Roger L. Simon:
Am I the only one or have you noticed your liberal friends and family have been strangely silent lately?
I tweeted as much Friday and, given the number of retweets in a matter of minutes, I gather I am not alone.
So why are these normally voluble people suddenly doing a disappearing act? (I’m not talking about the politicians and pundits. They’re being paid to move their mouths.) It’s pretty obvious.
They are bewildered and embarrassed. Some are even ashamed of themselves, not that they will readily admit it. The man who was their hero has now been unmasked in every direction as the worst president since the Civil War and possibly earlier. Not only is he a cheesy liar, everything he has done, domestic and foreign, has failed, sometimes to extraordinary degrees. The domestic part is bad enough, but at least that might be reparable. The foreign is another matter. The world is spinning out of control. Who knows where that will end?
Hence, the silence.
Easter and Passover celebrations will be a little easier for those on the right this year. We won’t have to listen to as much stultifying palaver about global warming, income inequality, etc. Some, of course, but not enough, I suspect, to ruin our dinners.
Unfortunately, however, we have nothing to gloat about. Our liberal friends have left us with a pile of dung the size of the Horsehead Nebula. Digging out will be a titanic undertaking, especially in the aforementioned area of foreign affairs. Ironically, Republicans have been jumping up and down about the inept Affordable Care Act, but the real problems left by the Obama administration will be global. You don’t easily roll back an Iranian nuclear weapon or regain respect for America as the global leader when it is being dissed in nearly ever corner of the planet. (See Bret Stephens’ excellent column on the subject.) Just as nature abhors a vacuum, global leadership abdicated rapidly finds a replacement – usually a worse one. (Rand Paul and followers take note.)
What they’ve learned, Roger, is that it’s best not to broach any topics which could set their conservative friends and family members off—which, unfortunately, have come to include just about any topic, including the weather.
Liberals have learned that Obama has been universally incompetent and have mostly stopped trying to defend him.
Today, for example, in his touchdown dance (read off TOTUS) Obama could have reached across the aisle, but instead decided (his speech writer decided) to figuratively high-five fellow partisans.
His tone deaf buddies in Gaza decided to throw Obama and Kerry under the bus (who’s they learn THAT from?) by appealing to the UN for nation status in abrogation of their peace talks with Kerry for Obama.
And these are his friends!
Heh.
Weird good news…..
Chick-Fil-A out earned KFC nationwide this year (not the first time!) even though they have less than 1/2 the stores!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/defense-secretary-looking-banning-tobacco-sales-military-installations_786389.html
This is one of those things that just baffle the hell out of me. If a woman chooses to kill her unborn baby, no one should interfere with her decision/choice. But just let someone want to do something really, really deadly like smoke a cigarette and it’s not no, but hell no, they are not entitled to have that freedom of choice. Now is killing an unborn child deadly, very and instantaneously. Is smoking a cigarette deadly? To some, but usually over many many years. And some never have very adverse affects. Isn’t it strange that freedom of choice can apply to something so deadly, but no freedom for those that just choose to smoke. Ah, these liberals just have their standards.
@Greg:
Well Greg, every rational adult reaches their limit with incessant activist nagging, particularly with the level of unhinged cluelessness that drones routinely exhibit. But even in the face of the Collective’s remarkable inability to simply leave people alone, they still have enough self control not to destroy property, march on people’s private homes, or resort to violence.
You see Greg, grown adults have to get up in the morning to go to work so that your lazy socialist lifestyle can be funded. They don’t have time for the hijinks of adolescents who play “V for Vendetta” in the streets.
Roger is on to something however. Generally whenever the Collective quiets their antics down, it’s a calm before the storm. This is when drones begin conferring with the Collective on some new offensive that is about to take place.
However I would also argue, that right now they’re more silent on some issues than others. The two primary issues that drones are still hperventilating over would be the Russia-Ukraine conflict and ObamaCare. They seem to have given up on the rest of them.
@Kraken, #4:
I’ve now got the news feeds of half of my Facebook friends blocked, because of their incessant yammering about Obama and various right wing cause célèbres. They don’t seem to grasp the fact that they’re gradually alienating everyone who doesn’t think as they do.
I think you were looking for either the word mature or intelligent. The fact that an adult is grown doesn’t automatically confer either of aforementioned qualities.
One very common sign of immaturity is that a person’s arguments tend to take the form of ego defenses. An immature person is more concerned with being right than with the point that’s being argued itself. Debate is perceived as being a contest between persons, not a contest between ideas. Since an opponent’s disagreement with an idea is perceived as a threat to the ego, the immature person’s responses increasingly take on a quality of personal attack.
@Greg #5:
Interesting that I’m finding the same thing to be true here. I provided nine separate and legitimate arguments in favor of gay marriage (largely the same ones that have compelled what, fifteen(?) state and Federal courts in a row to overturn gay marriage bans) and I was “rebutted” by the empty charge that I was “dreaming.” Obviously, the opponents here had no better arguments than did the lawyers in court. When logic fails, throw insults. Might as well burn the furniture for heat while you’re at it, as these are desperate times.
@Nanny G #2: Obama deserved every bit of that victory lap at his press conference, after having survived what, 47(?) House Republican votes to defund or repeal the Affordable Care Act. Did REPUBLICANS “reach across the isle”? You reap what you sow.
I truly hope that Republicans wake up to the reality of 21st-century American demographics:
Young voters are replacing the old ones.
Hispanics and Blacks are replacing whites. (Check the numbers.)
Cultural issues like medical marijuana and gay marriage are being won by the liberals.
Core values of the Republican base (evangelical whites) are increasingly extreme and, correspondingly, increasingly marginalized.
It is absolutely essential that the Republican Party survive as a conservative counterbalance to the liberal Democratic Party. Neither party can resist the temptation to govern badly in the absence of the other. I hope and pray that Republicans wake up to this reality before it is too late for all of us.
As the old die, and the young become of age, young voters replace old ones. And you think that is something new?
Perhaps you should check the numbers. The Hispanic population is growing, while the black population remains stagnant. Hispanics will, eventually, totally cancel out black votes. And then what? Hispanics don’t suffer from “white” guilt. As Hispanics become wealthier, they tend to vote Republican.
Not by referendum, but by judicial fiat, the only way the left can win.
I would suspect that you consider any Evangelical to be “extreme” if they don’t support you sodomists. “Extreme” is just another one of those catch words you on the left use to denigrate those you don’t agree with.
Got your Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence membership card yet, George? Or have you been on other sites telling them how you used women in a most disgraceful way by “performing” for them?
@Greg,
Strange, but it is my immature, arrested-development leftist friends that I had to cut-off my FB news feed; their constant crowing was annoying for an Adult to have to wade through. They are also the ones that jump into every conversation with their political take. So, I have to say that YOU mentioning maturity is merely a case of the pupae calling the neophyte an egg.
Children and immature Progluddites, like yourself, should be seen and not heard. Maybe when you “mature” or “evolve” or something, you will have an opinion WORTH discussion. For now, you’re just a hoarse parrot.
@George Wells:
George, where did you post this. (just the name of the thread will be sufficient) I don’t recall seeing them, I think they might be interesting and I will comment on them when I see them.
@George Wells:
Zippy didn’t even know the numbers until he read it off Totus. (it also directed him to do the watusi, native dance of Kenya)
I would not consider getting one million paid up insurance policies signed up for, to be a victory. I don’t think Zippy does either, but, Hey….. Simon says: Do a jig.
@retire05:
I’ll bet they won’t use that word to describe Chuck Hagel and his proposal to eliminate selling tobacco on military installations, but they will use the word extreme for those that don’t want women using abortions for birth control.
@Redteam #9:
Responses to Gay Wedding Cakes, Religious Freedom and the Return of Slavery in America:
George Wells says: 104 +
The argument against gay marriage is actually a collection of many smaller statements in opposition, each of which has some “ring of truth”. But upon close inspection, the logic of each reason fails, with the result that neither individually nor collectively do they constitute a valid reason for denying gays the right to marry.
Each reason is usually offered in sequence to present a moving target so that proponents of marriage equality never get a “clean shot” at rebutting them collectively. The exception to this is when these arguments against gay marriage are presented in court, and the results of this opportunity to weigh each of them individually and then to take their combined effect into consideration is telling. Thirteen state and federal courts in a row have concluded that these arguments are insufficiently compelling to prevail. Let’s look at each of them individually and see why.
1. “Homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural.” Even if this statement WAS true, it doesn’t weigh on the question of whether gays should be allowed to marry, as both abnormal people and those who do unnatural things ARE allowed to marry. Red-haired people are abnormal (“normalcy” is a measure of the frequency a trait is encountered in a population, and red hair presents in between 1 and 2 % of the human population – less than the frequency of homosexuality.) And flying into outer-space and piercing your body for artistic effect are “unnatural behaviors”, yet people who do these things are allowed to marry. Normalcy and naturalness are not legal or moral requirements of marriage.
2. “Gays cannot have children” (the “marriage is all about having children” argument. In addition to “breeders,” elderly couples are allowed to marry, as are infertile couples. For these non-breeding couples, marriage isn’t about children. It’s about “love” or “support” or any other measure of connectedness that they individually choose to value, and the state honors their definition of their relationship and accepts their witness that these considerations qualify theirs as legitimate marriages. The transposition of this argument into “marriage is for couples “who-could-possibly-at-one-time-in-the-past-have-had-children”” is an absurdly-stretched veil of pseudo-logic interjected when the logic flaw of the previous argument is revealed.
3. “God has told us through inspired scripture that homosexuality is an abomination.” “He” also told us through those same scriptures that “arrogance” (Proverbs 16:5), “deviousness” (Proverbs 3:32), “burning incense” (Isaiah 1:13), “remarrying a former husband” (Deuteronomy 24:4), “keeping a false balance” (Proverbs 11:1-31), “woman wearing a man’s garment” (Deuteronomy 22:5), “scoffing” (Proverbs 24:9), “having haughty eyes” (Proverbs 6:16-19) to name a few, are “abominations,” yet we allow people who do these things to marry. We are also told in Galatians5:19-21 that people who suffer “drunkenness, fits of anger, rivalries and envy” will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Same thing. You cannot argue convincingly that you are discriminating against gays because you are encouraged to do so by God’s laws when you fail to adhere to so many of His other “laws”.
4. “Children do BEST in married, biological father-and-mother family settings.” While this MIGHT be true (married gay families with children are relatively new and no definitive study has yet been made of them), there are plenty of other, less-than-optimal family combinations that none-the-less are given the opportunity to marry. And opponents concede that SOME gay couples DO make excellent parents.
5. “History and tradition have upheld the traditional definition of marriage for thousands of years.” Didn’t King Solomon have 300 wives and an additional 200 concubines? Wasn’t slavery already a “tradition” when the Bible’s Old Testament was written, and one that was maintained for the first 200 years of American’s history? Wasn’t “stoning-to-death” a punishment of preference back in the day? The fact that something WAS done in the past isn’t proof that it is good or right for today’s world.
6. “The Constitutional specification of “States’ Rights” grants to the states autonomy to determine for themselves which of their citizens shall be allowed to marry.” This statement is true only so far as the states’ choices do not conflict with the Constitution’s overriding protections of individual liberties. The SCOTUS determined in Loving v. Virginia that Virginia (and the handful of states with similar marriage restrictions) had infringed upon the constitutionally guaranteed rights of interracial couples who wanted to marry.
7. “Judicial activism shouldn’t be allowed to overturn the will of the electorate.” The “will of the people” can at times assume the flavor of a mob mentality. The opportunity of the majority to oppress the minority was amply appreciated by the Founding Fathers and has continued to be by subsequent leadership. For this reason, provisions for the judicial override of legislative initiatives that infringe on individual liberties were put into place. When the judiciary throws out a law seeking to impose gun restrictions, is THAT judicial activism?
8. “The word “marriage” has only one irrefutable, immutable meaning, and that is the union of a man and a woman.”
No word has an irrefutable or immutable meaning. Word meanings change over time as a function of their usage, i.e., their semantic evolution. In 1900, the word “gay” simply meant “happy,” and the word “nice” originally meant “stupid” or “ignorant”. One should research “the changing meanings of words” or the “dictionary of word origins” for a bountiful supply of similar examples. The word “marriage” once meant ONLY the union of a man and a woman OF THE SAME RACE, and at numerous times it has also included “the union of a man and one OR MORE women…”
When some word meanings change, they evolve into something entirely different from their original meaning, as in the “nice” example above. More frequently, a second meaning is added to the first one, as was the case with the word “gay”. In the case of the word “marriage,” the original meaning will remain unaltered as the first and most conventional usage of the word, but the secondary usage – the one that includes gay unions – is being added. This is simply how dictionaries – and the language – work.
9. “Giving gays the right to marry robs exclusivity from heterosexual marriage.”
This argument appears to be true in the shallowest sense, but the opposition to marriage equality has repeatedly failed to demonstrate any negative consequence associated with the expansion of marriage rights. In particular, no adverse effects on married heterosexuals can be convincingly postulated, exactly as was the case when this argument was used in opposition to interracial marriage. With a continuing decline in marriage rates that began long before anyone DREAMED of gay marriage, the inclination of heterosexuals to join in matrimony clearly has nothing to do with gays. The suggested “robbery” resolves into nothing more than an evolution of the meaning of the word “marriage” as discussed above.
The logic behind each of these arguments fails, and even when combined they do not constitute a rational basis for refusing gays the right to marry. This is not my conclusion alone. This is the conclusion that has been reached by at least 15 state and federal judges (both Republican and Democrat) in a row. Yet many opponents of gay marriage who use these arguments use them as if their logic was iron-clad. They should not be accused of lying. While some doubtlessly keep up the “good fight” largely for political reasons, the vast majority of them have other reasons that they prefer not to divulge. A few may be harboring personal “doubts” and maintain their objections as a diversionary tactic. Others are motivated by fear of the unknown, some may have learned through a negative personal experience to distrust or hate gays as a class, while still others have accepted religious teaching on the subject. This latter group probably has the most honest (if not logical or rational) reason for holding to the objection to gay marriage, but our constitutionally protected religious freedoms make it clear that one person’s religion (or it’s effects) may not be imposed on another.
Clearly there ARE difficult differences to be resolved. In the long journey ahead, victories will be celebrated and defeats will be lamented on both sides, but reconciliation will finally prevail. In the interim, it will be helpful for BOTH sides to carefully evaluate their own motives and the reasoning behind the arguments they make, and make sure that the conclusions they reach are not in conflict with the guiding principles of the America that they pledge allegiance to.
This was your response:
Redteam says: 111
@George Wells: George you left out a couple of words that you should discuss. Dream, what you’re doing when you writing your definition of words you ‘wish’ had changed. So while you ‘wish’ what you’re saying is true, it’s likely you’re only in a ‘dream’
That was it.
I’d call that “The Silence of the Conservative.”
@retire05 #7:
“Cultural issues like medical marijuana and gay marriage are being won by the liberals.”
“Not by referendum, but by judicial fiat, the only way the left can win.”
Why would you make such a bald lie?
Court decisions represent only 35% of the “Left’s” victories:
The 17 states that have gay marriage got it by the following processes:
BY REFERENDUM:
Maine
Maryland
Washington
BY ACT OF LEGISLATURE:
Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New York
Rhode Island
Vermont
By COURT DECISION:
California
Connecticut
Iowa
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New Mexico
The legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington was by referendum as well.
Additionally, the “left” is winning the gay marriage debate (and the marijuana debate) in the “court of public opinion.” Polls – including those conducted by conservative organizations – consistently show increasing support for the liberal position on these issues, and an ever-widening majority of all Americans support gay marriage. I wonder when Republicans will stop crying about the will of the people being subverted by “judicial activism,” as the will of the people is obviously not what they think.
The rest of your rant is nothing but naked insult, proving a position that is bereft of substance.
How distressing it must be for you to be fighting a cultural war with no ammunition more powerful than your own spit.
@George Wells:
Not withstanding the fact that you are an expert on spit, yes, there is a culture war going on in the United States and I do not want to see our nation go the way of Rome or Greece, unlike you. The only reason you ever post here is to push your queer agenda.
@retire05 #14:
I see that you didn’t bother to acknowledge your mistaken assessment that “judicial fiat (is) the only way the left can win”.
Still nothing but lies, finger-pointing and insults.
Pushing the “Queer agenda”? Aside from being yet another of your endless attempts at insult, that’s laughable. Talk about putting the cart in front of the horse. The progress that the gay rights movement is making has so very far outpaced the expectations of rank-and-file gays that I find it impossible to credit gays – or their “agenda” – alone”. If anything, the so-called “gay agenda” is being driven by liberal politics in alliance with rational thought, not the 1-3% of the population that is homosexual. Gays may be calling attention to past inequities, but it is the majority of heterosexuals who are getting the message and acting accordingly.
It isn’t gay voters that are passing those referendums, it’s the straight majorities.
Aside from a very few gay legislators, it is the 97%+ who are straight who are passing gay marriage legislation, and I’m sure that the vast majority of state and federal judges who have ruled in favor of gay marriage are also straight.
@George Wells:
You ignore the hypocrisy in your own ranks, i.e. the left. Odd this:
“I have no particular reason to believe that the person at AFP who sent the letter (I forget his name) actually engages in anal sex with the brothers Koch or anyone else, and would not care if he did. The reference to sexual act was meant to imply that AFP and the Kochs have the same relationship to each other that a skanky prostitute has to a lecherous and pustule-ridden old man, or that, say, Tom Tiffany has to Chris Cline and Media Trackers has to its own sugar daddy/daddies.”
This was [only a] part of an email sent by a radical left wing professor, Joe Skulan, formerly of U of W to a AFP reminder to him to vote in an upcoming election. Professor Skulan wanted to insult the person who signed the AFP reminder, so he slammed them by accusing them of being gay.
You think the left has any more respect for the actions of homosexuals than your hated “evangelical” Christians do? How easily you are duped. They hate you. Pure and simple. You disgust them. Pure and simple. You represent nothing more than votes. Pure and simple.
There is a term for people like you, George: Useful idiots. You may shout the forcing of acceptance by American society, via Democrat legislatures and judicial fiat, but as far as the pendulum swings one way, it will eventually swing back the other. Not content to just be able to live your life as you choose, in the privacy of your own home, queers want to shove their choices down the throats of everyone else. You are no exception to that rule.
I find you disgusting.
By raw numbers all races are growing, George.
But let’s look at blacks.
In 1790, when the USA was new, blacks made up over 19% of the total population.
In 1850, just before we fought a Civil War partly to free blacks from slavery, blacks were 15.7% of the total US population.
Today they are 14% of the population.
They are getting 30% of the abortions in the US.
They are growing in raw numbers (as are all races) but losing in percentiles.
@Nanny G #17:
I am familiar with the number of blacks as a proportion to the population, and the reasons for why their numbers have fluctuated since the time of slavery. I find it ironic that their numbers WOULD, in fact, have risen aggressively in proportion to the population if it had not been for the effect of abortion -which Republicans have tried to end – since the pregnancy rate among blacks is higher than it is among whites. I included blacks in my comment because it is the combined effect of the growth in the minority populations (predominantly Blacks and Hispanics) that is quickly reducing the white population of America to minority status. No matter how hard Republicans try to discourage Blacks and Hispanics from voting, that tactic will eventually fail, and in the mean time it will ENCOURAGE those that DO vote to vote Democratic. Somebody on your side hasn’t thought this thing through very well.
@George Wells:
Where have you been hiding your head? In some states, whites are already the minority. Yet, when you look at some of those states, save California which is hopeless, they are voting Republican. How do you square that in your liberal pea brain?
Ooops. Since Texas enacted its voter I.D. laws, and since it has now gone into effect, minority voting is up-ticking. In a mid term constitutional election which generally has low voter turnout, minority voting was up. So much for Republican (read: voter I.D.) suppression of the minority vote.
And that side would be your side. For so long, blacks of fame have played the race card demanding special considerations. That is all about to come to a screeching halt as Hispanics don’t suffer from the white guilt that plagues leftist white voters. More and more Hispanics are running as (tah-dah) Republicans; Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Bill Flores, Qinco Canseco, George Bush (son of Jeb Bush), Suzanna Martinez, et al. Remember, it was a Democrat president that said “As goes Texas, so goes the nation.” Tejanos are voting Republican in greater numbers than ever before.
And when it comes to jobs, and income advancement, native Hispanics are doing better than blacks. And when they find out just how much money the federal government demands from all their hard work, they abandon their liberal ways and vote conservatively. One of the major demographics where Obama has lost ground is among Hispanics.
So logic would dictate that if Republicans wanted to keep minority numbers low, they would support the large PP clinics that have been, and are being built in primarily minority neighborhoods. But you’re too clueless to understand that logic. All you have are leftist talking points gleaned from some left wing site.
@retire05 #16:
“They hate you.”
“You disgust them.”
“I find you disgusting.”
Those are really good arguments. I wish I had thought of using them on debate team, or suggested that the other team us them in lieu of graciously conceding defeat in the face of superior logic.
AFP letter? Are you kidding? Still trying to tie every gay person to the mischief of every other one? Last time I looked, I hadn’t blamed you for anything some other Republican did, good OR bad. Why not go back to that “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” crap you like to smear around?
I don’t “hate” evangelical Christians. Jesus convinced me a VERY long time ago that hate itself is evil, and medical science has convincingly shown that hate does far more damage to the hater than to anyone else.
It’s all about our votes? I hardly think so. There are so few gays relative to the heterosexual population that we’re just not that politically important. And most of our “agenda money” goes to support legal efforts, not candidates who would support us quid pro quo.
But why should I be surprised that you don’t understand this? In spite of there being no history in America of civil rights once given being taken back, you cling to the hope that some lovely pendulum will swing us all back into the 19th century and cram ten million homosexuals back into the closet. That really IS dreaming.
@retire05 #19:
” All you have are leftist talking points gleaned from some left wing site.”
You really flatter me! As
@George Wells: You’re being a little disingenuous, George. Most of those that you claim is by legislature or referendum is only after a judicial opinion that says something they are doing is illegal so the referendum is held or the legislature acts. Since you put this in a win-lose proposition, that means that when gays win, normal people lose. Society loses. You can’t possibly think that smoking dope is good for anyone. There is no illness or pain that can’t be effectively treated without having to make dope smoking legal for children. I guess, from your perspective, once society has started downhill, there is no need to change the slope to hell.
@retire05#19:
“All you have are leftist talking points gleaned from some left wing site.”
You really flatter me. AS I have NEVER been to a “left-wing site” (I’m assuming that you are referring to something like “Flopping Aces,” instead of simply reading ALL of the articles that I can find on the subjects that interest me) I infer that you find my arguments well-constructed for the political position they represent. Thanks for the compliment!
I will also remind you that I hold many of YOUR conservative positions on issues other than gay rights: Education, gun rights, death penalty, etc. As far as the “progressive” label goes, I don’t really know what that means, other than many people use it to describe a position to the left of evangelicals without embracing liberalism. I’m not ready to nuke Iran or Russia or North Korea because I don’t want to start WWIII, which would seem to be where McCain wants to go, but I’m not sure that that makes me a “leftist.”
@George Wells:
George, you being a homosexual, I’m sure that no one has to break it to you that the gay people are not making any real headway at all. If you think people accept gay people as ‘normal’ you must be living in an illusion. Just look at the uproar when a phony story broke that Jeff Gordon is gay. Now if everyone thinks that being gay is just like being a ‘normal’ man, then why the uproar? That happens every time a non gay person is alleged to be gay. The falsely accused person is ready to shoot whoever started the story. If being gay were normal, then it would be no worse than saying a person is handsome, not something to get all pissed off about. Right? When and if there is no ‘closet’, then you can start claiming that people ‘accept’ gay activities. As long as someone has to ‘decide’ to come out, then they are very concerned about how they will be perceived.
One other point George, you spend a lot of time on this blog trying to convince just a few people to buy your argument. How many have you won over? Name one person on this blog that you think now accepts gays more than they did at day one.
@Redteam #22″
Thank you for those wild leaps of logic!
“You can’t possibly think that smoking dope is good for anyone.”
I doubt that it is, but I am SURE that smoking tobacco isn’t “good” for anyone, yet it is legal, and the aggregate costs of alcoholism (DUI, DUI-related DEATHS, lost work, liver mortality, etc.etc.) would seem to place alcohol in at least as bad a light, yet alcohol is legal.
“Since you put this in a win-lose proposition, that means that when gays win, normal people lose. Society loses.”
The courts that have looked at this argument have ALL concluded that there is no demonstrable loss to society. In fact, they have concluded that there is a net gain to society by stabilizing the relationships of the gay people who chose to marry and by strengthening their families when children are involved. Having YOUR feelings hurt isn’t a compelling issue in the eyes of the courts.
@George Wells:
You’re ‘sure’ of that? How, what clues did they give? Tell you what, next time you think a judge is straight and he’s about to rule on a gay motion, refer to him as a gay judge and see how he rules.
@Redteam #25:
“Why I’m here.”
You and retire05 have asked that before. Did you forget my answer? It isn’t to change anyone’s mind. I find that arguing is a form of mental stimulation, and at my age and in my medical condition, I need that. It really does help, in case you haven’t noticed.
@Redteam #24 & 27:
It really isn’t a perfect world, is it? And I seriously doubt that it ever will be.
I suspect that 200 years from now, there will still be plenty of whites in the south (and elsewhere) who will hate blacks, and there will also be plenty of Christians who will… DISAPPROVE… of gays. Plenty of closets will still be full, too.
Did you have a point to make?
@George Wells:
But it is not those view points that you come here to promote, is it, George?
Why should you? You have already shown that your knowledge of things historical is severely lacking. It is also noticeable that you bash Christians that disagree with you yet you have said little about Islam whose proponents would happily hang you from a construction crane.
And as usual, you have no response to my counter points. You simply mouth what it is you have been told, and then when you are presented with counter points, you ignore them. Typical left winger, which you are.
@George Wells:
Another slam by George against a particular group (Southerners) that he holds in disdain. Never mind that blacks experience even greater bigotry in New York than they do in any southern state, or that Hispanics experience greater bigotry in California than they do in Texas.
Any one, or any where, groups exist that do not buy into George’ agenda are then painted with a target on them from him as “bigots.”
Like I said before, George, you’re disgusting.
@George Wells: 26
What a strange argument. Since smoking and drinking alcohol is legal and bad for you, then they should just go ahead and make other things that are bad for you legal also. That’s akin to the logic of Chuck Hagel, smoking is legal but he wants to deny military people from buying tobacco on military installations. Your logic would have it that they should just go ahead and make marijuana and heroin and meth legal on military installations. What the hell, it’s bad for society, but 2% of the people want to make it legal, so what’s the big deal. After all, America is on a downhill slope, don’t try to put roadblocks on the road to hell.
I know you pulled that statement out of your ass, you’re implying (I doubt that it is, but I am SURE that smoking tobacco isn’t “good” for anyone, yet it is legal, and the aggregate costs of alcoholism (DUI, DUI-related DEATHS, lost work, liver mortality, etc.etc.) would seem to place alcohol in at least as bad a light, yet alcohol is legal.) that all of those things you enumerated here are demonstrably bad for you, but ALL of them have concluded that marijuana is not a “demonstrable loss” to society. BS. I guess that study was by the same group that did the study to determine if being homosexual is a ‘demonstrable loss’ to society.
@George Wells: 29
Since you excluded Islams from your statement, I assume you think that you will have won them over?
No, haven’t forgotten it, have you? I find that you do not want to ‘argue’ the points, only attempt to make yours. Most points I make to you, you ignore. Such as this from 24:
You totally ignored that. Seems as if it might have an arguable point or two.
@Greg:
Congratulations. Though, right wing facebookers aren’t anywhere near the omnipresent nuisance that the Collective’s activists are. And besides, most of what they’re complaining about is the left’s inability to leave them alone. Do you understand what that is? Leaving people alone? Has the Collective ever allowed the thought of leaving people alone to cross your mind?
The worst is when you sit down to a fine Thanksgiving dinner and you have to listen to some 19 year old lecture you about health care, because he now thinks he’s an expert since he read OFA’s latest email.
I stand corrected. Certainly the Collective’s aging hippies are a testament to this truth. You see, before the Summer of Love, it was assumed that grown adults were mature. That’s definitely not the case anymore.
lol Really? You’re lecturing someone else about personal attacks? This is pretty good. Did you make this up all by yourself? You’re not extrapolating from dead Freudianism again, are you?
@George Wells:
Are you basing these claims on something other than the Collective’s rhetoric? What is the basis for these claims?
@George Wells:
As you know George, I have no problems whatsoever with homosexuals or the notion of gay marriage. Mainly because I don’t enjoy poking my nose in other people’s business, and prefer to leave people alone.
Having said that, I’m not sure that the topic is relevant to every thread.
In any case, perhaps one of our resident drones would like to clue us in on whatever moronic protest the Collective is organizing this spring before the kiddies get let out for summer vacation?
@retire05 #30:
“But it is not those view points that you come here to promote, is it, George?”
No, because there would be no point to preaching to the choir. I have agreed with you on some of your points – was further discussion warranted?
And when you fill your post full of insults, I tire of responding to them. If there is a point that you would like to discuss, make it undiluted with your tiresome expressions of disgust, and I will happily answer them.
Bashed Christians and ignored Islam? I am answering Christians (you) who disapprove of me, not bashing them (or you). Until one of you identifies yourself as Muslim, I have no argument with you concerning Muslims.
@Kraken:
It is to George, he has made it clear that is the only reason he’s here, to promote homosexuality. Well, now it seems he’s also added making illegal drug usage legal to his agenda.
@retire05 #31:
“Disgust” again. Helpful.
I live in the South. I AM a Southerner. I experience Confederate flags routinely, and my prediction of Southern sentiments in the future is based upon my personal observations of Southern attitudes toward Blacks today. These are short posts, and a complete characterization of bigotry by region is neither practical not necessary to make the point I was trying to make: that 200 years from now we won’t be living in a bigotry-free world. It hardly needed to be said, but it was invited by Redteam’s suggestion that progress in the gay rights movement wasn’t finished.
@Redteam #32:
““You can’t possibly think that smoking dope is good for anyone.”
I doubt that it is, but I am SURE that smoking tobacco isn’t “good” for anyone, yet it is legal, and the aggregate costs of alcoholism (DUI, DUI-related DEATHS, lost work, liver mortality, etc.etc.) would seem to place alcohol in at least as bad a light, yet alcohol is legal.
What a strange argument. Since smoking and drinking alcohol is legal and bad for you, then they should just go ahead and make other things that are bad for you legal also.”
I’m not convinced that pot is a problem. Maybe it is, but everything I have seen leads to the conclusion that pot isn’t anywhere near as destructive as booze. If you make something that is REALLY bad legal, then what is the rational for making such a big deal over something that’s relatively harmless?
The answer is all about tax money. How can the state get their cut if you can grow your own in your back yard?
@Redteam #33:
“I’m sure that no one has to break it to you that the gay people are not making any real headway at all.”
I really didn’t think that you were serious. 11 years ago, there were no states in which gay marriage was legal, and now there are 17. That’s progress. ii years ago, the American public was overwhelmingly against gay marriage, and now a 55% majority claim to be for it. That’s progress. VERY RAPID PROGRESS. I was answering your point when I explained that even 200 years from now, blacks will not have total acceptance, and there would be no reason to expect faster progress on the gay rights front. I don’t ignore what you write. It is just that sometimes I can’t see exactly what you are getting at. Like that Jeff Gorden part – the example doesn’t add to the point that the struggle for equality isn’t over, does it?
The other day a Spring Break college student went to Colorado so he could do all the pot he wanted.
I bet getting so stoned he fell out of a window to his death wasn’t the plan.
But that’s what happens.
Soon, all these little anecdotals will begin to add up.
That what legalization helps do: quantify the damage.
@Kraken #36:
“Having said that, I’m not sure that the topic is relevant to every thread.”
I will gladly agree with you on that. But some of your friends follow me from one thread to another like a bull follows a red cape, and inevitably one of them tosses in a few “sodomist” insults that eventually open up the can of gay marriage worms. I’ll take that argument anywhere I can get it.
You’d get a few more replies from me if you’d actually discuss issues instead of burying you ideas under an avalanche of trite “collective/drone” jargon. If you were wondering…
@Nanny G #43:
Yes, and sometimes babies die in their sleep, or drown in their own mother’s milk. There is a certain mortality to living that cannot be avoided my excessive state oversight. For every pot-head who falls to his accidental death, there are hundreds of drunks who do the same. Did the numbers of dead drunks add up anecdotally into a statistic that anyone managed to do anything effective with? No. And I’m not sure that saving the small number of pot-heads while turning your back on the much larger number of drunks is defensible. I look at it as a survival-of-the-fittest mechanism. The smart ones will make it.
@retire05:
Sorry about my #21. My mom showed up and wanted me to pick some spinach for her, and the barely started post I tried to delete got posted somehow.
By the way, the stuff I planted all came up fine. The spinach being picked was last fall’s crop, having somehow survived 14 degree nights and 18 degree days unprotected. Amazing!
BTW #2: Sorry to see that Mozilla CEO resigned. His Prop 8 contribution was 6 years ago, and he certainly had plenty of time to “evolve”. Additionally, I wouldn’t want people in high places to have to surrender their free-speech rights to keep their jobs. On the other hand, knowing how angry politics can get, he DID put himself at risk by throwing in on a controversial topic. I’ll give him extra credit for not dragging Mozilla down in a prolonged and potentially ugly public relations debacle. Hope he had a nice golden parachute.
@George Wells:
Every issue has different facets. Even between two people who basically agree on the issue itself. But it quite clear that flies right over your head.
Yet, tired as you may be, you continue to respond, don’t you? Your buttons are so easily pushed it is laughable.
Are you of such little mental ability that points must be specifically shown to you? I don’t have that problem with your posts when you are trying to make points. I can pick out the points you are making without having been given the schematics.
Islam is the one greatest threat to homosexuality on earth. Not Christians. Christians are not wanting to hang you by the neck from a construction crane. But it is only Christians you seem to show disdain for due to our refusal to accept your behavior as a normal condition of humanity. You come here, argue with Christians who basically believe that you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit (not the guarantee) of happiness, but I seriously doubt you go on any Islamic website and do the same. Now, I’m not stupid. I understand the gay community will never take on Islam because if they do, there is a good chance they will lose their heads. Christians, with our belief in non-violence, are easy marks. It really is a great example of how cowardly the gay movement is.
You seem to be under the impression I care. I don’t.
Why? It was people like you who forced his resignation. You see, no one is allowed to be politically incorrect when it comes to the gay lobby. When gays were reacting to him all over their little blogs, did you stand up for him? Did you defend him to those with the same sexual proclivities as yourself? If so, provide the links.
i.e. He deserved what he got. You’re such a hypocrite, George. You will demand your right to free speech but refuse to honor those rights for others. That is why I hold you in such disdain and tell you that you are disgusting.
And who was raising hell about his stand? Oh, gee, let me see……………militant gays. And why should his personal opinion have one damn thing to do with the company he worked for? Cultural Marxism that you seem to approve of.
You’re disgusting.
@retire05 #47:
“And when you fill your post full of insults, I tire of responding to them.
Yet, tired as you may be, you continue to respond, don’t you? Your buttons are so easily pushed it is laughable.”
I’m enjoying it. I wouldn’t be here if I wasn’t.
” Christians are not wanting to hang you by the neck from a construction crane.”
I told you before: When I worked at Hoechst Celanese, we had a “diversity” seminar one day. After going over the usual race, female and age discrimination topics, the moderator asked if anyone had any views they wanted to share about gays. A middle-aged white man stood up and said “Well, I’m from Texas, and in Texas, we know what to do with queers.” and he made a gesture of slitting his throat. He didn’t say that he was a Christian, but I am hard-pressed to find a source as unequivocal in its condemnation of homosexuality as is the Christian Bible.
The moderator didn’t ask the man where his “opinion” came from, but his “final solution” to the “queer problem” isn’t all that far from the criminalization of homosexual behavior that Scalia argued so strongly in favor of. I am not mistaken when I recognize that the relative freedom that gays enjoy today is precarious. Rights hard fought and won must be guarded with vigilance. The preservation of freedom can never rest.
“You come here, argue with Christians who basically believe that you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit (not the guarantee) of happiness, but I seriously doubt you go on any Islamic website and do the same.”
I did a Google search of gay marriage – a topic dear to my heart – and Flopping Aces came up around page 7. (I told you I read EVERYTHING I can find.) That’s why I’m here. I didn’t find any Islamic sites like Flopping Aces, but there were a couple of news articles on gay marriage published by the English version Al Jazeera. But no Islamic platform to hold a discussion on. I am curious if you think that there would be any purpose or benefit for me to do that, as you seem convinced that I have nothing to offer.
(re: Mozilla CEO) “You will demand your right to free speech but refuse to honor those rights for others.”
Not at all. He had every right, as I said. I’ve tried to post on various other sites, but apparently you have to open an account or have a Facebook account or some such, and I don’t, so I don’t ever converse on those sites, one way or the other. For that matter, I’ve never found a site that carries on the way Flopping Aces does, and you keep me busy enough that I needn’t look further.
“Cultural Marxism?”
Kind of interesting that you like talking to disgusting people so much…
@George Wells:
as well as
@retire05: Re: Mr. Eich CEO of Mozilla resigning……
Isn’t that about the size of the forcing out of Mozilla’s CEO?
George is correct to note that this was a $1000 donation for CA’s Prop 8 over 6 years ago.
But he is paying because of mouth-frothing mad dogs of gayness.
See the example above?
It would be completely absurd to believe he would suffer a single thing from the expansion of gay rights……and man! does he ever deserve it!
@Nanny G #49:
I would very much like to learn from you. You seem to be way above where I am, and one is best taught by those more advanced.
I must admit to being a bit confused by the “Law of Merited Impossibility.” I have read a number of the SCOTUS’ decisions on religious freedoms and others on gay rights, and in each I am impressed with the complexity of the issues and the balancing that the court seeks between conflicting constitutional principles.
I am probably missing something very deep, but the “Law of Merited Impossibility” seems to be saying nothing more than that the actors are speaking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time, and I fail to see that doing so deserves a “law.” Like I said, I’m probably just missing the big picture. But I tried.
I really do think that the reaction to Eich’s 2008 contribution was excessive. What I cannot understand is that while the company he was going to head already had LGBT programs in place and that he had committed to supporting them, he insisted on reiterating his personal views on gay marriage. That placed him at odds with his own corporation’s policies, and drew into question his personal commitment to those policies. Had he simply kept his personal feelings to himself, that conflict would never have been an issue. Yes, it would have meant collaring his personal”free speech,” but as a CEO, he must place speaking for his company above speaking for himself. I think that in the larger context, the resignation of three other Board members over his appointment was a bigger blow than the loss of a customer, and I’m sure that the remaining board members didn’t want their company drawn into a protracted public relations battle over gay marriage – they had no dog in that race.
BTW, I heard that he had resigned. If he did, I think it was a noble gift to his company. If he was forced out, I wonder if the 2008 $1000 gift going public was just the straw that broke an already precariously weak back.