Comments for The David Pakman Show

Comment on February 2, 2012 by eggman

eggman — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:39:11 +0000

Bro…I read INTO THE WILD by Jon Krakauer and of course I loved it. Then I read….also by Krakhauer … UNDER THE BANNER OF GOD. im sure you’re smarter than I but do you know the mormon meadow massacre where mormons dressed up like native americans to murder white american settlers to hide their child raping religion???? Mormons are scary people even if they don’t rape pre-teens anymore. I guarantee the old jews in Florida aren’t even answering their phones for Newt. I got Kosher food in federal prison for FREE. LOVE u brother……..egg

Comment on February 2, 2012 by The David Pakman Show – 02.02.2012 | Valley Free Radio

The David Pakman Show – 02.02.2012 | Valley Free Radio — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:25:59 +0000

[...] to The David Pakman Show 02-02-2012 pp_flashembed( 'powerpress_player_5174', {src: [...]

Comment on Membership by January 5, 2012 | The David Pakman Show

January 5, 2012 | The David Pakman Show — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:20:40 +0000

[...] Membership [...]

Comment on January 30, 2012 by Marty

Marty — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 07:11:50 +0000

Yeah, Bowling Shoes.

Comment on April 21, 2010 by Valeria Tibbitts

Valeria Tibbitts — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 02:29:15 +0000

Hey guys, Is the U.S. a lot better off keeping Syria’s Assad?

Comment on January 30, 2012 by Doug

Doug — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:06:36 +0000

I take issue with Senator Campfield’s statement that gay men pay significantly higher insurance rates. I am a gay man, I have both health insurance and life insurance and neither provider has ever asked my sexual orientation. If you are a person who tests positive for HIV, I guess life-insurance companies would have the right to deny you coverage or charge you a higher rate – based on underwriting standards. Was the study that Campfield refused to confirm or deny a study on the life expectancy of gay men made during the early part of the AIDS/HIV crisis before the introduction of effective anti-viral treatments? It is interesting that when these facts are quoted, these guys never seem to know where or how the facts were generated. The “Obamacare” health reforms will make denial of health insurance based on pre-existing conditions illegal. I do not think there is an exemption for HIV status.

Comment on January 30, 2012 by Elise

Elise — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:16:42 +0000

David’s observation that anti-homosexuality campaigners equate homosexuality with anal sex was a really good point that should have entailed the obvious follow-ups: are these people okay with lesbians? Are they okay with gay men who eschew anal sex for oral sex, or kisses, cuddles, and cohabitation? Do they realise that heterosexuals also have anal sex (in larger numbers than gay men)? Are they okay with people who use protection and get regular VD screenings having anal sex? If their only objection to homosexuality is actually unprotected man-on-man anal sex, then maybe the should rename themselves as a group to address their specific concern. The most laughable thing about their supposed concern for the longevity of gay men is that it’s transparent homophobia cloaked as concern for gay men’s welfare.

Comment on January 26, 2012 by Robin

Robin — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:03:20 +0000

How is killing this kid’s cat + leaving it at their doorstep different from a horse’s head put in a guy’s bed?

More than animal cruelty or hate crime, its violence mafia-style, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And yes, it is intended to terrorize.

Comment on January 30, 2012 by Ray

Ray — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:04:30 +0000

The Tennessee gentleman seems to be rather polite & reasonable. It’s true that dogs or bulls may tend to at times do male-on-male behavior, but that seems to not be aimed at anal sex – rather a general “humping” movement like regular sex.

For people to consider homosexuality to be anything other than unnatural & abnormal is ot only immoral, it is scientifically ignorant. Science knows anal-copulation attempts by people do nothing for continueing the species. It does, factually, harm men who do it. What’s wrong with the truth? The man also rightly tells that liberals really are less open & able to discuss things than conservatives. I find that true, not that conservatives are always open, lol. Here, Mr. Pakman is evidently pro-homosexual, regardless of reason, which proves the point, sadly. He should be more reasonable. I can only guess he is homosexual & finds the Tenn. man’s stance to be threatening.

Comment on January 30, 2012 by joey

joey — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:45:05 +0000

it may look to conservatives that liberals are “more intolerant of differing viewpoints” because reality has such a liberal bias and liberals seem to have a reality bias.

when the corporate media present right-wing talking points as “balance” to reality, it gives people who have faith in the corporate media the misimpression that both sides of all issues are equally valuable.