Subscribe to Listverse
[JFrater: Before reading the list - read this full introduction. This list has been sitting in my inbox for quite a while and I have been putting off posting it for fear of the storm it may cause, but I have finally decided that we are all mature enough to cope with it. If someone wishes to send a list in of conservative hypocrisy I will certainly consider posting that as well. This list is not an endorsement by the site of any political persuasion as we are willing to post lists on both sides of the coin (as you will see from our two lists on Clinton quotes and Bush quotes).]
Conservative senators taking bribes, televangelists with three mistresses in tow are scandal mainstays. They are rightly pilloried, and I encourage the practice. But Alan Colmes once stated that hypocrisy is “essentially a conservative disease, something liberals can’t catch”. Nonsense. Hypocrisy is a sad part of the human condition. Wherever there is dogma and orthodoxy, there is hypocrisy from some, and liberals are no more immune than anyone else. A forgiving press can hide a lot of symptoms, but liberals have their share of embarrassing self-righteous tools who don’t practice what they preach. Here are ten:
Hypocrisy: Carbon Footprint the Size of…Some Really Big Thing
At his suburban Nashville home, Ex-Vice President Al Gore enjoyed the Oscar awarded to “An Inconvenient Truth,” the documentary on global warming in which he starred. But the Tennessee Center for Policy Research gained access to Gore’s utility bills for two years and published the gas and electric bills for his 20-room home and pool house. It turned out the home devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours. The Center’s president, Drew Johnson said, “If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn’t care. But he tells other people how to live and he’s not following his own rules.”
Hypocrisy: No Guns For You, But My Guy Packs Heat
On her television show, April 19, 1999, O’Donnell had this to say about gun owners: “I don’t care if you want to hunt. I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say, ‘Sorry.’ It is 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” Several months later, a bodyguard in her employ applied for a concealed gun permit from the Greenwich (Connecticut) Police Department. When queried about whether her bodyguard should carry a gun on May 24, 2000, she said, “I don’t personally own a gun, but if you are qualified, licensed and registered, I have no problem.”
Hypocrisy: War Investments, Non-Union Labor, Calling for the End of the American Dream While Living It
Michael Moore is merciless in his criticism of oil and defense contractors; calling them ‘war profiteers.’ He also claims to have no stock portfolio, but at one time he owned shares in Halliburton, Honeywell and Boeing. He also expresses an affinity for Union labor, but does his post production work in Canada – where he doesn’t have to pay union wages. In one of his books he writes “Horatio Alger Must Die”, implying that the rags-to-riches story is a myth, and ultimately harmful to America. This from an unknown Flint, Michigan filmmaker who became a millionaire in Hollywood by making documentaries.
Hypocrisy: Getting Married After Condemning Marriage As Pointless
For years, Gloria Steinem said that “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”, and that marriage has “a bad name”. Yet she married David Bale in 2000, preferring to enter into an institution she said made women “a semi-nonperson”. Sadly, Mr. Bale died three years later.
Hypocrisy: Accepting Union Awards But Not Using Union Labor
Nancy Pelosi bashes everyone who doesn’t use union labor–except herself. Shockingly, she still accepted the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farmworkers Unions while using non-UFW workers on her Napa Valley Vineyard. She also praised the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union and took massive sums of money from them while keeping them out of her Hotel and chain of restaurants.
Hypocrisy: Coastline Protection Lawsuit
Known for espousing pro-environmental views and criticizing those who don’t, Streisand sued the California Coastal Records Project, a landmark photographic database of over 12,000 frames of the California coast shot since 2002, asserting that the inclusion of a single frame that includes her blufftop Malibu estate invades her privacy, violates the “anti-paparazzi” statute, seeks to profit from her name, and threatens her security. Ms. Streisand, who purports to espouse the First Amendment right of freedom of speech (See “My Thoughts On Freedom of Speech” at barbrastreisand.com) apparently feels differently when the publication of a photograph shows her backyard.
Hypocrisy: Opposing Wind Power While Proposing Alternative Fuels Elsewhere
Senator Kennedy has introduced dozens of pieces of legislation over the years to encourage the development of solar, hydrogen, and wind as alternatives to oil and coal. But he opposed the Cape Wind Project, which would build wind turbines in Nantucket Sound, about six miles off the coast from the Kennedy compound in Hyannis. The problem was not aesthetic; the Kennedys wouldn’t be able to actually see the turbines from their home. Instead Robert Kennedy Jr., who had been beating the drum for alternative sources of energy for more than a decade, complained that the project would be built in one of the family’s favorite sailing and yachting areas. Sen. Kennedy publicly called for further study of the project – but privately, he tried to get the study canceled.
Hypocrisy: Counseling on Adultery While Committing Adultery
Jesse Jackson confessed that in 1998, at the very moment he was providing pastoral counseling to the White House’s Bill Clinton for his adultery with Monica Lewinski, he was carrying on an extramarital affair of his own, with a subordinate who later gave birth to his child. How could the nation’s premier civil rights leader have been so reckless?
Hypocrisy: Protesting Animal Testing While Benefiting from Animal Testing
A type-A diabetic, PETA Senior Vice President Mary Beth Sweetland keeps herself alive by injecting herself with insulin, which was developed from medical testing using dogs. She has been quoted as saying “I don’t see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals”. Penn Jillette gives her what-for: “ Not a hypocrite? Your group supports people who fire bomb labs where animal testing is conducted, while using the very benefits of animal testing to live your own upside-down, house of cards, !@#$ing privileged life”. In the clip above you can see Penn speaking – around the 5:20 mark.
Hypocrisy: Using Non-Union Labor to Strike for Higher Union Wages
Trade Unionism had been an important part of the liberal coalition within the Democratic party. In the late 1990’s, Unions began protesting the loss of jobs through outsourcing. By the 21st century, Unions began outsourcing picket lines to non-union, scab labor. The non-unionized workers were recruited from the most vulnerable of society willing to take on the most undignified type of work. The Unions offered no benefits, no healthcare, no job security, low pay, and intolerable working conditions. The Unions likewise paid in cash and did not collect taxes due to either federal, state, or local governments. Further, the Union’s exploitation of workers on outsourced picket lines contributed absolutely nothing to the workers Social Security retirement fund. Unions did not pay required Workers Compensation premiums for a hazardous job known to be risking life and limb. All this, so the greedy employer, in this case the Union, could enjoy higher living standards for themselves. [Source: Outsourcing the Picket Line, By Keith L. Alexander, Washington Post, July 24, 2007.]
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:36 am
Wow! Cool list.
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:36 am
Wow! Cool list.
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:40 am
Really didn’t expect to see Michael Moore here , he was one of my favorite film makers.
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:40 am
Really didn’t expect to see Michael Moore here , he was one of my favorite film makers.
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:41 am
Very interesting list. It’s good to see the intelligentsia is no more immune to the human sickness than anyone else.
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:41 am
Very interesting list. It’s good to see the intelligentsia is no more immune to the human sickness than anyone else.
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:43 am
Incidentally – if you want to follow us on Twitter, we now have a Listverse twitter account set up
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:43 am
Incidentally – if you want to follow us on Twitter, we now have a Listverse twitter account set up
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:50 am
liked 2
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:50 am
liked 2
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:59 am
Instantly one of my favorite lists!!!!
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:59 am
Instantly one of my favorite lists!!!!
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:04 am
I’m looking forward to part 2, the “conservative hypocrisy” list. Am I’m sure there must be one coming. It’s not just liberals that are hypocrites. lol
Yeah, many people on this list are people that just make me shake my head ask tisk when I see them on tv. All you can do is hope that your whole party’s credibility won’t be dragged down with them, but with the likes of fox news and O’Reilly it doesn’t seem the case =\
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:04 am
I’m looking forward to part 2, the “conservative hypocrisy” list. Am I’m sure there must be one coming. It’s not just liberals that are hypocrites. lol
Yeah, many people on this list are people that just make me shake my head ask tisk when I see them on tv. All you can do is hope that your whole party’s credibility won’t be dragged down with them, but with the likes of fox news and O’Reilly it doesn’t seem the case =\
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:07 am
Haha. You look anywhere and you can find hypocrisy in politics. I’m happy to see Liberals are not exempt, this, of course, coming from a Liberal.
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:07 am
Haha. You look anywhere and you can find hypocrisy in politics. I’m happy to see Liberals are not exempt, this, of course, coming from a Liberal.
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 am
#7 Becca. Read the intro, to see a “conservative hypocrisy” list just watch the news, they love it.
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 am
#7 Becca. Read the intro, to see a “conservative hypocrisy” list just watch the news, they love it.
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 am
Oh, and conservative hypocrisy needs no list, it’s almost all public fodder anyway. Like the various Gay Rights opposers indulging in same-sex extra-marital trysts.
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 am
Oh, and conservative hypocrisy needs no list, it’s almost all public fodder anyway. Like the various Gay Rights opposers indulging in same-sex extra-marital trysts.
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:11 am
Mandela’d guns on the list, g – as a neo-paleo-libertarian myself,I respectfully disagree with your freewill that agreed to think of this list upon which I would spit were my freedoms permitting me to do so, but only if you tell me to think that yo
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:11 am
Mandela’d guns on the list, g – as a neo-paleo-libertarian myself,I respectfully disagree with your freewill that agreed to think of this list upon which I would spit were my freedoms permitting me to do so, but only if you tell me to think that yo
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:20 am
Good list, though I’m surprised that Jane Fonda isn’t on here for something.
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:20 am
Good list, though I’m surprised that Jane Fonda isn’t on here for something.
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:31 am
Liberal is as liberal does, momma always used ta say
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:31 am
Liberal is as liberal does, momma always used ta say
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:43 am
plasmatwa2 – jane Fonda didn’t make this list as we are saving her for top 10 traitors
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:43 am
plasmatwa2 – jane Fonda didn’t make this list as we are saving her for top 10 traitors
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:48 am
***”Really didn’t expect to see Michael Moore here , he was one of my favorite film makers.”***
Surely you are being sarcastic?
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:48 am
***”Really didn’t expect to see Michael Moore here , he was one of my favorite film makers.”***
Surely you are being sarcastic?
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:05 am
Love the list, I do enjoy seeing anyone eat their words liberal or not.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:05 am
Love the list, I do enjoy seeing anyone eat their words liberal or not.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:11 am
God what tripe! Inane rightwing douchebaggery is all these imbeciles have to offer. I’m still not convinced Obama is a liberal, but it’s a total blast to watch the whiny dopes’ heads explode.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:11 am
God what tripe! Inane rightwing douchebaggery is all these imbeciles have to offer. I’m still not convinced Obama is a liberal, but it’s a total blast to watch the whiny dopes’ heads explode.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:12 am
Michael Moore’s book about America, I forget which one, attacked corporations for their racism in the workplace. He said that hiring a single black person and sticking them on reception gave the impression that the company encouraged equality.
He then proposed that he would hire an entire black staff and put one white person on reception. Surely that’s still racism? I thought the answer would be to hire people based purely on their academic qualifications instead of skin colour.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:12 am
Michael Moore’s book about America, I forget which one, attacked corporations for their racism in the workplace. He said that hiring a single black person and sticking them on reception gave the impression that the company encouraged equality.
He then proposed that he would hire an entire black staff and put one white person on reception. Surely that’s still racism? I thought the answer would be to hire people based purely on their academic qualifications instead of skin colour.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:16 am
The author of this list is the hypocrite. The thrust of his insipid post is that these so called liberals are evil because they behave like rightwing scumbags.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:16 am
The author of this list is the hypocrite. The thrust of his insipid post is that these so called liberals are evil because they behave like rightwing scumbags.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:20 am
You know it’s kind of discouraging. I submitted a list that was actually well written and interesting. Does Jamie publish it? No! He’s got this piece of crap up though.
Oh look! There’s a CitiBank ad on this page, paid for with my tax dollars.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:20 am
You know it’s kind of discouraging. I submitted a list that was actually well written and interesting. Does Jamie publish it? No! He’s got this piece of crap up though.
Oh look! There’s a CitiBank ad on this page, paid for with my tax dollars.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:23 am
Bongo – those are the types of comments I hoped we were smart enough to refrain from. Please do so. You do yourself a disservice talking like that
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:23 am
Bongo – those are the types of comments I hoped we were smart enough to refrain from. Please do so. You do yourself a disservice talking like that
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:24 am
Bongo – I don’t control what ads show. What was the list you submitted?
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:24 am
Bongo – I don’t control what ads show. What was the list you submitted?
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:26 am
A little something for #7…Q: Why do most husbands die before their wives do? A: Because they want to.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:26 am
A little something for #7…Q: Why do most husbands die before their wives do? A: Because they want to.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:28 am
um al gore was actually buying his energy from renewable resources, and paying extra for it as well. so he wasnt really a hypocrite
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:28 am
um al gore was actually buying his energy from renewable resources, and paying extra for it as well. so he wasnt really a hypocrite
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:31 am
Jamie, I used to post under Yogi Barrister but can longer do so. I’m not going to apologize for talkiong this way. What’s worse, my language or the destruction rightwing asshattery has caused to humanity? This list is created by and for stupid people.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:31 am
Jamie, I used to post under Yogi Barrister but can longer do so. I’m not going to apologize for talkiong this way. What’s worse, my language or the destruction rightwing asshattery has caused to humanity? This list is created by and for stupid people.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:40 am
@ Bongo (20). I trust Jamie – he’s made this site go for a long time now, and if he rejects a list, well, he probably has a good reason. Also this one was sitting in his inbox for a YEAR before publication. Maybe yours will get out there too. Also, in regard to the offensive corporate tax-dolllar ads of evil, you can get AdBlock Plus (an addon for Firefox), and it blocks all the banner ads. Makes everything go faster, and you can be offended at something else.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:40 am
@ Bongo (20). I trust Jamie – he’s made this site go for a long time now, and if he rejects a list, well, he probably has a good reason. Also this one was sitting in his inbox for a YEAR before publication. Maybe yours will get out there too. Also, in regard to the offensive corporate tax-dolllar ads of evil, you can get AdBlock Plus (an addon for Firefox), and it blocks all the banner ads. Makes everything go faster, and you can be offended at something else.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:45 am
I’m only going to say one thing in response to this list. In my experience as soon as you tag yourself or anyone else for that matter as “liberal” or “conservative” you’ve lost the game. Period. Even the great thinkers of antiquity have realize this. People who subscribe to only one ideology will never see the validity of the other(s). All associating yourself with a catch-all term does is discourage free thought and critical analysis.
All that said I’m not sure whether I should be saddened or delighted that the guy who is this site’s most notable gimmick-poster has made what will probably remain the most enlightened response to this list.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:45 am
I’m only going to say one thing in response to this list. In my experience as soon as you tag yourself or anyone else for that matter as “liberal” or “conservative” you’ve lost the game. Period. Even the great thinkers of antiquity have realize this. People who subscribe to only one ideology will never see the validity of the other(s). All associating yourself with a catch-all term does is discourage free thought and critical analysis.
All that said I’m not sure whether I should be saddened or delighted that the guy who is this site’s most notable gimmick-poster has made what will probably remain the most enlightened response to this list.
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:09 am
Mendacity, I like the ads, they brighten up the page. I agree with you, Jamie probably had good reasons to reject my submission, I can’t edit my writing on a computer screen worth a damn. It must be glued to the bottom of the trash barrel if this is all LV has to offer.
Jay K is the quintessential, rightwing American, too tasteless to realize his sour grapes make for a bitter whine.
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:09 am
Mendacity, I like the ads, they brighten up the page. I agree with you, Jamie probably had good reasons to reject my submission, I can’t edit my writing on a computer screen worth a damn. It must be glued to the bottom of the trash barrel if this is all LV has to offer.
Jay K is the quintessential, rightwing American, too tasteless to realize his sour grapes make for a bitter whine.
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:18 am
Bongo: come on – JayK did the “rock acts that sabotaged their careers” list – he can’t be all that bad
But back to this list – the items listed here are facts – and they are hypocritical. You shouldn’t be averse to people knowing that. By protesting so strongly against this list being published it makes it look like you have so little confidence in your own views that you think it safer for the alternative to be blocked. It is not particularly liberal to wish to see any view (even if it opposing) blocked. I thought liberals were against censorship.
And do note that I have said that I will publish a list of right wing hypocrisy if someone writes it – maybe you should. Also – the fact that your list has not appeared yet does not mean it was rejected (though it may have been – tell me what it was and I can tell you) – what it usually means is that I have not found it appropriate to post yet. I decide on which list to post based on the lists that have already been posted recently and the general mood of the site
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:18 am
Bongo: come on – JayK did the “rock acts that sabotaged their careers” list – he can’t be all that bad
But back to this list – the items listed here are facts – and they are hypocritical. You shouldn’t be averse to people knowing that. By protesting so strongly against this list being published it makes it look like you have so little confidence in your own views that you think it safer for the alternative to be blocked. It is not particularly liberal to wish to see any view (even if it opposing) blocked. I thought liberals were against censorship.
And do note that I have said that I will publish a list of right wing hypocrisy if someone writes it – maybe you should. Also – the fact that your list has not appeared yet does not mean it was rejected (though it may have been – tell me what it was and I can tell you) – what it usually means is that I have not found it appropriate to post yet. I decide on which list to post based on the lists that have already been posted recently and the general mood of the site
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:32 am
Don’t forget comment 4 btw everyone
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:32 am
Don’t forget comment 4 btw everyone
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:42 am
Love to see any hypocrite busted out. Good list.
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:42 am
Love to see any hypocrite busted out. Good list.
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:54 am
Jay K – Thank you for an entertaining list. While nothing here is news, and I do not understand your ranking, it does make an interesting read.
I was really planning to get something done today. Now, as it turns out, I’ll probably be checking the comments…
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:54 am
Jay K – Thank you for an entertaining list. While nothing here is news, and I do not understand your ranking, it does make an interesting read.
I was really planning to get something done today. Now, as it turns out, I’ll probably be checking the comments…
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:56 am
What about all those Hollywood types who buy a Toyota Prius and try to tell the world that they’re saving the planet with the little hy-brid car whilst keeping they’re big, gas hungry, massively polluting car (or planes) for their day to day use.
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:56 am
What about all those Hollywood types who buy a Toyota Prius and try to tell the world that they’re saving the planet with the little hy-brid car whilst keeping they’re big, gas hungry, massively polluting car (or planes) for their day to day use.
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:57 am
Really good list. Just one thing though, on Al Gore. The reason his utilities bill was so high is because he was using more environmentally safe power, which costs extra. He chose to pay more for green power because he can afford it. He may be a hypocrite, but it isn’t because of his sky-high utilities bills.
Also, PETA… they are effing insane. But are they really considered a liberal group? I’d never really thought to put an animal rights group- albeit a crazy one- in the “liberal” or “conservative” category. How would they be considered liberal?
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:57 am
Really good list. Just one thing though, on Al Gore. The reason his utilities bill was so high is because he was using more environmentally safe power, which costs extra. He chose to pay more for green power because he can afford it. He may be a hypocrite, but it isn’t because of his sky-high utilities bills.
Also, PETA… they are effing insane. But are they really considered a liberal group? I’d never really thought to put an animal rights group- albeit a crazy one- in the “liberal” or “conservative” category. How would they be considered liberal?
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:02 am
Great job, JK! I love to see a hypocrite called out
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:02 am
Great job, JK! I love to see a hypocrite called out
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:13 am
18. byjimini
its called “positive” discrimination and its very real
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:13 am
18. byjimini
its called “positive” discrimination and its very real
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:16 am
BONGO–Because you say it, and might even believe it, (God only know’s why), sure doesn’t make it even close to the truth. BONGO, you and the truth are total strangers. Typical midless liberal name calling and rant.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:16 am
BONGO–Because you say it, and might even believe it, (God only know’s why), sure doesn’t make it even close to the truth. BONGO, you and the truth are total strangers. Typical midless liberal name calling and rant.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:18 am
27. TMX
you make a good point. I think a better title would have been something like “Top Ten Hypocrites” . Why make this selection? Now we definately need another one to balance the universe.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:18 am
27. TMX
you make a good point. I think a better title would have been something like “Top Ten Hypocrites” . Why make this selection? Now we definately need another one to balance the universe.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:19 am
“Yet she married David Bale in 2000, preferring to enter into an institution she said made women “a semi-nonperson”. Sadly, Mr. Bale died three years later.”
I wonder what she was doing to him.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:19 am
“Yet she married David Bale in 2000, preferring to enter into an institution she said made women “a semi-nonperson”. Sadly, Mr. Bale died three years later.”
I wonder what she was doing to him.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:25 am
This list actually puts a spin on the “facts” to make several points. It’s interesting to read but for entertainment purposes only. BTW you don’t sound like yourself today JF. Something must have pissed you off recently.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:25 am
This list actually puts a spin on the “facts” to make several points. It’s interesting to read but for entertainment purposes only. BTW you don’t sound like yourself today JF. Something must have pissed you off recently.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:26 am
There’s nothing wrong with this list per se, but surely you could have held off until someone had written a “conservative hypocrisy” list and published it afterwards? The same way you published the Bush/Clinton and religious/atheist quotes concurrently?
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:26 am
There’s nothing wrong with this list per se, but surely you could have held off until someone had written a “conservative hypocrisy” list and published it afterwards? The same way you published the Bush/Clinton and religious/atheist quotes concurrently?
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:39 am
Up yours al gore, UP YOURS. I hate the guy and I still think he would have better than bush.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:39 am
Up yours al gore, UP YOURS. I hate the guy and I still think he would have better than bush.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:40 am
looked more like a list of truly unattractive photos. when did Al Gore start looking like William Shatner? and all Rosie pics should come with a warning….NSFYE> (not safe for your eyes)
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:40 am
looked more like a list of truly unattractive photos. when did Al Gore start looking like William Shatner? and all Rosie pics should come with a warning….NSFYE> (not safe for your eyes)
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:52 am
glad you published the list….some people need to open their eyes
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:52 am
glad you published the list….some people need to open their eyes
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:05 am
You need more truthfull data about the Labor Uniuon shit.
In fact, all of them need to be verified with proper data, or you guys are just shit stirrers. No better than FOX. Pssssssss.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:05 am
You need more truthfull data about the Labor Uniuon shit.
In fact, all of them need to be verified with proper data, or you guys are just shit stirrers. No better than FOX. Pssssssss.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:10 am
Good list. I think that everyone acts like a hypocrite at some points of their lives. It’s part of our pyschology. It’s easy to spout an ideological belief. But when we are directly affected by it, we tend to rationalize our behavior. These people are just in the spotlight, so we’re all privy to their hypocrisy.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:10 am
Good list. I think that everyone acts like a hypocrite at some points of their lives. It’s part of our pyschology. It’s easy to spout an ideological belief. But when we are directly affected by it, we tend to rationalize our behavior. These people are just in the spotlight, so we’re all privy to their hypocrisy.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:24 am
The couple that do the California Coastal Records Project came under flak (figuratively) for shooting the photos from a helicopter. Critics said that helicopters are one of the worst transportation polluters. The California Coastal Records Project replied that they use a modern helicopter that get 13 MPG much like a modern day SUV. http://www.californiacoastline.org/concerns.html
I don’t know how bad the noise pollution is from a helicopter. I’m sure there is an environmental impact from flying a helicopter up and down the coast and taking pictures.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:24 am
The couple that do the California Coastal Records Project came under flak (figuratively) for shooting the photos from a helicopter. Critics said that helicopters are one of the worst transportation polluters. The California Coastal Records Project replied that they use a modern helicopter that get 13 MPG much like a modern day SUV. http://www.californiacoastline.org/concerns.html
I don’t know how bad the noise pollution is from a helicopter. I’m sure there is an environmental impact from flying a helicopter up and down the coast and taking pictures.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:39 am
I’m a liberal and I do not take things that seriously, but you probably should’ve waited until there was a conservative list of hypocrisy and posted them both. I’m sure there will be some bitter people.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:39 am
I’m a liberal and I do not take things that seriously, but you probably should’ve waited until there was a conservative list of hypocrisy and posted them both. I’m sure there will be some bitter people.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:51 am
jfrater (#29)”But back to this list – the items listed here are facts – and they are hypocritical. You shouldn’t be averse to people knowing that. By protesting so strongly against this list being published it makes it look like you have so little confidence in your own views that you think it safer for the alternative to be blocked. It is not particularly liberal to wish to see any view (even if it opposing) blocked. I thought liberals were against censorship.”
Thank You!!!
People amaze me. Double Standards abound in society, shoot even in marriage. (but that’s a totally different issue) It’s extremely immature to point out someone’s wrongs while working so hard to cover up your own very same actions. Truth be told that I am a conservative thinker, but I also acknowledge that there are hypocrites on the “right” side of the line as well. Sadly Hypocrisy is a fact of life.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:51 am
jfrater (#29)”But back to this list – the items listed here are facts – and they are hypocritical. You shouldn’t be averse to people knowing that. By protesting so strongly against this list being published it makes it look like you have so little confidence in your own views that you think it safer for the alternative to be blocked. It is not particularly liberal to wish to see any view (even if it opposing) blocked. I thought liberals were against censorship.”
Thank You!!!
People amaze me. Double Standards abound in society, shoot even in marriage. (but that’s a totally different issue) It’s extremely immature to point out someone’s wrongs while working so hard to cover up your own very same actions. Truth be told that I am a conservative thinker, but I also acknowledge that there are hypocrites on the “right” side of the line as well. Sadly Hypocrisy is a fact of life.
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:02 am
Very informativeee : )
While its very true we can make amazing medical advances at the sake of other animals, I’m all for their rights, being treated ethically when subject, and only used for scientific research (not cosmetics, diet pills, bs like that). PETA is composed of a bunch of idiots. They remind me of the loud annoying kid in high school classes that never shut up and was wrong, misinformed, or completely missed the whole point on everything.
I wonder how much money they spend paying the likes of Audrina Patridge to flit around in a bikini (rejected Superbowl ad anyone?) as opposed to getting their hands dirty like many animal rescue shelters that nurse Woodland Creatures (lol!) back to health do.
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:02 am
Very informativeee : )
While its very true we can make amazing medical advances at the sake of other animals, I’m all for their rights, being treated ethically when subject, and only used for scientific research (not cosmetics, diet pills, bs like that). PETA is composed of a bunch of idiots. They remind me of the loud annoying kid in high school classes that never shut up and was wrong, misinformed, or completely missed the whole point on everything.
I wonder how much money they spend paying the likes of Audrina Patridge to flit around in a bikini (rejected Superbowl ad anyone?) as opposed to getting their hands dirty like many animal rescue shelters that nurse Woodland Creatures (lol!) back to health do.
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:32 am
Oh my god! Shitty people in the political arena? Big shock! Do a list on conservatives too! There will be no shortage of hypocrisy there either. Don’t just be a Fox News stooge.
And don’t forget how terribly companies like Walmart treat non-union workers, while claiming to care about their worker’s rights.
There’s a good point to counter your “Number 1″! One union acts like shit, so all US unions get thrown under the bus? ONE union hired people to do their picketing for them, and your title for that spot is “US Labor Unions.” Not “Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters,” who actually did it, but magically (or more likely, because you’re an asshole) ALL labor unions use this hypocritical practice now? No, you see labor unions are needed parts of this world, and Ayn Rand goons like you will use any excuse to discredit all of them, even when the vast majority of them have done nothing wrong.
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:32 am
Oh my god! Shitty people in the political arena? Big shock! Do a list on conservatives too! There will be no shortage of hypocrisy there either. Don’t just be a Fox News stooge.
And don’t forget how terribly companies like Walmart treat non-union workers, while claiming to care about their worker’s rights.
There’s a good point to counter your “Number 1″! One union acts like shit, so all US unions get thrown under the bus? ONE union hired people to do their picketing for them, and your title for that spot is “US Labor Unions.” Not “Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters,” who actually did it, but magically (or more likely, because you’re an asshole) ALL labor unions use this hypocritical practice now? No, you see labor unions are needed parts of this world, and Ayn Rand goons like you will use any excuse to discredit all of them, even when the vast majority of them have done nothing wrong.
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:42 am
Don’t forget the ultimate liberal i.e. leftist hypocrisy as quoted from “Animal Farm”. “All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others.”
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:42 am
Don’t forget the ultimate liberal i.e. leftist hypocrisy as quoted from “Animal Farm”. “All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others.”
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:00 am
so now we’re all communists? way to go
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:00 am
so now we’re all communists? way to go
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:01 am
jfrater You have me a little confused. First you posted this :”jane (sic) Fonda didn’t make this list as we are saving her for top 10 evil traitorous bitches,” but then you chastise BongoShaftsbury for this; “You know it’s kind of discouraging. I submitted a list that was actually well written and interesting. Does Jamie publish it? No! He’s got this piece of crap up though.
“Oh look! There’s a CitiBank ad on this page, paid for with my tax dollars.”?
jfrater , this was your response; “Bongo – those are the types of comments I hoped we were smart enough to refrain from. Please do so. You do yourself a disservice talking like that.” Ironic that your comment seems hypocritical on a list like this! (I honestly don’t mean to offend you here, but I feel like I may be misunderstanding your Janbe Fonda comment and why you found Bongo’s comment so offensive.)
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:01 am
jfrater You have me a little confused. First you posted this :”jane (sic) Fonda didn’t make this list as we are saving her for top 10 evil traitorous bitches,” but then you chastise BongoShaftsbury for this; “You know it’s kind of discouraging. I submitted a list that was actually well written and interesting. Does Jamie publish it? No! He’s got this piece of crap up though.
“Oh look! There’s a CitiBank ad on this page, paid for with my tax dollars.”?
jfrater , this was your response; “Bongo – those are the types of comments I hoped we were smart enough to refrain from. Please do so. You do yourself a disservice talking like that.” Ironic that your comment seems hypocritical on a list like this! (I honestly don’t mean to offend you here, but I feel like I may be misunderstanding your Janbe Fonda comment and why you found Bongo’s comment so offensive.)
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:02 am
Great list! Funny how some of these people are hypocrites, though more I’m still reserving judgement on some of them as there are still unstated details of what they actually did.
Anyway, its funny how Americans are all liberals from the eyes of the world, and yet Americans see themselves as conservative or liberal. And its also funny how the guy(or girl) at 52 said something about the ‘ultimate liberal leftist’ quote from Animal farm because that quote was supposed to be for extreme communism. Extreme liberalism is not about equality, but more about individualism… i’m somewhat concerned people have their ideologies mixed up. There seems to be a lot of public misinterpretation of ideologies… most notably in the US.
And its not an ultimate liberal hypocrisy… because the lesson of Animal Farm is what happens when something is taken to the extreme, be that left, right, liberal, communist, conservative, etc.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:02 am
Great list! Funny how some of these people are hypocrites, though more I’m still reserving judgement on some of them as there are still unstated details of what they actually did.
Anyway, its funny how Americans are all liberals from the eyes of the world, and yet Americans see themselves as conservative or liberal. And its also funny how the guy(or girl) at 52 said something about the ‘ultimate liberal leftist’ quote from Animal farm because that quote was supposed to be for extreme communism. Extreme liberalism is not about equality, but more about individualism… i’m somewhat concerned people have their ideologies mixed up. There seems to be a lot of public misinterpretation of ideologies… most notably in the US.
And its not an ultimate liberal hypocrisy… because the lesson of Animal Farm is what happens when something is taken to the extreme, be that left, right, liberal, communist, conservative, etc.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:06 am
Suggestion for the right wing version. Conservative party leader David Cameron promoting the benefits of cycling to work when it turns out he had a chauffer bring his shoes in a car following behind him…
He would later have his bike stolen but then returned lol.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:06 am
Suggestion for the right wing version. Conservative party leader David Cameron promoting the benefits of cycling to work when it turns out he had a chauffer bring his shoes in a car following behind him…
He would later have his bike stolen but then returned lol.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:06 am
I love this! I am so tired of the “holier than thou attitude” – thanks so much for publishing!!!!
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:06 am
I love this! I am so tired of the “holier than thou attitude” – thanks so much for publishing!!!!
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:07 am
i think that people will be upset by this list because conservatives are so easily pointed out to be hypocrites because it is essentially impossible to live up to the standards they post, humans are imperfect, when all of the sudden the finger pointers (ie left wingers) have the finger pointed back at them it is not something the are used to so they lash out defensivley like Bongo. this list simply proves that no matter what view point one may have it just boils down to we are human and imperfect beings. being a conservative myself i can be the first to admit that i am often a hypocrite, why liberals can’t say they same thing when they look in the mirror just makes the point of this list stronger
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:07 am
i think that people will be upset by this list because conservatives are so easily pointed out to be hypocrites because it is essentially impossible to live up to the standards they post, humans are imperfect, when all of the sudden the finger pointers (ie left wingers) have the finger pointed back at them it is not something the are used to so they lash out defensivley like Bongo. this list simply proves that no matter what view point one may have it just boils down to we are human and imperfect beings. being a conservative myself i can be the first to admit that i am often a hypocrite, why liberals can’t say they same thing when they look in the mirror just makes the point of this list stronger
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:10 am
We’re seeing a liberal list here because 10 is about the right number, give or take a few.
If this were a conservative list, the author would have to spend years narrowing it down.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:10 am
We’re seeing a liberal list here because 10 is about the right number, give or take a few.
If this were a conservative list, the author would have to spend years narrowing it down.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:11 am
silly liberals.
Good list Jay K. I look forward to reading the conservative hypocricies.
and did Rosie really say that? “You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.”…what an idiot.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:11 am
silly liberals.
Good list Jay K. I look forward to reading the conservative hypocricies.
and did Rosie really say that? “You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.”…what an idiot.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:13 am
Why stop at liberal/conservative?
Communist hypocrisy (a fun north korea list)
Fascist hypocrisy (like shooting fish in a barrel)
Libertarian hypocrisy
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:13 am
Why stop at liberal/conservative?
Communist hypocrisy (a fun north korea list)
Fascist hypocrisy (like shooting fish in a barrel)
Libertarian hypocrisy
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:15 am
Great list JayK – keep up the good work!
For a list created “by and for stupid people”, you sure are itching to get your “interesting and well-written” list published ‘Bongo’.
Hmmm… there’s a word for that.. let’s see..
Oh! I know!
HYPOCRISY! Hahahahahaha!
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:15 am
Great list JayK – keep up the good work!
For a list created “by and for stupid people”, you sure are itching to get your “interesting and well-written” list published ‘Bongo’.
Hmmm… there’s a word for that.. let’s see..
Oh! I know!
HYPOCRISY! Hahahahahaha!
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:23 am
Hey…Greenwich, CT…Thats where I live, and Rosie O’Donnell definitely needs an armed bodyguard in this town, it’s a very dangerous place to live.
(not really)
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:23 am
Hey…Greenwich, CT…Thats where I live, and Rosie O’Donnell definitely needs an armed bodyguard in this town, it’s a very dangerous place to live.
(not really)
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:33 am
Here is a Snopes link the goes nicely with # 10
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:33 am
Here is a Snopes link the goes nicely with # 10
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:41 am
gret list. I knew about the Unions using non-union members to picket. It upsets me because it makes it more difficult when I am defending Union labor. As I am a true moderate, I look forward to a follow up list on conservatives.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:41 am
gret list. I knew about the Unions using non-union members to picket. It upsets me because it makes it more difficult when I am defending Union labor. As I am a true moderate, I look forward to a follow up list on conservatives.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:42 am
Down with conservatives. Now see, 2 years ago, i’d be waiting around for the ATF or FBI after saying that. Woot for liberals!
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:42 am
Down with conservatives. Now see, 2 years ago, i’d be waiting around for the ATF or FBI after saying that. Woot for liberals!
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:44 am
Liberal thinking
Do as I say not as I do
Ignorance is an excuse
Let’s use a lot of money to fix the problem
just not my money.
Ignorant people, they disgust me
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:44 am
Liberal thinking
Do as I say not as I do
Ignorance is an excuse
Let’s use a lot of money to fix the problem
just not my money.
Ignorant people, they disgust me
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:52 am
Jay K–I have to say this is the best list I’ve seen since I became a member of this site–There is not one thing on there that is not factual–Well done.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:52 am
Jay K–I have to say this is the best list I’ve seen since I became a member of this site–There is not one thing on there that is not factual–Well done.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:53 am
You could simply add PETA as an organization. They have freezers at their home office to store the bodies of all the animals the kill yearly
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petasdirtysecret.cfm
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:53 am
You could simply add PETA as an organization. They have freezers at their home office to store the bodies of all the animals the kill yearly
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petasdirtysecret.cfm
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:56 am
Do you know why Mr. Bale died?…He wanted to.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:56 am
Do you know why Mr. Bale died?…He wanted to.
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:00 am
Not a surprise in the bunch. I doubt there’ll be a surprise in the conservative list either. They are both just too obvious and predictable.
ho hum
BongoShaftsbury: Why did you have to change from YogiBarrister?
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:00 am
Not a surprise in the bunch. I doubt there’ll be a surprise in the conservative list either. They are both just too obvious and predictable.
ho hum
BongoShaftsbury: Why did you have to change from YogiBarrister?
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:09 am
I’m a liberal and I agree with pretty much all of these. Several of the examples, like Streisand, Steinem, and O’Donnell, are unfortunate representatives of my political beliefs. They’re the kind of people that make liberals and liberalism look bad. Liberal shouldn’t be a bad word. I’m proud to be a liberal and plenty of people that I know would say the same. But for the past 20 years, “liberal” is on par with a swear word and it’s pretty much because of people like these kooks.
Interesting, though, that jfrater says that if somebody comes up with a “conservative hypocrisy” list that he’ll “consider” it. Shouldn’t it be a no-brainer that if you put up a “look at these idiotic liberals” kind of list, you should have plans for putting a similar one up about conservatives? What’s with this “I’ll consider it” stuff?
Good list, though. I figured this would enrage me, but it’s pretty much all true, so how can I argue? lol
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:09 am
I’m a liberal and I agree with pretty much all of these. Several of the examples, like Streisand, Steinem, and O’Donnell, are unfortunate representatives of my political beliefs. They’re the kind of people that make liberals and liberalism look bad. Liberal shouldn’t be a bad word. I’m proud to be a liberal and plenty of people that I know would say the same. But for the past 20 years, “liberal” is on par with a swear word and it’s pretty much because of people like these kooks.
Interesting, though, that jfrater says that if somebody comes up with a “conservative hypocrisy” list that he’ll “consider” it. Shouldn’t it be a no-brainer that if you put up a “look at these idiotic liberals” kind of list, you should have plans for putting a similar one up about conservatives? What’s with this “I’ll consider it” stuff?
Good list, though. I figured this would enrage me, but it’s pretty much all true, so how can I argue? lol
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:10 am
yaayyy… praise that, LV! human inefficiency sugarcoats the pointing slingerfinger – - yawnydawny, we’re alive, it’s fun list time!!
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:10 am
yaayyy… praise that, LV! human inefficiency sugarcoats the pointing slingerfinger – - yawnydawny, we’re alive, it’s fun list time!!
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 am
The part about Michael Moore doing his post-production in Canada because he doesn’t have to use union workers is plain false. I work in the Canadian film industry and we DO have unions, just like in the states. Actors have their union, crew has their union, directors and writers have their union. Maybe the pay scale is lower than the US, but most likely the reason he came to Canada, like almost all other American productions who come here, is for the tax incentives that the local government gives to film productions that choose to do their work here. They save money by not having to pay taxes, or at least not as much as they would in the US. Michael Moore, and any other American film production that comes to Canada uses the local union workers. Might want to update that one jfrater
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 am
The part about Michael Moore doing his post-production in Canada because he doesn’t have to use union workers is plain false. I work in the Canadian film industry and we DO have unions, just like in the states. Actors have their union, crew has their union, directors and writers have their union. Maybe the pay scale is lower than the US, but most likely the reason he came to Canada, like almost all other American productions who come here, is for the tax incentives that the local government gives to film productions that choose to do their work here. They save money by not having to pay taxes, or at least not as much as they would in the US. Michael Moore, and any other American film production that comes to Canada uses the local union workers. Might want to update that one jfrater
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:27 am
I like how this site was instantly filled with “Conservatives don’t need lists, it’s practically all public anyway” sort of comments.
Can’t we all just be civil and except that every party has its faults? Just because there are few liberals out there with commitment problems, doesn’t mean that all of them are irresponsible. Let’s just laugh and enjoy their stupidity without making an issue out of it.
Some people can’t take criticism without throwing a glance and a few words at the opposition, and that’s really starting to bug me.
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:27 am
I like how this site was instantly filled with “Conservatives don’t need lists, it’s practically all public anyway” sort of comments.
Can’t we all just be civil and except that every party has its faults? Just because there are few liberals out there with commitment problems, doesn’t mean that all of them are irresponsible. Let’s just laugh and enjoy their stupidity without making an issue out of it.
Some people can’t take criticism without throwing a glance and a few words at the opposition, and that’s really starting to bug me.
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:36 am
I love to see hypocrites of any ink called out, but is someone who changes their mind about a lifestyle choice really a hypocrite i.e. Gloria Steinem? Certainly she was vocal and ruffled a lot of feathers, but it’s not like she tried to abolish the institution of marriage. And she herself wasn’t married when she made those statements – that would have been hypocritical. Not allowing for views to evolve is really detrimental to any source of social discourse.
Also, I would have put Gore MUCH higher on the list.
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:36 am
I love to see hypocrites of any ink called out, but is someone who changes their mind about a lifestyle choice really a hypocrite i.e. Gloria Steinem? Certainly she was vocal and ruffled a lot of feathers, but it’s not like she tried to abolish the institution of marriage. And she herself wasn’t married when she made those statements – that would have been hypocritical. Not allowing for views to evolve is really detrimental to any source of social discourse.
Also, I would have put Gore MUCH higher on the list.
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:43 am
Can’t we all just be civil and except that every party has its faults? —You’re living in a dream world,KID—Yes,there’s plenty of stupidity to go around but it’s not anything to laugh about–
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:43 am
Can’t we all just be civil and except that every party has its faults? —You’re living in a dream world,KID—Yes,there’s plenty of stupidity to go around but it’s not anything to laugh about–
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:44 am
Absolutely the best LIST ever!!!!
As to Al Gore using more and paying more, does the rich man really have a right to use a greater share just because he can pay for it?
I’m not for the government spreading the wealth around as Obama seems to want, but Gore should be ashamed!
Then again, it’s nothing new.
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:44 am
Absolutely the best LIST ever!!!!
As to Al Gore using more and paying more, does the rich man really have a right to use a greater share just because he can pay for it?
I’m not for the government spreading the wealth around as Obama seems to want, but Gore should be ashamed!
Then again, it’s nothing new.
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:47 am
Oh boy oh boy! I can’t wait for the “1,000 cases of conservative hypocrisy” list!
/political zing!
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:47 am
Oh boy oh boy! I can’t wait for the “1,000 cases of conservative hypocrisy” list!
/political zing!
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Glad to see Al Gore, Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand on here. She pissed me off more than the others. By the way, this list could easily be top 25…with the last 10 being televangelists. The Bakers would be number 1!
Great list!
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Glad to see Al Gore, Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand on here. She pissed me off more than the others. By the way, this list could easily be top 25…with the last 10 being televangelists. The Bakers would be number 1!
Great list!
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:11 am
#14 Holy sh!t Jamie! I’m American and don’t feel that level of resentment towards Jane Fonda. But you are right, she was a traitorous bitch.
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:11 am
#14 Holy sh!t Jamie! I’m American and don’t feel that level of resentment towards Jane Fonda. But you are right, she was a traitorous bitch.
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:16 am
Also looking forward to Part II – the Conservative Hypocrites. We are all in the same soup …
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:16 am
Also looking forward to Part II – the Conservative Hypocrites. We are all in the same soup …
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:17 am
Does any body remember when the dave matthews band spilled 800 pounds of crap over a bridge which fell on top of senior citizens and handicapped people?
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:17 am
Does any body remember when the dave matthews band spilled 800 pounds of crap over a bridge which fell on top of senior citizens and handicapped people?
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:20 am
Fantastic list, Jay K! Great work! You are now my best friend, and most awe-inspiring hero!
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:20 am
Fantastic list, Jay K! Great work! You are now my best friend, and most awe-inspiring hero!
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:23 am
Ducky #49, Jamie’s comment was nonsense. I don’t want to censor anybody. I love it when rightwingers make fools of themselves. How did you make the leap from me calling this list a piece of crap to me wanting to censor opposing view. I may ask my congresswoman about those CitiBank ads though. Last week a List written by JF himself, took a cheap shot at Al Gore, so now I’m thinking this is becoming a political website, one that espouses views I disagree with. If a person were to read only this list and what JF wrote about Al Gore, they would end up dumber than when they started.
Let me call Jamie a hypocrite in a manner that won’t offend. He lives in arguably the most beautiful country in the world. Because of its liberlism, New Zealanders are thriving. They are better educated than Americans, healthier, and probably wealthier as well. I want Americans to benefit from the same system of government. Ours is completely broken. So we now know that communism doesn’t work, nor does corporatism. European style socialism seems to be the way to go.
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:23 am
Ducky #49, Jamie’s comment was nonsense. I don’t want to censor anybody. I love it when rightwingers make fools of themselves. How did you make the leap from me calling this list a piece of crap to me wanting to censor opposing view. I may ask my congresswoman about those CitiBank ads though. Last week a List written by JF himself, took a cheap shot at Al Gore, so now I’m thinking this is becoming a political website, one that espouses views I disagree with. If a person were to read only this list and what JF wrote about Al Gore, they would end up dumber than when they started.
Let me call Jamie a hypocrite in a manner that won’t offend. He lives in arguably the most beautiful country in the world. Because of its liberlism, New Zealanders are thriving. They are better educated than Americans, healthier, and probably wealthier as well. I want Americans to benefit from the same system of government. Ours is completely broken. So we now know that communism doesn’t work, nor does corporatism. European style socialism seems to be the way to go.
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:31 am
I think this is a great list – and I’m a liberal. In fact a confirmed communist to some of the more conservative members of our ListVerse family.
I think the Gloria Steinem example is lame; when I was young I didn’t plan on getting married ’til I was 30 if at all. Also planned on having the big career, one kid maybe. I grew up and life changed my plan and views… that’s not hypocrisy it’s just growing up – also by the time she did get married the institution had changed.
Anyone who buys and drives a Prius or any of the hybrid cars that use batteries made in Asia is a hypocrite. The manufacture of them uses tons of energy from the get-go (not to mention the toxic by-products of their manufacture) and then they’re flown (using more energy) to the USA. Sorry but any minuscule saving in day to day operation of the vehicle is moot. You’ve already blown your carbon foot-print just buying the damn thing.
Jamie this line is factually incorrect (pointed out quite handily by Jadefist) and needs to be removed -
“He also expresses an affinity for Union labor, but does his post production work in Canada – where he doesn’t have to pay union wages.” We have unions too – most of which have too much power in my humble opinion….pretty conservative comment for a communist eh?
Can’t wait for the Conservative hypocrisy list!
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:31 am
I think this is a great list – and I’m a liberal. In fact a confirmed communist to some of the more conservative members of our ListVerse family.
I think the Gloria Steinem example is lame; when I was young I didn’t plan on getting married ’til I was 30 if at all. Also planned on having the big career, one kid maybe. I grew up and life changed my plan and views… that’s not hypocrisy it’s just growing up – also by the time she did get married the institution had changed.
Anyone who buys and drives a Prius or any of the hybrid cars that use batteries made in Asia is a hypocrite. The manufacture of them uses tons of energy from the get-go (not to mention the toxic by-products of their manufacture) and then they’re flown (using more energy) to the USA. Sorry but any minuscule saving in day to day operation of the vehicle is moot. You’ve already blown your carbon foot-print just buying the damn thing.
Jamie this line is factually incorrect (pointed out quite handily by Jadefist) and needs to be removed -
“He also expresses an affinity for Union labor, but does his post production work in Canada – where he doesn’t have to pay union wages.” We have unions too – most of which have too much power in my humble opinion….pretty conservative comment for a communist eh?
Can’t wait for the Conservative hypocrisy list!
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:33 am
It’s interesting that when liberals do something a rightwinger would do, they are hypocrites. When rightwingers do something a liberal would do, they are compassionate conservatives. Reflect on that a moment if you will, it tells you everything you need to know.
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:33 am
It’s interesting that when liberals do something a rightwinger would do, they are hypocrites. When rightwingers do something a liberal would do, they are compassionate conservatives. Reflect on that a moment if you will, it tells you everything you need to know.
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 am
Try doing a conservative hypocrisy list – but then that would be redundant, huh.
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 am
Try doing a conservative hypocrisy list – but then that would be redundant, huh.
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:51 am
Jstar- lol I read the intro
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:51 am
Jstar- lol I read the intro
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:04 am
Great List. Still like Ted Kennedy though.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:04 am
Great List. Still like Ted Kennedy though.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:13 am
jesse jackson went to my school…twice within a year
two hours of my life that i’ll never get back.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:13 am
jesse jackson went to my school…twice within a year
two hours of my life that i’ll never get back.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:25 am
As a life long, bleeding heart liberal, I am glad to see this list. I feel that all of these people that talk the talk, but do not walk the walk, whether Liberal or Conservative or Independent, ought to have their feet held to the fire. And just for the record, Rosie O’Donnell is such a loser, that I put her in a special, loud mouth class all by herself. Nobody claims her.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:25 am
As a life long, bleeding heart liberal, I am glad to see this list. I feel that all of these people that talk the talk, but do not walk the walk, whether Liberal or Conservative or Independent, ought to have their feet held to the fire. And just for the record, Rosie O’Donnell is such a loser, that I put her in a special, loud mouth class all by herself. Nobody claims her.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:26 am
This list made me feel really happy after having a really craptastic week. I am a conservative and I am sick and tired of the left trashing us while glossing over their liberal comrades.
I am so happy to see Nacy Pelosi on that list. I can’t stand that bitch and she makes me ashamed to be from the not so golden state of California.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:26 am
This list made me feel really happy after having a really craptastic week. I am a conservative and I am sick and tired of the left trashing us while glossing over their liberal comrades.
I am so happy to see Nacy Pelosi on that list. I can’t stand that bitch and she makes me ashamed to be from the not so golden state of California.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:26 am
Bongo: Yes NZ is beautiful – but we just threw out the socialist government. After 9 years of being in power, the government burocracy became overblown to an unheard of level. Milk is more expensive than petrol (in a dairy nation), there are more poor than ever, more people are dying in public hospitals every year than ever before, and one of the previous ministers of the liberal government is in court for corruption. In their last budget, knowing they would likely lose, they had a massive blowout and even publicly stated that the opposition would have a hard time governing after that.
They gave tax cuts and now they are out of government are protesting the new government’s tax cuts (hypocrisy?).
So – yes – it is a beautiful country – but don’t let that stop you seeing the failings that exist here too (as they do everywhere) – every nation has imperfections. But NZ is probably the worst example you can come up with in support of socialism.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:26 am
Bongo: Yes NZ is beautiful – but we just threw out the socialist government. After 9 years of being in power, the government burocracy became overblown to an unheard of level. Milk is more expensive than petrol (in a dairy nation), there are more poor than ever, more people are dying in public hospitals every year than ever before, and one of the previous ministers of the liberal government is in court for corruption. In their last budget, knowing they would likely lose, they had a massive blowout and even publicly stated that the opposition would have a hard time governing after that.
They gave tax cuts and now they are out of government are protesting the new government’s tax cuts (hypocrisy?).
So – yes – it is a beautiful country – but don’t let that stop you seeing the failings that exist here too (as they do everywhere) – every nation has imperfections. But NZ is probably the worst example you can come up with in support of socialism.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
I hate Michael Moore, and I am fairly liberal myself. I especially hated him jumping all over Charlton Heston and practically blamed him for the Columbine killings. That kind of garbage doesn’t help anyone but him.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
I hate Michael Moore, and I am fairly liberal myself. I especially hated him jumping all over Charlton Heston and practically blamed him for the Columbine killings. That kind of garbage doesn’t help anyone but him.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
Oh – and sorry if I sounded annoyed earlier – I definitely wasn’t. I guess sometimes even I can come across badly online – thankfully it is rare
(my humility astounds even me!)
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
Oh – and sorry if I sounded annoyed earlier – I definitely wasn’t. I guess sometimes even I can come across badly online – thankfully it is rare
(my humility astounds even me!)
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 am
#83
well researched sir, kudos
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 am
#83
well researched sir, kudos
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:46 am
#96 OK Jamie that’s a debate I can’t possibly win. Good luck with your new government. All I can say is, wealth is measured in more ways than money.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:46 am
#96 OK Jamie that’s a debate I can’t possibly win. Good luck with your new government. All I can say is, wealth is measured in more ways than money.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:48 am
I’ve seen a couple of comments claiming that the reason Gore spends more on energy is because he’s paying more for green energy. The point of his wasteful consumption is not how much he pays for what he uses, but the amount he uses. I don’t care a bit if he pays a million dollars a year for the amount of energy he consumes, it’s the fact that his usage, measured in kilowatt hours (not dollars) is 20 times that which I, or anybody I know personally, use. He tells me to cut off my lights to conserve energy, but he can’t be bothered to use a little less? Also, the amount of energy that he reportedly uses is just data from ONE of his homes, with just Al and Tipper living in it. He has other homes, all using energy as well.
Al Gore’s hypocrisy absolutely stuns me. He tells me that I should limit my travel to reduce CO2 emmisions, all the while traveling the world in a private jet to do so. If he were truly concerned about anything more than making money, he could certainly telecommute to different climate conferences via web conference.
And there’s another thing. CO2 is not a toxic pollutant. It is a gas that we, and all other air breathing animals, exhale as a part of the natural respiratory process. You won’t die from breathing CO2 mixed in with your normal breathing air like you would with some truly toxic emmisions, such as carbon monoxide, sulfer dioxide, or chlorine gas. CO2 is also the gas that plants breathe in so they can exhale oxygen for the rest of us to breathe.
Rosie can choke on a labia. I’ve never liked that woman, not once, not ever.
Moore is a straight up liar. I’d use the term scrotal zit, but I’d be insulting nut pimples everywhere.
Steinem. I don’t really care what she does, she’s got her opinions, and she’s welcome to them.
Pelosi is quite possibly the worst thing to happen to the American people since… well, ever.
I don’t really have an opinion on Streisand, other than I can’t stand her sining.
I have never been so happy to hear that someone had cancer as I was when I heard that Ted Kennedy had a brain tumor. In this one case, I’m rooting for the tumor. Kennedy is a drunk driver and a murderer that should have spent the rest of his life in prison, rather that in public office. If he had been anyone else, he would have. To me, the fact that he even keeps being elected doesn’t speak well for the intelligence of the people who keep electing him. Fortunately for the rest of the country, cancer’s going to take care of that for us. I personally hope it hurts. A lot.
Jesse Jackson doesn’t care about racism, other than the fact that, the longer he can keep it alive, the more money he can make off of it. He’s a hater, and chooses to keep it alive for his own personal gain, and the gain of those like him. That’s his ultimate hypocrisy.
PETA, see also People Eating Tasty Animals. A mouse is NOT a pig is NOT a dog is NOT a boy. And show me in the bible where it says that Jesus was a vegetarian. No, really, show me, PETA.
Labor Unions are a big part of the reason the US auto manufacturers are going out of business. Remember, the largest part of the price of a car is health insurance. One thing the unions need to learn and remember is that it’s the factory’s jobs, not theirs. Unions had their place, but with OSHA and federal labor laws, they have outlived their usefulness.
Now that I’ve spoken my mind (and been a bit of a troll about it as well), I’m going to sit back and watch the hate roll in.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:48 am
I’ve seen a couple of comments claiming that the reason Gore spends more on energy is because he’s paying more for green energy. The point of his wasteful consumption is not how much he pays for what he uses, but the amount he uses. I don’t care a bit if he pays a million dollars a year for the amount of energy he consumes, it’s the fact that his usage, measured in kilowatt hours (not dollars) is 20 times that which I, or anybody I know personally, use. He tells me to cut off my lights to conserve energy, but he can’t be bothered to use a little less? Also, the amount of energy that he reportedly uses is just data from ONE of his homes, with just Al and Tipper living in it. He has other homes, all using energy as well.
Al Gore’s hypocrisy absolutely stuns me. He tells me that I should limit my travel to reduce CO2 emmisions, all the while traveling the world in a private jet to do so. If he were truly concerned about anything more than making money, he could certainly telecommute to different climate conferences via web conference.
And there’s another thing. CO2 is not a toxic pollutant. It is a gas that we, and all other air breathing animals, exhale as a part of the natural respiratory process. You won’t die from breathing CO2 mixed in with your normal breathing air like you would with some truly toxic emmisions, such as carbon monoxide, sulfer dioxide, or chlorine gas. CO2 is also the gas that plants breathe in so they can exhale oxygen for the rest of us to breathe.
Rosie can choke on a labia. I’ve never liked that woman, not once, not ever.
Moore is a straight up liar. I’d use the term scrotal zit, but I’d be insulting nut pimples everywhere.
Steinem. I don’t really care what she does, she’s got her opinions, and she’s welcome to them.
Pelosi is quite possibly the worst thing to happen to the American people since… well, ever.
I don’t really have an opinion on Streisand, other than I can’t stand her sining.
I have never been so happy to hear that someone had cancer as I was when I heard that Ted Kennedy had a brain tumor. In this one case, I’m rooting for the tumor. Kennedy is a drunk driver and a murderer that should have spent the rest of his life in prison, rather that in public office. If he had been anyone else, he would have. To me, the fact that he even keeps being elected doesn’t speak well for the intelligence of the people who keep electing him. Fortunately for the rest of the country, cancer’s going to take care of that for us. I personally hope it hurts. A lot.
Jesse Jackson doesn’t care about racism, other than the fact that, the longer he can keep it alive, the more money he can make off of it. He’s a hater, and chooses to keep it alive for his own personal gain, and the gain of those like him. That’s his ultimate hypocrisy.
PETA, see also People Eating Tasty Animals. A mouse is NOT a pig is NOT a dog is NOT a boy. And show me in the bible where it says that Jesus was a vegetarian. No, really, show me, PETA.
Labor Unions are a big part of the reason the US auto manufacturers are going out of business. Remember, the largest part of the price of a car is health insurance. One thing the unions need to learn and remember is that it’s the factory’s jobs, not theirs. Unions had their place, but with OSHA and federal labor laws, they have outlived their usefulness.
Now that I’ve spoken my mind (and been a bit of a troll about it as well), I’m going to sit back and watch the hate roll in.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:51 am
hahahahaha Jamie… Mr. Humility. I’ve got to remember that one.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:51 am
hahahahaha Jamie… Mr. Humility. I’ve got to remember that one.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:53 am
Mom424: I try
BongoShaftsbury: I agree – which is the reason I am back here – to enjoy the views and my family
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:53 am
Mom424: I try
BongoShaftsbury: I agree – which is the reason I am back here – to enjoy the views and my family
May 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I bet there are more conservative hypocrisies than liberal hypocrisies.
May 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I bet there are more conservative hypocrisies than liberal hypocrisies.
May 3rd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Mr. Sir: Although I agree with you that Ted Kennedy should have gone to jail for his role in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne to say that you’re glad anyone has a brain tumor says more about you than Kennedy. Personally I think that he just reverted to type; unfortunately the type that is more worried about their reputation and that of the “Family” name than anything else. In defense of Kennedy it does appear that he spent the rest of his life trying to atone for it – his voting record supports this – I checked.
May 3rd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Mr. Sir: Although I agree with you that Ted Kennedy should have gone to jail for his role in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne to say that you’re glad anyone has a brain tumor says more about you than Kennedy. Personally I think that he just reverted to type; unfortunately the type that is more worried about their reputation and that of the “Family” name than anything else. In defense of Kennedy it does appear that he spent the rest of his life trying to atone for it – his voting record supports this – I checked.
May 3rd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Great list and all true.
May 3rd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Great list and all true.
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
“103. Shi – May 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I bet there are more conservative hypocrisies than liberal hypocrisies.”
That’s not the point. Each side has their hypocrites and blacksheep, the problem with the media is that you only hear of the one side.
Next time you hear of some politician in some scandal, look for the (R) or (D) next to their names. I would you bet you a $1,000 that the nightly news programs or the major (failing) newspapers would NOT identify the Democrat, but would surely ID the Republican.
And Al Gore is probably the worst of them all. The man is worth $2million after his VP stint and is now worth $100million or so after being the world’s biggest chicken little, all the while profiting from his doom-and-gloom-cannot-tolerate-opposing-view dogma.
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
“103. Shi – May 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I bet there are more conservative hypocrisies than liberal hypocrisies.”
That’s not the point. Each side has their hypocrites and blacksheep, the problem with the media is that you only hear of the one side.
Next time you hear of some politician in some scandal, look for the (R) or (D) next to their names. I would you bet you a $1,000 that the nightly news programs or the major (failing) newspapers would NOT identify the Democrat, but would surely ID the Republican.
And Al Gore is probably the worst of them all. The man is worth $2million after his VP stint and is now worth $100million or so after being the world’s biggest chicken little, all the while profiting from his doom-and-gloom-cannot-tolerate-opposing-view dogma.
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:20 pm
#91–I don’t blame you for liking Ted Kennedy. Afterall he is a hero–Not many men would have dove back into that icy water to save that young woman’s life like he did in 69. And when he drove his wife to alcoholism,he dumped her into the streets to teach her to fend for herself–What a guy!
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:20 pm
#91–I don’t blame you for liking Ted Kennedy. Afterall he is a hero–Not many men would have dove back into that icy water to save that young woman’s life like he did in 69. And when he drove his wife to alcoholism,he dumped her into the streets to teach her to fend for herself–What a guy!
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
this is probably my favorite list from that past two weeks or so. the intro was definatly necessary so that people would not get to pissy. being an american conservative, i get a pretty mad at a lot of these people but than again, my party is guilty of hypocrisy as well.
politics is so lame
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
this is probably my favorite list from that past two weeks or so. the intro was definatly necessary so that people would not get to pissy. being an american conservative, i get a pretty mad at a lot of these people but than again, my party is guilty of hypocrisy as well.
politics is so lame
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
#84 Duke: Hey Duke! Yeah, I remember that! Gonna google it and find out what it was alll about…
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
#84 Duke: Hey Duke! Yeah, I remember that! Gonna google it and find out what it was alll about…
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
You could probably do a top 10 conservative hypocrite list from dubya`s cabinet from the last 8 years.
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
You could probably do a top 10 conservative hypocrite list from dubya`s cabinet from the last 8 years.
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I don´t know if it´s been mentioned, but this list reminded me of the song “Love me, I´m a Liberal” by Phil Ochs which offers this chestnut; “(They´re) Ten degrees to the left of centre in good times, 10 degrees to the right of centre if it affects them personally.” Somes it up really.
Strangely enough though, being an Australian where the right wing conservatives are called the Liberal party, I grew up thinking Liberals meant something entirely different.
I read somewhere that George W.´s house is more eco friendly than Gore´s. W. uses natural heating from underground thermal springs. Why you´d need that in Texas, I´m confused about however.
Nice interesting list though, and I´m a leftie!
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I don´t know if it´s been mentioned, but this list reminded me of the song “Love me, I´m a Liberal” by Phil Ochs which offers this chestnut; “(They´re) Ten degrees to the left of centre in good times, 10 degrees to the right of centre if it affects them personally.” Somes it up really.
Strangely enough though, being an Australian where the right wing conservatives are called the Liberal party, I grew up thinking Liberals meant something entirely different.
I read somewhere that George W.´s house is more eco friendly than Gore´s. W. uses natural heating from underground thermal springs. Why you´d need that in Texas, I´m confused about however.
Nice interesting list though, and I´m a leftie!
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Someone bring on the flip side!!!!
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Someone bring on the flip side!!!!
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
“In defense of Kennedy it does appear that he spent the rest of his life trying to atone for it – his voting record supports this – I checked.”
Yes, a lifetime voting the party line for the party that supports the killing of an unborn child more than makes up for killing an innocent woman in an alcohol induced crash snd then covering your own ass.
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
“In defense of Kennedy it does appear that he spent the rest of his life trying to atone for it – his voting record supports this – I checked.”
Yes, a lifetime voting the party line for the party that supports the killing of an unborn child more than makes up for killing an innocent woman in an alcohol induced crash snd then covering your own ass.
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Oh, and in case I forgot to say it before, I loved this list, and look forward to the Conservative side as well.
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Oh, and in case I forgot to say it before, I loved this list, and look forward to the Conservative side as well.
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
it is unfortunate that the current major political parties are so corrupt and yet no one is willing to directly challenge them; and honestly the only people we can blame for this is ourselves. Of course we have the option of voting for a third party, but, as long as we allow our governing bodies to be dominated by the clearly corrupt we can never hope to progress as a nation. The moment we wake up, and make use of our rights to question our respective governments, is the very same moment in which true progress will be achieved. It is in this recognition of our power, the true power, that corruption will fall in both the government and the media as they will be too busy, trying to satisfy the people, to worry about satisfying themselves.
May 3rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
it is unfortunate that the current major political parties are so corrupt and yet no one is willing to directly challenge them; and honestly the only people we can blame for this is ourselves. Of course we have the option of voting for a third party, but, as long as we allow our governing bodies to be dominated by the clearly corrupt we can never hope to progress as a nation. The moment we wake up, and make use of our rights to question our respective governments, is the very same moment in which true progress will be achieved. It is in this recognition of our power, the true power, that corruption will fall in both the government and the media as they will be too busy, trying to satisfy the people, to worry about satisfying themselves.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I like the list, but think Gloria Steinem is a bad addition. She has explained her position on marriage changed because women’s rights and equality in our society changed. Marriage that she was against was the oppressive version that was common in the 1950s. Women got married, had children, and lost their identities. When she got married in 2000, marriage had become a much different institution. She even said that she decided since she had fought so hard to make marriage equal, why not partake in what she had helped accomplish.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I like the list, but think Gloria Steinem is a bad addition. She has explained her position on marriage changed because women’s rights and equality in our society changed. Marriage that she was against was the oppressive version that was common in the 1950s. Women got married, had children, and lost their identities. When she got married in 2000, marriage had become a much different institution. She even said that she decided since she had fought so hard to make marriage equal, why not partake in what she had helped accomplish.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
116 locke- well said sir
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
116 locke- well said sir
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
There aren’t nearly as many liberals as there seem to be. The true position is a miserable one, consisting mostly of suffering for one reason or another, not just for your own sake but for the sake of the random people around you, and always losing because you are not willing to fight back. Who wants to do that?
The people on this list are liberals in the political sense. Anything in the political sense is worth next to nothing.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
There aren’t nearly as many liberals as there seem to be. The true position is a miserable one, consisting mostly of suffering for one reason or another, not just for your own sake but for the sake of the random people around you, and always losing because you are not willing to fight back. Who wants to do that?
The people on this list are liberals in the political sense. Anything in the political sense is worth next to nothing.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Oh my God, how far did you have to dig for this lol!
This is real deep stuff (*cough, cough*). Here’s the problem, everyone is human and will be hypocritical from time to time. Like Phil Ochs said, ten degrees to the left of center in good times and 10 degrees to the right of center when it affects them personally.
The point you miss is, the right wing is in favor of stuff that is far worse than any Liberal’s hypocritical behavior.
A hypocritical Conservative might be acting rationally. It’s the non-hypocritical ones that scare me.
Here’s my Conservative’s list. It’s short,there’s one item on. There doesn’t need to be any more.
CONSERVATIVE HYPOCRICY
#1 – Wanting to scuttle fundamental American principles such as equal protection under the law and the separation of Church and State while calling themselves patriots.
I’d much rather have hypocritical Liberals running the country than honest Conservatives.
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Oh my God, how far did you have to dig for this lol!
This is real deep stuff (*cough, cough*). Here’s the problem, everyone is human and will be hypocritical from time to time. Like Phil Ochs said, ten degrees to the left of center in good times and 10 degrees to the right of center when it affects them personally.
The point you miss is, the right wing is in favor of stuff that is far worse than any Liberal’s hypocritical behavior.
A hypocritical Conservative might be acting rationally. It’s the non-hypocritical ones that scare me.
Here’s my Conservative’s list. It’s short,there’s one item on. There doesn’t need to be any more.
CONSERVATIVE HYPOCRICY
#1 – Wanting to scuttle fundamental American principles such as equal protection under the law and the separation of Church and State while calling themselves patriots.
I’d much rather have hypocritical Liberals running the country than honest Conservatives.
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
When people (as in Mistersir’s comments #100) attack Unions, they blame the workers for things like the failing auto industry. But if you look at how much CEO’s compensation in comparison to the average worker’s has increased disproportionally, you might come to see why Unions are needed. In 1965 CEO’s were compensated an average of 24 times the average workers compensation. In 2005 CEO’s were compensated an average of 262 times the average workers compensation. It’s strange to me that Union critics even mention health care benefits – as if that’s too much to ask for. God forbid people are able to earn health insurance as part of their compensation. Or even earn a living wage so that they can afford it themselves. That seems like one of the basic human needs, right up there with housing, food, and education.
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
When people (as in Mistersir’s comments #100) attack Unions, they blame the workers for things like the failing auto industry. But if you look at how much CEO’s compensation in comparison to the average worker’s has increased disproportionally, you might come to see why Unions are needed. In 1965 CEO’s were compensated an average of 24 times the average workers compensation. In 2005 CEO’s were compensated an average of 262 times the average workers compensation. It’s strange to me that Union critics even mention health care benefits – as if that’s too much to ask for. God forbid people are able to earn health insurance as part of their compensation. Or even earn a living wage so that they can afford it themselves. That seems like one of the basic human needs, right up there with housing, food, and education.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Great list! Can’t wait for the conservative sequel!
I think this just shows that anyone can be a hypocrite. People may start with great intentions, but we need to continually monitor ourselves or we fall into the trap of becoming that which we vowed to fight.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Great list! Can’t wait for the conservative sequel!
I think this just shows that anyone can be a hypocrite. People may start with great intentions, but we need to continually monitor ourselves or we fall into the trap of becoming that which we vowed to fight.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:01 pm
JFrater I take back every nasty thing I said about you. It takes tremendous balls to post this – I could add a few more. Of course this will not sit well in the Obamanation where the Teleprompter can do no wrong. How about the hypocrisy of the Obama cabinet of which it seems they believe they do not have to pay taxes -including THE TREASURY SEC – while their boss and others proclaim it is our “patriotic (teehee) duty” to pay taxes. Or how about President Prompter and ex President BJ Clinton citing how they WANT to pay more taxes. While each takes as many deductions on their returns as they possibly can – Clinton even claimed his stained underwear.
Alencon – show me where in the Constitution the words “separation of church and state” exist. They do not. RECOGNITION of a national religion does. More liberal twisting of our rights.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:01 pm
JFrater I take back every nasty thing I said about you. It takes tremendous balls to post this – I could add a few more. Of course this will not sit well in the Obamanation where the Teleprompter can do no wrong. How about the hypocrisy of the Obama cabinet of which it seems they believe they do not have to pay taxes -including THE TREASURY SEC – while their boss and others proclaim it is our “patriotic (teehee) duty” to pay taxes. Or how about President Prompter and ex President BJ Clinton citing how they WANT to pay more taxes. While each takes as many deductions on their returns as they possibly can – Clinton even claimed his stained underwear.
Alencon – show me where in the Constitution the words “separation of church and state” exist. They do not. RECOGNITION of a national religion does. More liberal twisting of our rights.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Ironcross: Then you should read the first amendment with a historian holding your hand.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Ironcross: Then you should read the first amendment with a historian holding your hand.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Ironcross: “Alencon – show me where in the Constitution the words “separation of church and state” exist. They do not. RECOGNITION of a national religion does. More liberal twisting of our rights.”
What planet do you live on? Every non-Christian in the US should have to put up with Bible-bashing laws because you say so? How is it “twisting (your) rights” if one religion doesn’t take dominance and precedent over all other views?
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Ironcross: “Alencon – show me where in the Constitution the words “separation of church and state” exist. They do not. RECOGNITION of a national religion does. More liberal twisting of our rights.”
What planet do you live on? Every non-Christian in the US should have to put up with Bible-bashing laws because you say so? How is it “twisting (your) rights” if one religion doesn’t take dominance and precedent over all other views?
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:20 pm
The first amendment of the constitution states that congress shall make no law regarding religion. It left this right up to the individual states. It does not, however, give special interest groups, lawyers, and liberal judges to legislate religion (or the stripping of the rights therof from specific groups) from the bench.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:20 pm
The first amendment of the constitution states that congress shall make no law regarding religion. It left this right up to the individual states. It does not, however, give special interest groups, lawyers, and liberal judges to legislate religion (or the stripping of the rights therof from specific groups) from the bench.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:21 pm
122 Ironcross: show me where in the Constitution the words “separation of church and state” exist. They do not…More liberal twisting of our rights.
Thomas Jefferson said it when referring specifically to this text from the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Close enough, don’t ya think? Liberal twisting of our rights, my ass.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:21 pm
122 Ironcross: show me where in the Constitution the words “separation of church and state” exist. They do not…More liberal twisting of our rights.
Thomas Jefferson said it when referring specifically to this text from the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Close enough, don’t ya think? Liberal twisting of our rights, my ass.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
The Duke Capone (84) I absolutely remember when The Dave Matthews Band did that!!!!
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
The Duke Capone (84) I absolutely remember when The Dave Matthews Band did that!!!!
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
@Baxter in Action: Christians are the only ones who’ve had their religious rights stripped. We live in an “everything goes” society in which the individual makes up his own moral rules. Anyone professing a belief in the God of Abraham is labeled a lunatic (at best). I have no problem with someone not believing in my God – YOU DON’T HAVE TO.
What I have a problem with is people telling me that I don’t have a right to acknowledge Him in public. Not only do I have a right to my religion, I have a right to speak my opinion in the public forum. There is nowhere in the Constitution, or anywhere else, that says anyone has the right to not be offended. If someone says something that offends, you have the right to leave the room.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
@Baxter in Action: Christians are the only ones who’ve had their religious rights stripped. We live in an “everything goes” society in which the individual makes up his own moral rules. Anyone professing a belief in the God of Abraham is labeled a lunatic (at best). I have no problem with someone not believing in my God – YOU DON’T HAVE TO.
What I have a problem with is people telling me that I don’t have a right to acknowledge Him in public. Not only do I have a right to my religion, I have a right to speak my opinion in the public forum. There is nowhere in the Constitution, or anywhere else, that says anyone has the right to not be offended. If someone says something that offends, you have the right to leave the room.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
@Maggot: While you may not have meant to do so, you’ve helped to strengthen my point about the first ammendment. “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Which is what groups like the ACLU have been using the judiciary to do.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
@Maggot: While you may not have meant to do so, you’ve helped to strengthen my point about the first ammendment. “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Which is what groups like the ACLU have been using the judiciary to do.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Great list.
I hate Al Gore and think he is the biggest hypocrite going. An Inconvenient Truth is all about scare mongering. Its preaching to ordinary people about changing lifestyle when He himself is flying all over the world, staying in Swanky Hotels and evidently leaving the lights on all day at home.
And I do not believe in the concept of carbon offsetting. It is just a way to make people feel better about driving their gas guzzlers and flying abroad on holiday.
I also cannot stand anyone who drives a Prius or other hybrid. I think these people must have their heads in the clouds. Any good these cars do for the environment is rendered pointless after the battery is charged… using electricity that is most probably produced by burning fossil fuels.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Great list.
I hate Al Gore and think he is the biggest hypocrite going. An Inconvenient Truth is all about scare mongering. Its preaching to ordinary people about changing lifestyle when He himself is flying all over the world, staying in Swanky Hotels and evidently leaving the lights on all day at home.
And I do not believe in the concept of carbon offsetting. It is just a way to make people feel better about driving their gas guzzlers and flying abroad on holiday.
I also cannot stand anyone who drives a Prius or other hybrid. I think these people must have their heads in the clouds. Any good these cars do for the environment is rendered pointless after the battery is charged… using electricity that is most probably produced by burning fossil fuels.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Yogi/Bongo: I’ve submitted a couple of lists that were never posted. I’m assuming Jamie gets so many lists nowadays that he gets to choose. Sometimes it’s about timing: if I ran a website like this, I wouldn’t pick several political lists in a row or a Christmas related list now. It’s his website. Maybe he just didn’t like it.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Yogi/Bongo: I’ve submitted a couple of lists that were never posted. I’m assuming Jamie gets so many lists nowadays that he gets to choose. Sometimes it’s about timing: if I ran a website like this, I wouldn’t pick several political lists in a row or a Christmas related list now. It’s his website. Maybe he just didn’t like it.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I’m one Christian who wants separation of church and state–I don’t know or understand why Christians (a lot of them anyway) are not happy about this provision in the Constitution-I don’t want the govenment meddling in my religious affairs—They can take down all references to God in government buildings for all I care and should–They should be about the people’s business.And by the same token,preachers should be about the Lord’s business and stop endorsing this one and that one for political office.Idiots like Pat Robertson do not speak for this Christian.Screw the ACLU–They can only take away rights that you let them take away–They can’t stop prayer in school-Any child can pray anytime they want to.That’s like saying they can take your thoughts away–Impossible–I guarantee you there’s a lot of prayers going up before every final exam–They’re just not being led by some teacher who has her eyes on a 13-year-old boy and that’s the way it should be.Thank God for the 1st Amendment–
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I’m one Christian who wants separation of church and state–I don’t know or understand why Christians (a lot of them anyway) are not happy about this provision in the Constitution-I don’t want the govenment meddling in my religious affairs—They can take down all references to God in government buildings for all I care and should–They should be about the people’s business.And by the same token,preachers should be about the Lord’s business and stop endorsing this one and that one for political office.Idiots like Pat Robertson do not speak for this Christian.Screw the ACLU–They can only take away rights that you let them take away–They can’t stop prayer in school-Any child can pray anytime they want to.That’s like saying they can take your thoughts away–Impossible–I guarantee you there’s a lot of prayers going up before every final exam–They’re just not being led by some teacher who has her eyes on a 13-year-old boy and that’s the way it should be.Thank God for the 1st Amendment–
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Dude, seriously… less pop-ups! *removes listverse from favourites* >_>
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Dude, seriously… less pop-ups! *removes listverse from favourites* >_>
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I sincerely believe Jesus was calling for separation of church and state when he said “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and give unto God what is God’s”–Yes I know he was talking about taxes and tithing but that statement goes to to the heart of separation as I see it.
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I sincerely believe Jesus was calling for separation of church and state when he said “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and give unto God what is God’s”–Yes I know he was talking about taxes and tithing but that statement goes to to the heart of separation as I see it.
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I am ecstatic this list was posted. I have always leaned left, but the general hypocrisy among many liberals infuriates me. I don’t even like to admit that I’m a democrat. Many of them claim to be open-minded and fair, but really they only behave those ways when they care to. Further, they love painting their counterparts as the scum of the earth. Nothing is black and white, and I’m happy that republicans aren’t taking these beatings alone.
I generally agree with most of the people listed. Though I think the initial quote from Gloria was far too out of context. I’ve been told that when she made the women-bicycle claim, she merely meant that women don’t inherently need men and the general myth of your partner “completing” you. Her intention was not to say that men are of no benefit to women, just that women don’t need to depend on them to survive.
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I am ecstatic this list was posted. I have always leaned left, but the general hypocrisy among many liberals infuriates me. I don’t even like to admit that I’m a democrat. Many of them claim to be open-minded and fair, but really they only behave those ways when they care to. Further, they love painting their counterparts as the scum of the earth. Nothing is black and white, and I’m happy that republicans aren’t taking these beatings alone.
I generally agree with most of the people listed. Though I think the initial quote from Gloria was far too out of context. I’ve been told that when she made the women-bicycle claim, she merely meant that women don’t inherently need men and the general myth of your partner “completing” you. Her intention was not to say that men are of no benefit to women, just that women don’t need to depend on them to survive.
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I’m glad somebody is finally willing to call the liberals out for their own hypocrisy. They tell everyone else what to believe and what their rights are but then go out and do everything that they tell everyone else not to.
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I’m glad somebody is finally willing to call the liberals out for their own hypocrisy. They tell everyone else what to believe and what their rights are but then go out and do everything that they tell everyone else not to.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
128, 129 MisterSir: “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Which is what groups like the ACLU have been using the judiciary to do.
How so?
What I have a problem with is people telling me that I don’t have a right to acknowledge Him in public. Not only do I have a right to my religion, I have a right to speak my opinion in the public forum. Not only do I have a right to my religion, I have a right to speak my opinion in the public forum.
No one should have a problem with you exercising your rights, as long as the act of doing so doesn’t infringe on the rights of others. Not sure exactly what personal experience(s) you are referring to here, but I’ll take a guess and say: don’t mistake “free speech” with “hate speech”.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
128, 129 MisterSir: “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Which is what groups like the ACLU have been using the judiciary to do.
How so?
What I have a problem with is people telling me that I don’t have a right to acknowledge Him in public. Not only do I have a right to my religion, I have a right to speak my opinion in the public forum. Not only do I have a right to my religion, I have a right to speak my opinion in the public forum.
No one should have a problem with you exercising your rights, as long as the act of doing so doesn’t infringe on the rights of others. Not sure exactly what personal experience(s) you are referring to here, but I’ll take a guess and say: don’t mistake “free speech” with “hate speech”.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:47 pm
oops sorry for the double paste error when quoting you.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:47 pm
oops sorry for the double paste error when quoting you.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Why can’t we all just get along when it comes to energy?
It’s obvious that nuclear is the future baby!
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Why can’t we all just get along when it comes to energy?
It’s obvious that nuclear is the future baby!
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Take that as seriously as you want, but I know the risk, and I think we should be willing to take them. Improvements in the safety of nuclear power plants, and the people who work at them, make me pretty confident that another Chernobyl is unlikely.
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Take that as seriously as you want, but I know the risk, and I think we should be willing to take them. Improvements in the safety of nuclear power plants, and the people who work at them, make me pretty confident that another Chernobyl is unlikely.
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:58 pm
PETA = People EATING Tasty Animals
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:58 pm
PETA = People EATING Tasty Animals
May 4th, 2009 at 12:11 am
I hate liberals.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:11 am
I hate liberals.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:01 am
they hate you to
May 4th, 2009 at 1:01 am
they hate you to
May 4th, 2009 at 1:13 am
MisterSir
i do think you have a right to your religion, but you cant have a two sets of rules for christians and for other religions. christians are constantly protesting other people expressing ther beliefs if they differ from christian ones.
in my opinion, conservatives are the ones stripping the rights from others because they believe that christian laws should be enforced by the government. it is them trying to shove their beliefs down our throats most of the time.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:13 am
MisterSir
i do think you have a right to your religion, but you cant have a two sets of rules for christians and for other religions. christians are constantly protesting other people expressing ther beliefs if they differ from christian ones.
in my opinion, conservatives are the ones stripping the rights from others because they believe that christian laws should be enforced by the government. it is them trying to shove their beliefs down our throats most of the time.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:25 am
It looks to me that the most effort for this list went into finding horribly unflattering images of the people mentioned. Why was this necessary?
May 4th, 2009 at 1:25 am
It looks to me that the most effort for this list went into finding horribly unflattering images of the people mentioned. Why was this necessary?
May 4th, 2009 at 1:29 am
I loved this list my only wish would have been that you posted a conservative list as well; well actually you should have just done a top 50 cases of political hypocrisy. Because if there is one thing politicians don’t lack it is hypocrisy.
Also Bongo or Yogi (if that is you) cool your jets, you don’t sound like the Yogi that I have come to respect here on LV. I am quite confident that Jamie does his best to keep LV politically neutral. Case in point, he lives in NZ, not one of the people on this lists is from NZ or has anything to do with that. The majority of political lists on this site are concerned with the US government, I don’t see why he would be so concerned about another country’s government.
Anyway great list I hope to see many more like it.
Peace and Love
May 4th, 2009 at 1:29 am
I loved this list my only wish would have been that you posted a conservative list as well; well actually you should have just done a top 50 cases of political hypocrisy. Because if there is one thing politicians don’t lack it is hypocrisy.
Also Bongo or Yogi (if that is you) cool your jets, you don’t sound like the Yogi that I have come to respect here on LV. I am quite confident that Jamie does his best to keep LV politically neutral. Case in point, he lives in NZ, not one of the people on this lists is from NZ or has anything to do with that. The majority of political lists on this site are concerned with the US government, I don’t see why he would be so concerned about another country’s government.
Anyway great list I hope to see many more like it.
Peace and Love
May 4th, 2009 at 1:56 am
suzi: I was the one that found the images and it wasn’t a big effort – it took barely anytime at all to find ugly pics of the people mentioned here
The same is true of virtually any person. I often use “ugly” pics on lists because it adds an element of humor and this is the first time anyone has complained.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:56 am
suzi: I was the one that found the images and it wasn’t a big effort – it took barely anytime at all to find ugly pics of the people mentioned here
The same is true of virtually any person. I often use “ugly” pics on lists because it adds an element of humor and this is the first time anyone has complained.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:22 am
Micheal Moore has got to be the ugliest man on the planet.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:22 am
Micheal Moore has got to be the ugliest man on the planet.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:25 am
too bad for Barbra… tsk tsk tsk…
@Nicosia: AGREE!
May 4th, 2009 at 4:25 am
too bad for Barbra… tsk tsk tsk…
@Nicosia: AGREE!
May 4th, 2009 at 4:52 am
Funny how these Lists make people believe it is all true, though most of it is sucked out of a republicans thumb…
May 4th, 2009 at 4:52 am
Funny how these Lists make people believe it is all true, though most of it is sucked out of a republicans thumb…
May 4th, 2009 at 6:09 am
One of my favorite lists! “A forgiving press can hide a lot of symptoms..” – SO true!! Liberals are literally killing this nation. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:09 am
One of my favorite lists! “A forgiving press can hide a lot of symptoms..” – SO true!! Liberals are literally killing this nation. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:19 am
Don’t forget that Gore woudl talk abotu car emissions and then stay in his huge SUV for 20 minutes to warm it up. He is in it for the moeny, pure and simple.
Funny thing is many people actually think that these Liberals are actually in it for other people.
Planned Parenthood migght be the worst offender. It is a Liberal cause yet it subtley encourages Eugenics(look uo its founder)and wants to protect sex offenders for the bottom line. i smell some money in all of this.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:19 am
Don’t forget that Gore woudl talk abotu car emissions and then stay in his huge SUV for 20 minutes to warm it up. He is in it for the moeny, pure and simple.
Funny thing is many people actually think that these Liberals are actually in it for other people.
Planned Parenthood migght be the worst offender. It is a Liberal cause yet it subtley encourages Eugenics(look uo its founder)and wants to protect sex offenders for the bottom line. i smell some money in all of this.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:21 am
For the Planned Parenthood idea, I forgot to add that you can pick which race you want aborted with your donation money. Look it up if you think I am not telling the truth.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:21 am
For the Planned Parenthood idea, I forgot to add that you can pick which race you want aborted with your donation money. Look it up if you think I am not telling the truth.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:34 am
I believe the mothers of anyone who believes in abortion should have had abortions–
May 4th, 2009 at 6:34 am
I believe the mothers of anyone who believes in abortion should have had abortions–
May 4th, 2009 at 6:51 am
Thank you for showing things our one sided press will never mention. All these people are pieces of shit.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:51 am
Thank you for showing things our one sided press will never mention. All these people are pieces of shit.
May 4th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Awesome list! Thanks for tackling this sticky issue and just providing the facts rather than opinion. How can anyone complain about that?
May 4th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Awesome list! Thanks for tackling this sticky issue and just providing the facts rather than opinion. How can anyone complain about that?
May 4th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Awesome list…..Limosine-Liberals are a complete joke !
Honerable mention should go to GreenPeace…remember their boat running aground in a coral reef, and they had to pay out millions in damages and fines ?
Classic !
May 4th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Awesome list…..Limosine-Liberals are a complete joke !
Honerable mention should go to GreenPeace…remember their boat running aground in a coral reef, and they had to pay out millions in damages and fines ?
Classic !
May 4th, 2009 at 8:09 am
MisterSir, #128 – I don’t know what you mean exactly by American Christians “having their rights stripped”… at the risk of sounding glib, I hope you just don’t mean the fact that George W. is out of power. Or that John McCain didn’t replace him.
Do you mean because abortion is still legal? Or because stem cell research has now been allowed?
If you think you’ve got it rough being an American Christian, maybe give a thought to American Muslims. Or American Atheists.
May 4th, 2009 at 8:09 am
MisterSir, #128 – I don’t know what you mean exactly by American Christians “having their rights stripped”… at the risk of sounding glib, I hope you just don’t mean the fact that George W. is out of power. Or that John McCain didn’t replace him.
Do you mean because abortion is still legal? Or because stem cell research has now been allowed?
If you think you’ve got it rough being an American Christian, maybe give a thought to American Muslims. Or American Atheists.
May 4th, 2009 at 8:15 am
When you say you aren’t allowed to profess your beliefs in public, in actual fact you are. Hell, even the Westboro baptist lunatics have that right. You don’t face recriminations from the government for it as Muslims have in the past, and you don’t face public ostracism or attack from it as Muslims and Atheists have.
If you’re talking about the “10 commandments” being shown in courthouses, well that’s where you step over a line. That is where it starts creating the scenario where one set of beliefs can have an aggressive effect on a person who doesn’t subscribe to them. Imagine a Hindu walking into court and seeing “thou shalt have no gods before me”. Imagine someone suing for divorce coming in and seeing “thou shalt not commit adultery”. What does that say about their chances of a fair trial?
May 4th, 2009 at 8:15 am
When you say you aren’t allowed to profess your beliefs in public, in actual fact you are. Hell, even the Westboro baptist lunatics have that right. You don’t face recriminations from the government for it as Muslims have in the past, and you don’t face public ostracism or attack from it as Muslims and Atheists have.
If you’re talking about the “10 commandments” being shown in courthouses, well that’s where you step over a line. That is where it starts creating the scenario where one set of beliefs can have an aggressive effect on a person who doesn’t subscribe to them. Imagine a Hindu walking into court and seeing “thou shalt have no gods before me”. Imagine someone suing for divorce coming in and seeing “thou shalt not commit adultery”. What does that say about their chances of a fair trial?
May 4th, 2009 at 8:39 am
145 suzi: It looks to me that the most effort for this list went into finding horribly unflattering images of the people mentioned. Why was this necessary?
I think it would actually take more effort to find a flattering image of Rosie…
May 4th, 2009 at 8:39 am
145 suzi: It looks to me that the most effort for this list went into finding horribly unflattering images of the people mentioned. Why was this necessary?
I think it would actually take more effort to find a flattering image of Rosie…
May 4th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Speaking of hypocracy…. Since you guys hate liberals and love the military so much, put your $$ where your mouth is.
http://www.waterboardseanhannity.com
May 4th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Speaking of hypocracy…. Since you guys hate liberals and love the military so much, put your $$ where your mouth is.
http://www.waterboardseanhannity.com
May 4th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Waterboard
“Since you guys hate liberals and love the military so much, put your $$ where your mouth is”.
Waterboard–Could you explain exactly what you mean by that? I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Waterboard
“Since you guys hate liberals and love the military so much, put your $$ where your mouth is”.
Waterboard–Could you explain exactly what you mean by that? I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:14 am
@ 72, Atropos77
Where do you live? “Liberal” certainly isn’t a dirty word in the great state of Maryland or pretty much any state surrounding it. There was an article in the paper today about the the GOP is barely hanging on. Conservative is dirty here- young conservative (I’m 23) is downright shameful. Sigh.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:14 am
@ 72, Atropos77
Where do you live? “Liberal” certainly isn’t a dirty word in the great state of Maryland or pretty much any state surrounding it. There was an article in the paper today about the the GOP is barely hanging on. Conservative is dirty here- young conservative (I’m 23) is downright shameful. Sigh.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Here is the basic premise of the rightwing American bitchfest. They don’t feel they are being represented in Congress because they lost the last two elections. In their teeny-tiny minds, they believe it is unconstitutional for the government ask them to the bill they just racked up. Where were these fools when Bush lied us into two disastrous wars?
May 4th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Here is the basic premise of the rightwing American bitchfest. They don’t feel they are being represented in Congress because they lost the last two elections. In their teeny-tiny minds, they believe it is unconstitutional for the government ask them to the bill they just racked up. Where were these fools when Bush lied us into two disastrous wars?
May 4th, 2009 at 9:18 am
I’m in two minds about it… on the one hand, I want Sean Hannity to know what waterboarding is like and to admit that it’s torture, but on the other hand I don’t think it’s right to allow someone’s ignorance to put them in a situation where they risk their mental health, their physical health, or their life.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:18 am
I’m in two minds about it… on the one hand, I want Sean Hannity to know what waterboarding is like and to admit that it’s torture, but on the other hand I don’t think it’s right to allow someone’s ignorance to put them in a situation where they risk their mental health, their physical health, or their life.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:23 am
122. Ironcross – May 3rd, 2009 at 6:01 pm [Report Abuse]
“JFrater I take back every nasty thing I said about you. It takes tremendous balls to post this”
>
Uh yeah Ironcross, I suppose in rightwing wacky world, this would be considered heroic. Now if Jamie had the balls to come to America and meet the squuirming, gun-totin’ haters he’s embracing on this blog, I might even concede the point.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:23 am
122. Ironcross – May 3rd, 2009 at 6:01 pm [Report Abuse]
“JFrater I take back every nasty thing I said about you. It takes tremendous balls to post this”
>
Uh yeah Ironcross, I suppose in rightwing wacky world, this would be considered heroic. Now if Jamie had the balls to come to America and meet the squuirming, gun-totin’ haters he’s embracing on this blog, I might even concede the point.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Picture #5: Hello Gorgeous
Hahaha
May 4th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Picture #5: Hello Gorgeous
Hahaha
May 4th, 2009 at 9:39 am
did you guys hear about michelle obama wearing $540 shoes to the D.C. foodbank? classy. and how about those tone, muscular arms…so news-worthy. ehhh
May 4th, 2009 at 9:39 am
did you guys hear about michelle obama wearing $540 shoes to the D.C. foodbank? classy. and how about those tone, muscular arms…so news-worthy. ehhh
May 4th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Crimanon – “Ironcross: Then you should read the first amendment with a historian holding your hand”
Maybe you should read it with a dictionary and your eyes open. Tell me where does the first amendment allow for abortion? It is used as an argument for and has won. Did you have an historian looking over your bulbous proboscis trying to figure that one out? LIBERAL TWISTING OF OUR RIGHTS.
Baxter In Action – “What planet do you live on? Every non-Christian in the US should have to put up with Bible-bashing laws because you say so? How is it “twisting (your) rights” if one religion doesn’t take dominance and precedent over all other views?”
Right now I live in the Obamanation and have no idea WTF it is you arw writing which doesn’t surprise me. I wrote it was “More liberal twisting of our rights.” Just like the second amendment. I suppose you are going to tell me I do not have the right to own a gun? Despite the fact the first ten amendments are INDIVIDUAL rights, you are going to give me the liberal spewing crap about a state militia aren’t you? What is unusually funny is the amount of laws that are religious in nature that atheists have to follow, murder, stealing, lying – pretty FU**ING funny don’t you think? Why they are respecting religion by following common law! BWAHAHAHAHA!
As I said in no place do the words separation of church and state exist. It is a twisting of the constitution by you liberals to suit your own needs.
Maggot – Thomas Jefferson said it when referring specifically to this text from the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Close enough, don’t ya think? Liberal twisting of our rights, my ass.
Close enough to what? Where in the hell does it say ANYTHING about separation of church and state? It is saying that unlike the CHURCH OF ENGLAND which was recognized as the OFFICIAL church in ENGLAND, the US would not recognize ANY religion or setup ANY official religion (except the dumbass democratic party of today). Their is no separation because there is no RECOGNITION of ANY church by the gov’t according to the Constition – your ass. I am wrong though because there are thousands of symbols of Christianity that exist in DC, especially in the Supreme Court where the ACLU is too chickensh*t to fight.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Crimanon – “Ironcross: Then you should read the first amendment with a historian holding your hand”
Maybe you should read it with a dictionary and your eyes open. Tell me where does the first amendment allow for abortion? It is used as an argument for and has won. Did you have an historian looking over your bulbous proboscis trying to figure that one out? LIBERAL TWISTING OF OUR RIGHTS.
Baxter In Action – “What planet do you live on? Every non-Christian in the US should have to put up with Bible-bashing laws because you say so? How is it “twisting (your) rights” if one religion doesn’t take dominance and precedent over all other views?”
Right now I live in the Obamanation and have no idea WTF it is you arw writing which doesn’t surprise me. I wrote it was “More liberal twisting of our rights.” Just like the second amendment. I suppose you are going to tell me I do not have the right to own a gun? Despite the fact the first ten amendments are INDIVIDUAL rights, you are going to give me the liberal spewing crap about a state militia aren’t you? What is unusually funny is the amount of laws that are religious in nature that atheists have to follow, murder, stealing, lying – pretty FU**ING funny don’t you think? Why they are respecting religion by following common law! BWAHAHAHAHA!
As I said in no place do the words separation of church and state exist. It is a twisting of the constitution by you liberals to suit your own needs.
Maggot – Thomas Jefferson said it when referring specifically to this text from the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Close enough, don’t ya think? Liberal twisting of our rights, my ass.
Close enough to what? Where in the hell does it say ANYTHING about separation of church and state? It is saying that unlike the CHURCH OF ENGLAND which was recognized as the OFFICIAL church in ENGLAND, the US would not recognize ANY religion or setup ANY official religion (except the dumbass democratic party of today). Their is no separation because there is no RECOGNITION of ANY church by the gov’t according to the Constition – your ass. I am wrong though because there are thousands of symbols of Christianity that exist in DC, especially in the Supreme Court where the ACLU is too chickensh*t to fight.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:47 am
I wish more people could take this list at face value. It is a list pointing out that liberals are hypocrital (i.e. human) as well as Republicans. It’s refreshing, actually, since the right-wingers are so constantly barraged with lists like this. Jamie’s not posting this because he hates liberals, Jay K didn’t make this list to piss people off, it was posted because it’s interesting and knowledge is power. I’m actually glad that, as a liberal, I don’t have to attain such high standards.
154. smithstar15: Aw, see, I’ve been with you lately, as an intelligent Christians arguing with pose. Then, you post crap like that. How disappointing. That could have been said much more eloquently.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:47 am
I wish more people could take this list at face value. It is a list pointing out that liberals are hypocrital (i.e. human) as well as Republicans. It’s refreshing, actually, since the right-wingers are so constantly barraged with lists like this. Jamie’s not posting this because he hates liberals, Jay K didn’t make this list to piss people off, it was posted because it’s interesting and knowledge is power. I’m actually glad that, as a liberal, I don’t have to attain such high standards.
154. smithstar15: Aw, see, I’ve been with you lately, as an intelligent Christians arguing with pose. Then, you post crap like that. How disappointing. That could have been said much more eloquently.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Cedestra: Well,I do apologize if I offended you but I will not apologize for the sentiment–(I don’t believe the word “crap” is very eloquent either but I could be wrong).
May 4th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Cedestra: Well,I do apologize if I offended you but I will not apologize for the sentiment–(I don’t believe the word “crap” is very eloquent either but I could be wrong).
May 4th, 2009 at 10:02 am
169. Cedestra “Jay K didn’t make this list to piss people off”
Nothing wrong with pissing people off-As long as you stand by what you believe-When you try to placate someone to gain their favor or approval is when you screw up.The republicans have spent the last couple of years trying to be politically correct and not offend anyone and all it got them was their asses kicked out of office.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:02 am
169. Cedestra “Jay K didn’t make this list to piss people off”
Nothing wrong with pissing people off-As long as you stand by what you believe-When you try to placate someone to gain their favor or approval is when you screw up.The republicans have spent the last couple of years trying to be politically correct and not offend anyone and all it got them was their asses kicked out of office.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:29 am
“Maybe you should read it with a dictionary and your eyes open. Tell me where does the first amendment allow for abortion? It is used as an argument for and has won. Did you have an historian looking over your bulbous proboscis trying to figure that one out? LIBERAL TWISTING OF OUR RIGHTS.”
It’s “YOUR RIGHT” that one moral group should have the right to tell a woman she can’t have an abortion? Have you passed the bar? Because unless you have I don’t see what you hope to achieve by disagreeing with the decisions of the Supreme Court.
Baxter In Action – “What planet do you live on? Every non-Christian in the US should have to put up with Bible-bashing laws because you say so? How is it “twisting (your) rights” if one religion doesn’t take dominance and precedent over all other views?”
“Right now I live in the Obamanation and have no idea WTF it is you arw writing which doesn’t surprise me. I wrote it was “More liberal twisting of our rights.””
Exactly, and I asked you a perfectly straightforward question. I ask again – how are *your* rights being infringed upon by *your* religious views not dominating legal and political decision-making?
“Just like the second amendment. I suppose you are going to tell me I do not have the right to own a gun?”
I don’t presume to tell you anything of the sort. The constitution of the US unamibiguously guarantees the right to bear arms, and that has very little effect on my life.
“Despite the fact the first ten amendments are INDIVIDUAL rights, you are going to give me the liberal spewing crap about a state militia aren’t you?”
I don’t even know what you’re talking about now. When did I say anything about guns or state militia? I couldn’t care less about whether or not you own a gun or have a state militia (?)
“What is unusually funny is the amount of laws that are religious in nature that atheists have to follow, murder, stealing, lying – pretty FU**ING funny don’t you think?”
I think it’s funny – and a tad frightening – that you think those are religious laws. Anyone with an ounce of common sense, civility, decency or empathy can see that those things are all inherently immoral. I don’t need a book to tell me that.
“Why they are respecting religion by following common law! BWAHAHAHAHA”
Why indeed? Maybe because religion gets its morality from common humanity?
“As I said in no place do the words separation of church and state exist. It is a twisting of the constitution by you liberals to suit your own needs.”
If you want quotes from the US’ founding fathers to that exact end then I’ll be happy to provide them. I know comparitively little about the constitution of the US so I’m not going to argue that point.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
“Close enough to what? Where in the hell does it say ANYTHING about separation of church and state?”
It says that the state (“Congress”) will “make no law” which prohibits the “free exercise” of any religion (“establishment of religion”). Now that it’s been broken down, do you see how it refers to the state being seperated from the church? It means that the state cannot pass any law which infringes on the rights of any religious group, including atheists. Therefore, any law passed on official religious grounds is unconstitutional as it effects people who do not share that religious view.
“It is saying that unlike the CHURCH OF ENGLAND which was recognized as the OFFICIAL church in ENGLAND,”
A measure passed to persecute Catholics and allow Henry VIII a divorce.
“the US would not recognize ANY religion or setup ANY official religion (except the dumbass democratic party of today).”
If you think that the democratic party is a religion then you do not know what a religion is.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:29 am
“Maybe you should read it with a dictionary and your eyes open. Tell me where does the first amendment allow for abortion? It is used as an argument for and has won. Did you have an historian looking over your bulbous proboscis trying to figure that one out? LIBERAL TWISTING OF OUR RIGHTS.”
It’s “YOUR RIGHT” that one moral group should have the right to tell a woman she can’t have an abortion? Have you passed the bar? Because unless you have I don’t see what you hope to achieve by disagreeing with the decisions of the Supreme Court.
Baxter In Action – “What planet do you live on? Every non-Christian in the US should have to put up with Bible-bashing laws because you say so? How is it “twisting (your) rights” if one religion doesn’t take dominance and precedent over all other views?”
“Right now I live in the Obamanation and have no idea WTF it is you arw writing which doesn’t surprise me. I wrote it was “More liberal twisting of our rights.””
Exactly, and I asked you a perfectly straightforward question. I ask again – how are *your* rights being infringed upon by *your* religious views not dominating legal and political decision-making?
“Just like the second amendment. I suppose you are going to tell me I do not have the right to own a gun?”
I don’t presume to tell you anything of the sort. The constitution of the US unamibiguously guarantees the right to bear arms, and that has very little effect on my life.
“Despite the fact the first ten amendments are INDIVIDUAL rights, you are going to give me the liberal spewing crap about a state militia aren’t you?”
I don’t even know what you’re talking about now. When did I say anything about guns or state militia? I couldn’t care less about whether or not you own a gun or have a state militia (?)
“What is unusually funny is the amount of laws that are religious in nature that atheists have to follow, murder, stealing, lying – pretty FU**ING funny don’t you think?”
I think it’s funny – and a tad frightening – that you think those are religious laws. Anyone with an ounce of common sense, civility, decency or empathy can see that those things are all inherently immoral. I don’t need a book to tell me that.
“Why they are respecting religion by following common law! BWAHAHAHAHA”
Why indeed? Maybe because religion gets its morality from common humanity?
“As I said in no place do the words separation of church and state exist. It is a twisting of the constitution by you liberals to suit your own needs.”
If you want quotes from the US’ founding fathers to that exact end then I’ll be happy to provide them. I know comparitively little about the constitution of the US so I’m not going to argue that point.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
“Close enough to what? Where in the hell does it say ANYTHING about separation of church and state?”
It says that the state (“Congress”) will “make no law” which prohibits the “free exercise” of any religion (“establishment of religion”). Now that it’s been broken down, do you see how it refers to the state being seperated from the church? It means that the state cannot pass any law which infringes on the rights of any religious group, including atheists. Therefore, any law passed on official religious grounds is unconstitutional as it effects people who do not share that religious view.
“It is saying that unlike the CHURCH OF ENGLAND which was recognized as the OFFICIAL church in ENGLAND,”
A measure passed to persecute Catholics and allow Henry VIII a divorce.
“the US would not recognize ANY religion or setup ANY official religion (except the dumbass democratic party of today).”
If you think that the democratic party is a religion then you do not know what a religion is.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Ironcross:
It amuses me ever so much to see jackasses like you so apoplectic about these topics.
A) The Constitution was intended to be a living document which would be interpreted by succeeding generations. This was in essence spelled out in the Federalist Papers.
B) as such, it is not, moron, that the “right to an abortion” is considered to be “there” in the first amendment; rather, the justification for ALLOWING the practice of abortion is considered to be in an implied right to privacy which is a basic thread throughout the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
C) it seems to me that you are, like all right wing nuts, willing to pump for YOUR particular cherished right–i.e., GUNS… while wishing you could deprive others of theirs. Well, it would be cute to argue that while there’s a Second Amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms, there is no such right to an abortion—but AGAIN—the right is considered to be LEGALLY IMPLICIT in the overall philosophy of the Constitution, and in certain principles SPECIFIED therein. HOWEVER, while you’d love to believe that the Bill of Rights is ALL about “individual rights,” it is in FACT not so simple. Since you seem to be so willing to mock the very serious contention that the Second Amendment is NOT about a militia, then perhaps you’d care to enlighten the rest of us as to WHY the term is MENTIONED flat out IN the amendment? IN FACT while it’s just as “cutesy” an argument that the second amendment is ONLY talking about militias as is the argument that no “right to abortion” lies implicit in the Constitution, the inescapable point remains that the second amendment DOES address, DIRECTLY, the question of militias. IN SHORT, the original intent of the amendment was one thing, whilst over time this intent has been subverted (many would say rightly so) to become something else. But it has NEVER been clear or concrete—and obviously the otherwise concise and clear-minded writers of the constitution intended it to be so. At the time they were writing, state militias were viewed as an important necessity and a bulwark against tyranny. Naturally, in the time since, we no longer view militias with the same eye of necessity; we now believe that an individual right to bear arms is IMPLIED in the second amendment–but in point of fact that PRECISE right is NOT what was there originally. Had it been intended from the start as that, then a mention of “a well-regulated militia” would not have been necessary, or even germaine.
As much as this right has evolved over time, so have other rights evolved. Including the implied philosophical guarantee of a right to privacy, which is considered INHERENT to our way of life.
D) AGAIN… people like you are ready and willing to jump on the specifics of the Constitution while ignoring another aspect of it which was OBVIOUSLY intended from the beginning to play into matters—tradition. (AND, of course, you’re ready and willing to do the reverse—recognize tradition while ignoring precise wording–when THAT suits you). Again, this is made clear by 1) legal philosophy of the day and the over 200 years hence, which was drawn not only from our own constitutional law, but from British practice, which places a GREAT DEAL of importance on legal tradition—since Britain has no written constitution… and 2) by writings left behind by the various contributors to the codification of our laws and way of life. It IS, in fact, legal tradition that has allowed the second amendment to be interpreted as a guarantee of the right of INDIVIDUALS to keep arms, since, to be frank, it would be counterintuitive to interpret the matter otherwise. By the same–and even more EXPLICIT tradition—the “separation of church and state” is considered to be INHERENT in the constitution and our national philosophy. This is made clear NOT ONLY by the amendment where it SPECIFICALLY addressed, but again, by the overall philosophy of the founders, which as a thread runs right through the Constitution and Bill of Rights. These men were VERY explicit about their intense dislike for the European system which was built on 1) a recognition by the State of “official” religions and 2) the close ties of State and religion (which they found anethema) and 3) the practice, following on the previous two points, of state-sanctioned or even state-sponsored oppression of “non-official” religions, as WELL as state-supported FORCING of religion on citizens.
They therefore clearly designed–and held as tradition–a system where the American State would NOT recognize any single religion or groups of religions as “official,” NOR would the State work in tandem with any religion or religions in partnership, nor would it FORCE any particular religion or religions on the people. The First Amendment is CLEAR about this, as is the nature of legal tradition and philosophy NOT only of the founders of the FEDERAL government, but of those within each STATE as well.
There is no “liberal twisting” of rights, here, Ironcross. Rather, it is the old story of those who (such as you) wish to dictate to others and those who resist the dictates of ANYONE and want to abide by the rule of law as we have considered it to be from the very beginning—in short, an explicit AND implicit rendering of the philosophies that are both generally understood, and constantly evolving.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Ironcross:
It amuses me ever so much to see jackasses like you so apoplectic about these topics.
A) The Constitution was intended to be a living document which would be interpreted by succeeding generations. This was in essence spelled out in the Federalist Papers.
B) as such, it is not, moron, that the “right to an abortion” is considered to be “there” in the first amendment; rather, the justification for ALLOWING the practice of abortion is considered to be in an implied right to privacy which is a basic thread throughout the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
C) it seems to me that you are, like all right wing nuts, willing to pump for YOUR particular cherished right–i.e., GUNS… while wishing you could deprive others of theirs. Well, it would be cute to argue that while there’s a Second Amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms, there is no such right to an abortion—but AGAIN—the right is considered to be LEGALLY IMPLICIT in the overall philosophy of the Constitution, and in certain principles SPECIFIED therein. HOWEVER, while you’d love to believe that the Bill of Rights is ALL about “individual rights,” it is in FACT not so simple. Since you seem to be so willing to mock the very serious contention that the Second Amendment is NOT about a militia, then perhaps you’d care to enlighten the rest of us as to WHY the term is MENTIONED flat out IN the amendment? IN FACT while it’s just as “cutesy” an argument that the second amendment is ONLY talking about militias as is the argument that no “right to abortion” lies implicit in the Constitution, the inescapable point remains that the second amendment DOES address, DIRECTLY, the question of militias. IN SHORT, the original intent of the amendment was one thing, whilst over time this intent has been subverted (many would say rightly so) to become something else. But it has NEVER been clear or concrete—and obviously the otherwise concise and clear-minded writers of the constitution intended it to be so. At the time they were writing, state militias were viewed as an important necessity and a bulwark against tyranny. Naturally, in the time since, we no longer view militias with the same eye of necessity; we now believe that an individual right to bear arms is IMPLIED in the second amendment–but in point of fact that PRECISE right is NOT what was there originally. Had it been intended from the start as that, then a mention of “a well-regulated militia” would not have been necessary, or even germaine.
As much as this right has evolved over time, so have other rights evolved. Including the implied philosophical guarantee of a right to privacy, which is considered INHERENT to our way of life.
D) AGAIN… people like you are ready and willing to jump on the specifics of the Constitution while ignoring another aspect of it which was OBVIOUSLY intended from the beginning to play into matters—tradition. (AND, of course, you’re ready and willing to do the reverse—recognize tradition while ignoring precise wording–when THAT suits you). Again, this is made clear by 1) legal philosophy of the day and the over 200 years hence, which was drawn not only from our own constitutional law, but from British practice, which places a GREAT DEAL of importance on legal tradition—since Britain has no written constitution… and 2) by writings left behind by the various contributors to the codification of our laws and way of life. It IS, in fact, legal tradition that has allowed the second amendment to be interpreted as a guarantee of the right of INDIVIDUALS to keep arms, since, to be frank, it would be counterintuitive to interpret the matter otherwise. By the same–and even more EXPLICIT tradition—the “separation of church and state” is considered to be INHERENT in the constitution and our national philosophy. This is made clear NOT ONLY by the amendment where it SPECIFICALLY addressed, but again, by the overall philosophy of the founders, which as a thread runs right through the Constitution and Bill of Rights. These men were VERY explicit about their intense dislike for the European system which was built on 1) a recognition by the State of “official” religions and 2) the close ties of State and religion (which they found anethema) and 3) the practice, following on the previous two points, of state-sanctioned or even state-sponsored oppression of “non-official” religions, as WELL as state-supported FORCING of religion on citizens.
They therefore clearly designed–and held as tradition–a system where the American State would NOT recognize any single religion or groups of religions as “official,” NOR would the State work in tandem with any religion or religions in partnership, nor would it FORCE any particular religion or religions on the people. The First Amendment is CLEAR about this, as is the nature of legal tradition and philosophy NOT only of the founders of the FEDERAL government, but of those within each STATE as well.
There is no “liberal twisting” of rights, here, Ironcross. Rather, it is the old story of those who (such as you) wish to dictate to others and those who resist the dictates of ANYONE and want to abide by the rule of law as we have considered it to be from the very beginning—in short, an explicit AND implicit rendering of the philosophies that are both generally understood, and constantly evolving.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Excuse me… under my point C, above, the following sentence should read as follows:
“But it has NEVER been clear or concrete—and obviously the otherwise concise and clear-minded writers of the constitution never intended it to be so.”
May 4th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Excuse me… under my point C, above, the following sentence should read as follows:
“But it has NEVER been clear or concrete—and obviously the otherwise concise and clear-minded writers of the constitution never intended it to be so.”
May 4th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Every US citizen should be required to read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Whether they comprehend it is another matter.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Every US citizen should be required to read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Whether they comprehend it is another matter.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:08 am
168 Ironcross: As I said in no place do the words separation of church and state exist.
I just told you where they existed.
It is a twisting of the constitution by you liberals to suit your own needs.
What are these “needs” that you are referring to? What exactly are you angry about here?
Their is no separation because there is no RECOGNITION of ANY church by the gov’t according to the Constition
So what are you advocating?
May 4th, 2009 at 11:08 am
168 Ironcross: As I said in no place do the words separation of church and state exist.
I just told you where they existed.
It is a twisting of the constitution by you liberals to suit your own needs.
What are these “needs” that you are referring to? What exactly are you angry about here?
Their is no separation because there is no RECOGNITION of ANY church by the gov’t according to the Constition
So what are you advocating?
May 4th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Ironcross: Tell me, where in our “discussion” was abortion brought up? Changing the subject makes you look like very other politician, it’s not flattering.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Ironcross: Tell me, where in our “discussion” was abortion brought up? Changing the subject makes you look like very other politician, it’s not flattering.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:59 am
As for Rosie O’Donnell #9, after she made that comment, she got so many death threats from the rightwing nuttia, she had to hire a bodyguard. So what’s worse, being a hypocrite or making threats against someone who holds an opposing point of view?
May 4th, 2009 at 11:59 am
As for Rosie O’Donnell #9, after she made that comment, she got so many death threats from the rightwing nuttia, she had to hire a bodyguard. So what’s worse, being a hypocrite or making threats against someone who holds an opposing point of view?
May 4th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Crimanon, Ironcross may be talking about what I mentioned. It was brought up. Abortion is not about women’s rights. It is about somethign more sinister. Look who started Planned Parenthood and how they still have the same ideas but just makes them more subtle.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Crimanon, Ironcross may be talking about what I mentioned. It was brought up. Abortion is not about women’s rights. It is about somethign more sinister. Look who started Planned Parenthood and how they still have the same ideas but just makes them more subtle.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Planned Parenthood was started by someone who was more or less a nazi. That’s a fact. But Planned Parenthood being run by nazis nowadays? That’s completely false.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Planned Parenthood was started by someone who was more or less a nazi. That’s a fact. But Planned Parenthood being run by nazis nowadays? That’s completely false.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
This went from liberal hate speech to conspiracies. I’m out, I don’t have the patience for “Theories” right now.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
This went from liberal hate speech to conspiracies. I’m out, I don’t have the patience for “Theories” right now.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Good call Crimanon. Let my last comment be the only one I post on that subject…
May 4th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Good call Crimanon. Let my last comment be the only one I post on that subject…
May 4th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
‘I’m saying that when the president does it that means it’s not illegal,” shouts Frank Langella’s Richard Nixon at Michael Sheen’s David Frost in “Frost/ Nixon.”
He was wrong, and so was President Obama when he said last week that he’d override the contractual and legal rights of Chrysler’s senior lenders and carve up the company between the government and the United Auto Workers.
Another case of liberal hypocrisy………
May 4th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
‘I’m saying that when the president does it that means it’s not illegal,” shouts Frank Langella’s Richard Nixon at Michael Sheen’s David Frost in “Frost/ Nixon.”
He was wrong, and so was President Obama when he said last week that he’d override the contractual and legal rights of Chrysler’s senior lenders and carve up the company between the government and the United Auto Workers.
Another case of liberal hypocrisy………
May 4th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Baxter, look into them a bit. Tehy will let you pay for an abortion by race. No questiosn asked. Why would they allow that?
They also protect sex offenders due to profit. Look up Lila Rose.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Baxter, look into them a bit. Tehy will let you pay for an abortion by race. No questiosn asked. Why would they allow that?
They also protect sex offenders due to profit. Look up Lila Rose.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
178. “As for Rosie O’Donnell #9, after she made that comment, she got so many death threats from the rightwing nuttia, she had to hire a bodyguard. So what’s worse, being a hypocrite or making threats against someone who holds an opposing point of view?”
What about the hundreds of thousands of liberals in CA trying to overturn the vote on Prop 8? Now, I’m actually in favor of gay marriage, and should it come up in my state I’d vote for it but if it didn’t pass I’d accept it, just like I accepted the results of this election, although I was unhappy about it. You don’t see conservatives marching because Obama won do you? So what’s worse, being a hypocrite or whining like a toddler because you didn’t get your way?
May 4th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
178. “As for Rosie O’Donnell #9, after she made that comment, she got so many death threats from the rightwing nuttia, she had to hire a bodyguard. So what’s worse, being a hypocrite or making threats against someone who holds an opposing point of view?”
What about the hundreds of thousands of liberals in CA trying to overturn the vote on Prop 8? Now, I’m actually in favor of gay marriage, and should it come up in my state I’d vote for it but if it didn’t pass I’d accept it, just like I accepted the results of this election, although I was unhappy about it. You don’t see conservatives marching because Obama won do you? So what’s worse, being a hypocrite or whining like a toddler because you didn’t get your way?
May 4th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Great article. I tend to be middle of the road and I would like to see a conservative list. But it just goes to prove what I have always said. All politicians are the same no matter what party they are from. What is good for them, goes. The far left lunatics are just as bad as the far right lunatics.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Great article. I tend to be middle of the road and I would like to see a conservative list. But it just goes to prove what I have always said. All politicians are the same no matter what party they are from. What is good for them, goes. The far left lunatics are just as bad as the far right lunatics.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Very very good list. It’s not perfect only because I’d take Gloria Steinem off of it. She didn’t poo poo marriage after she got married. She only did so beforehand. That’s personal growth, not hypocrisy. I’d replace her with Barbara Streisand (yeah she deserves to be on her twice) or perhaps Alan Colmes for his quote you gave in the first place.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Very very good list. It’s not perfect only because I’d take Gloria Steinem off of it. She didn’t poo poo marriage after she got married. She only did so beforehand. That’s personal growth, not hypocrisy. I’d replace her with Barbara Streisand (yeah she deserves to be on her twice) or perhaps Alan Colmes for his quote you gave in the first place.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Bobby, I think the argument for allowing abortion based on race grounds is fairly obvious, but if you need to have it spelled out, imagine this scenario – a white woman in a relationship with a white man has an affair or a one night stand with a black man. Regardless of the reasons for that, if she sought an abortion to prevent her partner discovering her ‘adulterous indiscretion’ then who are Planned Parenthood to deny it to her?
That Lila Rose thing is wrong, I agree. The male in that scenario is clearly in the wrong. BUT… Planned Parenthood are in little more wrong than a GP in the same scenario. It is not their job to be the moral police of the USA, and whether you agree with their morality or not, demanding that they be so would be inherently wrong in itself. I also fail to see what Lila Rose has to do with the Nazis.
Goddamn it, not 15 minutes ago I said I wasn’t going to discuss this topic…
May 4th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Bobby, I think the argument for allowing abortion based on race grounds is fairly obvious, but if you need to have it spelled out, imagine this scenario – a white woman in a relationship with a white man has an affair or a one night stand with a black man. Regardless of the reasons for that, if she sought an abortion to prevent her partner discovering her ‘adulterous indiscretion’ then who are Planned Parenthood to deny it to her?
That Lila Rose thing is wrong, I agree. The male in that scenario is clearly in the wrong. BUT… Planned Parenthood are in little more wrong than a GP in the same scenario. It is not their job to be the moral police of the USA, and whether you agree with their morality or not, demanding that they be so would be inherently wrong in itself. I also fail to see what Lila Rose has to do with the Nazis.
Goddamn it, not 15 minutes ago I said I wasn’t going to discuss this topic…
May 4th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Callie – maybe the gay marriage legislation would not be an issue if it was not internationally derided as being a massive step back for America’s social adventure. If you want the USA to be playing catch-up for another 40 years then so be it. But I’m telling you now, one day the California ruling will be looked down upon like the persecution of Native Americans and the Jim Crow laws. America always has to learn its lessons the hard way. I guess the WASPs just keep right on stingin’, huh?
May 4th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Callie – maybe the gay marriage legislation would not be an issue if it was not internationally derided as being a massive step back for America’s social adventure. If you want the USA to be playing catch-up for another 40 years then so be it. But I’m telling you now, one day the California ruling will be looked down upon like the persecution of Native Americans and the Jim Crow laws. America always has to learn its lessons the hard way. I guess the WASPs just keep right on stingin’, huh?
May 4th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
185 callie: What about the hundreds of thousands of liberals in CA trying to overturn the vote on Prop 8? Now, I’m actually in favor of gay marriage, and should it come up in my state I’d vote for it but if it didn’t pass I’d accept it
Just because the CA voting public was too dumb to get it right, you would just roll over and accept tyranny of the majority? Frankly, it’s not a “gay marriage” issue. If you accept this, where do you draw the line when it comes to having your rights violated?
whining like a toddler because you didn’t get your way?
Standing up for civil rights is not whining.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
185 callie: What about the hundreds of thousands of liberals in CA trying to overturn the vote on Prop 8? Now, I’m actually in favor of gay marriage, and should it come up in my state I’d vote for it but if it didn’t pass I’d accept it
Just because the CA voting public was too dumb to get it right, you would just roll over and accept tyranny of the majority? Frankly, it’s not a “gay marriage” issue. If you accept this, where do you draw the line when it comes to having your rights violated?
whining like a toddler because you didn’t get your way?
Standing up for civil rights is not whining.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Randall,
I would remind you that even Justice Byron White, dissenting from the Roe v. Wade decision, concluded that there is “nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgement.” You speak of tradition, and there was no tradition for such a ruling.
I also find it a stretch to attach a life issue to “privacy”, such as the court did. James Wilson, a Supreme Court Justice from 1789 to 1798, who was also a signer of the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution, wrote: “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.” (Lectures on Law).
The Founding Fathers would find Roe v. Wade a completely foreign and obtuse reading of the Constitution. On another level, it was also a complete overstretch of federal power and usurpation of states rights.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Randall,
I would remind you that even Justice Byron White, dissenting from the Roe v. Wade decision, concluded that there is “nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgement.” You speak of tradition, and there was no tradition for such a ruling.
I also find it a stretch to attach a life issue to “privacy”, such as the court did. James Wilson, a Supreme Court Justice from 1789 to 1798, who was also a signer of the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution, wrote: “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.” (Lectures on Law).
The Founding Fathers would find Roe v. Wade a completely foreign and obtuse reading of the Constitution. On another level, it was also a complete overstretch of federal power and usurpation of states rights.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Eeesh. I wasn’t making a gay marriage point. Never mind, liberals. Just keep on spinning things your way. Don’t worry about the point I was actually making.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Eeesh. I wasn’t making a gay marriage point. Never mind, liberals. Just keep on spinning things your way. Don’t worry about the point I was actually making.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Can someone post a link to a source on how Planned Parenthood provides for people to pay for race-selective abortions? I’d like to know more. I tried looking it up, but I got nothing specific- just a bunch of stuff on the Margaret Sanger/Eugenics connection. Thanks.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Can someone post a link to a source on how Planned Parenthood provides for people to pay for race-selective abortions? I’d like to know more. I tried looking it up, but I got nothing specific- just a bunch of stuff on the Margaret Sanger/Eugenics connection. Thanks.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Good grief. This was an interesting list. Well thought out and pretty accurate, in my opinion.
The reason there’s no “Conservative Hypocrites List” is because it’s been DONE. All over the place. It’s not hard to find. My guess is the person who wrote this list was thinking “you know, we should try to be fair about this,” maybe even thought it would help the liberal movement to air this kind of thing out. But instead of saying “yeah, this is a problem we need to fix,” people are freaking the hell out.
I’m an independent, and I look at this kind of thing pretty objectively. One of the things that’s hard for someone like ME to deal with when choosing sides is people who turn frothing-mad when their idols are subjected to the same critical eye they cast on the opposition.
You do not help your case by suggesting that anyone who points out the non-divinity of your favorite people is a shill for whatever conspiracy you’re “standing up to” today.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Good grief. This was an interesting list. Well thought out and pretty accurate, in my opinion.
The reason there’s no “Conservative Hypocrites List” is because it’s been DONE. All over the place. It’s not hard to find. My guess is the person who wrote this list was thinking “you know, we should try to be fair about this,” maybe even thought it would help the liberal movement to air this kind of thing out. But instead of saying “yeah, this is a problem we need to fix,” people are freaking the hell out.
I’m an independent, and I look at this kind of thing pretty objectively. One of the things that’s hard for someone like ME to deal with when choosing sides is people who turn frothing-mad when their idols are subjected to the same critical eye they cast on the opposition.
You do not help your case by suggesting that anyone who points out the non-divinity of your favorite people is a shill for whatever conspiracy you’re “standing up to” today.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
191 callie: Don’t worry about the point I was actually making.
Which was…?
May 4th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
191 callie: Don’t worry about the point I was actually making.
Which was…?
May 4th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
#191 Callie – Yeah liberals! Stop trying to spin things your way… by NOT considering Planned Parenthood Nazis, and by NOT considering them pro-paedophilia… err…
If that comment was directed at me, Callie, I’d just like to state for the record that I am not what you in the US call a liberal.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
#191 Callie – Yeah liberals! Stop trying to spin things your way… by NOT considering Planned Parenthood Nazis, and by NOT considering them pro-paedophilia… err…
If that comment was directed at me, Callie, I’d just like to state for the record that I am not what you in the US call a liberal.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
166 Bongo/Yogi or whatever you’re calling yourself -”Uh yeah Ironcross, I suppose in rightwing wacky world, this would be considered heroic. Now if Jamie had the balls to come to America and meet the squuirming, gun-totin’ haters he’s embracing on this blog, I might even concede the point.”
I’ve stayed out of this because most people already know where I’m at, so I sit here an snicker at all the comments being made. Up above you can see a typical comment made by a liberal. These ‘enlightened’ folks welcome everyone in to share their opinion as because they suppose themselves as champions of the poor and disenfranchised. Except if you’re a conservative, well then just shut the f’ up. Notice all the love he embraces someone with a different opinion with the name calling. How very enlightened indeed!
And instead of actually discussing the merits or honesty of what’s listed, they choose to dump us all into one stereotypical lump and point their finger. So yeah, in a nutshell I’d say Jamie does have some brass balls to post this list because he has to put up with slanderous b.s. like this.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
166 Bongo/Yogi or whatever you’re calling yourself -”Uh yeah Ironcross, I suppose in rightwing wacky world, this would be considered heroic. Now if Jamie had the balls to come to America and meet the squuirming, gun-totin’ haters he’s embracing on this blog, I might even concede the point.”
I’ve stayed out of this because most people already know where I’m at, so I sit here an snicker at all the comments being made. Up above you can see a typical comment made by a liberal. These ‘enlightened’ folks welcome everyone in to share their opinion as because they suppose themselves as champions of the poor and disenfranchised. Except if you’re a conservative, well then just shut the f’ up. Notice all the love he embraces someone with a different opinion with the name calling. How very enlightened indeed!
And instead of actually discussing the merits or honesty of what’s listed, they choose to dump us all into one stereotypical lump and point their finger. So yeah, in a nutshell I’d say Jamie does have some brass balls to post this list because he has to put up with slanderous b.s. like this.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
callie_: Was the point you were making to show a comparison to the Prop 8 and Rosie’s decision to have a bodyguard with a gun? If so, then I understand what you were getting at. If not, then you lost me.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
callie_: Was the point you were making to show a comparison to the Prop 8 and Rosie’s decision to have a bodyguard with a gun? If so, then I understand what you were getting at. If not, then you lost me.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Actually my first comment was directed at yogi, who asked “So what’s worse, being a hypocrite or making threats against someone who holds an opposing point of view?”
I brought up and EXAMPLE of prop 8, which didn’t pass because it was voted against fair and square, just as Obama was voted in fair and square. But nooooo, conservatives are NEVER right, they MUST be wrong, and their votes MUST be overturned.(Even though it was mostly african american democrats who voted against the proposition) It’s the very definition of hypocrisy. My point was that liberals are just as mean and nasty as yogi seems to think all conservatives are. Look at the posts here- we already have the waterboard Sean Hannity website linked somewhere. You think a liberal has never made a threat of violence? Really?
May 4th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Actually my first comment was directed at yogi, who asked “So what’s worse, being a hypocrite or making threats against someone who holds an opposing point of view?”
I brought up and EXAMPLE of prop 8, which didn’t pass because it was voted against fair and square, just as Obama was voted in fair and square. But nooooo, conservatives are NEVER right, they MUST be wrong, and their votes MUST be overturned.(Even though it was mostly african american democrats who voted against the proposition) It’s the very definition of hypocrisy. My point was that liberals are just as mean and nasty as yogi seems to think all conservatives are. Look at the posts here- we already have the waterboard Sean Hannity website linked somewhere. You think a liberal has never made a threat of violence? Really?
May 4th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
#196 Maggot – the point callie was trying to make was that some shit doesn’t go your way all of the time. I don’t like the fact that abortion is the law of the land, probably just as much as gay people don’t like the fact that Prop 8 was voted down. The difference is I’m not bitching about the ‘fairness’ or ‘unfairness’ of it all. Are we supposed to ‘force’ the voting majority and overturn their vote in the name of fairness? Whatever you’re views on gay marriage, you can’t possibly want to NOT ‘let every vote count’ – I think I heard that somewhere recently.
Your premise about the tyranny of the majority isn’t lost on me. Except I’m not rolling over, I’m permanently bent over forwards ‘accepting’ the tyranny of the majority RIGHT NOW!
May 4th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
#196 Maggot – the point callie was trying to make was that some shit doesn’t go your way all of the time. I don’t like the fact that abortion is the law of the land, probably just as much as gay people don’t like the fact that Prop 8 was voted down. The difference is I’m not bitching about the ‘fairness’ or ‘unfairness’ of it all. Are we supposed to ‘force’ the voting majority and overturn their vote in the name of fairness? Whatever you’re views on gay marriage, you can’t possibly want to NOT ‘let every vote count’ – I think I heard that somewhere recently.
Your premise about the tyranny of the majority isn’t lost on me. Except I’m not rolling over, I’m permanently bent over forwards ‘accepting’ the tyranny of the majority RIGHT NOW!
May 4th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
*edit you’re views* – your views.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
*edit you’re views* – your views.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Callie, do you accept that it was wrong to force Native Americans off of their homeland, because it was voted for fair and square? Do you oppose the abolition of slavery, though it was voted for, fair and square? Do you support the segregation of public services because it was voted for fair and square? This is not a party issue, it’s a morality issue.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Callie, do you accept that it was wrong to force Native Americans off of their homeland, because it was voted for fair and square? Do you oppose the abolition of slavery, though it was voted for, fair and square? Do you support the segregation of public services because it was voted for fair and square? This is not a party issue, it’s a morality issue.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
How is Sean Hannity’s (broken) promise to undergo waterboarding an example of a threat of violence made by a liberal?
May 4th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
How is Sean Hannity’s (broken) promise to undergo waterboarding an example of a threat of violence made by a liberal?
May 4th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
This is crap. What is your point exactly? That people do hypocritical things sometimes? Great job – thats very profound.
I might be impressed or interested if you had all examples of liberals, supporting liberal ideas, but then acting against them – but the truth is, that most of the actions above don’t necessarily violate their proposed morals. For example: Jesse Jackson. Sure, he committed adultery while counseling on adultery. What does this have to do with liberal ideas exactly? NOTHING! All you proved here was that JJ did something hypocritical, and he just so happens to be a liberal.
Thus my point is you did nothing more than point out that all people are capable of being hyporcritical. Wow. Thats some deep stuff, genius.
But I think that this was not your intention at all. In fact, despite your disclaimer to the contrary, this is some of the most obvious liberal bashing I have ever seen, and quite frankly I would have exprected otherwise from your usually hight quality website.
Oh, and honestly, the last one? The diabetic whose insulin was developed through animal testing? Are you kidding me? What could you possibly suggest to her as an alternative, when she will die if she doesn’t take insulin? Would you sugest that she die for her cause? Merely so that she can claim that she is not hypocritical?
Be reasonable, this list is absolute crap.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
This is crap. What is your point exactly? That people do hypocritical things sometimes? Great job – thats very profound.
I might be impressed or interested if you had all examples of liberals, supporting liberal ideas, but then acting against them – but the truth is, that most of the actions above don’t necessarily violate their proposed morals. For example: Jesse Jackson. Sure, he committed adultery while counseling on adultery. What does this have to do with liberal ideas exactly? NOTHING! All you proved here was that JJ did something hypocritical, and he just so happens to be a liberal.
Thus my point is you did nothing more than point out that all people are capable of being hyporcritical. Wow. Thats some deep stuff, genius.
But I think that this was not your intention at all. In fact, despite your disclaimer to the contrary, this is some of the most obvious liberal bashing I have ever seen, and quite frankly I would have exprected otherwise from your usually hight quality website.
Oh, and honestly, the last one? The diabetic whose insulin was developed through animal testing? Are you kidding me? What could you possibly suggest to her as an alternative, when she will die if she doesn’t take insulin? Would you sugest that she die for her cause? Merely so that she can claim that she is not hypocritical?
Be reasonable, this list is absolute crap.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Bucslim:
Up above you can see a typical comment made by a liberal. These ‘enlightened’ folks welcome everyone in to share their opinion as because they suppose themselves as champions of the poor and disenfranchised. Except if you’re a conservative, well then just shut the f’ up. Notice all the love he embraces someone with a different opinion with the name calling. How very enlightened indeed!
I completly agree that with you being outrage that yogi? is ranting, but I’m a “liberal” and I don’t do what yogi was doing or agree with everything. So in all fairness don’t paint me with the same broad brush that you are painting yogi with. In my experience people like Yogi and Ironcross get the most attention simply because they yap a lot. Most Republicans, Democrats, conservatives and liberals I personally know (and I know a lot!) get along fine and are able to discuss and disagree without hurt feelings or sweeping generalizations. Just my two cent, but what would I know
May 4th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Bucslim:
Up above you can see a typical comment made by a liberal. These ‘enlightened’ folks welcome everyone in to share their opinion as because they suppose themselves as champions of the poor and disenfranchised. Except if you’re a conservative, well then just shut the f’ up. Notice all the love he embraces someone with a different opinion with the name calling. How very enlightened indeed!
I completly agree that with you being outrage that yogi? is ranting, but I’m a “liberal” and I don’t do what yogi was doing or agree with everything. So in all fairness don’t paint me with the same broad brush that you are painting yogi with. In my experience people like Yogi and Ironcross get the most attention simply because they yap a lot. Most Republicans, Democrats, conservatives and liberals I personally know (and I know a lot!) get along fine and are able to discuss and disagree without hurt feelings or sweeping generalizations. Just my two cent, but what would I know
May 4th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
As far as guns go, I have a pretty common-sense argument. My family and I live in the country. There are neighbors, but we are far enough out that if someone were to break in, no one would hear me scream. Besides that, I can occaisonally hear bobcats and have once seen a bear outside of my house. I love being out here, but I am pretty damn glad I have my guns. I would rather have the security of knowing I can protect myself instead of having to wait too long for someone to save me.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
As far as guns go, I have a pretty common-sense argument. My family and I live in the country. There are neighbors, but we are far enough out that if someone were to break in, no one would hear me scream. Besides that, I can occaisonally hear bobcats and have once seen a bear outside of my house. I love being out here, but I am pretty damn glad I have my guns. I would rather have the security of knowing I can protect myself instead of having to wait too long for someone to save me.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
So Baxter, who’s going to decide what’s moral today and what’s moral tomorrow? Do we just set aside the whole voting process altogether because sometimes it votes for something you don’t agree with? That’s just brilliant, let’s put McCain in office because it’s unfair that Obama got more votes than he did.
Pretty sure the Soviets and Red China set aside the voting process and made all sorts of ‘moral’ decisions for the masses.
How many other nations out there screw something up and by an act of the people, whether by voting, enactment of laws or judicial review actually correct past wrongs?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
So Baxter, who’s going to decide what’s moral today and what’s moral tomorrow? Do we just set aside the whole voting process altogether because sometimes it votes for something you don’t agree with? That’s just brilliant, let’s put McCain in office because it’s unfair that Obama got more votes than he did.
Pretty sure the Soviets and Red China set aside the voting process and made all sorts of ‘moral’ decisions for the masses.
How many other nations out there screw something up and by an act of the people, whether by voting, enactment of laws or judicial review actually correct past wrongs?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Marv in DC – I got no problem with that. But you can see that his brush was just as wide as mine was.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Marv in DC – I got no problem with that. But you can see that his brush was just as wide as mine was.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
golly 207 comments ALREADY???? sheesh i turn my back for a day or two and you people have comments shoved up my butt. cmon.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
golly 207 comments ALREADY???? sheesh i turn my back for a day or two and you people have comments shoved up my butt. cmon.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Steelman:
It’s amazing that you’ve somehow managed to channel the spirits of all the founding fathers, and can make definitive, ringing pronouncements in regards to what they would believe and not believe. With such arrogance residing under your collar, it’s a wonder your head can fit through doorways.
AND AGAIN… you are utterly glossing over the FACT that the Constitution is and always has been intended to be an “evolving” document, where both tradition AND interpretation would be part of the equation.
“I would remind you that even Justice Byron White, dissenting from the Roe v. Wade decision, concluded that there is “nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgement.” You speak of tradition, and there was no tradition for such a ruling.”
Rubbish. One dissenting opinion–or more–is not relevant. The DECISION was made by the court that a right to privacy was inherent in the Constitution. YOU wish to ignore that decision of the MAJORITY and acknowledge ONLY the opinion of dissent. That isn’t how our democracy works. If you wish to believe that this right was “invented” out of whole cloth, that’s your business. But don’t bring up dissenting opinions as evidence that you’re right. The court decision was made and therefore the current interpretation is that the right exists. You don’t like that, then change it LEGALLY. But don’t sit there and pretend that simply harping about it makes you correct. It doesn’t.
As for there being “no tradition” for such a ruling, I beg to differ. The Roe v. Wade ruling was VERY MUCH in the tradition of judicial interpretation of the constitution, and clear precedents for this were numerous–and indeed were legion, prior to Roe v. Wade.
Furthermore, this IS within the tradition of the Supreme Court’s role in our system going all the way back to the earliest rulings of that court.
Stop trying to bullshit me, Steelman. It won’t work.
“I also find it a stretch to attach a life issue to “privacy”, such as the court did.”
NO, the court did NOT, otherwise the ruling would have gone the other way.
Furthermore, good for you that you find it a stretch. All the same, the law stands as it is. Again, if you don’t like it, the change it. But good luck with that. The right wing is on the outs big time now and is likely to be for some time. And even while it WAS in power, it found it too difficult to entirely overturn Roe v. Wade.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of the American people, while not *liking* the idea of abortion (I don’t myself) do recognize it as a practice and a right that should legitimately be left untouched, though they’re open, it seems, to a certain degree of legislation AROUND it (such as limiting late-term abortions, etc.) But an actual overturn of this “right” and the practice? No. If there was overwhelming support of this amongst the American public, then the Right would have had its way by now. It hasn’t, and it’s clear that it won’t because that is NOT the way the majority of Americans want it.
As to your Wilson quote, it only serves to indicate that you just DON’T GET IT. The Founding Father’s intentions are a BASIS for our democracy, traditions, legal system, and overall philosophy. But that was NEVER meant by them to be a STATIC entity. In over 200 years time we have interpreted, re-interpreted and altered ELEMENTS of our national philosophy WITHIN the BROAD confines of tradition AND legal precedent. This is CLEAR and obvious. Dragging up the opinions of individual Founding Fathers is, in that light, anachronistic to say the least. What would you have us do next then, Steelman? Return to slavery? Negate any intepretations of the Constitution that outlawed that practice? Shall we have Prohibition back? Shall we divest ourselves of the right of indigents to legal counsel?
“The Founding Fathers would find Roe v. Wade a completely foreign and obtuse reading of the Constitution.”
And you know this so factually HOW? Again, are you some kind of medium who can call up all the spirits of this vast cadre of men? The fact is that you know nothing of the kind and have no basis of making that ludicrous statement.
And frankly I wouldn’t CARE what any of them felt about abortion. We are beholden to them for this system of ours. We owe them our way of life, our liberty, our status in the world. But we do NOT owe them divine fealty, as though they were Pharoahs whose word was never to be contradicted or questioned. You are implying such a status for them. I am saying that while the Founding Fathers are our base, our starting point–they are NOT our end all. They lived in THEIR time and we live in OURS. And the twain do not meet.
Now the genius of most of those men is that they realized this (a damn site better than YOU do) and designed a constitution that lived and breathed LONG after they were gone, and still does. They knew it would stay alive through adaptation and growth… NOT by remaining static. If it had been the latter, it would have died long ago.
“On another level, it was also a complete overstretch of federal power and usurpation of states rights.”
Your opinion. Not all of ours.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Steelman:
It’s amazing that you’ve somehow managed to channel the spirits of all the founding fathers, and can make definitive, ringing pronouncements in regards to what they would believe and not believe. With such arrogance residing under your collar, it’s a wonder your head can fit through doorways.
AND AGAIN… you are utterly glossing over the FACT that the Constitution is and always has been intended to be an “evolving” document, where both tradition AND interpretation would be part of the equation.
“I would remind you that even Justice Byron White, dissenting from the Roe v. Wade decision, concluded that there is “nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgement.” You speak of tradition, and there was no tradition for such a ruling.”
Rubbish. One dissenting opinion–or more–is not relevant. The DECISION was made by the court that a right to privacy was inherent in the Constitution. YOU wish to ignore that decision of the MAJORITY and acknowledge ONLY the opinion of dissent. That isn’t how our democracy works. If you wish to believe that this right was “invented” out of whole cloth, that’s your business. But don’t bring up dissenting opinions as evidence that you’re right. The court decision was made and therefore the current interpretation is that the right exists. You don’t like that, then change it LEGALLY. But don’t sit there and pretend that simply harping about it makes you correct. It doesn’t.
As for there being “no tradition” for such a ruling, I beg to differ. The Roe v. Wade ruling was VERY MUCH in the tradition of judicial interpretation of the constitution, and clear precedents for this were numerous–and indeed were legion, prior to Roe v. Wade.
Furthermore, this IS within the tradition of the Supreme Court’s role in our system going all the way back to the earliest rulings of that court.
Stop trying to bullshit me, Steelman. It won’t work.
“I also find it a stretch to attach a life issue to “privacy”, such as the court did.”
NO, the court did NOT, otherwise the ruling would have gone the other way.
Furthermore, good for you that you find it a stretch. All the same, the law stands as it is. Again, if you don’t like it, the change it. But good luck with that. The right wing is on the outs big time now and is likely to be for some time. And even while it WAS in power, it found it too difficult to entirely overturn Roe v. Wade.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of the American people, while not *liking* the idea of abortion (I don’t myself) do recognize it as a practice and a right that should legitimately be left untouched, though they’re open, it seems, to a certain degree of legislation AROUND it (such as limiting late-term abortions, etc.) But an actual overturn of this “right” and the practice? No. If there was overwhelming support of this amongst the American public, then the Right would have had its way by now. It hasn’t, and it’s clear that it won’t because that is NOT the way the majority of Americans want it.
As to your Wilson quote, it only serves to indicate that you just DON’T GET IT. The Founding Father’s intentions are a BASIS for our democracy, traditions, legal system, and overall philosophy. But that was NEVER meant by them to be a STATIC entity. In over 200 years time we have interpreted, re-interpreted and altered ELEMENTS of our national philosophy WITHIN the BROAD confines of tradition AND legal precedent. This is CLEAR and obvious. Dragging up the opinions of individual Founding Fathers is, in that light, anachronistic to say the least. What would you have us do next then, Steelman? Return to slavery? Negate any intepretations of the Constitution that outlawed that practice? Shall we have Prohibition back? Shall we divest ourselves of the right of indigents to legal counsel?
“The Founding Fathers would find Roe v. Wade a completely foreign and obtuse reading of the Constitution.”
And you know this so factually HOW? Again, are you some kind of medium who can call up all the spirits of this vast cadre of men? The fact is that you know nothing of the kind and have no basis of making that ludicrous statement.
And frankly I wouldn’t CARE what any of them felt about abortion. We are beholden to them for this system of ours. We owe them our way of life, our liberty, our status in the world. But we do NOT owe them divine fealty, as though they were Pharoahs whose word was never to be contradicted or questioned. You are implying such a status for them. I am saying that while the Founding Fathers are our base, our starting point–they are NOT our end all. They lived in THEIR time and we live in OURS. And the twain do not meet.
Now the genius of most of those men is that they realized this (a damn site better than YOU do) and designed a constitution that lived and breathed LONG after they were gone, and still does. They knew it would stay alive through adaptation and growth… NOT by remaining static. If it had been the latter, it would have died long ago.
“On another level, it was also a complete overstretch of federal power and usurpation of states rights.”
Your opinion. Not all of ours.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Looser – stop squirming and stand still.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Looser – stop squirming and stand still.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Nothing gets a comments section going like opposing political views. Did anyone read Jamie´s intro?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Nothing gets a comments section going like opposing political views. Did anyone read Jamie´s intro?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
“So Baxter, who’s going to decide what’s moral today and what’s moral tomorrow?”
Perhaps that can be decided by looking at what was deemed moral in the past but is now considered reprehensible. Like persecuting minority groups. One of the major distinctions between the US and the rest of the civilised world is that when it comes to issues of human rights it takes much, much longer for you to figure it out. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” – maybe if this simple truth was more widely accepted in America then “land of the free” would become less of a sick joke in the rest of the world.
“Do we just set aside the whole voting process altogether because sometimes it votes for something you don’t agree with?”
It’s not the voting system that’s at fault here. It’s the bigotry and ignorance of a populace raised to believe that the Bible condones religious war and that news is best delivered like a McDonalds advert. The voting system itself is of little consequence, unless it is used to target a minority group and revoke a constitutionally granted right.
“That’s just brilliant, let’s put McCain in office because it’s unfair that Obama got more votes than he did.”
Be my guest. Sail the Good Ship America up shit creek if you want. The rest of the world won’t be following you though. Lets see if Captain McCain manages to fire off a few broadsides before Father Time catches up with him. Welcome to Metaphor Town.
“Pretty sure the Soviets and Red China set aside the voting process and made all sorts of ‘moral’ decisions for the masses.”
Pretty sure they did. I’m pretty sure both of those also have a rich and colourful history of attacking minority groups too.
“How many other nations out there screw something up and by an act of the people, whether by voting, enactment of laws or judicial review actually correct past wrongs?”
How many nations out there believe that someone’s sexual preference should devalue their human rights?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
“So Baxter, who’s going to decide what’s moral today and what’s moral tomorrow?”
Perhaps that can be decided by looking at what was deemed moral in the past but is now considered reprehensible. Like persecuting minority groups. One of the major distinctions between the US and the rest of the civilised world is that when it comes to issues of human rights it takes much, much longer for you to figure it out. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” – maybe if this simple truth was more widely accepted in America then “land of the free” would become less of a sick joke in the rest of the world.
“Do we just set aside the whole voting process altogether because sometimes it votes for something you don’t agree with?”
It’s not the voting system that’s at fault here. It’s the bigotry and ignorance of a populace raised to believe that the Bible condones religious war and that news is best delivered like a McDonalds advert. The voting system itself is of little consequence, unless it is used to target a minority group and revoke a constitutionally granted right.
“That’s just brilliant, let’s put McCain in office because it’s unfair that Obama got more votes than he did.”
Be my guest. Sail the Good Ship America up shit creek if you want. The rest of the world won’t be following you though. Lets see if Captain McCain manages to fire off a few broadsides before Father Time catches up with him. Welcome to Metaphor Town.
“Pretty sure the Soviets and Red China set aside the voting process and made all sorts of ‘moral’ decisions for the masses.”
Pretty sure they did. I’m pretty sure both of those also have a rich and colourful history of attacking minority groups too.
“How many other nations out there screw something up and by an act of the people, whether by voting, enactment of laws or judicial review actually correct past wrongs?”
How many nations out there believe that someone’s sexual preference should devalue their human rights?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
cass: Of course they read it, but due to opposing views, chose to ignore it. Typical one-sidedness.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
cass: Of course they read it, but due to opposing views, chose to ignore it. Typical one-sidedness.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
bucslim:
“So Baxter, who’s going to decide what’s moral today and what’s moral tomorrow?”
But buc, you’ve answered your own question–you just don’t see it.
The system speaks based on a long build up of legal precedent, rulings, tradition and (unless emended) the words of the Constitution itself. In a BROAD philosophical sense–that is, whether it is philosophy, theology, or both (or something else)—morality IS morality. Today stoning someone to death for adultery is morally repugnant to us, and we would say it was always so. BUT as we know, in practice this was NOT so, and it WAS morally accepted at one time and was in fact MANDATED. Now, will we say that the ancient people who allowed this practice were moral idiots? Certainly we believe that people TODAY in our modern world who allow it (in extremist Muslim circles, for instance) ARE moral idiots—but were the ancient Hebrews? Well… if you ask me, yes, they were. BUT the mien of the time allowed for this.
How do we reconcile this? How do we reconcile the thirst for blood of the ancients, even those we consider highly civilised? Do we simply (and rather conveniently) say that we are oh so much better? Well, we do try to do this—we like to think that we have a greater moral compass than they did. Perhaps this is so. But where is the dividing line? Where and when did we become so morally pure? Only a hundred years or so ago, we went around killing native Americans when they got in our way, and systematically took away their land through repeated attacks, subterfuge, wheeler-dealing, and so on. Was that right? Well… I don’t think so. Do you? I wish we had found a better way to form this country without depriving them. Or… just over a century ago, slavery was still practiced in this country. Certainly many or most of the practitioners believed it was morally right of them to keep slaves. To our eyes, and to many of their fellows, they were wrong. But if it was that easy, why did the practice hold on so long in our history?
Not long ago we believed that the death penalty was not only acceptable for certain crimes, but was called for. Then we stopped the practice, then went back to it, and now we’re moving away from it again.
Is morality fluid or isn’t it?
I’m not taking a stance one way or another. Though frankly I would prefer to believe morality is a constant. But history says otherwise to me. Now, in my heart of hearts I’d like to believe we’re always getting better. But then… two hundred years ago, in the worst excesses of human bloodletting… would anyone have thought the Holocaust of the Jews, under the Nazis, would have been okay or even possible? Surely there would have been many people who would have been shocked at such a prospect, if you could invent some kind of time machine and go back and show it to them. But we also damn well know that there has always been a strain in the human psyche that accepts that kind of death and murder and thirsts for it, even. We see as “moral” the stance AGAINST such a thing—but what would THEY see?
I dislike relativism—but there’s a reason it exists it as a philosophical point—it’s because that in our human history it’s obvious that we’ve HAD relativism all along. Our sense of morality evolves and changes.
This is not an argument for saying it should–but it does.
So what do we do? And moreover–is this or any other moral question so easy to answer? I find it not.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
bucslim:
“So Baxter, who’s going to decide what’s moral today and what’s moral tomorrow?”
But buc, you’ve answered your own question–you just don’t see it.
The system speaks based on a long build up of legal precedent, rulings, tradition and (unless emended) the words of the Constitution itself. In a BROAD philosophical sense–that is, whether it is philosophy, theology, or both (or something else)—morality IS morality. Today stoning someone to death for adultery is morally repugnant to us, and we would say it was always so. BUT as we know, in practice this was NOT so, and it WAS morally accepted at one time and was in fact MANDATED. Now, will we say that the ancient people who allowed this practice were moral idiots? Certainly we believe that people TODAY in our modern world who allow it (in extremist Muslim circles, for instance) ARE moral idiots—but were the ancient Hebrews? Well… if you ask me, yes, they were. BUT the mien of the time allowed for this.
How do we reconcile this? How do we reconcile the thirst for blood of the ancients, even those we consider highly civilised? Do we simply (and rather conveniently) say that we are oh so much better? Well, we do try to do this—we like to think that we have a greater moral compass than they did. Perhaps this is so. But where is the dividing line? Where and when did we become so morally pure? Only a hundred years or so ago, we went around killing native Americans when they got in our way, and systematically took away their land through repeated attacks, subterfuge, wheeler-dealing, and so on. Was that right? Well… I don’t think so. Do you? I wish we had found a better way to form this country without depriving them. Or… just over a century ago, slavery was still practiced in this country. Certainly many or most of the practitioners believed it was morally right of them to keep slaves. To our eyes, and to many of their fellows, they were wrong. But if it was that easy, why did the practice hold on so long in our history?
Not long ago we believed that the death penalty was not only acceptable for certain crimes, but was called for. Then we stopped the practice, then went back to it, and now we’re moving away from it again.
Is morality fluid or isn’t it?
I’m not taking a stance one way or another. Though frankly I would prefer to believe morality is a constant. But history says otherwise to me. Now, in my heart of hearts I’d like to believe we’re always getting better. But then… two hundred years ago, in the worst excesses of human bloodletting… would anyone have thought the Holocaust of the Jews, under the Nazis, would have been okay or even possible? Surely there would have been many people who would have been shocked at such a prospect, if you could invent some kind of time machine and go back and show it to them. But we also damn well know that there has always been a strain in the human psyche that accepts that kind of death and murder and thirsts for it, even. We see as “moral” the stance AGAINST such a thing—but what would THEY see?
I dislike relativism—but there’s a reason it exists it as a philosophical point—it’s because that in our human history it’s obvious that we’ve HAD relativism all along. Our sense of morality evolves and changes.
This is not an argument for saying it should–but it does.
So what do we do? And moreover–is this or any other moral question so easy to answer? I find it not.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Baxter – Sounds to me like you’re just as bigoted towards people of differing opinions as you suppose I am toward gays who want to enjoy marriage.
And you still didn’t answer my question – who decides that morality?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Baxter – Sounds to me like you’re just as bigoted towards people of differing opinions as you suppose I am toward gays who want to enjoy marriage.
And you still didn’t answer my question – who decides that morality?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
200 callie: conservatives are NEVER right, they MUST be wrong
If it is a case of denying someone their civil rights, then yes, they are wrong.
201 bucslim: the point callie was trying to make was that some shit doesn’t go your way all of the time.
Ok I see that. It was a poor analogy though.
…probably just as much as gay people don’t like the fact that Prop 8 was voted down. The difference is I’m not bitching about the ‘fairness’ or ‘unfairness’ of it all.
When will you bitch about it? Perhaps next time, when a right that specifically affects you is taken away? As I said, IMO it’s not a “gay” issue. Opponents that focus on that aspect of it are just showing their bigotry. I’m saying – if this is allowed to stand, what will be next? To just say “well the majority voted for it, so tough luck” is disingenuous. There is absolutely zero valid reason for a law that denies people a civil right to be imposed.
Are we supposed to ‘force’ the voting majority and overturn their vote in the name of fairness?…you can’t possibly want to NOT ‘let every vote count’
No, I want/hope saner heads (i.e. the Supreme Court) to prevail, rather than let a bunch of bigots tell me what I can or can’t do.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
200 callie: conservatives are NEVER right, they MUST be wrong
If it is a case of denying someone their civil rights, then yes, they are wrong.
201 bucslim: the point callie was trying to make was that some shit doesn’t go your way all of the time.
Ok I see that. It was a poor analogy though.
…probably just as much as gay people don’t like the fact that Prop 8 was voted down. The difference is I’m not bitching about the ‘fairness’ or ‘unfairness’ of it all.
When will you bitch about it? Perhaps next time, when a right that specifically affects you is taken away? As I said, IMO it’s not a “gay” issue. Opponents that focus on that aspect of it are just showing their bigotry. I’m saying – if this is allowed to stand, what will be next? To just say “well the majority voted for it, so tough luck” is disingenuous. There is absolutely zero valid reason for a law that denies people a civil right to be imposed.
Are we supposed to ‘force’ the voting majority and overturn their vote in the name of fairness?…you can’t possibly want to NOT ‘let every vote count’
No, I want/hope saner heads (i.e. the Supreme Court) to prevail, rather than let a bunch of bigots tell me what I can or can’t do.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I agree Randall, but when push comes to shove and people are asked to vote on this particular matter, it would be nice if people had had the wherewithall to ask themselves who exactly was being hurt by allowing homosexuals to marry and have the same rights as married heterosexual couples. Morality is relative, that’s true – but it would be nice if there was more of a “do unto others…” mindset present.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I agree Randall, but when push comes to shove and people are asked to vote on this particular matter, it would be nice if people had had the wherewithall to ask themselves who exactly was being hurt by allowing homosexuals to marry and have the same rights as married heterosexual couples. Morality is relative, that’s true – but it would be nice if there was more of a “do unto others…” mindset present.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
To clarify in my comment #218: “There is absolutely zero valid reason for a law that denies people a civil right to be imposed.” – By “people”, I’m talking about law abiding citizens. Not refering to convicted criminals that have right(s) stripped as part of their punishment.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
To clarify in my comment #218: “There is absolutely zero valid reason for a law that denies people a civil right to be imposed.” – By “people”, I’m talking about law abiding citizens. Not refering to convicted criminals that have right(s) stripped as part of their punishment.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
“Baxter – Sounds to me like you’re just as bigoted towards people of differing opinions as you suppose I am toward gays who want to enjoy marriage.”
If you want me to say I’m bigoted against bigotry then, fine, I’m bigoted against bigotry. I’d rather be so than bigoted against homosexuals.
“And you still didn’t answer my question – who decides that morality?”
I’ll concede that the voter does. But decisions based on hate are no less reprehensible for their popularity. Hell, people voted for Hitler. Jim Crow laws were laws. I’m decrying the fact that so much of America remains completely backward in aspects of human rights, while the rest of the civilised world watches, utterly baffled.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
“Baxter – Sounds to me like you’re just as bigoted towards people of differing opinions as you suppose I am toward gays who want to enjoy marriage.”
If you want me to say I’m bigoted against bigotry then, fine, I’m bigoted against bigotry. I’d rather be so than bigoted against homosexuals.
“And you still didn’t answer my question – who decides that morality?”
I’ll concede that the voter does. But decisions based on hate are no less reprehensible for their popularity. Hell, people voted for Hitler. Jim Crow laws were laws. I’m decrying the fact that so much of America remains completely backward in aspects of human rights, while the rest of the civilised world watches, utterly baffled.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Baxter:
Actually, I was A) addressing morality in general, and B) thinking of abortion specifically.
Homosexual marriage didn’t cross my mind.
I’m for homosexuals having the right to marry, and I think it’s coming. We are becoming more libertarian in some ways, curiously less in others.
Our world is too big to allow “dog eat dog” to continue, and to ignore the demands of “do unto others”. But likewise, because it has become so big (and also because, in another way, it’s become so small) we are, I think, beginning to appreciate more deeply the need of the individual to be left alone in regards to certain private matters.
This push-pull will be our future for some time, I fear. Hopefully it’ll turn out to be a good thing, largely. But like most twists and turns in the psyche of our species, it’ll no doubt have its good and bad.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Baxter:
Actually, I was A) addressing morality in general, and B) thinking of abortion specifically.
Homosexual marriage didn’t cross my mind.
I’m for homosexuals having the right to marry, and I think it’s coming. We are becoming more libertarian in some ways, curiously less in others.
Our world is too big to allow “dog eat dog” to continue, and to ignore the demands of “do unto others”. But likewise, because it has become so big (and also because, in another way, it’s become so small) we are, I think, beginning to appreciate more deeply the need of the individual to be left alone in regards to certain private matters.
This push-pull will be our future for some time, I fear. Hopefully it’ll turn out to be a good thing, largely. But like most twists and turns in the psyche of our species, it’ll no doubt have its good and bad.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Randall – Sorry, crossed wires! In that case, I agree with you on all three points being discussed.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Randall – Sorry, crossed wires! In that case, I agree with you on all three points being discussed.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Randall – of course in our society it’s relative.
My point was addressing the ‘tyranny of the majority.’ I don’t like the fact that Obama was elected President, but he got more votes than my party did. And regardless of how anyone feels about Prop 8, it got voted down. Whether anyone likes it or not, or thinks it’s fair or not we have to abide by it. Some people wanted every vote to count in 2000 when the presidency was decided by 12 people in black robes, now some people want votes to be set aside because they think the outcome was unfair. So the lesson is that voting should only count when the result is something I voted for.
In a 100 years I’m sure our descendants will think we were a bunch of pin-headed mooks for some of the crass buffoonery we engaged in. My entire point is that we have a couple of ways to make injustices right in this country. And we can only hope that our upbringing, our education and our sense of humanity follow us into the voting booth, courtroom or legislature. I don’t like it that in some cases, the person standing next in line to pull the lever had bigoted parents or friends, didn’t pay attention in social studies, and could care less about anybody but himself.
That does mean my vote is more meaningful to me than it probably is to him, but they all count the same. It ain’t perfect by any means.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Randall – of course in our society it’s relative.
My point was addressing the ‘tyranny of the majority.’ I don’t like the fact that Obama was elected President, but he got more votes than my party did. And regardless of how anyone feels about Prop 8, it got voted down. Whether anyone likes it or not, or thinks it’s fair or not we have to abide by it. Some people wanted every vote to count in 2000 when the presidency was decided by 12 people in black robes, now some people want votes to be set aside because they think the outcome was unfair. So the lesson is that voting should only count when the result is something I voted for.
In a 100 years I’m sure our descendants will think we were a bunch of pin-headed mooks for some of the crass buffoonery we engaged in. My entire point is that we have a couple of ways to make injustices right in this country. And we can only hope that our upbringing, our education and our sense of humanity follow us into the voting booth, courtroom or legislature. I don’t like it that in some cases, the person standing next in line to pull the lever had bigoted parents or friends, didn’t pay attention in social studies, and could care less about anybody but himself.
That does mean my vote is more meaningful to me than it probably is to him, but they all count the same. It ain’t perfect by any means.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
“Callie, do you accept that it was wrong to force Native Americans off of their homeland, because it was voted for fair and square? Do you oppose the abolition of slavery, though it was voted for, fair and square? Do you support the segregation of public services because it was voted for fair and square?”
Oh naturally. Actually when I signed up to vote and they sent me my registration card, they sent me a Republican welcoming pack with my very own KKK hood, electric chair, and shotgun. The Democrat one must be filled with dead babies and a shot of self righteousness.
Once more, with feeling. I was making an analogy. I wasn’t bringing morality into it. In fact, if you want to actually read my comment, I said I support gay marriage. Open your mind one iota and actually read what I wrote, please.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
“Callie, do you accept that it was wrong to force Native Americans off of their homeland, because it was voted for fair and square? Do you oppose the abolition of slavery, though it was voted for, fair and square? Do you support the segregation of public services because it was voted for fair and square?”
Oh naturally. Actually when I signed up to vote and they sent me my registration card, they sent me a Republican welcoming pack with my very own KKK hood, electric chair, and shotgun. The Democrat one must be filled with dead babies and a shot of self righteousness.
Once more, with feeling. I was making an analogy. I wasn’t bringing morality into it. In fact, if you want to actually read my comment, I said I support gay marriage. Open your mind one iota and actually read what I wrote, please.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
#167 Maggott- Thanks for stealing my Humorous/Clever comment about how it didn`t take JF long to find an ugly picture of Rosie O`Dumbass.
How did this dicussion turn toward abortion ? Im not personally for it,but then im not a woman!
Reminds me of my favorite comic George Carlin`s take on abortion. ” Have ya ever noticed that all the people who are against abortion,you wouldn`t want to f@&k anyway “
May 4th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
#167 Maggott- Thanks for stealing my Humorous/Clever comment about how it didn`t take JF long to find an ugly picture of Rosie O`Dumbass.
How did this dicussion turn toward abortion ? Im not personally for it,but then im not a woman!
Reminds me of my favorite comic George Carlin`s take on abortion. ” Have ya ever noticed that all the people who are against abortion,you wouldn`t want to f@&k anyway “
May 4th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Callie – alright then. If morality isn’t what we’re discussing then we have nothing to discuss. I must just have misinterpreted your comments and for that I apologise.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Callie – alright then. If morality isn’t what we’re discussing then we have nothing to discuss. I must just have misinterpreted your comments and for that I apologise.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
226. bigski: Gotta love George Carlin! I agree…
May 4th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
226. bigski: Gotta love George Carlin! I agree…
May 4th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Randall,
Wow, full of contradictions aren’t we? On one hand, you state that Roe v. Wade is law based on solid precedent and tradition, then turn around and make a statement about going back to slavery, which was law based on precedent. What???
YOU missed the argument completely. The argument is that Roe v. Wade is a decision riddled with contradictions and strained logic and is one of the most grievous errors of the Supreme Court, along with Dred Scott. It was driven by politics and not sound Constitutional rationale, regardless of “tradition” or precedent.
You also said: “And frankly I wouldn’t CARE what any of them (founding fathers) felt about abortion.” So much for your precious tradition. Or is only tradition that supports your opinion? Yea, I know you said you don’t support abortion, but quite frankly, you logically contradict yourself all over the place in your screed above.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Randall,
Wow, full of contradictions aren’t we? On one hand, you state that Roe v. Wade is law based on solid precedent and tradition, then turn around and make a statement about going back to slavery, which was law based on precedent. What???
YOU missed the argument completely. The argument is that Roe v. Wade is a decision riddled with contradictions and strained logic and is one of the most grievous errors of the Supreme Court, along with Dred Scott. It was driven by politics and not sound Constitutional rationale, regardless of “tradition” or precedent.
You also said: “And frankly I wouldn’t CARE what any of them (founding fathers) felt about abortion.” So much for your precious tradition. Or is only tradition that supports your opinion? Yea, I know you said you don’t support abortion, but quite frankly, you logically contradict yourself all over the place in your screed above.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
For those who support “gay” marriage, I’m curious to know whether you would also support polygamy? The same rationale exists and if “gay” marriage is ultimately decided as a “right” by the Supreme Court, then polyagmy is right around the corner.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
For those who support “gay” marriage, I’m curious to know whether you would also support polygamy? The same rationale exists and if “gay” marriage is ultimately decided as a “right” by the Supreme Court, then polyagmy is right around the corner.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
226 bigski: Thanks for stealing my Humorous/Clever comment
Got to be quick, dude. Lol you once took issue with my “humor” when it was directed towards you. I blew it off at the time, but now – I apologize.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
226 bigski: Thanks for stealing my Humorous/Clever comment
Got to be quick, dude. Lol you once took issue with my “humor” when it was directed towards you. I blew it off at the time, but now – I apologize.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
230. Steelman-
how would legally allowing any 2 consenting adults to be recognized in a union known as marriage, regardless of their gender, automatically lead to recognizing unions of more than 2 adults as marriages?
there is no logic to your argument. you are using alarmist propaganda. lame.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
230. Steelman-
how would legally allowing any 2 consenting adults to be recognized in a union known as marriage, regardless of their gender, automatically lead to recognizing unions of more than 2 adults as marriages?
there is no logic to your argument. you are using alarmist propaganda. lame.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
230. Steelman: I support gay marriage as I think you are allowed to love who you want.
As for polygamy…that’s not in the same ballpark but I don’t care either way. However if some man or woman wants to have a few extra spouses, let them. They just have to be responsible for the extras and make sure they can be supported. No extra tax breaks for having extra spouses though. Only the 1st one counts.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
230. Steelman: I support gay marriage as I think you are allowed to love who you want.
As for polygamy…that’s not in the same ballpark but I don’t care either way. However if some man or woman wants to have a few extra spouses, let them. They just have to be responsible for the extras and make sure they can be supported. No extra tax breaks for having extra spouses though. Only the 1st one counts.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Great List!
May 4th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Great List!
May 4th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
And you forgot, our own spineless John F. Kennedy wanting to oust Fidel Castro from power, and training a shit-ton of exiles to do so, promising support from our own military, then pulling it and never showing up. As a result, the exiled militants were slaughtered. Good job, JFK! How many Cubans did you kill today? And whoever the retards are that are saying that 10 is the most you could have done, or close to it, get your head out your fucking asses. Any political party is going to be corrupt. Stop feeling so god damn high and mighty, you twats. Were you also aware that the KKK was also a liberal organization when it first started out? Dumb-asses.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
And you forgot, our own spineless John F. Kennedy wanting to oust Fidel Castro from power, and training a shit-ton of exiles to do so, promising support from our own military, then pulling it and never showing up. As a result, the exiled militants were slaughtered. Good job, JFK! How many Cubans did you kill today? And whoever the retards are that are saying that 10 is the most you could have done, or close to it, get your head out your fucking asses. Any political party is going to be corrupt. Stop feeling so god damn high and mighty, you twats. Were you also aware that the KKK was also a liberal organization when it first started out? Dumb-asses.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
As far as the gay marriage issue goes…althought I don’t see how it relates to the list at all…I keep getting swayed by different comments, but then I remember. I don’t want my kids being told, in school or whatever, “Then you get married to a nice girl…or guy.”
Do I think gays are the scum of the earth and we should throw stones at them? No. But I don’t want to live in a world where it becomes socially acceptable to marry someone of the same sex.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
As far as the gay marriage issue goes…althought I don’t see how it relates to the list at all…I keep getting swayed by different comments, but then I remember. I don’t want my kids being told, in school or whatever, “Then you get married to a nice girl…or guy.”
Do I think gays are the scum of the earth and we should throw stones at them? No. But I don’t want to live in a world where it becomes socially acceptable to marry someone of the same sex.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
230. Steelman: I do support gay marriage, and frankly, I’m just fine with polygamy as long as it concerns consenting adults. So long as no one is forced into it, and there is no abuse, sexual or otherwise, I see no problem with it. Who am I to define what love is or is not between people? Humans are not naturally monogamous, so if some people decide that they are going to openly follow their biological impulses, then so be it. When it comes to consenting adults, why should I care who is having sex with whom? Other people’s choices about when, how much, and with whom they have sex is none of my business.
Also, I don’t know if I am the only one who has figured this out, but a lot of the voting population is not so intelligent, or perhaps moral would be the better word. There are still a LOT of people out there who would institute segregation all over again. We are talking about the country where more people voted for American Idol than for the American President in 2004.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
230. Steelman: I do support gay marriage, and frankly, I’m just fine with polygamy as long as it concerns consenting adults. So long as no one is forced into it, and there is no abuse, sexual or otherwise, I see no problem with it. Who am I to define what love is or is not between people? Humans are not naturally monogamous, so if some people decide that they are going to openly follow their biological impulses, then so be it. When it comes to consenting adults, why should I care who is having sex with whom? Other people’s choices about when, how much, and with whom they have sex is none of my business.
Also, I don’t know if I am the only one who has figured this out, but a lot of the voting population is not so intelligent, or perhaps moral would be the better word. There are still a LOT of people out there who would institute segregation all over again. We are talking about the country where more people voted for American Idol than for the American President in 2004.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
232 lo: how would legally allowing any 2 consenting adults to be recognized in a union known as marriage, regardless of their gender, automatically lead to recognizing unions of more than 2 adults as marriages?
there is no logic to your argument. you are using alarmist propaganda. lame.
It’s the standard red herring. He’s not the first to trot it out.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
232 lo: how would legally allowing any 2 consenting adults to be recognized in a union known as marriage, regardless of their gender, automatically lead to recognizing unions of more than 2 adults as marriages?
there is no logic to your argument. you are using alarmist propaganda. lame.
It’s the standard red herring. He’s not the first to trot it out.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Its true that you can find hypocrisy all along the political spectrum but in the case of liberal hypocrisy, it is inherent to them….Do as I say, not as I do…ha ha …
Dev in Canada.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Its true that you can find hypocrisy all along the political spectrum but in the case of liberal hypocrisy, it is inherent to them….Do as I say, not as I do…ha ha …
Dev in Canada.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
lawandorder, I think I love you
May 4th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
lawandorder, I think I love you
May 4th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
And Randall, what is your good sense and solid grasp of the issues doing on this list?
May 4th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
And Randall, what is your good sense and solid grasp of the issues doing on this list?
May 4th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Wow. This thread went off the rails QUICK.
I’ve been studying the U.S. Constitution and constitutional law (i.e. SCOTUS jurisprudence, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist papers, other private and public personal writings of the founders, etc…) for over 20 years. I can tell you – a GREAT deal of what has been written in this thread is not quite correct – and some is flat out false.
One remark (stated more than once), among many others, is the “in our Democracy” statement. Read Article IV, Section 4. We are quite literally a Republic – and there is a difference.
The right to reproductive (among other types) of privacy so often quoted as being from Roe v. Wade actually first is found in Griswold v. Connecticut, wherein Justice Douglas wrote that the right to privacy is guaranteed by the Constitution through its “emanations and penumbras.” Otherwise, even though not specifically detailed in writing, the Constitution’s various guarantees of civil liberties, personal property, etc… lead to the inescapable conclusion that citizens have a right to privacy as well.
I could list bunches more examples, some probably much more egregious, but my brain hurts a little after making it to the bottom of this thread.
I will say this: I have been working the last couple of days on what was to be my first list – the 10 Worst U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, to be followed up by the 10 Best U.S. Supreme Court Decisions (if the first list was posted). After reading JFrater’s comments on how difficult it was for him to finally post THIS list, and considering the massive flame-war this list generated, I think I may well just submit a list on the top 10 treats found in an ice cream truck…
May 4th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Wow. This thread went off the rails QUICK.
I’ve been studying the U.S. Constitution and constitutional law (i.e. SCOTUS jurisprudence, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist papers, other private and public personal writings of the founders, etc…) for over 20 years. I can tell you – a GREAT deal of what has been written in this thread is not quite correct – and some is flat out false.
One remark (stated more than once), among many others, is the “in our Democracy” statement. Read Article IV, Section 4. We are quite literally a Republic – and there is a difference.
The right to reproductive (among other types) of privacy so often quoted as being from Roe v. Wade actually first is found in Griswold v. Connecticut, wherein Justice Douglas wrote that the right to privacy is guaranteed by the Constitution through its “emanations and penumbras.” Otherwise, even though not specifically detailed in writing, the Constitution’s various guarantees of civil liberties, personal property, etc… lead to the inescapable conclusion that citizens have a right to privacy as well.
I could list bunches more examples, some probably much more egregious, but my brain hurts a little after making it to the bottom of this thread.
I will say this: I have been working the last couple of days on what was to be my first list – the 10 Worst U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, to be followed up by the 10 Best U.S. Supreme Court Decisions (if the first list was posted). After reading JFrater’s comments on how difficult it was for him to finally post THIS list, and considering the massive flame-war this list generated, I think I may well just submit a list on the top 10 treats found in an ice cream truck…
May 4th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
242. KJ: Please don’t let this thread stop you from submitting a list. I for one would love to see what you have.
Also, most lists get derailed…that’s what makes it fun.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
242. KJ: Please don’t let this thread stop you from submitting a list. I for one would love to see what you have.
Also, most lists get derailed…that’s what makes it fun.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
msulli222: you say “if some people decide that they are going to openly follow their biological impulses, then so be it.”
that is a pretty scary position. what about the person who’s biological impulses tell them rape or abuse? you have to say that there is a limit to what can be socially acceptable.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
msulli222: you say “if some people decide that they are going to openly follow their biological impulses, then so be it.”
that is a pretty scary position. what about the person who’s biological impulses tell them rape or abuse? you have to say that there is a limit to what can be socially acceptable.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
KJ, like oouchan said I’m sure lots of istversers would be interested in reading your 10 worst (and best) U.S. Supreme Court Decisions. There have been lots of subjective political lists posted here including Worst US Presidents and most Outstanding US Presidents just to name a few.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
KJ, like oouchan said I’m sure lots of istversers would be interested in reading your 10 worst (and best) U.S. Supreme Court Decisions. There have been lots of subjective political lists posted here including Worst US Presidents and most Outstanding US Presidents just to name a few.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
another funny hypocrisy was when the president of MADD(mothers against drunk drivers) got a DUI. lol
May 4th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
another funny hypocrisy was when the president of MADD(mothers against drunk drivers) got a DUI. lol
May 4th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
hmmmmm. OK, I’ll run it up the flag pole and see if it flies. I should be ready to send it tomorrow, we’ll see if it gets posted. I guess why not? I’ve already done the work, just been playing with the order and prologue.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
hmmmmm. OK, I’ll run it up the flag pole and see if it flies. I should be ready to send it tomorrow, we’ll see if it gets posted. I guess why not? I’ve already done the work, just been playing with the order and prologue.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
lo:
The logic does indeed follow. One of the basic arguments for “gay” marriage is the premise of “two consenting adults”. But, if we as a society go that route, then who are we to limit it to just two? If “many” consenting adults wish to marry, then the same argument can be made that is being made for “gay” marriage.
Maggot: no red herring here. The argument is the same. I’ve run into quite a few individuals who support “gay” marriage but not polygamy. When challenged, they fall back to the same arguments they once ridiculed – used by those against “gay” marriage. It is indeed a slippery slope and the old cliche, “be careful what you ask for – you might just get it”, applies.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
lo:
The logic does indeed follow. One of the basic arguments for “gay” marriage is the premise of “two consenting adults”. But, if we as a society go that route, then who are we to limit it to just two? If “many” consenting adults wish to marry, then the same argument can be made that is being made for “gay” marriage.
Maggot: no red herring here. The argument is the same. I’ve run into quite a few individuals who support “gay” marriage but not polygamy. When challenged, they fall back to the same arguments they once ridiculed – used by those against “gay” marriage. It is indeed a slippery slope and the old cliche, “be careful what you ask for – you might just get it”, applies.
May 4th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Can we add a bonus? PETA killed 95.8% of the cats and dogs they took in during 2008. But they did manage to find homes for 7!!
May 4th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Can we add a bonus? PETA killed 95.8% of the cats and dogs they took in during 2008. But they did manage to find homes for 7!!
May 4th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
In the days since Roe vs. Wade was decided, medical technology has advanced and ultrasounds show more than ever before. We can look at a baby in utero and see that it does indeed look human. Does this make a difference to anyone when it comes to their feelings on abortion? It is easier to think of removing a clump of cells rather than something that looks human. Am I making sense? I’m a little tipsy
May 4th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
In the days since Roe vs. Wade was decided, medical technology has advanced and ultrasounds show more than ever before. We can look at a baby in utero and see that it does indeed look human. Does this make a difference to anyone when it comes to their feelings on abortion? It is easier to think of removing a clump of cells rather than something that looks human. Am I making sense? I’m a little tipsy
May 4th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
231~ Surely not me. My skins so thick ,I don`t wear a coat in the winter.
May 4th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
231~ Surely not me. My skins so thick ,I don`t wear a coat in the winter.
May 4th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
The thing about a ‘hypocrites’ list is you could pubish a ‘top 1,000′ for any designated group. So I won’t be getting my undies in a bunch over this list. I don’t know anyone who practices what he/she preaches 100% of the time. It’s human nature to say one thing and eventually do the other.
May 4th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
The thing about a ‘hypocrites’ list is you could pubish a ‘top 1,000′ for any designated group. So I won’t be getting my undies in a bunch over this list. I don’t know anyone who practices what he/she preaches 100% of the time. It’s human nature to say one thing and eventually do the other.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Bucslim #224-”And regardless of how anyone feels about Prop 8, it got voted down.”
Actually it passed. As a California resident and I’m appalled that passing a state constitutional amendment only requires a one vote majority. The State Supreme Court is reviewing the case right now. They struck down the previous ban on gay marriage, I don’t know what’s different about this amendment, but the buzz I’m getting is that it will be upheld. From there, it will go the the SCOTUS no matter what the decision is.
BTW I don’t lump you in with the extreme rightwingers. Those guys have no sense of humor at all. Obviously I don’t lump Jamie in with them either. My guess is that Jamie would embrace his liberalism if ever he were to meet American rightwingers in person. They would look askance if he tries to converse about Ayn Rand. They would think he’s gay if he mentioned his interest in opera and cooking. Then when he tells them he’s never read The Turner Diaries, their pointy heads would explode in anger.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Bucslim #224-”And regardless of how anyone feels about Prop 8, it got voted down.”
Actually it passed. As a California resident and I’m appalled that passing a state constitutional amendment only requires a one vote majority. The State Supreme Court is reviewing the case right now. They struck down the previous ban on gay marriage, I don’t know what’s different about this amendment, but the buzz I’m getting is that it will be upheld. From there, it will go the the SCOTUS no matter what the decision is.
BTW I don’t lump you in with the extreme rightwingers. Those guys have no sense of humor at all. Obviously I don’t lump Jamie in with them either. My guess is that Jamie would embrace his liberalism if ever he were to meet American rightwingers in person. They would look askance if he tries to converse about Ayn Rand. They would think he’s gay if he mentioned his interest in opera and cooking. Then when he tells them he’s never read The Turner Diaries, their pointy heads would explode in anger.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
250. Nicosia: Even with medical advancement as it is, the cells will still look like cells. It won’t start looking like a baby until later. So at 1 month…not so much.
No, it would not change my mind. What you or anyone does with their body is not going to affect me in the slightest. Same if you want a tattoo or body piercing.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
250. Nicosia: Even with medical advancement as it is, the cells will still look like cells. It won’t start looking like a baby until later. So at 1 month…not so much.
No, it would not change my mind. What you or anyone does with their body is not going to affect me in the slightest. Same if you want a tattoo or body piercing.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
I don’t believe in polygamy, for psychological and social reasons. Multiple partner relationships are more prone to issues like jealousy and passive-aggressive behaviour, domestic violence and spousal rape. And after all, a marriage should be about love. I think it is damn-near impossible for three people to be an equal partnership.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
I don’t believe in polygamy, for psychological and social reasons. Multiple partner relationships are more prone to issues like jealousy and passive-aggressive behaviour, domestic violence and spousal rape. And after all, a marriage should be about love. I think it is damn-near impossible for three people to be an equal partnership.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Steelman:
“The logic does indeed follow. One of the basic arguments for “gay” marriage is the premise of “two consenting adults”. But, if we as a society go that route, then who are we to limit it to just two?”
No, that doesn’t follow. Gay marriage has nothing to do with numerical limits.
“If “many” consenting adults wish to marry, then the same argument can be made that is being made for “gay” marriage.”
The same argument can be applied to two dogs getting married. The same argument can be applied to two consenting adults who want to secede from the US. I don’t see how it is a logical progression to assume that polygamy is going to come into it. Homosexuals make up somewhere between 5% and 20% of the populace throughout the USA. How much of the populace of the US is polygamist?
“When challenged, they fall back to the same arguments they once ridiculed – used by those against “gay” marriage. It is indeed a slippery slope and the old cliche, “be careful what you ask for – you might just get it”, applies.”
I don’t believe a gay marriage carries the same risks of emotional and physical abuse that psychological studies have shown polygamy to. I believe that two gay people can love each other just as two straight people can. I don’t think the same ideals of love and partnership can be applied to a trio or a harem.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Steelman:
“The logic does indeed follow. One of the basic arguments for “gay” marriage is the premise of “two consenting adults”. But, if we as a society go that route, then who are we to limit it to just two?”
No, that doesn’t follow. Gay marriage has nothing to do with numerical limits.
“If “many” consenting adults wish to marry, then the same argument can be made that is being made for “gay” marriage.”
The same argument can be applied to two dogs getting married. The same argument can be applied to two consenting adults who want to secede from the US. I don’t see how it is a logical progression to assume that polygamy is going to come into it. Homosexuals make up somewhere between 5% and 20% of the populace throughout the USA. How much of the populace of the US is polygamist?
“When challenged, they fall back to the same arguments they once ridiculed – used by those against “gay” marriage. It is indeed a slippery slope and the old cliche, “be careful what you ask for – you might just get it”, applies.”
I don’t believe a gay marriage carries the same risks of emotional and physical abuse that psychological studies have shown polygamy to. I believe that two gay people can love each other just as two straight people can. I don’t think the same ideals of love and partnership can be applied to a trio or a harem.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
oouchan: did you know that every organ is present in a baby that is only one month old? on average, that has happened before the woman even knows she is pregnant.
check out the week by week development at this site…
http://www.pregnancy.org/article/overview-fetal-development?page=1
to say that the baby is “just cells” is incredibly naive.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
oouchan: did you know that every organ is present in a baby that is only one month old? on average, that has happened before the woman even knows she is pregnant.
check out the week by week development at this site…
http://www.pregnancy.org/article/overview-fetal-development?page=1
to say that the baby is “just cells” is incredibly naive.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
DiscHuker: Sorry…but this is when they start to develop, not being fully developed at that time.
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-4-weeks
It wouldn’t matter to me anyway. Its not my body and I cannot tell someone else what do do with theirs. How arrogant can one be to do so?
May 4th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
DiscHuker: Sorry…but this is when they start to develop, not being fully developed at that time.
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-4-weeks
It wouldn’t matter to me anyway. Its not my body and I cannot tell someone else what do do with theirs. How arrogant can one be to do so?
May 4th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Most of the cost is from solar and wind power for his 20 room mansion. That’s a lot different from the impression given here. I guess you can’t have a Conservatove Hypocrisy list, because there wouldn’t be enough room on the server. Why don’t you call it, “Republicanverse.”
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=2012170970
May 4th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Most of the cost is from solar and wind power for his 20 room mansion. That’s a lot different from the impression given here. I guess you can’t have a Conservatove Hypocrisy list, because there wouldn’t be enough room on the server. Why don’t you call it, “Republicanverse.”
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=2012170970
May 4th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
steelman-
you’re still wrong. if we make a law that 2 consenting adults can marry (be they male, female, one of each, people born intersexed, etc.) that has nothing to do with marriages of more than 2 individuals. that would be a totally separate legal process and discussion. it’s misleading of you to conflate the two issues.
think about it, pretend i’m your landlord and i say, “ok, i will allow 2 people age 18 and over to sign the lease in an equally legally binding manner. i don’t care if they’re male, female, or one of each, i’ll write any 2 willing adults jointly into the lease.”
why on earth would you think this means i’m going to decide next year to put as many people on the lease as the tenants desire? the rule is 2, irrespective of their gender. the issues are totally separate.
anyway, the concept of “defense of traditional marriage” is pure crap. do you know what’s a threat to “traditional” heterosexual marriage? heterosexual infidelity and divorce! why is there no movement to make adultery illegal and outlaw divorce “so all children can have a mom and a dad”???
people who are against homosexuals should just come out and say “i’m a bigot, it’s my right to be one in my private life here in america,” and stop trying to rationalize the fact that they would deny others the legal privileges of marriage based on personal emotion or religious convictions. the conceit that heterosexual marriage needs “protecting” from gay people has worn thin and become pathetic.
do you know any men who left their wives for other men when their state legalized gay marriage? no? none? do you know any men who left their wives and children for a younger/different woman? oh, i thought so.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
steelman-
you’re still wrong. if we make a law that 2 consenting adults can marry (be they male, female, one of each, people born intersexed, etc.) that has nothing to do with marriages of more than 2 individuals. that would be a totally separate legal process and discussion. it’s misleading of you to conflate the two issues.
think about it, pretend i’m your landlord and i say, “ok, i will allow 2 people age 18 and over to sign the lease in an equally legally binding manner. i don’t care if they’re male, female, or one of each, i’ll write any 2 willing adults jointly into the lease.”
why on earth would you think this means i’m going to decide next year to put as many people on the lease as the tenants desire? the rule is 2, irrespective of their gender. the issues are totally separate.
anyway, the concept of “defense of traditional marriage” is pure crap. do you know what’s a threat to “traditional” heterosexual marriage? heterosexual infidelity and divorce! why is there no movement to make adultery illegal and outlaw divorce “so all children can have a mom and a dad”???
people who are against homosexuals should just come out and say “i’m a bigot, it’s my right to be one in my private life here in america,” and stop trying to rationalize the fact that they would deny others the legal privileges of marriage based on personal emotion or religious convictions. the conceit that heterosexual marriage needs “protecting” from gay people has worn thin and become pathetic.
do you know any men who left their wives for other men when their state legalized gay marriage? no? none? do you know any men who left their wives and children for a younger/different woman? oh, i thought so.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
We all make mistakes… and yeah ok these people are “celebrities” or whatever so they should behave well, but about number 2… hmm well I also feel bad for the dogs used to find a treatment for that sickness…was there any other way? It must be hard to go against something that keeps you alive… but I just think of my cat everytime people talk about animal testing, I would feel so bad if my cat had to suffer like that…it’s a complicated thing…
May 4th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
We all make mistakes… and yeah ok these people are “celebrities” or whatever so they should behave well, but about number 2… hmm well I also feel bad for the dogs used to find a treatment for that sickness…was there any other way? It must be hard to go against something that keeps you alive… but I just think of my cat everytime people talk about animal testing, I would feel so bad if my cat had to suffer like that…it’s a complicated thing…
May 4th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
248 Steelman: The argument is the same. I’ve run into quite a few individuals who support “gay” marriage but not polygamy.
It’s not the same at all. Polygamist relationships are one thing, and I think that the “relationship model” is faulty for many of the same reasons that Baxter touches on in 225. I actually discussed that a bit over in the “Christ-like Figures” list awhile back, starting at post 577 if you are interested. I doubt you are though because I doubt you really care either way. You’re not really arguing in favor of it, you’re using it as a diversion.
Anyway, my point here is, polygamist marriages are something else. Aside from the “emotional” aspect of it mentioned above, from a legal standpoint, the concept of marriage is that two people are treated as one. In a polygamist marriage, you don’t have that, which creates many problems. It’s not as easy as just saying “well then, the group is treated as one”. There would have to be quite allot of legal logistics to be worked out, arguably to the point of being nearly impractical. Many laws would need to be changed in order to accommodate it, and even if that could be easily done, it would result in a situation where different, unequal rules would apply to different marriages. You are basically creating a whole other institution, with regards to marital law, rather than simply making a very minor and harmless tweak to an existing one, as would be the case when going from opposite-sex couples only, to allowing same-sex couples too. We’ve already modified many other laws to be gender-neutral, it’s not that big of a deal.
“be careful what you ask for – you might just get it”, applies.
Funny you use that phrase because it is exactly my point: allow narrow-minded people to take away one of our civil rights, and what will be the next one they go after? The difference is, I’m using the phrase to defend equal rights. You’re using it to mask your homophobia.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
248 Steelman: The argument is the same. I’ve run into quite a few individuals who support “gay” marriage but not polygamy.
It’s not the same at all. Polygamist relationships are one thing, and I think that the “relationship model” is faulty for many of the same reasons that Baxter touches on in 225. I actually discussed that a bit over in the “Christ-like Figures” list awhile back, starting at post 577 if you are interested. I doubt you are though because I doubt you really care either way. You’re not really arguing in favor of it, you’re using it as a diversion.
Anyway, my point here is, polygamist marriages are something else. Aside from the “emotional” aspect of it mentioned above, from a legal standpoint, the concept of marriage is that two people are treated as one. In a polygamist marriage, you don’t have that, which creates many problems. It’s not as easy as just saying “well then, the group is treated as one”. There would have to be quite allot of legal logistics to be worked out, arguably to the point of being nearly impractical. Many laws would need to be changed in order to accommodate it, and even if that could be easily done, it would result in a situation where different, unequal rules would apply to different marriages. You are basically creating a whole other institution, with regards to marital law, rather than simply making a very minor and harmless tweak to an existing one, as would be the case when going from opposite-sex couples only, to allowing same-sex couples too. We’ve already modified many other laws to be gender-neutral, it’s not that big of a deal.
“be careful what you ask for – you might just get it”, applies.
Funny you use that phrase because it is exactly my point: allow narrow-minded people to take away one of our civil rights, and what will be the next one they go after? The difference is, I’m using the phrase to defend equal rights. You’re using it to mask your homophobia.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:59 am
Cool list. I would say however that Moore saying the rags-to-riches story is a myth/rarity is acceptable. Just because he did it doesn’t mean it’s common or attainable for anyone who wants it. He recognizes that despite his successes..which is hardly ever acknowledged by anyone successful.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:59 am
Cool list. I would say however that Moore saying the rags-to-riches story is a myth/rarity is acceptable. Just because he did it doesn’t mean it’s common or attainable for anyone who wants it. He recognizes that despite his successes..which is hardly ever acknowledged by anyone successful.
May 5th, 2009 at 4:28 am
Baxter, Lila Rose has nothing to do with the Nazi’s excpet that PP is one of the places that gave them the idea for Eugenics. Them and the systematic killing of the Armenians.
Liberals are jsut as sneaky as the Reps. All they eally care about is money. they jsut pretend they don’t. can you name many famous ones who do not have money? John Lennon would talk about giving away other people’s money while he sat on tens of millions of dollars. Hypocrit.
May 5th, 2009 at 4:28 am
Baxter, Lila Rose has nothing to do with the Nazi’s excpet that PP is one of the places that gave them the idea for Eugenics. Them and the systematic killing of the Armenians.
Liberals are jsut as sneaky as the Reps. All they eally care about is money. they jsut pretend they don’t. can you name many famous ones who do not have money? John Lennon would talk about giving away other people’s money while he sat on tens of millions of dollars. Hypocrit.
May 5th, 2009 at 4:44 am
I really liked this list :]
way to go Jay K
!
May 5th, 2009 at 4:44 am
I really liked this list :]
way to go Jay K
!
May 5th, 2009 at 4:46 am
PS.
The second i saw the name of this list i knew i was gonna avoid the comments, and so far i haven’t read them.
no point in arguing about politics here, y’all arent gonna agree no matter what. ‘
May 5th, 2009 at 4:46 am
PS.
The second i saw the name of this list i knew i was gonna avoid the comments, and so far i haven’t read them.
no point in arguing about politics here, y’all arent gonna agree no matter what. ‘
May 5th, 2009 at 4:53 am
266. Katiebug : Intelligent position. But futile nonetheless.
a) This is LV, people are going to argue about politics. It’s almost as important as religion and The Beatles.
AND
b) How long can you resist reading these comments? I mean, me, I don’t think I could hold off for more than, say, 5 minutes
May 5th, 2009 at 4:53 am
266. Katiebug : Intelligent position. But futile nonetheless.
a) This is LV, people are going to argue about politics. It’s almost as important as religion and The Beatles.
AND
b) How long can you resist reading these comments? I mean, me, I don’t think I could hold off for more than, say, 5 minutes
May 5th, 2009 at 5:59 am
To those not in the United States this list is probably a bit confusing.
In Australia, the “liberal” means conservative. In Canada, it means “moderate”, while in many European countries it means “libertarian”.
May 5th, 2009 at 5:59 am
To those not in the United States this list is probably a bit confusing.
In Australia, the “liberal” means conservative. In Canada, it means “moderate”, while in many European countries it means “libertarian”.
May 5th, 2009 at 6:14 am
oouchan: agreed. i didn’t say that the baby was fully formed and recognizable but rather that all the organs are present at such an early time.
you care greatly what someone else does with their own body. i guarantee you would have a problem if someone tried break your body apart with forceps and then clean it up with a vaccuum.
May 5th, 2009 at 6:14 am
oouchan: agreed. i didn’t say that the baby was fully formed and recognizable but rather that all the organs are present at such an early time.
you care greatly what someone else does with their own body. i guarantee you would have a problem if someone tried break your body apart with forceps and then clean it up with a vaccuum.
May 5th, 2009 at 6:14 am
See, what’s going on here is typical liberal claptrap. I have an opinion – that the definition of marriage is, and has always been, a union between one man and one woman, regardless of the faults of those who have gotten married (which is a diversion by some of you by using it as an argument to change the defintion). This opinion is still held the majority of people, including Obama and his administration.
So, if you are going to call me a “homophobe” (again, typical liberal debating tactic – label people with names when you can’t win or are struggling with the argument), then you are by default calling the President of the United States a homophobe as well.
It’s funny that you guys are still living in you’re own fantasy world thinking that you can define the world they way you see it, even when you are changing definitions of terms. Once you change the defintion of “marriage”, which you are arguing to do, then you can’t stomp your feet and say, “well gee, there is no logical argument to go beyond two people. I just don’t see it?”. And therein lies your problem – you just don’t get it.
There are already pro-polygamy groups, who have already started legal briefs and filings based upon THE SAME ARGUMENT BEING USED FOR “GAY MARRAIGE”. Once the door is breached, the flood gates will indeed open with a multitude of requests of varying “marriages”. And with that, I picture many of you scratching your heads saying, “gee, how’d that happen?”
May 5th, 2009 at 6:14 am
See, what’s going on here is typical liberal claptrap. I have an opinion – that the definition of marriage is, and has always been, a union between one man and one woman, regardless of the faults of those who have gotten married (which is a diversion by some of you by using it as an argument to change the defintion). This opinion is still held the majority of people, including Obama and his administration.
So, if you are going to call me a “homophobe” (again, typical liberal debating tactic – label people with names when you can’t win or are struggling with the argument), then you are by default calling the President of the United States a homophobe as well.
It’s funny that you guys are still living in you’re own fantasy world thinking that you can define the world they way you see it, even when you are changing definitions of terms. Once you change the defintion of “marriage”, which you are arguing to do, then you can’t stomp your feet and say, “well gee, there is no logical argument to go beyond two people. I just don’t see it?”. And therein lies your problem – you just don’t get it.
There are already pro-polygamy groups, who have already started legal briefs and filings based upon THE SAME ARGUMENT BEING USED FOR “GAY MARRAIGE”. Once the door is breached, the flood gates will indeed open with a multitude of requests of varying “marriages”. And with that, I picture many of you scratching your heads saying, “gee, how’d that happen?”
May 5th, 2009 at 6:24 am
Baxter:
You said: “I don’t believe a gay marriage carries the same risks of emotional and physical abuse that psychological studies have shown polygamy to. I believe that two gay people can love each other just as two straight people can. I don’t think the same ideals of love and partnership can be applied to a trio or a harem.”
But isn’t this an argument of what people believe??? Are you a bigot against those who believe in communal love?? Are you a “polyphobe”?? I’m being labeled a bigot and “homophobe” for expressing a belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. We all draw lines of what is acceptable, which is a lot of my original point.
I’m sitting back laughing at those who are attacking me for a belief, when they arrogantly draw their own line in the sand (that polygamy would never follow – which really means that it is unacceptable) and then think they are on some moral high ground.
Now we fit into this list’s original topic – liberal hypocrisy. They are expressing it very well.
May 5th, 2009 at 6:24 am
Baxter:
You said: “I don’t believe a gay marriage carries the same risks of emotional and physical abuse that psychological studies have shown polygamy to. I believe that two gay people can love each other just as two straight people can. I don’t think the same ideals of love and partnership can be applied to a trio or a harem.”
But isn’t this an argument of what people believe??? Are you a bigot against those who believe in communal love?? Are you a “polyphobe”?? I’m being labeled a bigot and “homophobe” for expressing a belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. We all draw lines of what is acceptable, which is a lot of my original point.
I’m sitting back laughing at those who are attacking me for a belief, when they arrogantly draw their own line in the sand (that polygamy would never follow – which really means that it is unacceptable) and then think they are on some moral high ground.
Now we fit into this list’s original topic – liberal hypocrisy. They are expressing it very well.
May 5th, 2009 at 6:33 am
Steelman,
That is the point of the PC idea. You label someone something so they will shut up in fear. It is not ablout rights. Politicians do not care about our rights.
Ever notice how such things as gun rights are an amendment and nto treated as such and yet things that are not are treated like they should be?
May 5th, 2009 at 6:33 am
Steelman,
That is the point of the PC idea. You label someone something so they will shut up in fear. It is not ablout rights. Politicians do not care about our rights.
Ever notice how such things as gun rights are an amendment and nto treated as such and yet things that are not are treated like they should be?
May 5th, 2009 at 6:50 am
269. DiscHuker: You make it sound as if someone is waiting around the corner to attack pregnant women and force abortions on them. Come on.
If that is the case…then yes, I would mind.
But that is not what we are talking about. If someone chooses (that’s the key word here) to have one, it’s none of my business. I am not of the inclination to save people’s mortal souls. That’s up to them.
May 5th, 2009 at 6:50 am
269. DiscHuker: You make it sound as if someone is waiting around the corner to attack pregnant women and force abortions on them. Come on.
If that is the case…then yes, I would mind.
But that is not what we are talking about. If someone chooses (that’s the key word here) to have one, it’s none of my business. I am not of the inclination to save people’s mortal souls. That’s up to them.
May 5th, 2009 at 6:51 am
If a gay couple were to be allowed to legally wed, why would anyone who supports this but not support polygamy?
It’s recognized by some religions so why would pro gay marriage supporters be against this? It’s like, gay marriage is OK but the idea of a mother wanting to wed her 21 year old son is wayyy too out there for me. THAT should NEVER be legalized! Now I realize that there are going to be arguments that people who want to marry their beloved pets would be stretching things a bit. However, ther’s always going to be the fringe element out there who comes out of the woodwork asking for equal rights to marry a lawn chair.
May 5th, 2009 at 6:51 am
If a gay couple were to be allowed to legally wed, why would anyone who supports this but not support polygamy?
It’s recognized by some religions so why would pro gay marriage supporters be against this? It’s like, gay marriage is OK but the idea of a mother wanting to wed her 21 year old son is wayyy too out there for me. THAT should NEVER be legalized! Now I realize that there are going to be arguments that people who want to marry their beloved pets would be stretching things a bit. However, ther’s always going to be the fringe element out there who comes out of the woodwork asking for equal rights to marry a lawn chair.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:02 am
What most people do not realise that so called “Progressives” always need a cause. After gay marriage, they will need something else. If pedophilia had enough support, they would try to make it legal. They need people riled up. It is how it has always been. Controversy = votes.
If anyone thinks that gay rights was always in the Dems minds, look at how they reacted at the 1980 convention when they saw it was not popular to do so. Now it is popular so they will go for it.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:02 am
What most people do not realise that so called “Progressives” always need a cause. After gay marriage, they will need something else. If pedophilia had enough support, they would try to make it legal. They need people riled up. It is how it has always been. Controversy = votes.
If anyone thinks that gay rights was always in the Dems minds, look at how they reacted at the 1980 convention when they saw it was not popular to do so. Now it is popular so they will go for it.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:11 am
damien_karras:
Did no one ever teach you that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy?
May 5th, 2009 at 7:11 am
damien_karras:
Did no one ever teach you that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy?
May 5th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Randall:
All I know is that if you give some people an inch, they’ll go for the yard. But the slippery slope I will look into. BTW… why are you still talking to Wayne?
That fruitcake actually stirred fear in me.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Randall:
All I know is that if you give some people an inch, they’ll go for the yard. But the slippery slope I will look into. BTW… why are you still talking to Wayne?
That fruitcake actually stirred fear in me.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:28 am
damien:
I’m done talking to him now. He responded to me today with somewhat less rabid barking, so I approached the crazy critter and told him in essence to go away. I’m certainly doing so. Hopefully someone will lock him up soon.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:28 am
damien:
I’m done talking to him now. He responded to me today with somewhat less rabid barking, so I approached the crazy critter and told him in essence to go away. I’m certainly doing so. Hopefully someone will lock him up soon.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:29 am
@ Steelman ‘“gay” marriage’ I think you may have got your quote marks mixed up. By putting them over the ‘gay’ part of the sentence, you are implying that the gay part of it is the part that is use of a current word for a new situation. Either that or you just don’t know what you are talking about.
And @ all the people trying the old “babykillers” “human life” rubbish. Seriously. I don’t live in the US so don’t know the story behind PP, but Marie Stopes (the UK family planning centres) was also founded by a supporter of Eugenics (and apparently of Hitler himself) but, that doesn’t mean that they weren’t ALSO trying to help young women who found themselves in a situation that would have caused a lot of grief. Not to mention rape and abuse victims.
A woman shouldn’t have the decisions of how to live her life made for her by a bunch of people following rules in a book written by a BUNCH OF PEOPLE 1,600 years ago (yes, 400yrs AFTER the supposed death of Jesus.). Given that American Christians seem to have such a prominent voice over there, I don’t see how any of you can claim that liberals twist things to ensure you don’t have your rights. Do you mean your right to assert authority over the body of a complete stranger? Your right to ensure that even more people live in poverty? Your right to worsen human overpopulation of the planet? Or is it just your right to spout hateful nonsense that is being stomped?
@ Randall – This is my first read of the comments of LV and you’re impressive.
BTW – It’s unlikely that I’m going to have time to respond to any comments arising from mine, so feel free to flame me all you want.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:29 am
@ Steelman ‘“gay” marriage’ I think you may have got your quote marks mixed up. By putting them over the ‘gay’ part of the sentence, you are implying that the gay part of it is the part that is use of a current word for a new situation. Either that or you just don’t know what you are talking about.
And @ all the people trying the old “babykillers” “human life” rubbish. Seriously. I don’t live in the US so don’t know the story behind PP, but Marie Stopes (the UK family planning centres) was also founded by a supporter of Eugenics (and apparently of Hitler himself) but, that doesn’t mean that they weren’t ALSO trying to help young women who found themselves in a situation that would have caused a lot of grief. Not to mention rape and abuse victims.
A woman shouldn’t have the decisions of how to live her life made for her by a bunch of people following rules in a book written by a BUNCH OF PEOPLE 1,600 years ago (yes, 400yrs AFTER the supposed death of Jesus.). Given that American Christians seem to have such a prominent voice over there, I don’t see how any of you can claim that liberals twist things to ensure you don’t have your rights. Do you mean your right to assert authority over the body of a complete stranger? Your right to ensure that even more people live in poverty? Your right to worsen human overpopulation of the planet? Or is it just your right to spout hateful nonsense that is being stomped?
@ Randall – This is my first read of the comments of LV and you’re impressive.
BTW – It’s unlikely that I’m going to have time to respond to any comments arising from mine, so feel free to flame me all you want.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:29 am
oouchan: i didn’t imply any such thing. if you want to draw conclusions about what i mean, go this direction instead…
i make it sound like there are doctors who got paid to kill over 1 million babies last year. and america says it is ok for a woman to kill her baby if she so chooses.
it still amazes me that this position is accepted in america.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:29 am
oouchan: i didn’t imply any such thing. if you want to draw conclusions about what i mean, go this direction instead…
i make it sound like there are doctors who got paid to kill over 1 million babies last year. and america says it is ok for a woman to kill her baby if she so chooses.
it still amazes me that this position is accepted in america.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:32 am
steelman- “There are already pro-polygamy groups, who have already started legal briefs and filings based upon THE SAME ARGUMENT BEING USED FOR “GAY MARRAIGE”. ”
and what, exactly, is this argument? that “anyone in love can be legally married?” clearly spell out this “identical argument” for me, please.
because i’ve not heard that argument anywhere. i’ve heard the argument that “any 2 people legally and mentally deemed adults, who consent to a union (and are deemed legally and mentally capable of consenting) of their own free will without coercion should be able to be legally married.” and even in this argument it’s silly to offer “love” as a required qualification. do you know why? because “love” can’t be proved to a court, or even defined in a consistent way from one person to the next. all those pop songs have gotten mileage out of the questions “what is love?” and “is this love?” for a reason.
i’ve heard no one seriously argue that “only love” matters, because if so, we should go ahead and marry “loving” adults to infants, force people to marry stalkers who “love” them, wed the wealthy but in-a-vegetative-state head injury victims to a “loving” admirer, etc.
you are the one who is distorting the other side’s argument, see the above.
and what of polygyny/polyandry and group marriage? who knows, as was mentioned in another comment spreading the legal definition of marriage to more than 2 people brings questions about the legal balance of power and support obligations. it is a separate legal argument from the marriage of 2 people (any 2 people).
think about it: say there is a polyandrous woman with 4 husbands and husband #2 decides to legally leave the relationship. who owes who alimony, and how much for how long? this is not an idle question from a legal standpoint, and is a very good example of why multiple-person “marriages” do change the legal definition of both the privileges and responsibilities of a marriage contract (it is a contract, which you need a government license for, after all.) simply changing the genders on an established “marriage of 2″ legal contract changes none of these privileges and obligations.
so tell me again how allowing a same sex couple who fit all criteria of “2 people legally and mentally deemed adults, who consent to a union (and are deemed legally and mentally capable of consenting) of their own free will without coercion” to be bound in a marriage contract is totally, exactly the same as allowing 5 people to “share” one marriage contract?
May 5th, 2009 at 7:32 am
steelman- “There are already pro-polygamy groups, who have already started legal briefs and filings based upon THE SAME ARGUMENT BEING USED FOR “GAY MARRAIGE”. ”
and what, exactly, is this argument? that “anyone in love can be legally married?” clearly spell out this “identical argument” for me, please.
because i’ve not heard that argument anywhere. i’ve heard the argument that “any 2 people legally and mentally deemed adults, who consent to a union (and are deemed legally and mentally capable of consenting) of their own free will without coercion should be able to be legally married.” and even in this argument it’s silly to offer “love” as a required qualification. do you know why? because “love” can’t be proved to a court, or even defined in a consistent way from one person to the next. all those pop songs have gotten mileage out of the questions “what is love?” and “is this love?” for a reason.
i’ve heard no one seriously argue that “only love” matters, because if so, we should go ahead and marry “loving” adults to infants, force people to marry stalkers who “love” them, wed the wealthy but in-a-vegetative-state head injury victims to a “loving” admirer, etc.
you are the one who is distorting the other side’s argument, see the above.
and what of polygyny/polyandry and group marriage? who knows, as was mentioned in another comment spreading the legal definition of marriage to more than 2 people brings questions about the legal balance of power and support obligations. it is a separate legal argument from the marriage of 2 people (any 2 people).
think about it: say there is a polyandrous woman with 4 husbands and husband #2 decides to legally leave the relationship. who owes who alimony, and how much for how long? this is not an idle question from a legal standpoint, and is a very good example of why multiple-person “marriages” do change the legal definition of both the privileges and responsibilities of a marriage contract (it is a contract, which you need a government license for, after all.) simply changing the genders on an established “marriage of 2″ legal contract changes none of these privileges and obligations.
so tell me again how allowing a same sex couple who fit all criteria of “2 people legally and mentally deemed adults, who consent to a union (and are deemed legally and mentally capable of consenting) of their own free will without coercion” to be bound in a marriage contract is totally, exactly the same as allowing 5 people to “share” one marriage contract?
May 5th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Democrat vs Republican, Bloods vs Crips, Red vs Blue… people are people.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Democrat vs Republican, Bloods vs Crips, Red vs Blue… people are people.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:36 am
geekygirluk:
Thank you very much.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:36 am
geekygirluk:
Thank you very much.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:38 am
260. Lo: “why is there no movement to make adultery illegal?”
Technically, it is illegal. It’s a breach of contract. However, statistics and surveys show that 40% or something like that of the population would be imprisoned. My uncle, who is a lawyer, told me that once, sorry I don’t have it sourced anywhere.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:38 am
260. Lo: “why is there no movement to make adultery illegal?”
Technically, it is illegal. It’s a breach of contract. However, statistics and surveys show that 40% or something like that of the population would be imprisoned. My uncle, who is a lawyer, told me that once, sorry I don’t have it sourced anywhere.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:41 am
274. damien_karras-
about the “if gay marriage is allowed, people will marry anything at all” concept examples you use:
you do realize that this argument assigns some adult human beings the same legal status granted to lawn chairs, pets, and knowing practitioners of nuclear family incest, simply because those adult human beings happen to be gay?
are you really okay with saying a gay person is legally equal to a lawnchair? wouldn’t that mean it’s legal to buy, sell, and trade them, or destroy them at will without punishment if you are the owner?
May 5th, 2009 at 7:41 am
274. damien_karras-
about the “if gay marriage is allowed, people will marry anything at all” concept examples you use:
you do realize that this argument assigns some adult human beings the same legal status granted to lawn chairs, pets, and knowing practitioners of nuclear family incest, simply because those adult human beings happen to be gay?
are you really okay with saying a gay person is legally equal to a lawnchair? wouldn’t that mean it’s legal to buy, sell, and trade them, or destroy them at will without punishment if you are the owner?
May 5th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Great list! I think it´s very healthy to expose hypocrisy and general scumminess (is that a word?) wherever it may be. Kuddos.
And for all the people claiming that Gore paid more electricity because he used green energy sources… That´s not the point. I think you´re missing the part about how much energy was used in KILOWATT-HOURS. He used 20 times more electricity than the average home…
*****
Lincoln (150):
“Funny how these Lists make people believe it is all true, though most of it is sucked out of a republicans thumb…”
You got any evidence to back up that statement? It´s incredibly easy (and dishonest) to say someone´s POV is crap and then not provide any evidence for your opposing view.
*****
BongoShaftsbury :
You sound more angry than is necessary… What is it with the hate speech? So ALL conservatives are “squuirming, gun-totin’ haters”? You sound all “hater” yourself…
And why do you feel the need to defend indefensible actions? Accept that there is scum in every persuassion and move on.
And I agree with whoever said that once you label yourself as “liberal” or “conservative” you lost the battle. I agree with individual ideas and principles. Sometimes I think one party has it right, sometimes another. Open you mind to the possiblity that the “other side” may have some valid points (not to mention that “your side” is not always necessarily right…)
May 5th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Great list! I think it´s very healthy to expose hypocrisy and general scumminess (is that a word?) wherever it may be. Kuddos.
And for all the people claiming that Gore paid more electricity because he used green energy sources… That´s not the point. I think you´re missing the part about how much energy was used in KILOWATT-HOURS. He used 20 times more electricity than the average home…
*****
Lincoln (150):
“Funny how these Lists make people believe it is all true, though most of it is sucked out of a republicans thumb…”
You got any evidence to back up that statement? It´s incredibly easy (and dishonest) to say someone´s POV is crap and then not provide any evidence for your opposing view.
*****
BongoShaftsbury :
You sound more angry than is necessary… What is it with the hate speech? So ALL conservatives are “squuirming, gun-totin’ haters”? You sound all “hater” yourself…
And why do you feel the need to defend indefensible actions? Accept that there is scum in every persuassion and move on.
And I agree with whoever said that once you label yourself as “liberal” or “conservative” you lost the battle. I agree with individual ideas and principles. Sometimes I think one party has it right, sometimes another. Open you mind to the possiblity that the “other side” may have some valid points (not to mention that “your side” is not always necessarily right…)
May 5th, 2009 at 8:06 am
279. geekygirluk: Wonderful post. Thank you!
280. DiscHuker: What you say is true. They do get paid to perform abortions. However, why would it affect me? That is the main point of this. It doesn’t affect me at all. I have *way* more important things in life to worry about…clean air and water, helping out animals, etc. These things affect me, but not what someone does to his or her body.
lo: You made some good points there.
May 5th, 2009 at 8:06 am
279. geekygirluk: Wonderful post. Thank you!
280. DiscHuker: What you say is true. They do get paid to perform abortions. However, why would it affect me? That is the main point of this. It doesn’t affect me at all. I have *way* more important things in life to worry about…clean air and water, helping out animals, etc. These things affect me, but not what someone does to his or her body.
lo: You made some good points there.
May 5th, 2009 at 8:11 am
bucslim (and others here):
You know you have my sympathies, brother, even though we’re on different sides of the fence (now).
“My point was addressing the ‘tyranny of the majority.’ I don’t like the fact that Obama was elected President, but he got more votes than my party did. And regardless of how anyone feels about Prop 8, it got voted down. Whether anyone likes it or not, or thinks it’s fair or not we have to abide by it.”
Right. If we don’t live by the rule of law, in our society… we have little else. Our responsiblity is to live by it, and if we don’t like it, do what we can to legally change it.
Jefferson never defined for us when, precisely, revolution became a proper step. He simply said it was our right to go there, if the need presented itself. He kind of copped out on that one. But I can’t blame the guy. Were any of them gods? Nope. Just ordinary (well, okay—EXTRAordinary) guys.
Really, we take all this shit so seriously… look the brevity of life in the face and then ask yourself if all these questions matter as much as you thought. It’s that kind of thinking that brings out the social libertarian in me. I just want to be left alone and I want to leave others alone. (“I don’t want any trouble”). My sense of justice is the only thing that keeps me involved—I don’t like people being treated as outcasts or social pariahs when I don’t feel it’s deserved. Nor do I like seeing the rich and powerful get away with raping the little guys.
What a world we live in, where all this constantly churning mess of life gets boiled down to simplicity far too easily. These Somali pirates—you know, these guys are doing a bad thing, we all recognize. But it’s the old story of the little guy going after the rich and powerful, and Americans still tend to cheer for that shit—depending on who it is, of course. Sometimes we don’t like it when it’s “foreigners” or “dark people” or non-Christians. But if we realize that these Somali schlubs over there—that a lot of them took up arms and turned to piracy because their own country had fallen apart and so no one was policing their waters anymore–and so these fishermen, whose only source of living was the sea—these guys saw the fishing fleets of foreign nations–most of them European–sneaking in and illegally stealing their catch… which no doubt they’d already over-fished anyway, being humans… but you know… there was real piracy right there, of another variety—someone stepping in and taking what wasn’t rightfully theirs from people who couldn’t defend it because they couldn’t get their act together. And so how do these little guys respond? They turn to crime. Piracy of a more classic nature.
Complicated freakin’ mess. But it all gets boiled down to simplicity: Us against the Pirates! Yay! And even I think it’s funny… the US navy fighting pirates again. A lot more fun than fighting the goddamned Russians—who could, once upon a time, fight back. Where’s the fun in that? But fighting pirates–now that’s some good times.
Abortion is boiled down by Christians as the taking of an innocent life—and I sympathize. But I’d feel better about their stance on this if they applied this concern for life in other directions–ALL directions, really, as their philosophy dictates. As CHRIST would dictate. Imagine if we lived in a United States populated with vast numbers of REAL Christians–that is, people who practice the faith as Christ wanted them to. Imagine a significant percentage of the population going around turning the other cheek, and loving their enemies, of doing all manner of sublimely good deeds to help the poor, the sick, the weak, those unable to help themselves. How the rest of us would be shamed. And what a sweet culture this would be. But that isn’t what we’ve got. Instead, we have a population, for the most part, both Christian and non-Christian, that is self-obsessed and desirous mainly of sticking it to the other guy. You turn on the TV or walk out into the world, and for the most part all you see are “Christians” *preaching* and playing it holier-than-thou—and that’s why it’s easy for people to dislike them.
But as I say, while I sympathize on the abortion issue–it surely isn’t simplistic. It’s complex. Is human life JUST the biological? So is that our only self-mandate, to save it if it exists and is innocent? (because many Christians who are rabidly anti-abortion are supporters of capital punishment, oddly enough, but they have a logic all ready to back up this contradiction). But look at human life in its entirety, out in the world. It’s miserable much of the time. People starving, killing each other, living in ignorance and hatred… violence, bloodshed, want…
I hate the idea of going down the slope where human life is cheap… but that’s actually how we DO treat it. Even in this country to some extent. Isn’t it a mercy to spare an innocent life from that, when we know damn well it IS a reality for a lot of people, even here?
And even if mercy doesn’t come into it–do we REALLY place that much value on individual life? We like to say we do—I like to think I do. But do we really? Or do we just prefer it as a concept? When we hear that hundreds have died in some calamity, or even if just one innocent person has been the victim of some killer—do we weep for these people? Does the grief get into us and ruin our day? Or are we distant from it and desensitized to some extent, as long as it didn’t happen to us, or our loved ones, or someone we know personally?
That’s the way we are. We innately know that life is precious, yes, but at the same time, as individuals, we ARE here one second and gone the next. The species carries on… but we don’t. And in just a generation or two, nobody will even remember us–and that’s a fact. Unless you’re someone truly famous in your lifetime, you’re COMPLETELY forgotten by the time your grandkids die off. No one recalls you. That’s a truth, a fact, that is built into being a human and will probably never change.
In light of that, is abortion itself such a terrible crime? I still don’t like it. But I can’t raise up a great deal of indignancy about it anymore.
I realize that’s cold and somewhat heartless, and some will pity for me for it or be angry with me. But look into your own soul HONESTLY and tell me the things I’ve said don’t weigh on all of you in one form or another.
“Some people wanted every vote to count in 2000 when the presidency was decided by 12 people in black robes, now some people want votes to be set aside because they think the outcome was unfair. So the lesson is that voting should only count when the result is something I voted for.”
Well, the pitfalls of being in a Democracy is that we have to live with the lows as well as the highs. The beauty of American democracy is that all votes count, regardless of the cynical view that they don’t. The ugly side of American democracy is also that all votes count. And there’ll always be people who aren’t satisfied.
What you’re onto is the danger that someday we won’t bother with this inconvenience anymore… and that can happen. Democracies don’t tend to last, in human history. They do tend to fail, eventually. Scary thought, huh?
“In a 100 years I’m sure our descendants will think we were a bunch of pin-headed mooks for some of the crass buffoonery we engaged in.”
No doubt, but they’ll be engaged in their own. Probably stuff that would make all of us blush, regardless of political philosophy.
“My entire point is that we have a couple of ways to make injustices right in this country. And we can only hope that our upbringing, our education and our sense of humanity follow us into the voting booth, courtroom or legislature.”
Yeah, I agree. That’s all we’ve got. Our responsiblity to ourselves and others as citizens.
What a bunch of retards to be leaving such a weighty thing to, eh?
“I don’t like it that in some cases, the person standing next in line to pull the lever had bigoted parents or friends, didn’t pay attention in social studies, and could care less about anybody but himself.”
precisely. Your fellow citizen.
“That does mean my vote is more meaningful to me than it probably is to him, but they all count the same. It ain’t perfect by any means.”
Nope. And if perfection were attainable, you’d think we’d have found it or gotten closer to it in 5000 years.
But the proof that it isn’t attainable is… nobody can seem to think of a better system than the one we have.
May 5th, 2009 at 8:11 am
bucslim (and others here):
You know you have my sympathies, brother, even though we’re on different sides of the fence (now).
“My point was addressing the ‘tyranny of the majority.’ I don’t like the fact that Obama was elected President, but he got more votes than my party did. And regardless of how anyone feels about Prop 8, it got voted down. Whether anyone likes it or not, or thinks it’s fair or not we have to abide by it.”
Right. If we don’t live by the rule of law, in our society… we have little else. Our responsiblity is to live by it, and if we don’t like it, do what we can to legally change it.
Jefferson never defined for us when, precisely, revolution became a proper step. He simply said it was our right to go there, if the need presented itself. He kind of copped out on that one. But I can’t blame the guy. Were any of them gods? Nope. Just ordinary (well, okay—EXTRAordinary) guys.
Really, we take all this shit so seriously… look the brevity of life in the face and then ask yourself if all these questions matter as much as you thought. It’s that kind of thinking that brings out the social libertarian in me. I just want to be left alone and I want to leave others alone. (“I don’t want any trouble”). My sense of justice is the only thing that keeps me involved—I don’t like people being treated as outcasts or social pariahs when I don’t feel it’s deserved. Nor do I like seeing the rich and powerful get away with raping the little guys.
What a world we live in, where all this constantly churning mess of life gets boiled down to simplicity far too easily. These Somali pirates—you know, these guys are doing a bad thing, we all recognize. But it’s the old story of the little guy going after the rich and powerful, and Americans still tend to cheer for that shit—depending on who it is, of course. Sometimes we don’t like it when it’s “foreigners” or “dark people” or non-Christians. But if we realize that these Somali schlubs over there—that a lot of them took up arms and turned to piracy because their own country had fallen apart and so no one was policing their waters anymore–and so these fishermen, whose only source of living was the sea—these guys saw the fishing fleets of foreign nations–most of them European–sneaking in and illegally stealing their catch… which no doubt they’d already over-fished anyway, being humans… but you know… there was real piracy right there, of another variety—someone stepping in and taking what wasn’t rightfully theirs from people who couldn’t defend it because they couldn’t get their act together. And so how do these little guys respond? They turn to crime. Piracy of a more classic nature.
Complicated freakin’ mess. But it all gets boiled down to simplicity: Us against the Pirates! Yay! And even I think it’s funny… the US navy fighting pirates again. A lot more fun than fighting the goddamned Russians—who could, once upon a time, fight back. Where’s the fun in that? But fighting pirates–now that’s some good times.
Abortion is boiled down by Christians as the taking of an innocent life—and I sympathize. But I’d feel better about their stance on this if they applied this concern for life in other directions–ALL directions, really, as their philosophy dictates. As CHRIST would dictate. Imagine if we lived in a United States populated with vast numbers of REAL Christians–that is, people who practice the faith as Christ wanted them to. Imagine a significant percentage of the population going around turning the other cheek, and loving their enemies, of doing all manner of sublimely good deeds to help the poor, the sick, the weak, those unable to help themselves. How the rest of us would be shamed. And what a sweet culture this would be. But that isn’t what we’ve got. Instead, we have a population, for the most part, both Christian and non-Christian, that is self-obsessed and desirous mainly of sticking it to the other guy. You turn on the TV or walk out into the world, and for the most part all you see are “Christians” *preaching* and playing it holier-than-thou—and that’s why it’s easy for people to dislike them.
But as I say, while I sympathize on the abortion issue–it surely isn’t simplistic. It’s complex. Is human life JUST the biological? So is that our only self-mandate, to save it if it exists and is innocent? (because many Christians who are rabidly anti-abortion are supporters of capital punishment, oddly enough, but they have a logic all ready to back up this contradiction). But look at human life in its entirety, out in the world. It’s miserable much of the time. People starving, killing each other, living in ignorance and hatred… violence, bloodshed, want…
I hate the idea of going down the slope where human life is cheap… but that’s actually how we DO treat it. Even in this country to some extent. Isn’t it a mercy to spare an innocent life from that, when we know damn well it IS a reality for a lot of people, even here?
And even if mercy doesn’t come into it–do we REALLY place that much value on individual life? We like to say we do—I like to think I do. But do we really? Or do we just prefer it as a concept? When we hear that hundreds have died in some calamity, or even if just one innocent person has been the victim of some killer—do we weep for these people? Does the grief get into us and ruin our day? Or are we distant from it and desensitized to some extent, as long as it didn’t happen to us, or our loved ones, or someone we know personally?
That’s the way we are. We innately know that life is precious, yes, but at the same time, as individuals, we ARE here one second and gone the next. The species carries on… but we don’t. And in just a generation or two, nobody will even remember us–and that’s a fact. Unless you’re someone truly famous in your lifetime, you’re COMPLETELY forgotten by the time your grandkids die off. No one recalls you. That’s a truth, a fact, that is built into being a human and will probably never change.
In light of that, is abortion itself such a terrible crime? I still don’t like it. But I can’t raise up a great deal of indignancy about it anymore.
I realize that’s cold and somewhat heartless, and some will pity for me for it or be angry with me. But look into your own soul HONESTLY and tell me the things I’ve said don’t weigh on all of you in one form or another.
“Some people wanted every vote to count in 2000 when the presidency was decided by 12 people in black robes, now some people want votes to be set aside because they think the outcome was unfair. So the lesson is that voting should only count when the result is something I voted for.”
Well, the pitfalls of being in a Democracy is that we have to live with the lows as well as the highs. The beauty of American democracy is that all votes count, regardless of the cynical view that they don’t. The ugly side of American democracy is also that all votes count. And there’ll always be people who aren’t satisfied.
What you’re onto is the danger that someday we won’t bother with this inconvenience anymore… and that can happen. Democracies don’t tend to last, in human history. They do tend to fail, eventually. Scary thought, huh?
“In a 100 years I’m sure our descendants will think we were a bunch of pin-headed mooks for some of the crass buffoonery we engaged in.”
No doubt, but they’ll be engaged in their own. Probably stuff that would make all of us blush, regardless of political philosophy.
“My entire point is that we have a couple of ways to make injustices right in this country. And we can only hope that our upbringing, our education and our sense of humanity follow us into the voting booth, courtroom or legislature.”
Yeah, I agree. That’s all we’ve got. Our responsiblity to ourselves and others as citizens.
What a bunch of retards to be leaving such a weighty thing to, eh?
“I don’t like it that in some cases, the person standing next in line to pull the lever had bigoted parents or friends, didn’t pay attention in social studies, and could care less about anybody but himself.”
precisely. Your fellow citizen.
“That does mean my vote is more meaningful to me than it probably is to him, but they all count the same. It ain’t perfect by any means.”
Nope. And if perfection were attainable, you’d think we’d have found it or gotten closer to it in 5000 years.
But the proof that it isn’t attainable is… nobody can seem to think of a better system than the one we have.
May 5th, 2009 at 8:12 am
@287. oouchan
“but not what someone does to his or her body”
that would be an interesting abortion
May 5th, 2009 at 8:12 am
@287. oouchan
“but not what someone does to his or her body”
that would be an interesting abortion
May 5th, 2009 at 8:18 am
oouchan-
thanks
May 5th, 2009 at 8:18 am
oouchan-
thanks
May 5th, 2009 at 8:25 am
289. Nauplius: True…but I was thinking more along the lines of body modifications, sex changes and the like. Although if guys could get pregnant…this whole issue would be out the window!
(Just my 2 cents, people.)
May 5th, 2009 at 8:25 am
lo:
That wasn’t my point. My point was that if gay marriage is legalized, you’re going to have some wingnuts springing up eventually asking for equal rights to bizarre nuptials. While I agree there would have to be a MAJOR overhaul to the legalities of polygamy, why should we deny them the right to attempt it? You never stated whether you supported polygamy or not (or if you did, I missed it). I know your stance on gay marriage, but not polygamy. Would you deny happiness to a particular group if they could get the marriage laws changed to suit their needs? Or are you only for gay marriage, but STOP other groups from furthering their marriage rights.
As far as pets or lawn furniture go, you want to sell your spouse…? hmmm interesting question!
May 5th, 2009 at 8:25 am
289. Nauplius: True…but I was thinking more along the lines of body modifications, sex changes and the like. Although if guys could get pregnant…this whole issue would be out the window!
(Just my 2 cents, people.)
May 5th, 2009 at 8:25 am
lo:
That wasn’t my point. My point was that if gay marriage is legalized, you’re going to have some wingnuts springing up eventually asking for equal rights to bizarre nuptials. While I agree there would have to be a MAJOR overhaul to the legalities of polygamy, why should we deny them the right to attempt it? You never stated whether you supported polygamy or not (or if you did, I missed it). I know your stance on gay marriage, but not polygamy. Would you deny happiness to a particular group if they could get the marriage laws changed to suit their needs? Or are you only for gay marriage, but STOP other groups from furthering their marriage rights.
As far as pets or lawn furniture go, you want to sell your spouse…? hmmm interesting question!
May 5th, 2009 at 8:34 am
“These things affect me, but not what someone does to his or her body”
But it isn’t just their body. There are two bodies there. And one of them is completely destroyed. It isn’t even about religion- it’s about killing something that is alive and human.
I have been on both sides of the argument. I used to be pro-choice when I was much younger, but then I found out what a horrifying thing abortion really is. The clinics sugar-coat it and no one can tell you how empty you feel after. The people at the clinics are in it for one thing- Money. That’s all they cared about- not ‘helping’. I have never been around such soulless, uncaring people. They treated the girls in there just like numbers, and all but kicked them out the door when it was over.
May 5th, 2009 at 8:34 am
“These things affect me, but not what someone does to his or her body”
But it isn’t just their body. There are two bodies there. And one of them is completely destroyed. It isn’t even about religion- it’s about killing something that is alive and human.
I have been on both sides of the argument. I used to be pro-choice when I was much younger, but then I found out what a horrifying thing abortion really is. The clinics sugar-coat it and no one can tell you how empty you feel after. The people at the clinics are in it for one thing- Money. That’s all they cared about- not ‘helping’. I have never been around such soulless, uncaring people. They treated the girls in there just like numbers, and all but kicked them out the door when it was over.
May 5th, 2009 at 8:45 am
293. Nicosia: Part of that is true. But these people are paid to do this because of the reality of what they are seeing can be damaging. Imagine if you were an ER doctor seeing hoards of people coming in sick, shot, injured. If you don’t put up a barrier, the weight of this will crush you.
I don’t see it as 2 bodies. A body is fully formed. A cell is a cell. A bunch of cells do not a baby make. That is why I could care less.
Now, just to put what I think…as for when it does get fully formed…too late then. There needs to be a cut off and abortion cannot be used as birth control. I won’t go into debate on when the cutoff is but I think no more than 2 1/2 months tops.
I say I could care less what someone wants to do with their body. It’s true. It just doesn’t mean that I can’t say it’s wrong or right. How I feel about this still doesn’t affect me, personally. If I don’t like it, oh well.
May 5th, 2009 at 8:45 am
293. Nicosia: Part of that is true. But these people are paid to do this because of the reality of what they are seeing can be damaging. Imagine if you were an ER doctor seeing hoards of people coming in sick, shot, injured. If you don’t put up a barrier, the weight of this will crush you.
I don’t see it as 2 bodies. A body is fully formed. A cell is a cell. A bunch of cells do not a baby make. That is why I could care less.
Now, just to put what I think…as for when it does get fully formed…too late then. There needs to be a cut off and abortion cannot be used as birth control. I won’t go into debate on when the cutoff is but I think no more than 2 1/2 months tops.
I say I could care less what someone wants to do with their body. It’s true. It just doesn’t mean that I can’t say it’s wrong or right. How I feel about this still doesn’t affect me, personally. If I don’t like it, oh well.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:03 am
270, 271 Steelman: I have an opinion – that the definition of marriage is, and has always been, a union between one man and one woman
No one said you weren’t entitled to your opinion. It’s when you try to use that opinion to tell others how to live their own lives that you cross the line.
So, if you are going to call me a “homophobe” (again, typical liberal debating tactic – label people with names when you can’t win or are struggling with the argument)
I’m not struggling with the argument. If you’re struggling with looking at yourself in the mirror, that’s your problem.
“well gee, there is no logical argument to go beyond two people. I just don’t see it?”. And therein lies your problem – you just don’t get it.
I told you what some of the many issues would be. And so did lo. It appears you are the one not getting it. Lifestyle-wise, go for it every day and twice on Sunday, I don’t really care. Marital law-wise, it’s a huge quagmire, and it would be near impossible to make it work.
I’m being labeled a bigot and “homophobe” for expressing a belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.
No, you’re a bigot for trying to use your personal beliefs to tell others how to live. You are intolerant of other people’s choices. Why do you care so much about how other people live their lives? Why do you care so much about how someone else “defines marriage”? If people believe differently than you, what harm is being done to you?
I’m sitting back laughing at those who are attacking me for a belief, when they arrogantly draw their own line in the sand (that polygamy would never follow – which really means that it is unacceptable) and then think they are on some moral high ground.
Morals has nothing to do with this. Talk about claptrap, Mr. Pot. Go ahead and believe what you want, but mind your own business and don’t you DARE try to tell others how to live.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:03 am
270, 271 Steelman: I have an opinion – that the definition of marriage is, and has always been, a union between one man and one woman
No one said you weren’t entitled to your opinion. It’s when you try to use that opinion to tell others how to live their own lives that you cross the line.
So, if you are going to call me a “homophobe” (again, typical liberal debating tactic – label people with names when you can’t win or are struggling with the argument)
I’m not struggling with the argument. If you’re struggling with looking at yourself in the mirror, that’s your problem.
“well gee, there is no logical argument to go beyond two people. I just don’t see it?”. And therein lies your problem – you just don’t get it.
I told you what some of the many issues would be. And so did lo. It appears you are the one not getting it. Lifestyle-wise, go for it every day and twice on Sunday, I don’t really care. Marital law-wise, it’s a huge quagmire, and it would be near impossible to make it work.
I’m being labeled a bigot and “homophobe” for expressing a belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.
No, you’re a bigot for trying to use your personal beliefs to tell others how to live. You are intolerant of other people’s choices. Why do you care so much about how other people live their lives? Why do you care so much about how someone else “defines marriage”? If people believe differently than you, what harm is being done to you?
I’m sitting back laughing at those who are attacking me for a belief, when they arrogantly draw their own line in the sand (that polygamy would never follow – which really means that it is unacceptable) and then think they are on some moral high ground.
Morals has nothing to do with this. Talk about claptrap, Mr. Pot. Go ahead and believe what you want, but mind your own business and don’t you DARE try to tell others how to live.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:08 am
292: IF poligamists can succesfully change the law to account for such things as taxes, alimony, and other legal issues, fine. It’s a completely separate issue than gay marriage. Further, if the arguement is that allowing two gay people to enter into a marriage contract will open the door to people wanting to marry their dog/lawn chair/hand/milk bottle, they surely you can see where a line should be drawn. Lo gave us a VERY good definition of the marriage contract- “2 people legally and mentally deemed adults, who consent to a union (and are deemed legally and mentally capable of consenting) of their own free will without coercion”
Let’s explore: 2(not many, so there goes the poligamy arguement, again unless they adopt a different set of laws) PEOPLE (so no chairs or inanimate objects) mentally deemed adults (so no pedophilia concerns) who CONSENT WITHOUT COERCION (so no forced marriage)
If you honestly think that by legallizing gay marriage that NAMBLA membership numbers will triple and there will be a growing base for man boy marriage Ithink you’re mistaken.
Let me leave with this. Yes, I’m a conservative, and yes on almost every other moral issue I lie on the conservative side of things, but I really do think this is an egregious trouncing of personal civil rights. People say gay marriage will lead to everyone wanting to marry everything. What happened to this country when we desegregated? Did people rise up and declare that since blacks go to go to school with whites the whites should be able to bring their lawn chair to school and make it learn? When we gave women the right to vote, did anyone fight for the right to let their dog have a say as well? No. I honestly believe allowing homosexuals the rights of heterosexuals won’t open the can of worms everyone thinks it will. We like to think of ourselves as a progressive country, and we need to live up to that.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:08 am
292: IF poligamists can succesfully change the law to account for such things as taxes, alimony, and other legal issues, fine. It’s a completely separate issue than gay marriage. Further, if the arguement is that allowing two gay people to enter into a marriage contract will open the door to people wanting to marry their dog/lawn chair/hand/milk bottle, they surely you can see where a line should be drawn. Lo gave us a VERY good definition of the marriage contract- “2 people legally and mentally deemed adults, who consent to a union (and are deemed legally and mentally capable of consenting) of their own free will without coercion”
Let’s explore: 2(not many, so there goes the poligamy arguement, again unless they adopt a different set of laws) PEOPLE (so no chairs or inanimate objects) mentally deemed adults (so no pedophilia concerns) who CONSENT WITHOUT COERCION (so no forced marriage)
If you honestly think that by legallizing gay marriage that NAMBLA membership numbers will triple and there will be a growing base for man boy marriage Ithink you’re mistaken.
Let me leave with this. Yes, I’m a conservative, and yes on almost every other moral issue I lie on the conservative side of things, but I really do think this is an egregious trouncing of personal civil rights. People say gay marriage will lead to everyone wanting to marry everything. What happened to this country when we desegregated? Did people rise up and declare that since blacks go to go to school with whites the whites should be able to bring their lawn chair to school and make it learn? When we gave women the right to vote, did anyone fight for the right to let their dog have a say as well? No. I honestly believe allowing homosexuals the rights of heterosexuals won’t open the can of worms everyone thinks it will. We like to think of ourselves as a progressive country, and we need to live up to that.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:09 am
I love the lists that you put together. But I’m removing myself from replies because I am sick of everyone pushing their own views forward and turning everything into a major debate. Publish your own damn list if you don’t like what’s said. And for those who go “off topic” – and I mean WAY off topic, you’re poisoning the well for the rest of us who enjoy a bit of innocent fun.
I hate getting notices to find out that someone else is getting up on a soapbox to make some political rant. Yes, I’m removing my name receiving notices. You’ve taken a fun site and made it horrible to endure. That sucks.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:09 am
I love the lists that you put together. But I’m removing myself from replies because I am sick of everyone pushing their own views forward and turning everything into a major debate. Publish your own damn list if you don’t like what’s said. And for those who go “off topic” – and I mean WAY off topic, you’re poisoning the well for the rest of us who enjoy a bit of innocent fun.
I hate getting notices to find out that someone else is getting up on a soapbox to make some political rant. Yes, I’m removing my name receiving notices. You’ve taken a fun site and made it horrible to endure. That sucks.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Abortion is big business, lets really say what it is. It is not going to end due to that. It is not a rights issue. that is just to get people upset.
I really have to wonder how some people’s logic works when they say that they are against the death penalty(about 80 a year) and yet they support abortion(1.5 million a year). You can use that life arguement but there are well over 80 abortions in a year where the baby is well past the idea that it coudl survive outside the womb. Groups like PP do not want to acknowledge that. They rely on people who do not know how to argue on this. if they meet oen who can, they do not know how to react.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Abortion is big business, lets really say what it is. It is not going to end due to that. It is not a rights issue. that is just to get people upset.
I really have to wonder how some people’s logic works when they say that they are against the death penalty(about 80 a year) and yet they support abortion(1.5 million a year). You can use that life arguement but there are well over 80 abortions in a year where the baby is well past the idea that it coudl survive outside the womb. Groups like PP do not want to acknowledge that. They rely on people who do not know how to argue on this. if they meet oen who can, they do not know how to react.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Damien_Karras #274, I think your argument is valid. The state should not be marrying people, that is a religious ceremony, it should only concern itself with the legal contracts entered into by consenting adults. Polygamy should be legal, given the current economy, it might even be preferable.
I followed the vote on Prop 8 closely. I’m a California voter and I must have posted a thousand comments in opposition. I’ve yet to read even one sensible argument in favor of it. If you make what we Yanks call a Ben Franklin list(draw a line down the middle of a sheet of paper. On one side list every argument in favor, put the arguments against on the other side. Simply count up the number of entries in each column and go with the one that has the most. For Prop 8 (it’s a ban on gay marriage BTW) there are about 10-15 compelling arguments against it, and not a single one in favor.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Damien_Karras #274, I think your argument is valid. The state should not be marrying people, that is a religious ceremony, it should only concern itself with the legal contracts entered into by consenting adults. Polygamy should be legal, given the current economy, it might even be preferable.
I followed the vote on Prop 8 closely. I’m a California voter and I must have posted a thousand comments in opposition. I’ve yet to read even one sensible argument in favor of it. If you make what we Yanks call a Ben Franklin list(draw a line down the middle of a sheet of paper. On one side list every argument in favor, put the arguments against on the other side. Simply count up the number of entries in each column and go with the one that has the most. For Prop 8 (it’s a ban on gay marriage BTW) there are about 10-15 compelling arguments against it, and not a single one in favor.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Callie:
In a broad sense, I agree with your post 100%. The “lawn chair” example I provided was just for illustration purposes. However, I don’t agree that polygamous marriage rights and gay marriage rights are mutually exclusive. They both share some common traits, the most obvious being that the very definition of a legal marriage contract is changed either way. The second most obvious is that their very concepts are or were not traditionally accepted by society. The only difference being that in a gay marriage the sex of the two people involved happens to be the same. But the end result would be the same in either case. It would only be a matter of degree in which the laws would have to be changed in regards to legalizing polygamous marriage.
I disagree with your assesment that more bizarre matrimonial endeavors would not spring up. How would you know this? (without the crystal ball laying nearby, that is). Now, de-segregation is an altogether different animal from marriage, but I understand the analogy.
Yes, Lo’s definition of a marriage contract seems to cover all the bases, but I stand by my original statement that there are some VERY strange individuals out there in society who will try to manipulate the law to suit their needs. If it’s not harmful to society, as a whole, are we to deny them?
May 5th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Callie:
In a broad sense, I agree with your post 100%. The “lawn chair” example I provided was just for illustration purposes. However, I don’t agree that polygamous marriage rights and gay marriage rights are mutually exclusive. They both share some common traits, the most obvious being that the very definition of a legal marriage contract is changed either way. The second most obvious is that their very concepts are or were not traditionally accepted by society. The only difference being that in a gay marriage the sex of the two people involved happens to be the same. But the end result would be the same in either case. It would only be a matter of degree in which the laws would have to be changed in regards to legalizing polygamous marriage.
I disagree with your assesment that more bizarre matrimonial endeavors would not spring up. How would you know this? (without the crystal ball laying nearby, that is). Now, de-segregation is an altogether different animal from marriage, but I understand the analogy.
Yes, Lo’s definition of a marriage contract seems to cover all the bases, but I stand by my original statement that there are some VERY strange individuals out there in society who will try to manipulate the law to suit their needs. If it’s not harmful to society, as a whole, are we to deny them?
May 5th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Why is an unborn person more important than a full grown woman? Why does this “importance” of said unborn seem to vanish from anti-abortion folks’ minds once they are born? Anti-abortion supporters also like to push adoption as an alternative, but how many of those have adopted? Would anti-abortion protestors be willing to let the government control their bodies?
May 5th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Why is an unborn person more important than a full grown woman? Why does this “importance” of said unborn seem to vanish from anti-abortion folks’ minds once they are born? Anti-abortion supporters also like to push adoption as an alternative, but how many of those have adopted? Would anti-abortion protestors be willing to let the government control their bodies?
May 5th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Bongo,
I think you mis-read me. I SUPPORT gay marriage.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Bongo,
I think you mis-read me. I SUPPORT gay marriage.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Bongo, you talk abotu reasonable points but lets nto forget that those are opionions. Everyone has them so you or whoever is against it /for it cannto be proven as right or wrong. this is the trick that PC jargon gets people to fear. It asks as if it is a fact. It is all opinion. I have my opinion that Prop 8 should go through. My reason is I see it as a way to make people more accepting of the stuff that Damien talked about. Believe me, there is more to come. New politicians need new issues to rile people up. Remember that (insert group here) is being discriminated against but that is onyl if they agree with a certain agenda. All others are the oppressors and can never be the victims.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Bongo, you talk abotu reasonable points but lets nto forget that those are opionions. Everyone has them so you or whoever is against it /for it cannto be proven as right or wrong. this is the trick that PC jargon gets people to fear. It asks as if it is a fact. It is all opinion. I have my opinion that Prop 8 should go through. My reason is I see it as a way to make people more accepting of the stuff that Damien talked about. Believe me, there is more to come. New politicians need new issues to rile people up. Remember that (insert group here) is being discriminated against but that is onyl if they agree with a certain agenda. All others are the oppressors and can never be the victims.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:35 am
WCB4, this is exactly what i am talking about. use one issue and make emotions to lose track of what the real reason it is used for. Goes with all such topics.
If they really cared about women’s health, then PP woudl not try to protect sex offenders. Do not pick your battles.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:35 am
WCB4, this is exactly what i am talking about. use one issue and make emotions to lose track of what the real reason it is used for. Goes with all such topics.
If they really cared about women’s health, then PP woudl not try to protect sex offenders. Do not pick your battles.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:42 am
As for gay marriage being a slippery slope I say who cares. If you really want to marry your dog go ahead. Or a lawnchair. Or whatever crazy thing you can dream up to object to allowing gay people to enjoy the same rights straight married people enjoy (i.e. insurance, hospital visits, etc.). Interracial marriage didn’t lead to everyone wanting to marry every crazy thing they could imagine. Also, why not go after divorce if you’re worried about the sanctity of marriage? Two consenting adults of the same sex getting married effects my marriage as much as any other, it doesn’t. Are there people out there that are going to go, “Dammit, I could’ve married a dude. Well shit.”?
May 5th, 2009 at 9:42 am
As for gay marriage being a slippery slope I say who cares. If you really want to marry your dog go ahead. Or a lawnchair. Or whatever crazy thing you can dream up to object to allowing gay people to enjoy the same rights straight married people enjoy (i.e. insurance, hospital visits, etc.). Interracial marriage didn’t lead to everyone wanting to marry every crazy thing they could imagine. Also, why not go after divorce if you’re worried about the sanctity of marriage? Two consenting adults of the same sex getting married effects my marriage as much as any other, it doesn’t. Are there people out there that are going to go, “Dammit, I could’ve married a dude. Well shit.”?
May 5th, 2009 at 9:48 am
“If they really cared about women’s health, then PP woudl not try to protect sex offenders. Do not pick your battles.”
–Bobby
I don’t follow? Who said anything about sex offenders? What do they have to do with abortion? Is that some new perversion? Should pregnant women be worried about sex offenders attacking them and performing an abortion?
May 5th, 2009 at 9:48 am
“If they really cared about women’s health, then PP woudl not try to protect sex offenders. Do not pick your battles.”
–Bobby
I don’t follow? Who said anything about sex offenders? What do they have to do with abortion? Is that some new perversion? Should pregnant women be worried about sex offenders attacking them and performing an abortion?
May 5th, 2009 at 9:51 am
“I don’t follow? Who said anything about sex offenders? What do they have to do with abortion? Is that some new perversion? Should pregnant women be worried about sex offenders attacking them and performing an abortion?”
If you read about Planned Parenthood you would know what I am talking about. Look up Lila Rose.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:51 am
“I don’t follow? Who said anything about sex offenders? What do they have to do with abortion? Is that some new perversion? Should pregnant women be worried about sex offenders attacking them and performing an abortion?”
If you read about Planned Parenthood you would know what I am talking about. Look up Lila Rose.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:51 am
wcb4:
I think Bobby is referring to rape and whether the PP would be defending them. This is one of the primary pro-abortionist arguments.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:51 am
wcb4:
I think Bobby is referring to rape and whether the PP would be defending them. This is one of the primary pro-abortionist arguments.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Lila Rose is a liar. She claimed to be a 14 year old rape victim. Don’t people usually bad mouth folks that falsely cry rape. I still don’t understand what you’re getting at.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Lila Rose is a liar. She claimed to be a 14 year old rape victim. Don’t people usually bad mouth folks that falsely cry rape. I still don’t understand what you’re getting at.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:57 am
“I think Bobby is referring to rape and whether the PP would be defending them.”
Who’s defending who here? Planned Parenthood defending rapists?
May 5th, 2009 at 9:57 am
“I think Bobby is referring to rape and whether the PP would be defending them.”
Who’s defending who here? Planned Parenthood defending rapists?
May 5th, 2009 at 9:59 am
“Lila Rose is a liar. She claimed to be a 14 year old rape victim. Don’t people usually bad mouth folks that falsely cry rape. I still don’t understand what you’re getting at.”
She may have lied to get them to do what they did but they still did what they did. is it any different when a cop goes undercover? No, it is not. She caught them for the profiteers that they are.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:59 am
“Lila Rose is a liar. She claimed to be a 14 year old rape victim. Don’t people usually bad mouth folks that falsely cry rape. I still don’t understand what you’re getting at.”
She may have lied to get them to do what they did but they still did what they did. is it any different when a cop goes undercover? No, it is not. She caught them for the profiteers that they are.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Sorry wcb4, I meant that pro-abortionists argue that rape victims should be allowed the right to an abortion.
Haven’t had a cup of coffee all day, forgive me….
May 5th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Sorry wcb4, I meant that pro-abortionists argue that rape victims should be allowed the right to an abortion.
Haven’t had a cup of coffee all day, forgive me….
May 5th, 2009 at 10:05 am
No, she lied to serve her own agenda. And having seen the video in qusestion, I’m not even sure she was at a planned parenthood. Audio could have been added later as you don’t see the person at the desk’s mouth. It’s the same sorta nonsense people harp on Michael Moore for.
And I don’t think undercover cops should be able to lie either.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:05 am
No, she lied to serve her own agenda. And having seen the video in qusestion, I’m not even sure she was at a planned parenthood. Audio could have been added later as you don’t see the person at the desk’s mouth. It’s the same sorta nonsense people harp on Michael Moore for.
And I don’t think undercover cops should be able to lie either.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:09 am
d_k #302, and I support polygamy rights, even though the way it’s practiced currently is abhorrent. I don’t believe it’s healthy for the species if guys who look like Harry Dean Stanton produce lots of offspring. If polygamy were to be legalized, you would need to put a limit on the number of spouses. The state does have a legitimate interest in preventing inbreeding.
Consider China though. With their skewed ratio of males to females, a woman having multiple husbands would make sense. How about a marriage where one woman takes care of the children, while two or more adults work outside the home?
Then you have brothers and sisters getting married. Does the state have the right to prevent close relatives who are of legal age, from having sex with each other? This question is really the flipside of the gay marriage issue. Gays can have sex, but don’t have all of the legal rights afforded married couples, whereas brothers and sisters, enjoy most of those same legal rights but can’t have sex. Things are further complicated if you remove the state’s only interest in preventing adult incest by sterilizing one or both partners.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:09 am
d_k #302, and I support polygamy rights, even though the way it’s practiced currently is abhorrent. I don’t believe it’s healthy for the species if guys who look like Harry Dean Stanton produce lots of offspring. If polygamy were to be legalized, you would need to put a limit on the number of spouses. The state does have a legitimate interest in preventing inbreeding.
Consider China though. With their skewed ratio of males to females, a woman having multiple husbands would make sense. How about a marriage where one woman takes care of the children, while two or more adults work outside the home?
Then you have brothers and sisters getting married. Does the state have the right to prevent close relatives who are of legal age, from having sex with each other? This question is really the flipside of the gay marriage issue. Gays can have sex, but don’t have all of the legal rights afforded married couples, whereas brothers and sisters, enjoy most of those same legal rights but can’t have sex. Things are further complicated if you remove the state’s only interest in preventing adult incest by sterilizing one or both partners.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:15 am
“No, she lied to serve her own agenda. And having seen the video in qusestion, I’m not even sure she was at a planned parenthood. Audio could have been added later as you don’t see the person at the desk’s mouth. It’s the same sorta nonsense people harp on Michael Moore for.
And I don’t think undercover cops should be able to lie either.”
But they are able to get to criminal acts. Simple as that.
If you think that PP has not done shady things, look at what tehy did with teh phone calls in idaho. Person said they specifially wanted a black baby aborted. the operators said she understood. This was even acknowledged by that PP.
Lila Rose has done this many times and each time she got the same treatment. No way to argue that this is not happening.
Her agenda is she respects life. What’s the big deal? Just cuz the abortion squad got caught is no reason to be bitter. They are an evil bunch. getting caught in the “it’s my body” argument is what they want. They do not want you to pay attention to what their bottom line is which is money.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:15 am
“No, she lied to serve her own agenda. And having seen the video in qusestion, I’m not even sure she was at a planned parenthood. Audio could have been added later as you don’t see the person at the desk’s mouth. It’s the same sorta nonsense people harp on Michael Moore for.
And I don’t think undercover cops should be able to lie either.”
But they are able to get to criminal acts. Simple as that.
If you think that PP has not done shady things, look at what tehy did with teh phone calls in idaho. Person said they specifially wanted a black baby aborted. the operators said she understood. This was even acknowledged by that PP.
Lila Rose has done this many times and each time she got the same treatment. No way to argue that this is not happening.
Her agenda is she respects life. What’s the big deal? Just cuz the abortion squad got caught is no reason to be bitter. They are an evil bunch. getting caught in the “it’s my body” argument is what they want. They do not want you to pay attention to what their bottom line is which is money.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:15 am
I detest abortions–I believe it’s murder–A woman’s right to choose? Fine,but aren’t they leaving out another human being who has no choice? But having said that: Abortion IS legal and we can debate it until we’re blue in the face and I don’t believe it will ever be overturned. Maybe someday. John Brown was hanged for treason by the government.Lincoln called him a lunatic–Today he is a hero–Maybe those who bomb abortion clinics will be heros someday-As Enya says,Only time will tell–(And no,I’m not upholding bombing abortion clinics)
May 5th, 2009 at 10:15 am
I detest abortions–I believe it’s murder–A woman’s right to choose? Fine,but aren’t they leaving out another human being who has no choice? But having said that: Abortion IS legal and we can debate it until we’re blue in the face and I don’t believe it will ever be overturned. Maybe someday. John Brown was hanged for treason by the government.Lincoln called him a lunatic–Today he is a hero–Maybe those who bomb abortion clinics will be heros someday-As Enya says,Only time will tell–(And no,I’m not upholding bombing abortion clinics)
May 5th, 2009 at 10:18 am
314 Bongo: Consider China though. With their skewed ratio of males to females, a woman having multiple husbands would make sense.
It would make more sense if they would stop selectively aborting female fetuses because they desire male offspring so badly.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:18 am
314 Bongo: Consider China though. With their skewed ratio of males to females, a woman having multiple husbands would make sense.
It would make more sense if they would stop selectively aborting female fetuses because they desire male offspring so badly.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Anotehr thing about abortion is that Norma McCorvey(Roe) was told by her lawyers to lie to get Roe V Wade passed through. Even lawyers today say that Roe was not handled in the right way. Alan Dershowitz was one of them and he’s a Liberal.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Anotehr thing about abortion is that Norma McCorvey(Roe) was told by her lawyers to lie to get Roe V Wade passed through. Even lawyers today say that Roe was not handled in the right way. Alan Dershowitz was one of them and he’s a Liberal.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:27 am
316. smithstar15: But you would see them as heros correct? I don’t see the difference between them and terrorists. You are allowed to have your view, but when it affects mine, then thats a problem.
I know you feel its murder but my body murders cells every day. This is why science and religion should not mix.
317. Maggot: Good point. By the way, I was watching a science program about 3 days ago. It mentioned that the male chromosone is slowly being weeded out. We just might end up as an entirely female race, with the ability to reproduce like that one lizard that changes every 15 days. If that is true, how’s that for gay marriage?
May 5th, 2009 at 10:27 am
316. smithstar15: But you would see them as heros correct? I don’t see the difference between them and terrorists. You are allowed to have your view, but when it affects mine, then thats a problem.
I know you feel its murder but my body murders cells every day. This is why science and religion should not mix.
317. Maggot: Good point. By the way, I was watching a science program about 3 days ago. It mentioned that the male chromosone is slowly being weeded out. We just might end up as an entirely female race, with the ability to reproduce like that one lizard that changes every 15 days. If that is true, how’s that for gay marriage?
May 5th, 2009 at 10:28 am
“317. Maggot: Good point. By the way, I was watching a science program about 3 days ago. It mentioned that the male chromosone is slowly being weeded out. We just might end up as an entirely female race, with the ability to reproduce like that one lizard that changes every 15 days. If that is true, how’s that for gay marriage?”
by the time this coudl happen we will either all be dead or science will deal with it. This is not like it’s going to be in the next 10 years or so.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:28 am
“317. Maggot: Good point. By the way, I was watching a science program about 3 days ago. It mentioned that the male chromosone is slowly being weeded out. We just might end up as an entirely female race, with the ability to reproduce like that one lizard that changes every 15 days. If that is true, how’s that for gay marriage?”
by the time this coudl happen we will either all be dead or science will deal with it. This is not like it’s going to be in the next 10 years or so.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Bobby–It doesn’t matter–Even Roe herself became an anti-abortionist–But nothing you say will change the hearts and minds of those who believe abortion is a womans choice on a par with which dress she wears to dinner.–And nothing pro-abortionists say will cause a right-to-lifer become a pro-abortionist–It’s a lost battle right now-It’s legal–Maybe someday-Who knows?
May 5th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Bobby–It doesn’t matter–Even Roe herself became an anti-abortionist–But nothing you say will change the hearts and minds of those who believe abortion is a womans choice on a par with which dress she wears to dinner.–And nothing pro-abortionists say will cause a right-to-lifer become a pro-abortionist–It’s a lost battle right now-It’s legal–Maybe someday-Who knows?
May 5th, 2009 at 10:33 am
I fail to see how my point of view effects yours. But if my views are a problem for you–Tough shit–
May 5th, 2009 at 10:33 am
I fail to see how my point of view effects yours. But if my views are a problem for you–Tough shit–
May 5th, 2009 at 10:34 am
The above post was for oouchan
May 5th, 2009 at 10:34 am
The above post was for oouchan
May 5th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Bongo:
Ah, therein lies the rub. Your view of polygamy is “abhorrent.” Should legislation be passed in favor of odd unions that the social majority has no problem with? By the same token, should legislation NOT be passed based on the “ewwwww… now THAT’S messed up” factor?
May 5th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Bongo:
Ah, therein lies the rub. Your view of polygamy is “abhorrent.” Should legislation be passed in favor of odd unions that the social majority has no problem with? By the same token, should legislation NOT be passed based on the “ewwwww… now THAT’S messed up” factor?
May 5th, 2009 at 10:39 am
“They are an evil bunch. getting caught in the “it’s my body” argument is what they want. They do not want you to pay attention to what their bottom line is which is money.”
Watching the bottom line is evil huh? Why do you hate America?
“A woman’s right to choose?”
Who’s else would it be?
The fetus can’t choose? And why would it’s choice rank higher than the adult woman it is currently residing in? Again, would you want the government to have control over your body?
May 5th, 2009 at 10:39 am
“They are an evil bunch. getting caught in the “it’s my body” argument is what they want. They do not want you to pay attention to what their bottom line is which is money.”
Watching the bottom line is evil huh? Why do you hate America?
“A woman’s right to choose?”
Who’s else would it be?
The fetus can’t choose? And why would it’s choice rank higher than the adult woman it is currently residing in? Again, would you want the government to have control over your body?
May 5th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Maggot #317, I agree wholeheartedly! Nevertheless, even if the Chinese stopped that godawful practice immediately, there are still many millions of unmarriageable men.
I’m pro-abortion rights, but I’ve got to concede that having one because of the gender of the fetus is vile.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Maggot #317, I agree wholeheartedly! Nevertheless, even if the Chinese stopped that godawful practice immediately, there are still many millions of unmarriageable men.
I’m pro-abortion rights, but I’ve got to concede that having one because of the gender of the fetus is vile.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:43 am
“who believe abortion is a womans choice on a par with which dress she wears to dinner.”
Way to be disingenuious. I’m pretty sure most women struggle with their choice to have an abortion way more seriously than they do when choosing what to wear. It’s not like it’s fun time. You don’t get ice cream after.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:43 am
“who believe abortion is a womans choice on a par with which dress she wears to dinner.”
Way to be disingenuious. I’m pretty sure most women struggle with their choice to have an abortion way more seriously than they do when choosing what to wear. It’s not like it’s fun time. You don’t get ice cream after.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:43 am
320. Bobby: It’s true it won’t happen in 10 years. It’s just funny that we are heading that way now and we are quibbling over this now. Either way, I don’t care what someone does with their body. It’s up to them.
Although I think its a choice, I am not really for it. Only because I know how long it took me to have a child and some treat abortion as a get out of jail free card. It needs to be reigned in but again…it doesn’t affect me personally. It doesn’t hurt me or cause me pain. It ticked me off a bit but not enough to even cause my blood pressure to go up let alone causing me to think of murdering someone for it.
322. smithstar15: Ok…I didn’t mean you personally. Sorry about that. I know it’s TS because I feel that same with my view.
What I meant was a broad sense…when others force their opinon on me or say I am wrong for thinking the way I do.
The only thing I pointed out was what you said about the bombers becoming heros. I couldn’t see them as anything but terrorist since they choose to bomb instead of talk about it or protest.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:43 am
320. Bobby: It’s true it won’t happen in 10 years. It’s just funny that we are heading that way now and we are quibbling over this now. Either way, I don’t care what someone does with their body. It’s up to them.
Although I think its a choice, I am not really for it. Only because I know how long it took me to have a child and some treat abortion as a get out of jail free card. It needs to be reigned in but again…it doesn’t affect me personally. It doesn’t hurt me or cause me pain. It ticked me off a bit but not enough to even cause my blood pressure to go up let alone causing me to think of murdering someone for it.
322. smithstar15: Ok…I didn’t mean you personally. Sorry about that. I know it’s TS because I feel that same with my view.
What I meant was a broad sense…when others force their opinon on me or say I am wrong for thinking the way I do.
The only thing I pointed out was what you said about the bombers becoming heros. I couldn’t see them as anything but terrorist since they choose to bomb instead of talk about it or protest.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:50 am
OOUCAN–I apologize–No,I don’t believe in harming anyone–We had a bombing of an abortion clinic here abot 15 years ago–No one was killed but a nurse was disfigured for life–So no,I don’t uphold that at all–My analogy with John Brown was just saying that you never know what the future holds. But sadly,I don’t believe Roe V Wade will be overturned in my lifetime.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:50 am
OOUCAN–I apologize–No,I don’t believe in harming anyone–We had a bombing of an abortion clinic here abot 15 years ago–No one was killed but a nurse was disfigured for life–So no,I don’t uphold that at all–My analogy with John Brown was just saying that you never know what the future holds. But sadly,I don’t believe Roe V Wade will be overturned in my lifetime.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:00 am
d_k #324, my view of polygamy is neither abhorrent nor relevant. I’m trying to determine what interest the state has regarding marriage between consenting adults, be it gay, straight, or polygamous. I believe government should only concern itself with the legal contracts implicit in a marriage. For example, can a gay spouse from another country get a work visa? What happens after a death or divorce? Let the state rule on the contracts. Let the churches determine their own moral codes, perform whatever ceremonies they see fit. Let the human adults determine who they live with, have sex with, and raise a family with.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:00 am
d_k #324, my view of polygamy is neither abhorrent nor relevant. I’m trying to determine what interest the state has regarding marriage between consenting adults, be it gay, straight, or polygamous. I believe government should only concern itself with the legal contracts implicit in a marriage. For example, can a gay spouse from another country get a work visa? What happens after a death or divorce? Let the state rule on the contracts. Let the churches determine their own moral codes, perform whatever ceremonies they see fit. Let the human adults determine who they live with, have sex with, and raise a family with.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:00 am
329. smithstar15: I understand…and I am happy that you clarified. I don’t want to change your mind at all.
I am all for change in regards to abortion. It’s way too easy for a woman to get one when she feels like. It needs to be regulated. Just my 2 cents again.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:00 am
329. smithstar15: I understand…and I am happy that you clarified. I don’t want to change your mind at all.
I am all for change in regards to abortion. It’s way too easy for a woman to get one when she feels like. It needs to be regulated. Just my 2 cents again.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:00 am
“They are an evil bunch. getting caught in the “it’s my body” argument is what they want. They do not want you to pay attention to what their bottom line is which is money.”
“Watching the bottom line is evil huh? Why do you hate America? ”
If you go by that logic, then the interest of many big businesses is to make money from war or a drug dealer has a bottom line to sell crack. I guess those are OK too.
”
“A woman’s right to choose?”
Who’s else would it be? ”
As i told you, that is jsut cannon fodder to get people riled up. Money is their interest, not rights. Getting someone to think it is their right is just to keep the real idea far away. Who says it is a right?
Why is it that Liberals onyl want thier “rights” if it is for their causes but do not want rights for people who have had that right since the beginning?
May 5th, 2009 at 11:00 am
“They are an evil bunch. getting caught in the “it’s my body” argument is what they want. They do not want you to pay attention to what their bottom line is which is money.”
“Watching the bottom line is evil huh? Why do you hate America? ”
If you go by that logic, then the interest of many big businesses is to make money from war or a drug dealer has a bottom line to sell crack. I guess those are OK too.
”
“A woman’s right to choose?”
Who’s else would it be? ”
As i told you, that is jsut cannon fodder to get people riled up. Money is their interest, not rights. Getting someone to think it is their right is just to keep the real idea far away. Who says it is a right?
Why is it that Liberals onyl want thier “rights” if it is for their causes but do not want rights for people who have had that right since the beginning?
May 5th, 2009 at 11:02 am
“d_k #324, my view of polygamy is neither abhorrent nor relevant. I’m trying to determine what interest the state has regarding marriage between consenting adults, be it gay, straight, or polygamous.”
So would you agree that it can be a state’s right to choose if it can have abortiosn or not? Can’t have it both ways. South Dakota was close this decision not long ago.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:02 am
“d_k #324, my view of polygamy is neither abhorrent nor relevant. I’m trying to determine what interest the state has regarding marriage between consenting adults, be it gay, straight, or polygamous.”
So would you agree that it can be a state’s right to choose if it can have abortiosn or not? Can’t have it both ways. South Dakota was close this decision not long ago.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:10 am
300: DK
“I disagree with your assesment that more bizarre matrimonial endeavors would not spring up. How would you know this? (without the crystal ball laying nearby, that is). Now, de-segregation is an altogether different animal from marriage, but I understand the analogy.
Yes, Lo’s definition of a marriage contract seems to cover all the bases, but I stand by my original statement that there are some VERY strange individuals out there in society who will try to manipulate the law to suit their needs. If it’s not harmful to society, as a whole, are we to deny them?”
Of course, I can’t say one way or the other. I just think the lines are clearly drawn. I’m a straight woman. I can get married, I don’t really need to fight for or against or have an opinion on gay marriage either way. The fact that there’s such a large population of people like me who believe in gay rights says something. Absolutely, there will be some nuts out there- there always will be, there are right now, but I just highly doubt that such a large group of people who really don’t need to care will rise up and fight for the “marry your _____!!!!” movement should gay marriage become legal. I live in a state that outlawed interracial marriages until 1957. 1957! Since then, people of different races have married. We still have a state, no one has petitioned to marry their ____, and the world has kept on spinning. In 1911 Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia introduced a U.S. constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. In his appeal to Congress, Roddenberry stated that: “Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy.”
replace blacks and whites with gays and see if you can sleep at night.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:10 am
300: DK
“I disagree with your assesment that more bizarre matrimonial endeavors would not spring up. How would you know this? (without the crystal ball laying nearby, that is). Now, de-segregation is an altogether different animal from marriage, but I understand the analogy.
Yes, Lo’s definition of a marriage contract seems to cover all the bases, but I stand by my original statement that there are some VERY strange individuals out there in society who will try to manipulate the law to suit their needs. If it’s not harmful to society, as a whole, are we to deny them?”
Of course, I can’t say one way or the other. I just think the lines are clearly drawn. I’m a straight woman. I can get married, I don’t really need to fight for or against or have an opinion on gay marriage either way. The fact that there’s such a large population of people like me who believe in gay rights says something. Absolutely, there will be some nuts out there- there always will be, there are right now, but I just highly doubt that such a large group of people who really don’t need to care will rise up and fight for the “marry your _____!!!!” movement should gay marriage become legal. I live in a state that outlawed interracial marriages until 1957. 1957! Since then, people of different races have married. We still have a state, no one has petitioned to marry their ____, and the world has kept on spinning. In 1911 Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia introduced a U.S. constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. In his appeal to Congress, Roddenberry stated that: “Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy.”
replace blacks and whites with gays and see if you can sleep at night.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:22 am
“replace blacks and whites with gays and see if you can sleep at night.”
that’s apple and oranges.
However, it is those same very people who came up with Eugenics as it was based on “race”. Kind of ironic.
Also, i do not know why so many gays support the far Left when the original Communists would not allow gays to join. You can say that times have changed but did they change since they saw an oppurtunity or was it they really cared? Again, i point to 1980 and the Dem convention in which they would not touch gay rights of any kind due to it was unpopular. Now they see a political advantage so they go for it. Gotta love politics.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:22 am
“replace blacks and whites with gays and see if you can sleep at night.”
that’s apple and oranges.
However, it is those same very people who came up with Eugenics as it was based on “race”. Kind of ironic.
Also, i do not know why so many gays support the far Left when the original Communists would not allow gays to join. You can say that times have changed but did they change since they saw an oppurtunity or was it they really cared? Again, i point to 1980 and the Dem convention in which they would not touch gay rights of any kind due to it was unpopular. Now they see a political advantage so they go for it. Gotta love politics.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Bobby #333, no I don’t believe individual US states have the right to pass anti-abortion rights laws. The South Dakota law you cited was passed by their legislature and then overwhelmingly rejected by the voters. It was an embarrassment to your side. So to answer your question, I don’t believe California and South Dakota have the constitutional authority to ban gay marriage or force medical decisions upon women.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Bobby #333, no I don’t believe individual US states have the right to pass anti-abortion rights laws. The South Dakota law you cited was passed by their legislature and then overwhelmingly rejected by the voters. It was an embarrassment to your side. So to answer your question, I don’t believe California and South Dakota have the constitutional authority to ban gay marriage or force medical decisions upon women.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:30 am
344 callie: I’m a straight woman. I can get married, I don’t really need to fight for or against or have an opinion on gay marriage either way.
I jumped on you earlier, but do know that I was aware of your position on it from the get-go. I’m in the same shoes as you (except that I’m male). But that’s why IMO it is much more of an issue (or a fight) than it just being a “gay rights issue”. Decisions to deny rights affects everyone, whether directly or indirectly, and whether they realize it or not.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:30 am
344 callie: I’m a straight woman. I can get married, I don’t really need to fight for or against or have an opinion on gay marriage either way.
I jumped on you earlier, but do know that I was aware of your position on it from the get-go. I’m in the same shoes as you (except that I’m male). But that’s why IMO it is much more of an issue (or a fight) than it just being a “gay rights issue”. Decisions to deny rights affects everyone, whether directly or indirectly, and whether they realize it or not.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:39 am
“Why is it that Liberals onyl want thier “rights” if it is for their causes but do not want rights for people who have had that right since the beginning?”
What rights are you talking about? And even though PP may be about the dollar, the arguement for keeping abortion legal is based on a woman’s right to have say over her own body. Do you think women shouldn’t have the right to control their own bodies? Are they property of the state?
“I am all for change in regards to abortion. It’s way too easy for a woman to get one when she feels like. It needs to be regulated. Just my 2 cents again.”
Too easy? You know what, it’s too easy to get a nose job in this country too. Where are all these loose women who use abortion as birth control? Are they with all the cadillac driving welfare moms and illegal immigrants with six figure jobs?
May 5th, 2009 at 11:39 am
“Why is it that Liberals onyl want thier “rights” if it is for their causes but do not want rights for people who have had that right since the beginning?”
What rights are you talking about? And even though PP may be about the dollar, the arguement for keeping abortion legal is based on a woman’s right to have say over her own body. Do you think women shouldn’t have the right to control their own bodies? Are they property of the state?
“I am all for change in regards to abortion. It’s way too easy for a woman to get one when she feels like. It needs to be regulated. Just my 2 cents again.”
Too easy? You know what, it’s too easy to get a nose job in this country too. Where are all these loose women who use abortion as birth control? Are they with all the cadillac driving welfare moms and illegal immigrants with six figure jobs?
May 5th, 2009 at 11:39 am
“Bobby #333, no I don’t believe individual US states have the right to pass anti-abortion rights laws. The South Dakota law you cited was passed by their legislature and then overwhelmingly rejected by the voters. It was an embarrassment to your side. So to answer your question, I don’t believe California and South Dakota have the constitutional authority to ban gay marriage or force medical decisions upon women.”
You say this but then if there was a decision to Roe v Wade that took away the right to gay marriage, then people woudl eb up in arms about States rights. Yes, it can happen in a state but can only be overriden if the Supreme Court does so. Yes, it can happen. The Supreme Court is the final law so almost anything cna happen.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:39 am
“Bobby #333, no I don’t believe individual US states have the right to pass anti-abortion rights laws. The South Dakota law you cited was passed by their legislature and then overwhelmingly rejected by the voters. It was an embarrassment to your side. So to answer your question, I don’t believe California and South Dakota have the constitutional authority to ban gay marriage or force medical decisions upon women.”
You say this but then if there was a decision to Roe v Wade that took away the right to gay marriage, then people woudl eb up in arms about States rights. Yes, it can happen in a state but can only be overriden if the Supreme Court does so. Yes, it can happen. The Supreme Court is the final law so almost anything cna happen.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:51 am
338. wcb4: Not sure what you are driving at, but are you picking on certain groups or something? I never called out a specific group and I didn’t say loose women. Can you clarify?
May 5th, 2009 at 11:51 am
338. wcb4: Not sure what you are driving at, but are you picking on certain groups or something? I never called out a specific group and I didn’t say loose women. Can you clarify?
May 5th, 2009 at 11:53 am
#339–No,it was NOT rejected by the voters–It was overturned by the state supreme court–72% of the people in South Dakota are against abortion on demand.And 69% of the voters in South Dakota are against the marriage of people of the same sex.And the majority of the people in Iowa are not for gay marriage–The state supreme court decreed that. These are facts that can easily be verified.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:53 am
#339–No,it was NOT rejected by the voters–It was overturned by the state supreme court–72% of the people in South Dakota are against abortion on demand.And 69% of the voters in South Dakota are against the marriage of people of the same sex.And the majority of the people in Iowa are not for gay marriage–The state supreme court decreed that. These are facts that can easily be verified.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Callie: excellent response! But I pose to you the same question I did to Bongo: would you vote in favor of a marriage that you found morally repugnant, such as if it were legal for a mother to want to wed her (of age) son?
May 5th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Callie: excellent response! But I pose to you the same question I did to Bongo: would you vote in favor of a marriage that you found morally repugnant, such as if it were legal for a mother to want to wed her (of age) son?
May 5th, 2009 at 11:56 am
edit: if a mother “wanted to wed her (of age) son”
May 5th, 2009 at 11:56 am
edit: if a mother “wanted to wed her (of age) son”
May 5th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Oochan:
You said: “However, why would it affect me? That is the main point of this. It doesn’t affect me at all. I have *way* more important things in life to worry about…clean air and water, helping out animals, etc. These things affect me, but not what someone does to his or her body.”
Isn’t this attitude part of today’s societal problems??? How many finance guys had the same attitude such as yours, and now we find ourselves in quite a global economic mess. Saying, “if it doesn’t affect me, I don’t care what people do” is a fallacy. There have been millions and millions of abortions performed over the last 30 years. What if one of them was the person who would have figured out fusion energy? Cured cancer? etc.. The fact is, such acts affect everyone, though you may be too self-centered to realize it.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Oochan:
You said: “However, why would it affect me? That is the main point of this. It doesn’t affect me at all. I have *way* more important things in life to worry about…clean air and water, helping out animals, etc. These things affect me, but not what someone does to his or her body.”
Isn’t this attitude part of today’s societal problems??? How many finance guys had the same attitude such as yours, and now we find ourselves in quite a global economic mess. Saying, “if it doesn’t affect me, I don’t care what people do” is a fallacy. There have been millions and millions of abortions performed over the last 30 years. What if one of them was the person who would have figured out fusion energy? Cured cancer? etc.. The fact is, such acts affect everyone, though you may be too self-centered to realize it.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
344. Steelman: No…it’s not apart of the problems. This is not a real issue. I consider my health and the health of my child to be more important. I fight for those. I don’t care what you do to your body. It’s your body.
As for what the child could have been…how about the 5 miscarriages I had? My own body rejected them so where does that sentence of the future fit in with that?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
344. Steelman: No…it’s not apart of the problems. This is not a real issue. I consider my health and the health of my child to be more important. I fight for those. I don’t care what you do to your body. It’s your body.
As for what the child could have been…how about the 5 miscarriages I had? My own body rejected them so where does that sentence of the future fit in with that?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
@344. Steelman
“What if one of them was the person who would have figured out fusion energy? Cured cancer? etc..”
What if one of them was the next Hitler?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
@344. Steelman
“What if one of them was the person who would have figured out fusion energy? Cured cancer? etc..”
What if one of them was the next Hitler?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Maggot:
You said: “No, you’re a bigot for trying to use your personal beliefs to tell others how to live.”
Ahh, the smell of hyprocrisy. You can have your beliefs but I’m a bigot for mine. Oooooookay then.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Maggot:
You said: “No, you’re a bigot for trying to use your personal beliefs to tell others how to live.”
Ahh, the smell of hyprocrisy. You can have your beliefs but I’m a bigot for mine. Oooooookay then.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
“What if one of them was the person who would have figured out fusion energy? Cured cancer? etc.. The fact is, such acts affect everyone, though you may be too self-centered to realize it.”
And what if my aunt was my uncle? What if the sky was green? What if the moon was the sun, up was down, and black was white?
I wasn’t picking on anybody, I just think that it odd when people describe abortions as being too easy to get. I used those groups as examples of mythic groups that are trotted out when ever there’s an arguement about welfare, illegal immigration, etc. To quote the great orator Foghorn Leghorn, “That’s a joke son.”
May 5th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
“What if one of them was the person who would have figured out fusion energy? Cured cancer? etc.. The fact is, such acts affect everyone, though you may be too self-centered to realize it.”
And what if my aunt was my uncle? What if the sky was green? What if the moon was the sun, up was down, and black was white?
I wasn’t picking on anybody, I just think that it odd when people describe abortions as being too easy to get. I used those groups as examples of mythic groups that are trotted out when ever there’s an arguement about welfare, illegal immigration, etc. To quote the great orator Foghorn Leghorn, “That’s a joke son.”
May 5th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Oochan,
There’s a big difference. Life is about the choices you make. Miscarriages are not your choice, so let’s try and stay focused on the point about society’s choices.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Oochan,
There’s a big difference. Life is about the choices you make. Miscarriages are not your choice, so let’s try and stay focused on the point about society’s choices.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Wcb4,
You’re comparing impossibilities to possibilities??? Com’on now.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Wcb4,
You’re comparing impossibilities to possibilities??? Com’on now.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
347 Steelman: Ahh, the smell of hyprocrisy. You can have your beliefs but I’m a bigot for mine. Oooooookay then.
Reading comprehension, dude. Get some.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
347 Steelman: Ahh, the smell of hyprocrisy. You can have your beliefs but I’m a bigot for mine. Oooooookay then.
Reading comprehension, dude. Get some.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
349. Steelman: I was focused on it. That was my 1st paragraph.
You wrote a sentence that claims what if those children that were aborted were someone of importance….So how is my statement any different? Who cares about choices in that case…it still comes down to, my body isn’t pregnant anymore so my body *aborted* a possible future world leader…or as Nauplius pointed out, a hitler.
It’s the same thing. It just comes down to what you believe. Life is about choices…so let us make them for ourselves instead.
You stated in a previouis post that you don’t want others to ridicule you for your beliefs. I didn’t do that. You did however. Maybe we should make you number 11 on this list.
348. wcb4: Poor choice of joke. I checked and didn’t find it funny at all.
There isn’t a large scale of women using abortion as a get out of jail free card, but they are there. Because they can get it easily.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
349. Steelman: I was focused on it. That was my 1st paragraph.
You wrote a sentence that claims what if those children that were aborted were someone of importance….So how is my statement any different? Who cares about choices in that case…it still comes down to, my body isn’t pregnant anymore so my body *aborted* a possible future world leader…or as Nauplius pointed out, a hitler.
It’s the same thing. It just comes down to what you believe. Life is about choices…so let us make them for ourselves instead.
You stated in a previouis post that you don’t want others to ridicule you for your beliefs. I didn’t do that. You did however. Maybe we should make you number 11 on this list.
348. wcb4: Poor choice of joke. I checked and didn’t find it funny at all.
There isn’t a large scale of women using abortion as a get out of jail free card, but they are there. Because they can get it easily.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
No, I’m showing the absurdity of asking what if questions.
They’re pointless. What if an aborted child grew up to solve the energy crisis? What if a child killed in Iraq by the US had grown up to cure cancer? We could what if all day, but much like a merry-go-round, you get nowhere fast. Kinda like all arguing on the intarwebs.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
No, I’m showing the absurdity of asking what if questions.
They’re pointless. What if an aborted child grew up to solve the energy crisis? What if a child killed in Iraq by the US had grown up to cure cancer? We could what if all day, but much like a merry-go-round, you get nowhere fast. Kinda like all arguing on the intarwebs.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
For anyone who argues about Prop 8, screaming “it’s so wrong” needs to chill. It got voted in, I think it sucks too. But you need to realize that there Are states that recognize gay marriage. Get over it, go there, march about it, and maybe sometime within the next 4 years CA. will understand where they messed up and come around. You can’t win all of the states at the same time, Even Obama knows that.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
For anyone who argues about Prop 8, screaming “it’s so wrong” needs to chill. It got voted in, I think it sucks too. But you need to realize that there Are states that recognize gay marriage. Get over it, go there, march about it, and maybe sometime within the next 4 years CA. will understand where they messed up and come around. You can’t win all of the states at the same time, Even Obama knows that.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Randall:
My personal experiences with this issue, which I’ve detailed in other places, admittedly might make it seem like I’m biased. I keep going back to the 60’s and 70’s – if this issue was even whispered the vast majority of people would be appalled. I’m not using that to bolster my argument, but we really should be astonished that a) it’s on a ballot and b) it almost passed.
It’s only natural to drift into the cliched slippery slope argument of ‘what’s next?’ What is abhorrent today is always used as an example of, ‘well if you allow that, then why not allow . . .’ Then the person saying this comes up with either a similar situation in society or something totally off the radar. I mean, why can’t I marry my barn swallow, they listen to me and the sweet caresses at night send me to pleasure town.
I recognize that going that route is an all too easy excuse to ignore the current question before us.
If you want to explore the legal issues of civil rights, I think y’all have a decent, workable and rational argument. Nobody wants to be labeled a bigot or a zealot, well maybe that crew cut fat sherriff I’ve seen in archive footage of hosing down the crowd during the civil rights march back in the 60’s, I think that guy would probably wink if he was labeled that way and go back to his moonpie. Legally I think the inevitable will happen, this thing has been gathering steam for a while now.
On a religious level I sincerely think you’re gonna get nowhere, and across the board validation of gay marriage or gay anything isn’t going to happen. There’s too much in the Bible, there’s too much fracturing of the Church, too many ‘para-church’ organizations out there, all with a statement of faith and all with a weekly meeting to discuss the issues of the day. Beyond all that there’s always hicks, jerks and fringe elements that will NEVER come in from the cold. This isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact. And before anyone takes a knee jerk reaction to what I’ve just written, chill out man. Try to have a some semblance of respect. There are plenty of people out there who are always going to disagree with you on a number of issues, and your own morality is subject to a lot of things. Just as you don’t want anyone to piss all over your beliefs, you should show some sort of courtesy to people who have legitimate values and beliefs. There is one exception of course, if they show themselves to be a prick, fire away.
Back to Randall: I happen to have my own stance on these issues that I think are true and right, if I thought they were wrong, I wouldn’t believe them. I get where you are going with that abortion thing, cue Steve Walsh singing ‘Dust in the Wind.’ You might have a point about how we all end up as letters on a granite stone, my angst comes from my religious background and the seemingly casual nature of abortion is to the general public. Personal responsibility doesn’t seem to enter anyone’s mind when their naughty bits are throbbing. I’m not sure it ever did, (it sure as hell doesn’t for me) and I don’t think anyone wants to go to the proverbial back alley anymore. Option B on the birth control flow chart shouldn’t have to be so fatalistic and obvious. I think there should be a little more emphasis on Option A, but I realize that just mentioning it in that cryptic tone will get me ridiculed.
As far as the Jefferson tone you hit on, I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that he envisioned a nation of agrarian scholars, well educated and versed in civics and concerned for the national well being. That’s lofty and almost ethereal, but the first part is you have to get an education in order for the vision for the nation to be put in perspective. The trouble today is that our educational system is failing to provide that national, state or local vision, they just want to get the kids out the door before Neo and the other losers come in with automatic weapons. Even if they do get a good education, the drunken sod that answers to ‘Dad’ night be waiting for them with a broken bottle because they ate the last beef pot pie. So in the end, what I stated earlier in this thread is true. Jethro and Clemantine can mark an X to whatever their turkey bone isn’t covering and their vote is just as good as mine, and might be counted more as a vote if they happen to punch the chad further down than I did. Rope belt and all.
For the most part we’ve got an even set of three types of people – Democrats who are most often liberal, Republicans who are more conservative and the most important group, people who have a hard time ordering off the menu. That third bunch is a direct result of years of being forced to choose between Slimeball candidate A and Douchenozzle candidate B. So it’s no wonder most stay home to catch another episode of Seinfeld rather that put up with this shit, because if you do take a stand on some principle, you’re shouted down as an extremist close minded fartknocker. And that grinning shyster staring at you between commercial breaks doesn’t really give you a moments notice unless it’s on election day.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Randall:
My personal experiences with this issue, which I’ve detailed in other places, admittedly might make it seem like I’m biased. I keep going back to the 60’s and 70’s – if this issue was even whispered the vast majority of people would be appalled. I’m not using that to bolster my argument, but we really should be astonished that a) it’s on a ballot and b) it almost passed.
It’s only natural to drift into the cliched slippery slope argument of ‘what’s next?’ What is abhorrent today is always used as an example of, ‘well if you allow that, then why not allow . . .’ Then the person saying this comes up with either a similar situation in society or something totally off the radar. I mean, why can’t I marry my barn swallow, they listen to me and the sweet caresses at night send me to pleasure town.
I recognize that going that route is an all too easy excuse to ignore the current question before us.
If you want to explore the legal issues of civil rights, I think y’all have a decent, workable and rational argument. Nobody wants to be labeled a bigot or a zealot, well maybe that crew cut fat sherriff I’ve seen in archive footage of hosing down the crowd during the civil rights march back in the 60’s, I think that guy would probably wink if he was labeled that way and go back to his moonpie. Legally I think the inevitable will happen, this thing has been gathering steam for a while now.
On a religious level I sincerely think you’re gonna get nowhere, and across the board validation of gay marriage or gay anything isn’t going to happen. There’s too much in the Bible, there’s too much fracturing of the Church, too many ‘para-church’ organizations out there, all with a statement of faith and all with a weekly meeting to discuss the issues of the day. Beyond all that there’s always hicks, jerks and fringe elements that will NEVER come in from the cold. This isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact. And before anyone takes a knee jerk reaction to what I’ve just written, chill out man. Try to have a some semblance of respect. There are plenty of people out there who are always going to disagree with you on a number of issues, and your own morality is subject to a lot of things. Just as you don’t want anyone to piss all over your beliefs, you should show some sort of courtesy to people who have legitimate values and beliefs. There is one exception of course, if they show themselves to be a prick, fire away.
Back to Randall: I happen to have my own stance on these issues that I think are true and right, if I thought they were wrong, I wouldn’t believe them. I get where you are going with that abortion thing, cue Steve Walsh singing ‘Dust in the Wind.’ You might have a point about how we all end up as letters on a granite stone, my angst comes from my religious background and the seemingly casual nature of abortion is to the general public. Personal responsibility doesn’t seem to enter anyone’s mind when their naughty bits are throbbing. I’m not sure it ever did, (it sure as hell doesn’t for me) and I don’t think anyone wants to go to the proverbial back alley anymore. Option B on the birth control flow chart shouldn’t have to be so fatalistic and obvious. I think there should be a little more emphasis on Option A, but I realize that just mentioning it in that cryptic tone will get me ridiculed.
As far as the Jefferson tone you hit on, I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that he envisioned a nation of agrarian scholars, well educated and versed in civics and concerned for the national well being. That’s lofty and almost ethereal, but the first part is you have to get an education in order for the vision for the nation to be put in perspective. The trouble today is that our educational system is failing to provide that national, state or local vision, they just want to get the kids out the door before Neo and the other losers come in with automatic weapons. Even if they do get a good education, the drunken sod that answers to ‘Dad’ night be waiting for them with a broken bottle because they ate the last beef pot pie. So in the end, what I stated earlier in this thread is true. Jethro and Clemantine can mark an X to whatever their turkey bone isn’t covering and their vote is just as good as mine, and might be counted more as a vote if they happen to punch the chad further down than I did. Rope belt and all.
For the most part we’ve got an even set of three types of people – Democrats who are most often liberal, Republicans who are more conservative and the most important group, people who have a hard time ordering off the menu. That third bunch is a direct result of years of being forced to choose between Slimeball candidate A and Douchenozzle candidate B. So it’s no wonder most stay home to catch another episode of Seinfeld rather that put up with this shit, because if you do take a stand on some principle, you’re shouted down as an extremist close minded fartknocker. And that grinning shyster staring at you between commercial breaks doesn’t really give you a moments notice unless it’s on election day.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
“There isn’t a large scale of women using abortion as a get out of jail free card, but they are there. Because they can get it easily.”
So we should limit or do away with something because a few abuse it?
That was where my “joke” was coming from. Let’s do away with welfare because of a small percentage of welfare cheats. Illegal immigrants are stealing our jobs.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
“There isn’t a large scale of women using abortion as a get out of jail free card, but they are there. Because they can get it easily.”
So we should limit or do away with something because a few abuse it?
That was where my “joke” was coming from. Let’s do away with welfare because of a small percentage of welfare cheats. Illegal immigrants are stealing our jobs.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Steelman
“Wcb4,
You’re comparing impossibilities to possibilities??? Com’on now”
I notice you didn’t address the poster who wondered what if one of those precious children was the next Hitler. That is as much of a possiblity as the child “possibly” curing cancer.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Steelman
“Wcb4,
You’re comparing impossibilities to possibilities??? Com’on now”
I notice you didn’t address the poster who wondered what if one of those precious children was the next Hitler. That is as much of a possiblity as the child “possibly” curing cancer.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
342: would you vote in favor of a marriage that you found morally repugnant, such as if it were legal for a mother to want to wed her (of age) son?
No. However, the reason I wouldn’t vote for it isn’t because I find it gross (which I do) but because I think it’s harmful to our society. I don’t know the statistics of retardation and other handicaps in inbred children, but I wouldn’t want it to be legal to be that careless. There’s a reason engaged couples have to be blood tested. That’s what I mean about lines being clearly drawn. I don’t think even the ACLU would campaign to legalize inter-family marriage because most can see the bad outweighs the good on that one. Would some organization called the interfamily love association pop up? Maybe, but they haven’t yet and they’d have an awful lot of work to do to prove their marriges aren’t detrimental to society. I haven’t heard one GOOD reason gay marriage is harmful to america as a whole other than “it’s icky.”
May 5th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
342: would you vote in favor of a marriage that you found morally repugnant, such as if it were legal for a mother to want to wed her (of age) son?
No. However, the reason I wouldn’t vote for it isn’t because I find it gross (which I do) but because I think it’s harmful to our society. I don’t know the statistics of retardation and other handicaps in inbred children, but I wouldn’t want it to be legal to be that careless. There’s a reason engaged couples have to be blood tested. That’s what I mean about lines being clearly drawn. I don’t think even the ACLU would campaign to legalize inter-family marriage because most can see the bad outweighs the good on that one. Would some organization called the interfamily love association pop up? Maybe, but they haven’t yet and they’d have an awful lot of work to do to prove their marriges aren’t detrimental to society. I haven’t heard one GOOD reason gay marriage is harmful to america as a whole other than “it’s icky.”
May 5th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Citation from a recent article in the Philadelphia Bulletin:
Proponents of same-sex marriage invariably wonder what harm would be presented by allowing couples of the same sex to marry. Of course, by ignoring sexual complementarity and violating the natural law, the common good is undermined; in other words, our moral ecology will be damaged. But our intellectual elites who dominate the courts, the universities and the editorial offices of newspapers are animated by a radical individualism on social issues and they have no concern at all for public morality and refuse to acknowledge any such harm. Then what is the case against polygamy? Allowing a man (or woman) to enter into plural marriage will not prohibit others from marrying in the monogamous tradition. It would not interfere with that arrangement in any way. Churches would still be free to marry couples in conformity with their own teachings.
What is more, it should be acknowledged that, unlike same-sex marriage, plural marriage has a long and established tradition throughout many parts of the world. Finally, with the easy availability of unlimited divorce, serial polygamy is already thoroughly commonplace in Europe and America. What is the difference between taking three or four wives at once or one after the other?
With the exclusively libertarian premises that are relied on today for such questions, the case for polygamy is stronger than that of same-sex marriage. For the libertarian, any case against polygamy is based on nothing more than ignorance and fear. After all, most people know homosexuals. How many polygamists does anyone know? Perhaps such irrational opposition should be stigmatized as “polyphobia.”
With numerous Mormon fundamentalists (excommunicated Mormons who practice polygamy) in this country and increasing immigration from Islamic countries where polygamy is enthusiastically practiced, plural marriage is not a concern based on hysteria or conjecture. Indeed, the intellectually casual embrace of same-sex marriage by its advocates is remarkably oblivious to this problem. Instead of mocking opposition to same-sex marriage as the irrational product of a benighted religious tradition, advocates must be forced to confront the inescapable logic of their own argument. If marriage is to be deconstructed to satisfy a “right” that never occurred to anyone until the day before yesterday, then certain ineluctable ramifications must be addressed.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Citation from a recent article in the Philadelphia Bulletin:
Proponents of same-sex marriage invariably wonder what harm would be presented by allowing couples of the same sex to marry. Of course, by ignoring sexual complementarity and violating the natural law, the common good is undermined; in other words, our moral ecology will be damaged. But our intellectual elites who dominate the courts, the universities and the editorial offices of newspapers are animated by a radical individualism on social issues and they have no concern at all for public morality and refuse to acknowledge any such harm. Then what is the case against polygamy? Allowing a man (or woman) to enter into plural marriage will not prohibit others from marrying in the monogamous tradition. It would not interfere with that arrangement in any way. Churches would still be free to marry couples in conformity with their own teachings.
What is more, it should be acknowledged that, unlike same-sex marriage, plural marriage has a long and established tradition throughout many parts of the world. Finally, with the easy availability of unlimited divorce, serial polygamy is already thoroughly commonplace in Europe and America. What is the difference between taking three or four wives at once or one after the other?
With the exclusively libertarian premises that are relied on today for such questions, the case for polygamy is stronger than that of same-sex marriage. For the libertarian, any case against polygamy is based on nothing more than ignorance and fear. After all, most people know homosexuals. How many polygamists does anyone know? Perhaps such irrational opposition should be stigmatized as “polyphobia.”
With numerous Mormon fundamentalists (excommunicated Mormons who practice polygamy) in this country and increasing immigration from Islamic countries where polygamy is enthusiastically practiced, plural marriage is not a concern based on hysteria or conjecture. Indeed, the intellectually casual embrace of same-sex marriage by its advocates is remarkably oblivious to this problem. Instead of mocking opposition to same-sex marriage as the irrational product of a benighted religious tradition, advocates must be forced to confront the inescapable logic of their own argument. If marriage is to be deconstructed to satisfy a “right” that never occurred to anyone until the day before yesterday, then certain ineluctable ramifications must be addressed.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
356. wcb4: Ok…I get the joke now…still now funny. Just like welfare, its need a reform. Limit the number? No…just get more info…that’s all it takes. Dig a little deeper…especially if she has been there more than once.
I agree that a person has a choice in this life, but when it’s being misused (abortion, welfare, jobs) then we need an overhaul. What’s wrong with getting it right?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
356. wcb4: Ok…I get the joke now…still now funny. Just like welfare, its need a reform. Limit the number? No…just get more info…that’s all it takes. Dig a little deeper…especially if she has been there more than once.
I agree that a person has a choice in this life, but when it’s being misused (abortion, welfare, jobs) then we need an overhaul. What’s wrong with getting it right?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
bucslim:
Let’s stay above the fray and just address each other for a change. Then we shall feel sagely and wise, like the guys who watch over Captain Marvel and grant him his powers.
Eloquent post. I’ll formulate at response in due course.
WHERE…. THE HELL… IS MAH… POT PIE?!!
May 5th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
bucslim:
Let’s stay above the fray and just address each other for a change. Then we shall feel sagely and wise, like the guys who watch over Captain Marvel and grant him his powers.
Eloquent post. I’ll formulate at response in due course.
WHERE…. THE HELL… IS MAH… POT PIE?!!
May 5th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
“If marriage is to be deconstructed to satisfy a “right” that never occurred to anyone until the day before yesterday, then certain ineluctable ramifications must be addressed.”
I sincerely hope this was an editorial instead of a fact based article. I’ve bemoaned the paper I work for for being biased and much too liberal but if a real journalist wrote that he needs to go back to school or ctyping up the police blotter. Also, I’m guessing that homosexuals have been thinking about wanting to marry for longer than two days, just like women thoguht about fair pay for more more than two days and african americans thought about fair education for more than two days.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
“If marriage is to be deconstructed to satisfy a “right” that never occurred to anyone until the day before yesterday, then certain ineluctable ramifications must be addressed.”
I sincerely hope this was an editorial instead of a fact based article. I’ve bemoaned the paper I work for for being biased and much too liberal but if a real journalist wrote that he needs to go back to school or ctyping up the police blotter. Also, I’m guessing that homosexuals have been thinking about wanting to marry for longer than two days, just like women thoguht about fair pay for more more than two days and african americans thought about fair education for more than two days.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Randall that Captain Marvel reference just friggen slayed me.
And I guess I was thinking of John Bender’s dad when I mentioned the pot pie, but I think his was turkey. I’m a chicken man myself.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Randall that Captain Marvel reference just friggen slayed me.
And I guess I was thinking of John Bender’s dad when I mentioned the pot pie, but I think his was turkey. I’m a chicken man myself.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
“violating the natural law”
Like wearing eye glasses? Or using insulin? Or a million other things.
Oouchfan…
Overhauling is okay, but too often rather than calling for working reforms, people tend to want to scrap the whole ball of wax.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
“violating the natural law”
Like wearing eye glasses? Or using insulin? Or a million other things.
Oouchfan…
Overhauling is okay, but too often rather than calling for working reforms, people tend to want to scrap the whole ball of wax.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
oouchan: you don’t care what someone does with their body?
what about a person who wants to use their fists to hit your face? would you care what they do with their body then?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
oouchan: you don’t care what someone does with their body?
what about a person who wants to use their fists to hit your face? would you care what they do with their body then?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
wcb4:
It´s not that the life of the unborn is MORE important, it´s that it is EQUALLY important. If someone comes along and kills you, that´s s crime, right? So why is the killing of an unborn baby not the same? And why is it that criminals who kill pregnant women are accused of two separate crimes? Why is that baby a “life” in one scenario and not in the other?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
wcb4:
It´s not that the life of the unborn is MORE important, it´s that it is EQUALLY important. If someone comes along and kills you, that´s s crime, right? So why is the killing of an unborn baby not the same? And why is it that criminals who kill pregnant women are accused of two separate crimes? Why is that baby a “life” in one scenario and not in the other?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
355 bucslim: interjecting one small point, to your much longer (and good) post:
On a religious level I sincerely think you’re gonna get nowhere, and across the board validation of gay marriage or gay anything isn’t going to happen.
The issue is – we don’t (shouldn’t) make laws based on religious beliefs.
If I am in a same-sex marriage and some narrow-minded religious person doesn’t want to “validate” it, I don’t really give a rat’s ass. If that person were to slander or discriminate against me because of it though, that’s a problem.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
355 bucslim: interjecting one small point, to your much longer (and good) post:
On a religious level I sincerely think you’re gonna get nowhere, and across the board validation of gay marriage or gay anything isn’t going to happen.
The issue is – we don’t (shouldn’t) make laws based on religious beliefs.
If I am in a same-sex marriage and some narrow-minded religious person doesn’t want to “validate” it, I don’t really give a rat’s ass. If that person were to slander or discriminate against me because of it though, that’s a problem.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
365. DiscHuker: How does that make any sense? Me looking at someone reading a book about abortion or hearing about a story of someone having an abortion in no way affects me. How did someone physically attacking come into play? That would affect me because we are talking aboout physical touch.
Here’s a better example for you: I have 1/2 inch guaged ears along with some other visable piercings. Is that bothering you?
364. wcb4: I agree…too many people just walk away because it’s too hard or too much work. Where does that leave this? With corruption all over. Instead small steps can be taken to fix the issues and make it more acceptable to more people. It won’t change the minds of the religious community but it wouldn’t be looked down on so much by people like me who want the choice to remain, but don’t like the process as it is now.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
365. DiscHuker: How does that make any sense? Me looking at someone reading a book about abortion or hearing about a story of someone having an abortion in no way affects me. How did someone physically attacking come into play? That would affect me because we are talking aboout physical touch.
Here’s a better example for you: I have 1/2 inch guaged ears along with some other visable piercings. Is that bothering you?
364. wcb4: I agree…too many people just walk away because it’s too hard or too much work. Where does that leave this? With corruption all over. Instead small steps can be taken to fix the issues and make it more acceptable to more people. It won’t change the minds of the religious community but it wouldn’t be looked down on so much by people like me who want the choice to remain, but don’t like the process as it is now.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
“If someone comes along and kills you, that´s s crime, right? So why is the killing of an unborn baby not the same? And why is it that criminals who kill pregnant women are accused of two separate crimes? Why is that baby a “life” in one scenario and not in the other?”
If someone kills me, it’s murder, because I’m an actual person, not a potential one. Surely one can tell the difference betwix the two.
As for criminals being charged for two murders if they killed a pregnant woman is because that was not her choice. It is assumed that she planned to carry said baby to term.
Look, abortion is a nasty act, but a necessary evil. Do you really want the government to be in control of your body? Do you not see how taking away a woman’s choice is tandemount to declaring their uterus state property? What if the government decided that they could come and take one of your kidneys for a transplant, because they owned your kidneys?
May 5th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
“If someone comes along and kills you, that´s s crime, right? So why is the killing of an unborn baby not the same? And why is it that criminals who kill pregnant women are accused of two separate crimes? Why is that baby a “life” in one scenario and not in the other?”
If someone kills me, it’s murder, because I’m an actual person, not a potential one. Surely one can tell the difference betwix the two.
As for criminals being charged for two murders if they killed a pregnant woman is because that was not her choice. It is assumed that she planned to carry said baby to term.
Look, abortion is a nasty act, but a necessary evil. Do you really want the government to be in control of your body? Do you not see how taking away a woman’s choice is tandemount to declaring their uterus state property? What if the government decided that they could come and take one of your kidneys for a transplant, because they owned your kidneys?
May 5th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Marv in DC – actually more of a possibility in the Hitler scenario. Unwanted and unloved children are more likely to produce a serial killer than a saint. This is a fact born out by statistics. Before anyone trots out the “what about adoption?” – that is NOT what usually happens and anyone with half a brain realizes this. Personally I don’t believe in abortion, but I do believe in the right to procure one if necessary. Necessity to be determined by the woman and her Doctor. I believe personal freedoms to be paramount.
Bucslim; Eloquent post. I don’t personally think that you need be quite so pessimistic. Our civilization is capable of amazing stupidity and short-sightedness but we are also capable of greatness now and again. I think we’re due for a “now”.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Marv in DC – actually more of a possibility in the Hitler scenario. Unwanted and unloved children are more likely to produce a serial killer than a saint. This is a fact born out by statistics. Before anyone trots out the “what about adoption?” – that is NOT what usually happens and anyone with half a brain realizes this. Personally I don’t believe in abortion, but I do believe in the right to procure one if necessary. Necessity to be determined by the woman and her Doctor. I believe personal freedoms to be paramount.
Bucslim; Eloquent post. I don’t personally think that you need be quite so pessimistic. Our civilization is capable of amazing stupidity and short-sightedness but we are also capable of greatness now and again. I think we’re due for a “now”.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Ok what if Capt Marvel wanted to legally wed a homosexual chicken pot pie… would you support that?
May 5th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Ok what if Capt Marvel wanted to legally wed a homosexual chicken pot pie… would you support that?
May 5th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Maggot – I could counter that a lot of legal developments have come from a religious base, but that’s a can of tomatoes I don’t want to stir into the pot
Mom – I have gradually drifted towards cynical political opinions, I freely admit this.
damien_karras – microwaved or traditional oven wedding?
May 5th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Maggot – I could counter that a lot of legal developments have come from a religious base, but that’s a can of tomatoes I don’t want to stir into the pot
Mom – I have gradually drifted towards cynical political opinions, I freely admit this.
damien_karras – microwaved or traditional oven wedding?
May 5th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
“Look, abortion is a nasty act, but a necessary evil. Do you really want the government to be in control of your body?”
I would argue that evil is never necessary. As to your second question, just wait until government run healthcare comes along…..
May 5th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
“Look, abortion is a nasty act, but a necessary evil. Do you really want the government to be in control of your body?”
I would argue that evil is never necessary. As to your second question, just wait until government run healthcare comes along…..
May 5th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
371 DKOk what if Capt Marvel wanted to legally wed a homosexual chicken pot pie
I know you’re being tongue-in-cheek, but the pot pie can’t consent. That’s where the arguments about marrying dogs, lawn chairs, etc., fall flat.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
371 DKOk what if Capt Marvel wanted to legally wed a homosexual chicken pot pie
I know you’re being tongue-in-cheek, but the pot pie can’t consent. That’s where the arguments about marrying dogs, lawn chairs, etc., fall flat.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
BongoShaftsbury (330):
“Let the human adults determine who they live with, have sex with, and raise a family with.”
Not so fast… These is a MUCH higher probability of birth defects in children of closely-related parents. Have you read the case in Germany about the siblings who “fell in love” and now have 4 children, two of which are so severely disabled that they cannot walk or talk? Are you infringing their civil rights by outlawing incest? Who is protecting the lives of these children who will unfortunately lead extremely difficult lives because their parents were horny siblings? The line must be drawn somewhere!
May 5th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
BongoShaftsbury (330):
“Let the human adults determine who they live with, have sex with, and raise a family with.”
Not so fast… These is a MUCH higher probability of birth defects in children of closely-related parents. Have you read the case in Germany about the siblings who “fell in love” and now have 4 children, two of which are so severely disabled that they cannot walk or talk? Are you infringing their civil rights by outlawing incest? Who is protecting the lives of these children who will unfortunately lead extremely difficult lives because their parents were horny siblings? The line must be drawn somewhere!
May 5th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Marv,
So your position is that since there is a possibility of of a person such as Hitler being born, we should give up the hope of the posssibilites of the potential born?
I guess inventors should stop inventing because they have just as much, if not more, probability of failure than success.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Marv,
So your position is that since there is a possibility of of a person such as Hitler being born, we should give up the hope of the posssibilites of the potential born?
I guess inventors should stop inventing because they have just as much, if not more, probability of failure than success.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
369. wcb4
My question was: why is the unborn baby considered a LIFE (with prosecution following in the ending of it) in one scenario and not in the other? Is it defined as a life only because the woman carrying it said it was? It´s completely subjective and laws should not be based on the subjective.
And it´s not about the big, bad government owning you and telling you what to do with your body. It´s about government protecting the rights of those unable to do so for themselves.
It just AMAZES me that people do not think of consequences when having sex (or at least, before having sex). Did you not know you could get pregnant? If you were unprepared for that possible consequence, then you really should not be having sex to begin with. Or at least take every single precaution you can to avoid it.
Why does that baby have to pay the price for you not wanting to put on a damn condom just cause “it felt so good without it…”?
May 5th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
369. wcb4
My question was: why is the unborn baby considered a LIFE (with prosecution following in the ending of it) in one scenario and not in the other? Is it defined as a life only because the woman carrying it said it was? It´s completely subjective and laws should not be based on the subjective.
And it´s not about the big, bad government owning you and telling you what to do with your body. It´s about government protecting the rights of those unable to do so for themselves.
It just AMAZES me that people do not think of consequences when having sex (or at least, before having sex). Did you not know you could get pregnant? If you were unprepared for that possible consequence, then you really should not be having sex to begin with. Or at least take every single precaution you can to avoid it.
Why does that baby have to pay the price for you not wanting to put on a damn condom just cause “it felt so good without it…”?
May 5th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Dude… mind your own business. No one is MAKING you interact with these people or their offspring, and if you happen across them on the sidewalk, be a successful human being and DEAL with undesired situations, you know, the ones life presents to you everyday. Have sex with who you think is best for you to have sex with and keep your pole in your own pond. It’s not like incest is going to become a craze and take over the world…
You are right. The line must be drawn somewhere! DRAW YOUR LINE WHERE YOUR OWN DAMN BOUNDARIES END!!!
May 5th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Dude… mind your own business. No one is MAKING you interact with these people or their offspring, and if you happen across them on the sidewalk, be a successful human being and DEAL with undesired situations, you know, the ones life presents to you everyday. Have sex with who you think is best for you to have sex with and keep your pole in your own pond. It’s not like incest is going to become a craze and take over the world…
You are right. The line must be drawn somewhere! DRAW YOUR LINE WHERE YOUR OWN DAMN BOUNDARIES END!!!
May 5th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
GTT, don’t be so blind. Someone who accepts that people have the right to their own bodies, and that abortion should be legal, do not necessarily condone it as a birth control device. Why simply suppose everyone thinks in absolutes? =(
May 5th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
GTT, don’t be so blind. Someone who accepts that people have the right to their own bodies, and that abortion should be legal, do not necessarily condone it as a birth control device. Why simply suppose everyone thinks in absolutes? =(
May 5th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
damien_karras:
CAPTAIN MARVEL CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS IN MY BOOK! I think he’s an okay fella with a smart dress sense. Red tights from head to toe with a lightning bolt and a tablecloth cape? Exquisite!
May 5th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
damien_karras:
CAPTAIN MARVEL CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS IN MY BOOK! I think he’s an okay fella with a smart dress sense. Red tights from head to toe with a lightning bolt and a tablecloth cape? Exquisite!
May 5th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Jeff Dunham’s skit with Peanut about Super Gay Man came to mind when I read your post there, Randall. It was the red tights that go me.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Jeff Dunham’s skit with Peanut about Super Gay Man came to mind when I read your post there, Randall. It was the red tights that go me.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Steelman
That isn’t what I am saying at all. I just don’t think you can use the “potential” of the unborn child to do good as a legitamate argument for ending abortion. If you do choose to use that as a “legitamate” argument then I can use the arguement that the child has as much “potential” to be the next Hitler. Sorry if you don’t get that, but you seem to twist words around in order to slightly change the tone so you think you can win.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Steelman
That isn’t what I am saying at all. I just don’t think you can use the “potential” of the unborn child to do good as a legitamate argument for ending abortion. If you do choose to use that as a “legitamate” argument then I can use the arguement that the child has as much “potential” to be the next Hitler. Sorry if you don’t get that, but you seem to twist words around in order to slightly change the tone so you think you can win.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
oouchan: the similarities exist because what one person chooses to do with their body can in fact have consequences on other people.
what if you mother had decided to abort you? certainly you would have had a problem with that woman choosing to do something to “her own body”.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
oouchan: the similarities exist because what one person chooses to do with their body can in fact have consequences on other people.
what if you mother had decided to abort you? certainly you would have had a problem with that woman choosing to do something to “her own body”.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Nietzsche (378):
Was that directed at me? In that case, let me explain: I´m not talking about interacting with these people or their offspring. I´m talking about the consequences THEIR OWN ACTIONS had on their offspring. Is your right to have sex with whomever you choose more important than the lives these children will lead? My heart goes out to those children who are so severely disabled that they cannot WALK or TALK.
“…be a successful human being and DEAL with undesired situations, you know, the ones life presents to you everyday…”
I´m not understanding your argument. Are you saying that in order to be a successful human being I have to “accept” and “deal with” situations I think are wrong? And I would therefore be a failure if I stood up for I think is right?
“It’s not like incest is going to become a craze and take over the world…”
I would think not. However, I think the possible consequences of incest are such a detriment to society that it should be regulated.
“DRAW YOUR LINE WHERE YOUR OWN DAMN BOUNDARIES END!!!”
Well, you could use that argument to support any manner of extremes. Eliminate all drug laws, every person will decide for themselves what their own particular drug use/abuse will be. Why do we have laws regulating seat belt use in cars or helmets on bikes? And why do I have to wait until I´m 16 to drive? My own damn boundary said I was OK to drive at age 12. Why is the State trying to control everything I do?
Give me a break.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Nietzsche (378):
Was that directed at me? In that case, let me explain: I´m not talking about interacting with these people or their offspring. I´m talking about the consequences THEIR OWN ACTIONS had on their offspring. Is your right to have sex with whomever you choose more important than the lives these children will lead? My heart goes out to those children who are so severely disabled that they cannot WALK or TALK.
“…be a successful human being and DEAL with undesired situations, you know, the ones life presents to you everyday…”
I´m not understanding your argument. Are you saying that in order to be a successful human being I have to “accept” and “deal with” situations I think are wrong? And I would therefore be a failure if I stood up for I think is right?
“It’s not like incest is going to become a craze and take over the world…”
I would think not. However, I think the possible consequences of incest are such a detriment to society that it should be regulated.
“DRAW YOUR LINE WHERE YOUR OWN DAMN BOUNDARIES END!!!”
Well, you could use that argument to support any manner of extremes. Eliminate all drug laws, every person will decide for themselves what their own particular drug use/abuse will be. Why do we have laws regulating seat belt use in cars or helmets on bikes? And why do I have to wait until I´m 16 to drive? My own damn boundary said I was OK to drive at age 12. Why is the State trying to control everything I do?
Give me a break.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
DiscHuker
I don’t think I would have had any opinion at all if my mother aborted me, because I would not have been concious of the fact. I would have been unformed and unthinking at the time. Don’t know about you but I don’t have any recollection of being in the womb. maybe you do.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
DiscHuker
I don’t think I would have had any opinion at all if my mother aborted me, because I would not have been concious of the fact. I would have been unformed and unthinking at the time. Don’t know about you but I don’t have any recollection of being in the womb. maybe you do.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
366: GT “It´s not that the life of the unborn is MORE important, it´s that it is EQUALLY important. If someone comes along and kills you, that´s s crime, right? So why is the killing of an unborn baby not the same? And why is it that criminals who kill pregnant women are accused of two separate crimes? Why is that baby a “life” in one scenario and not in the other?”
It is not the same, because I am a person. A fetus is not. At certain point, a fetus becomes a baby- namely, when it could be viable outside the womb. Sometimes (rarely, I believe), criminals who kill pregnant women are charged with taking two lives, but only in very late term pregnancies.
Last year in Indianapolis, a bank robber shot a woman who was a few months pregnant with twins, and she lost them. The shooter was not charged. As emotionally attached the woman was to those fetuses, they were clusters of cells incapable of living outside her, and therefore were not considered people.
People argue that a person achieves person-hood “from the moment of conception”, because that fertilized egg now has the potential to be a person. Well, how do a few lumpy cells constitute a person? Because they have DNA? Because they have the potential for personhood, which occurs if nature is allowed to take its course? If this is true, then we should probably outlaw vasectomies and hysterectomies… all those potential people that never happen because half the fertilization team was MIA. That is man interfering with a natural process.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
366: GT “It´s not that the life of the unborn is MORE important, it´s that it is EQUALLY important. If someone comes along and kills you, that´s s crime, right? So why is the killing of an unborn baby not the same? And why is it that criminals who kill pregnant women are accused of two separate crimes? Why is that baby a “life” in one scenario and not in the other?”
It is not the same, because I am a person. A fetus is not. At certain point, a fetus becomes a baby- namely, when it could be viable outside the womb. Sometimes (rarely, I believe), criminals who kill pregnant women are charged with taking two lives, but only in very late term pregnancies.
Last year in Indianapolis, a bank robber shot a woman who was a few months pregnant with twins, and she lost them. The shooter was not charged. As emotionally attached the woman was to those fetuses, they were clusters of cells incapable of living outside her, and therefore were not considered people.
People argue that a person achieves person-hood “from the moment of conception”, because that fertilized egg now has the potential to be a person. Well, how do a few lumpy cells constitute a person? Because they have DNA? Because they have the potential for personhood, which occurs if nature is allowed to take its course? If this is true, then we should probably outlaw vasectomies and hysterectomies… all those potential people that never happen because half the fertilization team was MIA. That is man interfering with a natural process.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
383. DiscHuker: If my mother aborted me…I wouldn’t be talking to you right now. So that statement you made didn’t make sense either.
You are still talking about physical touch when I am talking about how I view this situation. That is different. It’s not beating me over the head here. So how does it pertain to me…personally? It doesn’t. I could still care less what someone does to their body.
It comes down to: “It’s their body, not mine.” I have no right to it and I don’t own it. And last time I looked, I didn’t have “Property of [insert name here]” tattooed on my ass.
Listen, I am not attempting to change your view. You may have whatever view you want. I can have the same. So…when I say it doesn’t affect me…I mean it. If you want to go out and have one, by all means, go. It will not make one bit of difference to me. It’s not going to affect my sleep tonight or my life.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
383. DiscHuker: If my mother aborted me…I wouldn’t be talking to you right now. So that statement you made didn’t make sense either.
You are still talking about physical touch when I am talking about how I view this situation. That is different. It’s not beating me over the head here. So how does it pertain to me…personally? It doesn’t. I could still care less what someone does to their body.
It comes down to: “It’s their body, not mine.” I have no right to it and I don’t own it. And last time I looked, I didn’t have “Property of [insert name here]” tattooed on my ass.
Listen, I am not attempting to change your view. You may have whatever view you want. I can have the same. So…when I say it doesn’t affect me…I mean it. If you want to go out and have one, by all means, go. It will not make one bit of difference to me. It’s not going to affect my sleep tonight or my life.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
pretty nice dodging of the point marv. now try interacting with it.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
pretty nice dodging of the point marv. now try interacting with it.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Diskhuker
How did I dodge the point? My point is that it would not have been against me because I was an unformed child at the time and unable to make or be capable of making decisions.
“certainly you would have had a problem with that woman choosing to do something to “her own body”.”
In what possible way is this true, if there was no way for me to know or understand them. I was not a conscious being in the womb.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Diskhuker
How did I dodge the point? My point is that it would not have been against me because I was an unformed child at the time and unable to make or be capable of making decisions.
“certainly you would have had a problem with that woman choosing to do something to “her own body”.”
In what possible way is this true, if there was no way for me to know or understand them. I was not a conscious being in the womb.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
ok. i’ll play into your beligerance.
would you today, have a problem with your mother excercising her choice to abort you as her baby?
May 5th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
ok. i’ll play into your beligerance.
would you today, have a problem with your mother excercising her choice to abort you as her baby?
May 5th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
379. Nietzsche
You are right, not everyone uses it as a birth control device.
So what do they use it for? Other than rape (where a woman did not CHOOSE to engage in intercourse), what are the reasons for having an abortion? Too young? Not ready for a child? Simply do not want a child ever? Cannot not economically support a child?
Solution: condom, condom, condom and… yes, you guessed it, condom.
And dont tell me that most of these people actually use birtj control that failed. Condoms are 97% effective when used correctly, a Pill is 99.9%. You REALLY dont want that child, I mean, dont want it so badly that you will kill it? Use both.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
379. Nietzsche
You are right, not everyone uses it as a birth control device.
So what do they use it for? Other than rape (where a woman did not CHOOSE to engage in intercourse), what are the reasons for having an abortion? Too young? Not ready for a child? Simply do not want a child ever? Cannot not economically support a child?
Solution: condom, condom, condom and… yes, you guessed it, condom.
And dont tell me that most of these people actually use birtj control that failed. Condoms are 97% effective when used correctly, a Pill is 99.9%. You REALLY dont want that child, I mean, dont want it so badly that you will kill it? Use both.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
386. msulli222
Yes and no. Personally, I believe a a fetus is a person as soon as the heart starts beating. That is no longer a clump of cells, that is a beating heart. And that happens 21 days after an egg is fertilized. Most women havent even missed their period at that point…
May 5th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
386. msulli222
Yes and no. Personally, I believe a a fetus is a person as soon as the heart starts beating. That is no longer a clump of cells, that is a beating heart. And that happens 21 days after an egg is fertilized. Most women havent even missed their period at that point…
May 5th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Diskhuker
I don’t understand your question, but i will try to answer and the short answer is No. If it was my mothers choice (made before I was a recognized human being and capable of cogent thought) then it is her choice. She made the decision to have me for a number of reasons. Some of those were that she wanted a child, was married and had a career, had the resources to raise me and care for me and was fairly certain that I was a healthy baby. Now if those conditions had been different such as, her being an unwed teen mother with no education and no ability to raise me than I think it would have been a rational decision on her part.
sorry if my response is a little confused but you are asking a ridiculous question.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Diskhuker
I don’t understand your question, but i will try to answer and the short answer is No. If it was my mothers choice (made before I was a recognized human being and capable of cogent thought) then it is her choice. She made the decision to have me for a number of reasons. Some of those were that she wanted a child, was married and had a career, had the resources to raise me and care for me and was fairly certain that I was a healthy baby. Now if those conditions had been different such as, her being an unwed teen mother with no education and no ability to raise me than I think it would have been a rational decision on her part.
sorry if my response is a little confused but you are asking a ridiculous question.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Where I come from liberalism is part of the far right…
May 5th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Where I come from liberalism is part of the far right…
May 5th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
391. GTT: That is exactly why we need reform. Because we know that talking about abstinence doesn’t work. There is one more situation and that is when it threatens a mother’s life. Sad but true, most women choose their own life. I would, too….no matter how much that would hurt me.
I had a high risk pregnancy due to my medical issues. I have a beautiful little girl now but my doctor kept telling me if I got worse then I would have to make that decision. I already knew that answer…again…no matter how sad it was, I would have chosen me.
So I guess that answers your question, DiscHuker. I would have supported her decision…no matter if it hurt or not and if that meant I wasn’t in this world anymore.
392. GTT: The organs start to develop at that stage, but its not functional. That doesn’t happen until 5 weeks at least.
http://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-5-weeks_1094.bc
May 5th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
391. GTT: That is exactly why we need reform. Because we know that talking about abstinence doesn’t work. There is one more situation and that is when it threatens a mother’s life. Sad but true, most women choose their own life. I would, too….no matter how much that would hurt me.
I had a high risk pregnancy due to my medical issues. I have a beautiful little girl now but my doctor kept telling me if I got worse then I would have to make that decision. I already knew that answer…again…no matter how sad it was, I would have chosen me.
So I guess that answers your question, DiscHuker. I would have supported her decision…no matter if it hurt or not and if that meant I wasn’t in this world anymore.
392. GTT: The organs start to develop at that stage, but its not functional. That doesn’t happen until 5 weeks at least.
http://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-5-weeks_1094.bc
May 5th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
marv: are you serious?
you would rather have been aborted if your mom had thought it a good choice?
and i notice how you added in “(she)was fairly certain that i was a healthy baby”.
so, let’s see now what the list of reasons abortion is acceptable looks like…
– i think it will be hard…abort
– i think the baby will have a hard life…abort
– it isn’t a good time for me…abort
– i won’t like the baby…abort
– i have other things i want to do with my life…abort
– i don’t want the consequences of unprotected sex…abort
– i wasn’t smart enough to get married before i got pregnant…abort
these are really the reasons you are willing to fight for the right so that we can kill over 1,000,000 babies each year in this country alone?
May 5th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
marv: are you serious?
you would rather have been aborted if your mom had thought it a good choice?
and i notice how you added in “(she)was fairly certain that i was a healthy baby”.
so, let’s see now what the list of reasons abortion is acceptable looks like…
– i think it will be hard…abort
– i think the baby will have a hard life…abort
– it isn’t a good time for me…abort
– i won’t like the baby…abort
– i have other things i want to do with my life…abort
– i don’t want the consequences of unprotected sex…abort
– i wasn’t smart enough to get married before i got pregnant…abort
these are really the reasons you are willing to fight for the right so that we can kill over 1,000,000 babies each year in this country alone?
May 5th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
to quote ronald reagan “If you notice, all those who are pro-abortion have already been born”.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
to quote ronald reagan “If you notice, all those who are pro-abortion have already been born”.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
393. Marv in DC
“unable to make or be capable of making decisions” and “before I was…capable of cogent thought…”
Well, when you are a new-born baby, just out of your mother´s womb, as you´re being spanked by the doctor so you cry and open up your lungs, you are incapable of making decisions, you have no way to express cogent thoughts. Would it have been OK to kill you then?
May 5th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
393. Marv in DC
“unable to make or be capable of making decisions” and “before I was…capable of cogent thought…”
Well, when you are a new-born baby, just out of your mother´s womb, as you´re being spanked by the doctor so you cry and open up your lungs, you are incapable of making decisions, you have no way to express cogent thoughts. Would it have been OK to kill you then?
May 5th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Dischuker
The list you give is not right at all. It is purely emotional and doesn’t reflect the myriad of real reason that people have when they get an abortion. and how do you know those are the REAL reasons that people have abortions? Do you have the stats to back it up? What about women and girls who are victims of incest or rape? I take it that you would blame those women because they weren’t thinking of the consequences of unprotected sex?
It seems to me that your REAL reasons are simply your OPINIONS of why people have abortions. Way to trivialize a truly complex issue. BRAVO!
May 5th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Dischuker
The list you give is not right at all. It is purely emotional and doesn’t reflect the myriad of real reason that people have when they get an abortion. and how do you know those are the REAL reasons that people have abortions? Do you have the stats to back it up? What about women and girls who are victims of incest or rape? I take it that you would blame those women because they weren’t thinking of the consequences of unprotected sex?
It seems to me that your REAL reasons are simply your OPINIONS of why people have abortions. Way to trivialize a truly complex issue. BRAVO!
May 5th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
GTT
Nope because now you are argueing when Life begins, I wasn’t talking about that with Diskhuker. If you want my opinion on that I would say that I tend to agree with oouchans opinion on that although I would extend it to the end of the first trimester.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
GTT
Nope because now you are argueing when Life begins, I wasn’t talking about that with Diskhuker. If you want my opinion on that I would say that I tend to agree with oouchans opinion on that although I would extend it to the end of the first trimester.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I think you’re fooling yourself, Marv if you think those reasons Disc listed are in the minority or his opinion.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I think you’re fooling yourself, Marv if you think those reasons Disc listed are in the minority or his opinion.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Steelman: “But isn’t this an argument of what people believe??? Are you a bigot against those who believe in communal love?? Are you a “polyphobe”?? I’m being labeled a bigot and “homophobe” for expressing a belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. We all draw lines of what is acceptable, which is a lot of my original point.
I’m sitting back laughing at those who are attacking me for a belief, when they arrogantly draw their own line in the sand (that polygamy would never follow – which really means that it is unacceptable) and then think they are on some moral high ground.
Now we fit into this list’s original topic – liberal hypocrisy. They are expressing it very well.”
Yeah, that would be fine except I fucking gave you a list of REASONS for my belief which you handily chose to ignore. But that’s fine, just throw all logic out of the window if you must, that’ll prove your point. Gay marriage will inevitably lead to polygamous marriage, NAMBLA will move into the white house, I’ll be able to marry a frog to a frisbee. Eventually every man, woman, child, animal and object in the United States will become married to each other, and we’ll all watch Mount Rushmore gangfuck the Statue of Liberty while touching ourselves and screaming.
Actually, I think you’re onto something with this “ignore logical argument” thing. It’s fun, right?
May 5th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Steelman: “But isn’t this an argument of what people believe??? Are you a bigot against those who believe in communal love?? Are you a “polyphobe”?? I’m being labeled a bigot and “homophobe” for expressing a belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. We all draw lines of what is acceptable, which is a lot of my original point.
I’m sitting back laughing at those who are attacking me for a belief, when they arrogantly draw their own line in the sand (that polygamy would never follow – which really means that it is unacceptable) and then think they are on some moral high ground.
Now we fit into this list’s original topic – liberal hypocrisy. They are expressing it very well.”
Yeah, that would be fine except I fucking gave you a list of REASONS for my belief which you handily chose to ignore. But that’s fine, just throw all logic out of the window if you must, that’ll prove your point. Gay marriage will inevitably lead to polygamous marriage, NAMBLA will move into the white house, I’ll be able to marry a frog to a frisbee. Eventually every man, woman, child, animal and object in the United States will become married to each other, and we’ll all watch Mount Rushmore gangfuck the Statue of Liberty while touching ourselves and screaming.
Actually, I think you’re onto something with this “ignore logical argument” thing. It’s fun, right?
May 5th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
“to quote ronald reagan “If you notice, all those who are pro-abortion have already been born”.”
That’s absolutely correct. I remember when I was a foetus I longed to join the Pro-Life movement. I outlined a manifesto about it and everything, but sadly I’d forgotten it by the time I learned to write.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
“to quote ronald reagan “If you notice, all those who are pro-abortion have already been born”.”
That’s absolutely correct. I remember when I was a foetus I longed to join the Pro-Life movement. I outlined a manifesto about it and everything, but sadly I’d forgotten it by the time I learned to write.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
so, let’s see now what the list of reasons abortion is acceptable looks like…
- i think it will be hard…abort
- i think the baby will have a hard life…abort
- it isn’t a good time for me…abort
- i won’t like the baby…abort
- i have other things i want to do with my life…abort
- i don’t want the consequences of unprotected sex…abort
- i wasn’t smart enough to get married before i got pregnant…abort
these are really the reasons you are willing to fight for the right so that we can kill over 1,000,000 babies each year in this country alone?
It’s not about you and what you find acceptable. It’s not about you in anyway. It’s between a woman and her doctor. What part of a woman has the right to have control over her own body do you not understand? It doesn’t matter if you find it reprehensable. Would you be willing to give up control of your body to the government? As long as the fetus is in the woman’s body, it is under her control (late abortion, blah, blah, blah… I know, I’m gonna ignore that). It doesn’t matter if the heart starts 2 minutes after conception, as long as its very exisitance is dependendant on being in the mother’s womb it is her choice (if you could transfer a zygote to a willing womb, then hey, but for now that’s not possible). Why are you willing to give control of some elses body to the government? What right do you have?
Oh, that’s right, you don’t.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
so, let’s see now what the list of reasons abortion is acceptable looks like…
- i think it will be hard…abort
- i think the baby will have a hard life…abort
- it isn’t a good time for me…abort
- i won’t like the baby…abort
- i have other things i want to do with my life…abort
- i don’t want the consequences of unprotected sex…abort
- i wasn’t smart enough to get married before i got pregnant…abort
these are really the reasons you are willing to fight for the right so that we can kill over 1,000,000 babies each year in this country alone?
It’s not about you and what you find acceptable. It’s not about you in anyway. It’s between a woman and her doctor. What part of a woman has the right to have control over her own body do you not understand? It doesn’t matter if you find it reprehensable. Would you be willing to give up control of your body to the government? As long as the fetus is in the woman’s body, it is under her control (late abortion, blah, blah, blah… I know, I’m gonna ignore that). It doesn’t matter if the heart starts 2 minutes after conception, as long as its very exisitance is dependendant on being in the mother’s womb it is her choice (if you could transfer a zygote to a willing womb, then hey, but for now that’s not possible). Why are you willing to give control of some elses body to the government? What right do you have?
Oh, that’s right, you don’t.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
bucslim
That’s cool I understand, but I don’t believe those are the only reasons or majority of the reasons. I have known people who have made the decision and none of their reasons were as simplistic as diskhuker seems to make them. These were agonizing decisions that good people thought over very carefully before they made them. So I took offense to how cavalerly he threw those out there. Not trying to face off against you at all and I appreciate your opinion on this. Just as the things I have written are my opinion.