Students at Johns Hopkins University’s medical school are circulating a petition to replace Dr. Benjamin Carson as their commencement speaker after the famed neurosurgeon... [said on Sean Hannity's show] on Tuesday that opposite-sex marriage is “a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition.”
२९ मार्च, २०१३
Destroying Ben Carson.
TPM:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२२० टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 220 पैकी 201 – 220Ritmo has Rev's number. Glibertarians such as Rev will always remain impotent because they antagonize both sides, left and right, lol.
At least we lefties and righties know where we stand, right or wrong, of course righties are mostly wrongies.
The vitriol that the left generates for blacks who do not toe the line is remarkable.
No one is more hated than a black man who is passionately conservative.
Oh, I see somebody showed up to wreck the discussion.
Happy unbirthday, Ritmo.
Inga said...At least we lefties and righties know where we stand
bitch please. your principles are so situational it boggles the mind.
See what I mean?
Those who don't bend with the wind, will break.
Classic example of crass ignorance: someone who finds "I got mine so screw you" deeply deplorable, but has no problem with "I got yours, so screw you", so much so that he doesn't even notice that that is one of his own side's most cherished principles.
Gene wrote:
No, but they do have a right to expect people who disagree with them to debate them on the merits, rather than to try to stop them from speaking at all.
Actually, if you consider who the people disagreeing with you are, you shouldn't expect that.
Repubs should fight fire with fire and treat MSNBC the same way liberals treat FOX. Sign petitions against people for crazy liberal talk and force them out of their jobs or out of being able to give speech.etc.
Gene wrote:
No, but they do have a right to expect people who disagree with them to debate them on the merits, rather than to try to stop them from speaking at all.
Actually, if you consider who the people disagreeing with you are, you shouldn't expect that.
Repubs should fight fire with fire and treat MSNBC the same way liberals treat FOX. Sign petitions against people for crazy liberal talk and force them out of their jobs or out of being able to give speech.etc.
Inga wrote:
At least we lefties and righties know where we stand
Ah, so where do you lefties stand on Bush's war policies that are being carried out by Obama?
you've got half the equation right. Righties by and large know where they stand. Lefties will have the polar opposite position when a rightie is in power than when a leftie is in power. From Iraq being a threat to gay marriage to the economy. 180 degree flip flops as far as the eye can see.
Now, there are lefty principles,don't get me wrong. Obama's runnning of the economy is from the left. However, when he was a candidate he ran as someone who thought excessive spending was unpatriotic to get votes. So, lefty principles are means to an end rather than moral arguments. Obama can argue the fiscal hawk argument and then run the economy as a keynesian because to libs getting him in power is more important than him being truthful or consistent.
Inga said...
I don't know Palladian, but you most assuredly are a sinner and will burn for eternity, along with me of course:)
3/29/13, 10:14 PM
I suspect that if you really believed that you would probably act differently.
We may have gay marriage, but there is no such thing as having two moms or two dads.
Sperm donors can seek more parental rights
Sperm donors were given the legal right yesterday to apply for regular contact with their biological children following a landmark High Court ruling. (UK)
"One of the men is the biological father of both the children of one of the lesbian couples while the other man is the biological father of a child being brought up by the other female couple.
All three couples, who are in civil partnerships, and cannot be named for legal reasons entered into the reproduction arrangements amicably and informally.
But nothing was put in writing and relations broke down as the fathers sought more contact than had been agreed.
The male couple then applied to the court for contact and residency rights but the women argued that this would infringe on their family life.
Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, same-sex couples are the legal parents of children conceived through donated sperm, eggs or embryos.
Until now the law has refused contact for sperm donors who have no other legal or domestic relationship with their biological children.
But yesterday’s judgment paved the way for sperm donors to pursue applications for contact orders."
It's about the child's rights, not the lesbian couples right to deny a child his/her father.
I guess understanding English isn't a requirement for med school.
to Inga:
as much as he destroyed himself, if you had what an inoperable brain tumor, diagnoses by your regular DR, would you not seek him out because he doesn't agree with your political views?
Actually, what did he say that was fundamentally different than what Sontomayor said?
He was talking about the slippery slope and she was talking about the slippery slope.
he said:
Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a well-established fundamental pillar of society, and no group -- be they gays, be they NAMBLA [North American Man/Boy Love Association], be they people who believe in bestiality -- no matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition. So it's not something that's against gays; it's against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definition of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications.
It's describing the act of attemption to change the definition and the slippery slope.
Boo hiss! Homophobia! cancel his speeches.
Sontomayor said:
Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to -- that could get married -- the incest laws, the mother and the child, assuming they are of age -- I can -- I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on -- on protecting the a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?
Sotomayor made a comparison to gay marriage (or rather the idea that marriage is an absolute right) and incest too.
So what's the diff? He's saying marriage has a fundamental definition and changing the definition, and they don't get to simply cahnge the definition. If they do so there will be fundamental ramifications.
She's saying. if we view marriage as a fundamental right, wouldn't that open marriage up to things like incest?
So, can we tar and feather Sontomayor now?
By the way, PHX, yet again, a different standard for a conservative who must be DESTROYED for making the same point that the liberal will make and have literally no commentary about.
Care to commment?
Classic example of crass ignorance: someone who finds "I got mine so screw you" deeply deplorable, but has no problem with "I got yours, so screw you"...
It must take a very special kind of ignorant twerp to believe that Mitt Romney or Don Trump are or would in any conceivable tax situation become financially screwed.
Google translation needed . . . .
Okay, I entered Ritmo's last statement into the trusty old Google Translator. "It must take a very special kind of ignorant twerp to believe that Mitt Romney or Donald Trump are or would in any conceivable tax situation become financially screwed" translates into American English as: "Oh shit! My crass ignorance has been exposed. I have to act like my far left whacko policy preferences would only have a minor effect on the super wealthy and not cause any harmful financial consequences for the average person. Sure, it's crazy to think I might get away with such a claim, but, if I can just make it seem like those who disagree with me and on the side of the evil super rich, that might be enough to cow them into silence."
It takes a special kind of liar or fool to suggest that what I wrote has any resemblance to what Ritmo pretends I wrote. Which is Ritmo? Hint: they're not mutually exclusive.
Hate is the Tabasco sauce of intellectual life.
Disdainful snark is the Sriracha paste.
But what's the chili oil? The intellectual dim sum isn't going to eat itself.
Inga how pitiful to see you take up Ritmo's silly usage, "glibertarians." Ritmo, we know you hate them and want them to die, like all your political or other opposition. However, the problem wiyou destroying language in this way is, nobody really knows what you're talking about. Which may be as you prefer it, but...what is a "glibertarian?" Is it the same as a libertarian? Same but different? Is it a libertarian whom you don't like? Yes, we know you have an irrepressible urge to mock and degrade, but the word salad approach, it just isn't the way.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा