Stanford, where Bean still works.

So, why does Condi’s sexuality matter? Because she works for an incredibly anti-gay administration.

If she is gay, that is pretty fucked up.

The Asshole Fuckface Roundup will appear tomorrow.

If she is straight, that is pretty fucked up.

Her politics are fucked up.

Still not gayer than John C Calhoun.

Homeboy was fierce.

This whole thread is absolutely fucking hilarious.

Word. Doesn't matter if Condi's gay or straight, human rights abuses are human rights abuses, and she ought to be condemning them. It's got nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Two words: James Buchanan

"You have a good point, false person I created."

Made me laugh.

Damn! I wonder how hard a brother had to search for 'product' in the mid-19th century...

If she's human, that is pretty fucked up.

This falls under rumor........kind of like J.Edgar Hoover!!! Must be a slow news day???

Frankly, that's a more important issue than whether Iran acquires nuclear weapons - after all, the point under contention isn't (or shouldn't be) whether Iran gains that technology, but rather what they might do with it (we're perfectly capable of tolerating nuclear proliferation among secular democracies, after all). And as long as they indulge themselves in bigoted barbarities like hanging people for homosexual behavior, they may be rightly mistrusted with such power.

If they showed some more respect for pluralism and human rights, they'd just be like France or something - a minor nuclear power which occasionally annoys us but which we'd never reasonably regard as an actual threat to world peace.

Of course, given the mentality of this administration and its supporters, such sophisticated distinctions are probably too much to ask. Particularly when the bigotry is a shared one.

Just because we believe in Human Rights doesn't mean that they do. Or that they have the same idea of what Human Rights are. So, who are we to tell them that they are wrong? The enforcement of Human Rights needs to come from internal sources in thier country (the citizens), not external sources (Bush's Supposedly Gay Bitch aka Condi).

Until the majority of the people (or in the case of the US the active minority) come forward and force the issue, no amount of condemning will change it. The only thing condemning these acts will do is sever any relations between the US and Iran. Iran doesn't have to obey the US and both countries and thier leaders know this perfectly well.

The whole point of the concept of human rights is that they're universal, regardless of what some people might "believe."

How has nobody mentioned Bean And Rice? they are made for one another!

Can I just say that "Randy Bean" is the best lesbian name ever?

... And as long as they indulge themselves in bigoted barbarities like hanging people for homosexual behavior, they may be rightly mistrusted with such power. ...

When was the last time you stepped back and took a good long hard look at our own country?? The United States is so filled with "Hate Crimes" it's sickening. And we are supposed to be the model for the rest of the world to follow??

We live in a country were "gay" persons are still afraid to "come out of the closet" for fear that some homophobe will beat them to deal or leave them tied to a fence post in the middle of nowhere to die.

Why are we worried about what they are going to do when we can't even control such behavior within our own borders?

If we went by your definition of who is qualified to have nuclear power then no one in the world is qualified. No country should have it and we should abolish all nuclear power, energies or otherwise.

Completely Irrelevant. You've missed the point.

Who are we to tell them they are wrong?

As far as Iran is concerned, the US is a group of outsider infidels. Who are we to tell them they are wrong? They follow their leaders and their Ideology. So what if Condie condemns the practice? Do you think they would just quit?

"Oh Condie, thank you your angelic insight that our beliefs and practices, that we've been following for centuries, are completely wrong. We'll stop killing sinners and infidels right away so they can infect our holy lands with their unrighteous disease."

Bloody Brilliant.

Do you get it now?

You'd think she'd look for any excuse to bash on Iran, the least she could do is rebuke a legitimate one.

Agreed, does it matter if she's gay or not? The article's just idle speculation anyway.

First of all, I said nothing whatsoever about the United States being any kind of model. Those are your words. Secondly, there's a difference between hate crimes, which are, by definition, illegal acts of bigoted individuals, and judicial executions, which are, by definition, legal acts of the state. If you can't perceive that difference, maybe you should travelling in the world a bit until you can.

Since when did the pursuit of justice become something you could in only one place at a time?

Seriously.

First of all, I'm no great fan of nuclear proliferation, but it's happening regardles of anyhing you or I say about it.

Secondly I don't think you understand "my definition" of who is qualified to possess it. In fact, I think you're just picking a fight. Look elsewhere, little man. You can't handle me.

Morality is subjective, the Human Rights that you are talking about is just one belief that people are entitled to certain things. Not everyone agrees totally some think people are entitled to much more or much less, it is subjective though.

Yes, I do - you're behaving like a child. A statement of principle is to be expected in international relations, regardless of whether or not it actually enlightens anyone.

How do you expect your ideas to work? You're going to prohibit anyone from expressing a negative opinion about anything outside the country of their birth until all examples of that practice within their native have stopped completely?

Bloody brilliant, indeed.

That's a point of view. I regard it as wrong. Since you have to concede that my perspective is valid while I don't have to extend you the same courtesy, this conversation on the merits of moral relativism is now over.

You've just done the playground equivalent of screaming "I'm right your wrong," then put your fingers in your ears and screaming I can't hear you. Which is usually done when someone has no intelligent comeback or counter arguments. Although usually not quite as blatantly as your example.

I am curious as to why you believe I must concede your point is valid when In my previous post I pointed out that it was wrong?