"I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties."But, no! You can't say that. It's too completely straightforward and reasonable. He couldn't have meant that, the most obvious and ordinary thing to say on the subject of same-sex marriage (unless you're actually opposed to it). He had to be saying... oh, you know, the careful script that's been worked out for the Obama reelection campaign.
My link goes to a long article in the NYT headlined "A Scramble as Biden Backs Same-Sex Marriage," but I'm disappointed that it fails to include the awkward quote that went yesterday. Here it is, officially from a "spokesperson for the vice president":
The vice president was saying what the president has said previously – that committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to rollback those rights. That’s why we stopped defending the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges and support legislation to repeal it. Beyond that, the Vice President was expressing that he too is evolving on the issue, after meeting so many committed couples and families in this country.Evolving. Isn't it funny, that the term "evolution" has been appropriated to paper over such bullshit? Why, I remember when "evolution" was the bugaboo of the kind of Biblical sticklers who hate gay marriage!
***
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first meaning of "evolution" is "I. A movement or change of position. a. Mil. and Navy. A manoeuvre executed by troops or ships to adopt a different tactical formation." Apt! Here's the oldest usage:
1616 J. Bingham in tr. Ælian Tactiks xxviii. 132 The nature of this Euolution is clearely to leaue the File-leaders in front, and Bringers-vp in reare.Bringers-vp in reare. Really, amusingly, ineffably apt!
ADDED: "They are so sensitive to Biden doing this because, number one, gay money in this election has replaced Wall Street money," said NBC Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd.
Posts
106 comments:
Everyone knows that Obama and all the rest of them support gay marriage and are being opaque because they think they have to pander to the moronic voters in this country.
I watched the "As The World Turns" on this one over the weekend and laughed every time it came up. That was ended with frustration on Sunday, watching a black pundit yet again debase themselves by claiming that it's insulting for gays, lesbians and their boosters to call SSM a "civil rights" issue.
Then it wasn't funny anymore. It was hysterical.
The most obvious and ordinary thing to say on the subject of same-sex marriage (unless you're actually opposed to it).
Really? You HAVE to be opposed to it to disagree with Biden's statement? Think hard, Ann:
This is life, and there will be a test,...
"Sound and decent" is a matter of individual judgment, but this Demo campaign is looking more and more like a mirror reflection of the Administration.
A pack of blithering incompetents who look good on paper, but can't perform.
Andy R. said...
Everyone knows that Obama and all the rest of them support gay marriage
We do? Dictator Zero has done everything he could to distance himself from homosexuals.
Note that repealing DADT was Congress' doing, at no encouragement from him.
and are being opaque because they think they have to pander to the moronic voters in this country.
Once again, Hatman self-identifies.
Really, Andy R.? So "everyone" knows that Obama is a liar? But if a conservative says that, they are racist?
I think what "everyone" knows is that Obama will happily screw over any interest group that he thinks can't abandon him.
"Everyone knows that Obama and all the rest of them support gay marriage and are being opaque because they think they have to pander to the moronic voters in this country."
That's a rather generous presumption; perhaps Obama doesn't actually support gay marriage but wishes to allow that impression to stand to find favor with those in his base who are not likewise opposed to it.
In any case, if your assertion is correct, then more shame on Obama for not having the courage to state outright that he supports the legal right to marriage for gays.
He's a putz and a coward on top of being a war criminal and mass murderer, a hypocrite and a betrayer of his party supporters.
Everyone knows that Obama and all the rest of them support gay marriage and are being opaque because they think they have to pander to the moronic voters in this country.
"Opaque," Hat? In my day, we called it "lying." Somehow, I'm not surprised you don't mind a politician lying to you as long as he shares your prejudices.
And BTW, a great many of those "moronic voters" happen to be blacks. Denounce yourself for hate crimes immediately, comrade.
We do? Dictator Zero has done everything he could to distance himself from homosexuals.
Getting rid of don't ask/don't tell wasn't exactly keeping them at bay.
Listening to Joe Biden talk is like watching a monkey with a typewriter.
8% unemployment, many people out of work for three years and we descend into a discussion of this peripheral BS. Is it any wonder so many Americans are fed up with Washington, DC?
The people trying to control the messages coming from the Obama administration... seem like completely stupid, idiotic people.
"Everyone knows that Obama and all the rest of them support gay marriage and are being opaque because they think they have to pander to the moronic voters in this country."
I think you're right. I bet Obama tells his gay bundlers that they need to be quiet for now, but after the election (as he told V. Putin) he will have more 'flexibility'
Men can't marry men and women can't marry women. Not in a sane world.
"... Everyone knows that Obama and all the rest of them support gay marriage and are being opaque because they think they have to pander to the moronic voters in this country..."
Rest of whom? You mean the Democrat Party?
LOL
Men can't marry men and women can't marry women. Not in a sane world.
There's the loophole, then. This is definitely not a sane world.
I agree with Hatman that there are two categories of voter: those who agree with me, and morons.
"Men can't marry men and women can't marry women. Not in a sane world."
Why not, and, sez who?
Biden should have said, "We will EVENTUALLY sanction anal sex between men, but right now we can't bring ourselves to do it."
Evolution takes a long time. Several billion years to go from one species to the next perhaps. Maybe eventually anal sex will even produce children. Stranger things have happened! Biden perhaps should have said, "When anal sex begins to produce children, and therefore meets the criterion of GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY, the first commandment in the OT, then we will be down with anal sex!"
A step in the right direction would be more homosexuals in the Secret Service.
"... A step in the right direction would be more homosexuals in the Secret Service..."
Why is that? Are you suggesting that soliciting gay prostitutes is ok or are you suggesting that homosexuals aren't enticed by pleasures of the flesh?
The hatred for gay men among the straight men will be too easy of a political motivator for either party to do anymore than change the subject.
We were raised to believe that way, and it worked because we got lots of grandchildren from our heterosexual identity.
But an "evolution of views" is possible.
In my case, it took a gays in the military discussion moment to see that legal proscription against gay men who fought and died for me was a bridge too far.
Now I cannot go back and agree to legal proscriptions against gay men who marry on another. What was that all about anyway? It doesn't really affect me.
I have at least gotten to say , "I have many gay friends, but I don't want my daughter to marry one."
Oh never mind.
"Men can't marry men and women can't marry women. Not in a sane world."
"Why not, and, sez who?"
Because it's indecent, sez me. Althouse of course calls the indecent decent because she WANTS it that way. And why she wants it that way is obvious. But wanting decency overthrown to make you feel better about your personal situation doesn't make down up.
What makes it "indecent?" What does "indecent" mean? Why does your view of what is "indecent" have any bearing on how others should be able to live their lives?
"Everyone knows that Obama and all the rest of them support gay marriage and are being opaque because they think they have to pander to the moronic voters in this country."
-- They should be as brave as Dick Cheney then and state their true convictions.
God, I love saying things like that.
Andy R. said...
Everyone knows that Obama and all the rest of them support gay marriage and are being opaque because they think they have to pander to the moronic voters in this country.
You mean all those "morons" in the black churches, right, cracker?
Looks like Barry's in a bind:
Another top Obama administration official appeared to break with the president Monday by publicly declaring his support for gay marriage -- something President Obama has not done.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan, in a television interview Monday morning, said unequivocally that he supports gay marriage. Asked if he thinks gay couples should be able to legally marry, he said: "Yes, I do."
The statement comes a day after an interview aired in which Vice President Biden said he's "absolutely comfortable" with same-sex couples having the same rights as others.
That statement sent the White House scrambling, as aides tried to claim Biden's comments were merely a reflection of the president's view -- though gay rights advocacy groups interpreted it as an endorsement of same-sex marriage and immediately pressured Obama to follow suit.
Of course anyone with a brain realizes they're doing this to cover for their boss...
I can imagine the hurt that a mother with a gay child must feel when they hear people they agree with on other issues say that their children are "indecent" because of the way they were born.
There was a shameful time in history, not so long ago that a nation of Germans were convinced that Jews were not decent, were dirty, thieves, somehow less human. They were very wrong.
Yes, yes I know, I used Godwin's Law, but for a good purpose.
Scott M. wrote: Getting rid of don't ask/don't tell wasn't exactly keeping them at bay.
Obama did nothing to get rid of DADT, consistent with his utter absence of leadership. Congress had to pass a bill that was watered down at Obama's insistence.
Obama did nothing to get rid of DADT, consistent with his utter absence of leadership. Congress had to pass a bill that was watered down at Obama's insistence.
Point taken, but that still != edutcher's "everything he can to distance himself" standard. Just sayin'...
Poor Biden. In his entire time in office he says something right just once and he gets his head bitten off for it. You have to feel sorry for him, the poor dunce.
Obama, being black, is not keen on gays.
Since "consenting adults" arguments inevitability lead to the slippery slope of "groups of consenting adults", why not cut the Gordian Knot by going the other direction - just eliminate "marriage" altogether.
Let everything just be a legal contract, no more special than any other legal contract.
re: Sahlan. Yes, it breaks a liberal's heart to have Dick Cheney be more enlightened.
Andy R.,
Everyone knows that Obama and all the rest of them support gay marriage and are being opaque because they think they have to pander to the moronic voters in this country.
If "everyone" knows it, presumably the "moronic voters" also know it. Which makes the panderers rather dumber than the voters, doesn't it?
"gay money" Where can I get me some of that gay money?
Where can I get me some of that gay money?
Read "Less Than Zero" and get back to us.
... Oh, Chuck Todd.
Indecent means loving Uncle Joe the murderer BECAUSE he was a murderer -- like you do, Cookie.
ineffable is not in the word cards
* adds *
"Indecent means loving Uncle Joe the murderer BECAUSE he was a murderer -- like you do, Cookie."
You're misinformed...I don't have an Uncle Joe, and I don't think any of the uncles I do have are murderers.
What makes it "indecent?" What does "indecent" mean? Why does your view of what is "indecent" have any bearing on how others should be able to live their lives?
Doesn't that sentence work, and you come to the same conclusion, if you replace "indecent" with "immoral", RC?
I wonder what Biden and the SSM supporters will say when the polygamists start demanding their "civil right" to marry as many as they please? Because that is where this will lead, without a shred of doubt.
That's already starting. The official name is "polyamory", to be followed by bestiality, incest, necrophilia (thank you, Islam)...
And Rick Santorum will feel vindicated.
AllieOop said...
I can imagine the hurt that a mother with a gay child must feel when they hear people they agree with on other issues say that their children are "indecent" because of the way they were born.
Sorry, no evidence anyone's born that way.
And Freud is still probably right.
There is no evidence that Freud was right. More evidence pointing to the fact that the parent has NOTHING to do with their son or daughter's homosexuality.
Back to blame the parent syndrome. Why am I not surprised?
8% unemployment, many people out of work for three years and we descend into a discussion of this peripheral BS. Is it any wonder so many Americans are fed up with Washington, DC?
THIS!!!
Another distraction to keep us from actually thinking about what is happening economically to this country. Avoid thinking about the loss of jobs and creeping destruction of the middle class. The ossification and stratification of society into the ruling elite class (Obama and his ilk) and the rest of us descending into peon permanent serfdom to support the useless permanent class of takers.
By all means....let us worry about gays getting married, instead of gays being able to get jobs. Let's talk about free birth control instead of companies fleeing from this country. Let's have a war on the 1% and businesses that created jobs and wealth.
When you are in a sinking boat with holes in the bottom and water pouring in, by all means let's worry about anal sex and what color the boat is.
AllieOop said...
There is no evidence that Freud was right. More evidence pointing to the fact that the parent has NOTHING to do with their son or daughter's homosexuality.
Except that it makes sense. And it's just coincidence all this "evidence" appears after the APA is "Occupied" by ACT UP.
That "gay gene" thing isn't going to fly, either.
Besides, if it is psychiatric, it means it's something people either can't control or can do so only with help, which makes it something more to be pitied than censured.
Thinking is in such short supply around here - note to Robert Cook after reading his opening Obama tirade:
Do you wipe your mouth when it starts foaming like that?
And it's fun to see Christopher in MA, and Jay, deploy the totally cheap shot of claiming the stupid crooked hat guy's racist, because some of those he called "morons" are black. Good one, Chris and Jay. You must be so proud to be so blindingly unethical. And the fact no one else called you on such an ugly display is an embarrassment to this entire community.
What's wrong with you people?
ricpic calls being gay "indecent," and Scott M thinks he means "immoral," but what I think they're searching for is "deviant," which is true. As I've said, the number of gay people who have tried to suck my dick while I slept is enough for me to say this is a group with little-to-no respect for social norms.
The hippies tried to wipe deviance out of our vocabulary but - as the multitude of idiocies they've unleashed on us are inevitably rolled back - I think deviance, too, will reappear as a societal trait we'll find we can ill afford to let go untreated. That's right, gays:
Back on the couch,....
Good ol' AllieOop's responses to this issue are so cliche'd as to be worthless. She feels for gay people - we get it - now, is it possible to make her brain work at the same time? Doubtful,…
Michael thinks Obama's being "not keen on gays" springs from his being (half) black. Hilarious. Please, Michael, explain - specifically and/or scientifically - how melanin plays a role in such a preference.
I'll wait.
John M Auston suggests marriage should "just be a legal contract, no more special than any other legal contract." This is an especially inhuman way to address marriage. Hey, John, you ever heard of someone losing everything and suffering PTSD because their Blockbuster membership expired?
Bill Harshaw says Dick Cheney is "more enlightened" (love that NewAge lingo) because Cheney supports "gay" marriage, reminding me that, for some people, this is a nuanced multiple choice question that they'll only provide one box for us to check. Is that political strategy an example of gay supporters being "more enlightened," or extremely close-minded and deceptive? I know what AllieOop's answer is (Oops!) but would anyone else care to give it a go?
Michelle Dulak Thomson wins a TMR gold star - her brain's totally engaged - AndyR, not so much.
And finally, bridgecross, you can get "some of that gay money" at night, in almost any park or alleyway in San Francisco, but you're gonna have to work for it. Don't worry about it, though, because AllieOop will feign the appropriate amount of sympathy for your sore jaw (or other body part) by not considering any other implication beyond what a gay person or relative of same feels. This marks her as "compassionate" and whatever other self-serving title she deems appropriate. "Intelligent," of course, will NOT be one of them but, hell, she don't care about that - gays must be free to cum wherever they please - just not in her hair, as she just got back from the hairdressers.
Now - if you don't mind - bend over and take it "like a man,…"
ricpic calls being gay "indecent," and Scott M thinks he means "immoral," but what I think they're searching for is "deviant," which is true.
If RC had answered the question, maybe we would have gotten somewhere with what I think, but he did not. As it stands, your accuracy regarding what I think remains near zero.
As I've said, the number of gay people who have tried to suck my dick while I slept is enough for me to say this is a group with little-to-no respect for social norms.
I assume you're being sarcastic when you imply that some statistically significant number of gay men have tried to suck your dick while you sleep (where have you been sleeping?), but regardless, you really shouldn't accuse others of failing to "think" and then go on to make broad generalizations like that.
Should I make the same "little-to-no respect for social norms" assumption about black men, given the number of black men in prison?
Edutcher, I am not referring to any "gay gene" when I say children are born gay.
There is evidence that at a critical time in fetal development the fetal brain gets washed in hormone that affects its development and sexual identity gets imprinted at that point.
In some fetal brains the wrong hormone affects the fetal brain. Can you follow?
Crack, still upset that Ritmo kicked your ass yesterday?
I actually felt sorry for you and thought he went too far, but I can see now he was right. You live in a world of your own making, stop being a victim and living in the past.
Use some of that energy you have to enrich your own life instead of brow beating people here into believing that Romney is a cultist and that cults are everywhere.
Look under your own bed,you ave formed a cult of one, you.
wrong hormone? that's a little othering. just like Hitler.
It's still very much up for grabs, though. And, if a hormone "washing the brain" is involved, that makes it as much psychiatric as endocrinal.
The Blonde has mentioned it a couple of times.
No Edutcher, it does not make it a psychiatric / behavioral issue, it makes it a biological anomaly, every bit as physical as an extra rib.
X,
Dumbass, the wrong hormone I speak of is a male fetus gets affected by female hormone and vice versa.
No Edutcher, it does not make it a psychiatric / behavioral issue, it makes it a biological anomaly, every bit as physical as an extra rib.
For the sake of argument, and only for the sake of argument, let's assume that's correct. Doesn't that make it a birth defect? Regardless of the status of the affliction, what if pedophiles are likewise awash in the wrong hormone in utero? We make their doings illegal. Is that because a child cannot be judged to have given consent? If so, how can we allow abortions without parental approval?
So many possibilities...
I understood what you meant Ms. Oop. Fascist.
AllieOop said...
No Edutcher, it does not make it a psychiatric / behavioral issue, it makes it a biological anomaly, every bit as physical as an extra rib.
Disagree. Hormones affect the brain throughout life, that's why there are so many psych meds.
Theoretically, once a kid starts showing those tendencies, the right medication could keep him or her from going that route.
Just like treating depression, anxiety, or anything else.
It's not clear who is right on this. Martha Nussbaum says we should get rid of disgust when speaking of moral questions. But Martha Nussbaum has also apparently lied when arguing that Socrates and Plato felt no disgust with regard to homosexual copulation in ancient Greece (many people think they were deeply into it themselves). Many on the left use Socrates and Plato to defend their belief that pre-Christian writers were totally into homosexuality. There was a neat article in Lingua Franca a few years ago about Nussbaum's testimony with regard to Socrates and Plato. She apparently openly lied in saying that Socrates and Plato violently approved of homosexuality. They didn't. They were actually against it. Here's a link to the article. It's a legal case, which might make it interesting to the lawyers here.
http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9609/stand.html
Many Biblical scholars are also trying to find evidence of homosexual acts that are approved of within the Bible, in an attempt to offset Leviticus and St. Paul.
What you find out pretty early on is that the left will lie about anything in order to establish a precedent, and that they have no regard for the truth.
This has slowly ruined the credibility of the left for many of us.
X= Alex. I couldn't possibly insult you more by calling you any other name.
Edutcher, I see it's beyond your comprehension. It's a DEVELOPING fetal brain, affected at a point in development in which sexual identification gets imprinted on the brain.
Oy.
Alex isn't so bad. His bit is a little tired, a little Colbertish, but he's not a moron.
Allie Oop = Vickie from Pasadena
"... Yes, yes I know, I used Godwin's Law, but for a good purpose..."
Actually you didn't. Comparing gays in the United States to Jews living in Nazi Germany is idiotic on a galactic scale.
AllieOop said...
Edutcher, I see it's beyond your comprehension. It's a DEVELOPING fetal brain, affected at a point in development in which sexual identification gets imprinted on the brain.
Oop is letting the some phony folksy/shiloh mask slip again.
Second, I get the point, but, if it's an issue affected by hormones (and we're assuming it's valid because, if it were, there would be a lot more noise on the subject - after all, some homosexuals have been "reprogrammed"), it can be reversed or at least modified.
Oop doesn't want to accept the idea this is possibly reversable because then he/she/it wouldn't be able to call everybody bigots.
Hoosier, what's idiotic is thinking that Americans, especially the ones who will come after us, won't look back on this time of intolerance and be disgusted.
America has shifted toward gay acceptance and more and more are recognizing that to deny them the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy, is fundamentally wrong.
Edutcher, LMAO, now you think I'm Shiloh? Wasn't that you or was it some other dumbass that thought I was Ritmo last week?
Allie wrote: Hoosier, what's idiotic is thinking that Americans, especially the ones who will come after us, won't look back on this time of intolerance and be disgusted.
Allie, you really are acting overly invested in this issue. Given your personal stand on abortion: "it's wrong for me but OK for others" I'm surprised you are so intolerent of other's opinions and don't show more equanimity. What about stare decisis?
Why is this such a personal litmus test for you?
@Allie: And like I pointed out in the other thread, you're a hypocrite to trot out Hitler comparisons.
Chickenlittle, I hate intolerance of innocent humans who are born that way.
There is no personal investment in the issue beyond the fact that my cousin is gay, my son in law's cousin is gay, some of my best nursing friends are gay. People who are kind, decent, good people.
I can tolerate another point of view until it attempts to deny Americans their rights under the constitution.
Chickie, you sound like you are trying to figure out if I or one of my kids are gay. If they were I wouldn't be ashamed to say so.
"Everyone knows that Obama and all the rest of them support gay marriage and are being opaque because they think they have to pander" to a significant segment of 2008 Obama voters, who are opposed to gay marriage. Many of whom are black.
That may be, but I find Cook's surmise just as likely:
That's a rather generous presumption; perhaps Obama doesn't actually support gay marriage but wishes to allow that impression to stand to find favor with those in his base who are not likewise opposed to it.
In other words, Obama is just as likely to be pandering in one direction as the other. Or what I think: both. My own guess is that deep down Obama doesn't really give an F about gay marriage one way or the other, except insofar as it's political campaign fodder. He needs it as a distraction: we got war on women and war on dogs, of course we'll see war on gays: Romney's a Republican and a Mormon to boot! (Too bad for Obama he didn't get to run against Santorum. That would've been the opponent of his dreams.)
Given O's dreadful numbers and pathetic record to run on/ run from, he has to pander hard to all the different elements of his base. He desperately needs all those gay voters, all those young voters, all those women voters, all those black voters. He still has to try to appear to be all things to all people-- different things to different people-- like the magic chimerical mirror of his 2008 campaign, reflecting back just what different people wishfully project upon it.
Wink wink: I'm a centrist pragmatist. I'm a radical leftist progressive. I'm for gay marriage. I'm against gay marriage. I'm a devout Christian. I'm an atheist. I'm a peacenik POTUS. I'm a war hawk POTUS. I'm for free market capitalism. I'm a socialist fighting for "fairness." I'm a postpartisan uniter. I'm a fierce partisan warrior. I'm a postracial uniter. I'm a black power champion battling evil white racism.
Whatever you want, baby, that's what I'll be.
Oh and I forgot the most important thing:
I have to pander to those others, baby, I have to say things I don't mean, because I need those idiots' votes.
But you're the one I really love. You're the one who knows the real me. I'll be true to you.
Crack: "Michael thinks Obama's being "not keen on gays" springs from his being (half) black. Hilarious. Please, Michael, explain - specifically and/or scientifically - how melanin plays a role in such a preference."
You might have noticed through the years that the black community is not keen on gays. You may have observed that when given the chance they will rally to defeat gay initiatives. Or not. Has nothing to do with their skin tone as far as I can tell but it does appear to be a cultural stance. Maybe Obama's yuppie white half is nuts about gays. But you are the expert on all things cultish and blackish so why not tell us why blacks have such a , sorry, hard on against gays. I'll wait.
Sometimes when you believe Obama is lying about his personal thoughts, you are enlightened. Examples: he really is for gay marriage even though he says he's not, he really is an atheist
Sometimes when you believe Obama is lying about his personal thoughts, you are an idiot. Examples:he knows he didn't write his whole book, he really is Muslim
He really is socialist kinda fits in both categories.
"Doesn't that sentence work, and you come to the same conclusion, if you replace 'indecent' with 'immoral', RC?"
Well, of course!
AllieOop said...
Edutcher, LMAO, now you think I'm Shiloh? Wasn't that you or was it some other dumbass that thought I was Ritmo last week?
Since so many of the Lefty doofi here use the same putdowns and talking points, why not?
BTW, think it was Crack that thought you were Ritmo.
Well, of course!
I'm with you. So you would agree, given the above, that the following is true in regards to public policy, which is the context of this entire discussion?
What makes it immoral? What does immoral mean? Why does your view of what is immoral have any bearing on how others should be able to live their lives?
Scott M., I'm not sure what you're getting at, really. We shouldn't try to legislate morality, if that's what you're trying to get me to say. For one thing, it has never worked, and for another thing, cultural ideas of what constitute "moral" and "immoral" change over time.
This is good news for Romney, who just fired someone from his campaign for being gay. It didn't endear him to his more Independent-minded supporters. And now Obama comes to his rescue, forcing Biden to walk-back comments in support of marriage equality.
Is Obama trying to lose? He seems to have had a lot of bad weeks since it was known for sure Romney would win the nomination.
Biden gaffes are all the same- he says something that's true but that he's not supposed to say.
I admit that I like the guy.
Robert Cook said...
Scott M., I'm not sure what you're getting at, really. We shouldn't try to legislate morality
Lefties do it all the time.
cultural ideas of what constitute "moral" and "immoral" change over time.
Depends on which voting bloc the Demos are pandering.
This is good news for Romney, who just fired someone from his campaign for being gay.
actually the guy quit, as predicted, because he is gay.
X: actually the guy quit, as predicted, because he is gay.
I realize it was said he resigned, but I doubt he would have left if Romney didn't want him to.
It felt silly to not say he was fired.
Back to blame the parent syndrome. Why am I not surprised?
If they were born that way, as ou seem to insist, then who else's fault is it? That combination of genes produced a gay child.
But I have to applaud you for a dishonest tactic: those saying gays were not born that way are not blaming parenting they are placing responsibility on the individual's choice.
I know individual responsibility is anathema to the modern liberal, but please try not to be such a hackneyed stereotype, hm?
And I think if law was intended to be based on what would hurt a mother's feelings, they would have said something about that in the US Constitution.
I am simply blown away (so to speak) by the premise that "gay money is replacing wall street money." Is there really that much gay money? Gays are the 1%? Who knew?
Jason, according to all the reports I read, it was Grenell's choice to resign, and actually Romney campaign staff tried to dissuade Grenell from doing so.
Of course, you may disbelieve those reports-- wouldn't be the first time a campaign spun a story-- but I didn't hear of a single source or leak in the know saying he was fired.
Nathan Alexander said;
Back to blame the parent syndrome. Why am I not surprised?
If they were born that way, as ou seem to insist, then who else's fault is it? That combination of genes produced a gay child.
But I have to applaud you for a dishonest tactic: those saying gays were not born that way are not blaming parenting they are placing responsibility on the individual's choice.
5/7/12 5:14 PM
Read the whole thread before spouting off.
First I never said it was anyone's genetics that produced a gay child, would you blame Sarah Palin and Todd, for producing Trig, or some parents for producing a child with a genetic disorder?
I said it was a though to be a phenomenon that happened in fetal development when the fetal brain is imprinted with sexual identity. Read the thread.
Also, Edutcher intimated it was the parents fault because Freud said it was so, again read the entire thread. Don't be a lazy commenter, read before commenting so you don't appear ignorant.
I'm with Robert Cook on this one.
This thread is like a minefield of embarrassing, inadvertent explications of weird personal neuroses.
As I've said, the number of gay people who have tried to suck my dick while I slept is enough for me to say this is a group with little-to-no respect for social norms.
Lol. Why were you sleeping with a desperate dinge queen, anyway?
Scott M,
Your accuracy regarding what I think remains near zero.
Considering your avatar has it's legs spread to reveal it's privates, I'm grateful.
Justin,
I assume you're being sarcastic when you imply that some statistically significant number of gay men have tried to suck your dick while you sleep (where have you been sleeping?),…
I was raised in foster homes, and attempts were made by kids and counselors. There were attempts as an adult, too. Gay men hit on me in the receiving line of funerals. They've hit on me knowing I was married. They tried to manipulate me when I was despondent over my divorce (Sam Kinnison: "Woman broke your heart? Well let's see if you can swallow a sword!"). Considering gay people are 3% of the population - a number so small I wonder why anybody's talking about them - I'd say I've seen a "statistically significant number" and many were pervs.
Either that, or I'm drop-dead gorgeous.
You really shouldn't accuse others of failing to "think" and then go on to make broad generalizations like that.
I know it's important to maintain this bullshit image, but that's not going to happen. You ain't getting shit without a real discussion, and that includes "broad generalizations" because - like drag queens in cabarets - they're the whole show.
Should I make the same "little-to-no respect for social norms" assumption about black men, given the number of black men in prison?
Why not? Richard Pryor shot a movie in prison and his final statement was "Thank God we got penitentiaries!" Why should I feel different? Oh, I'm black, so your stereotyping should work like gay propaganda works on you. Smooth.
Allie,
Crack, still upset that Ritmo kicked your ass yesterday?
Ritmo has been on this blog for years and he's ALWAYS told he's wrong - by everyone from Ann to the other commenters - but you think I'm going to buy he kicked my ass? You're as delusional as he is. That thread's on the next page, AO. I dare you, in any way beyond this declaration, to provide evidence of my ass-kicking.
But if you can't - or don't - I'ma stay on YOUR ass, and make a example of you, because you can't debate, joust, or play the dozens, without resorting to lying.
The choice is yours, crazy lady.
I actually felt sorry for you and thought he went too far, but I can see now he was right. You live in a world of your own making, stop being a victim and living in the past.
Aww, jeez, first you're feeling sorry for gays and now me. Is there anyone you DON'T bestow your precious pity on? Do you have anything else to offer, because your pity, and a nickel, is worth 5 cents.
And I live in a world of my own making? Sure - I wrote those articles about me. Brilliant deduction.
What have YOU got? Look - I can find Ann Althouse - but, of course, in your world that's proof Ann's "living in the past" and deserving of pity. Not that she's accomplished, but you're superior. You and Ritmo have got this down. Upside-down.
Use some of that energy you have to enrich your own life instead of brow beating people here into believing that Romney is a cultist and that cults are everywhere.
The man says he's from the planet Kolab. He should be regarded as a cultist like a Scientologist or a Heaven's Gate member. Oh, wait - you're a liberal. Forget it.
Hoosier Daddy,
Comparing gays in the United States to Jews living in Nazi Germany is idiotic on a galactic scale.
That's because Allie is an idiot from the planet Kolab where saying silly shit "on a galactic scale" is normal for presidential candidates. Especially if they're eating dick - then she'll also feel sorry for them - as do we all.
AllieOop, Miss Oop!, or just "Miss Information,"
Chickenlittle, do you think I care what your opinion of me is? I tell the truth, you don't like it, should I care?
Ah, the great liberal defense of "I don't care." They want us to care SO MUCH but, when it comes to others points of view, they could give a damn. Earth to Oops:
If you don't give a damn nobody else has to.
So if gays get hounded into cattle cars, or women lose in The Great Titty Hunt of 2020, blame yourself for allowing us to feel as little as you. You won't care, and neither will we.
Heil Shitler!
Michael,
You are the expert on all things cultish and blackish so why not tell us why blacks have such a , sorry, hard on against gays. I'll wait.
No need - you nailed it. It's cultural, not racial. Gold star for you, too.
Bwahàaaaaaaa!
"That's because Allie is an idiot from the planet Kolab where saying silly shit "on a galactic scale" is normal for presidential candidates..."
OMG, Crack, don't embarrass yourself further, or I will feel sorry for you again, it's getting downright pathetic with you already. Am I supposed to feel intimidated by you somehow? You are ranting.
Isn't there some sort of free clinic you can go to for help? Seriously Crack, I used to like you cause you had the guts to say some truths that some here needed to hear, but you are escalating your negative behaviors and fixations.
You are beginning to get as weird as J was.
"I remember when "evolution" was the bugaboo of the kind of Biblical sticklers who hate gay marriage!"
Well, I agree "evolution" in Obama's case is a crock. But please: it's possible to hate gay marriage-- in the sense of considering it a... well... a perversion of what marriage has always meant in our civilization -- and without being a "Biblical stickler", whatever that's supposed to mean. And without hating gays either; even though I used the word "perversion" above; that was about what the change would do to marriage, not about the people.
I'm with Robert Cook on this one.
On this issue, me too pretty much.
Here's where I just shrug my small-l-libertarian shoulders and roll my eyes. I don't get all the sound and fury over it. But others obviously have *really* strong feelings about it, so I prefer to just keep out of it.
I'm all for civil unions. The big fuss over the use of the word "marriage", from one side and the other? Let's say, I'm agnostic on the matter. (As rhhardin aptly suggested once-- and as far as I'm concerned-- this a philosophical problem to be worked out with the help of Wittgenstein, not Aquinas.)
Politically, I say let the states, not the courts, decide.
Michelle Dulak Thomson wrote:
"If 'everyone' knows it, presumably the "moronic voters" also know it. Which makes the panderers rather dumber than the voters, doesn't it?"
Bullseye. So much contorting by Dems on this issue, all because they are afraid of pissing off people who are already pissed at them, and will never ever vote for them.
Not as disgusting as the outright bigotry driving stuff like tomorrow's vote in North Carolina. But still pretty damned disgusting. And less honest.
It is a sad day when the vice president of the United States says that the administration refuses to enforce a duly enacted law, a clear violation of everyone's oath of office, and clearly contrary to the ideals of a nation of laws.
The left is all about personal empowerment.
AllieOop,
OMG, Crack, don't embarrass yourself further, or I will feel sorry for you again, it's getting downright pathetic with you already. Am I supposed to feel intimidated by you somehow? You are ranting.
This is funny, coming after Muns is laughing at me cracking on you. You're seeing what you want to see.
Seriously Crack, I used to like you cause you had the guts to say some truths that some here needed to hear, but you are escalating your negative behaviors and fixations.
And now they're all wrong because I'm focussed on YOU. Fucking hilarious. Show of hands - can anybody here NOT see through this cow?
You are beginning to get as weird as J was.
And who are YOU like, Allie? Garage? Ritmo? Or any one of the other members of Althouse's liberal Insane Clown Posse? You know, those geniuses who we can talk to all night long, showing them facts, evidence, PROOF, and they still can't find it within themselves to concede a point? If I'm getting to be like J, can you agree that you've sprung from the same sad genetic code that produces such mental degenerates?
I mean, look at Muns' post just above yours - he's laughing at you!
That's been happening to your kind, here, for years,...welcome to the front of the line, loser.
Crack, what you fail to understand is that many here at Althouse have said similar things regarding your obsessive ideologies about cults, about women, about Romney. You argue and insult regular posters and even Althouse herself for not understanding your "wisdom". You have scolded, whined and ranted when you were shot down by your fellow conservatives.
As a liberal, I just stand back and enjoy you telling fellow conservatives how wrong they are and how right you are. You even got into it with MICHAEL of all people! Ha!
You've lost your credibility Crack.
Commenters may be being kind you you by not laughing in your face because you once were a talented blogger and rapper.
I'm back to feeling pity for you. You are a confused and angry man, now moving into a bizarro world of your own making. Sad way for you to have ended your career.
AllieOpp. You are feeling some oats you havent eaten. Put differently, you are boxing way above your weight here and losing. I have had frequent discussions with Crack on this blog. When he is in the wrong he graciously admits it and moves on. I have done the same many times. You dont seem to get that piece of the debating rules.
And Crack, because I'm a kind person, who is worried about your mental health, seriously, I won't address you any further.
I don't want to feel responsible for pushing you over that edge you are teetering on.
Michael, who are you kidding, you have never admitted to being wrong, especially to a liberal. If you secretly agreed with a liberal you would continue to argue against your own stance, just because you would never concede to a liberal.
Very disingenuous of you, I got your number a long time ago.
Allie. Wrong. You dont know a single thing about me.
Isn't it wonderful when two people so right for each other find one another in the comments section of a blog?
Truly beautiful.
Well, I may not often agree with Crack, but I won't deny his positions are well thought out. He's never a boring read anyway. Whereas Allie Taffy Apple Bottom Oop...not so much on either.
Post a Comment