“… but will defend to the death your right to say it!”
“… I think you are evil for having said it, I think no one should associate with you and you ought to lose your livelihood, and anyone who doesn’t agree with me about all that is skating on pretty thin ice as well, but hey, I don’t think you should be arrested for it.”*
And when they’re not being hostile, they’re being condescending:
“We believe the next step is to use this as an opportunity for Phil to sit down with gay families in Louisiana and learn about their lives and the values they share,” — GLAAD spokesman Rich Ferraro
Apparently Phil needs to be re-educated.
Because the only explanation for not having the proper views they can fathom is ignorance.
I eagerly await GLAAD’s press conference the next time some poor homosexual is executed under Islamic law where they condemn Islam and invite a few Islamic clerics over for lunch.
“We believe the next step is to use this as an opportunity for Phil to sit down with gay families in Louisiana and learn about their lives and the values they share”
Meanwhile there is ABSOLUTELY NO push for those selfsame gay families in Louisiana to sit down with church leaders and listen to the Christian teachings about homosexuality, because those views are #NoLongerTolerable, therefore H8, and thus worthy only of being shamed into silence.
Because FREE SPEECH!
after what Breitbart did to Shirley Sherrod and what uncounted of you wizzles did to Mr. Kevin Jennings, the hypocrisy meter is already at like 6.2 and climbing, on a scale where 0.0 is totally unhypocritical and 6.2 is maximally hypocritical
Kevin “Let’s teach young teens what fisting is” Jennings? Kevin “Fuck the religious right” Jennings?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtDG_u0ZdAE
lol
Different issue, happy. Shirley Sherrod has been made whole, as they say in the legal biz.
I eagerly await GLAAD’s press conference the next time some poor homosexual is executed under Islamic law where they condemn Islam and invite a few Islamic clerics over for lunch.
Better yet, they offer to meet the clerics at the madrassa. Alone.
From the same article:
“[GLAAD] is also currently researching companies who use Robertson as a spokesperson.
“Silence is agreement in this case,” he said. “With such egregious anti-gay and racist comments, those companies that choose to be affiliated with this family need to speak out.”
Silence=agreement; you must loudly denounce the unperson or it will be assumed that you agree. No more live and let live or choosing not stay neutral.
This is similar to the DOJ’s brochure that came out in March requiring employees to verbally affirm homosexuality regardless of their personal beliefs. http://preview.tinyurl.com/kkeud52
I heard some homosexual spokesperson declare that Phil needs to “get in line”. How positively second-class citizen of him. Kind of like making blacks use separate drinking fountains and restrooms.
I say these homos better check themselves before they wreck themselves.
Wrapping presents.
On the floor.
With the cat.
Ok, I get why they’d chase curling ribbon, but these nutty creatures also have this thing about chewing up and swallowing the ribbon, which, days later, leads to the humiliating pursuit of a cat who is trailing poop-ribbon out its butt.
Speaking of anuses, that is. Might as well be on-topic.
Everyone understands there’s an implied “yet” at the end of Darleen’s version of the Leftist reworking of Voltaire, right?
The global warming shit is precisely this also.
Unlike the older race/gender/class/nationality/occupation grievance mobs THIS one presumes to speak for the planet It has no actual source that can claim to be a member of an aggrieved class. It must be spoken for by mediums and prophets who interpretthe supposed “will” of Earth itself.
Rather than farting around with fighting increasingly feeble expressions of enthusiasm and cooperation as permutations of HATE(TM)! they are fighting PANEXTINCTION(TM) !
These people see camps, culls, food lines, dug outs, communally owned bikes, short lifespans and folk songs as the only way”out” of their geo-crisis-anger. They see dissent and non-coincident thoughts as evil.
Ultimately,they are seeking exactly the kind of power than gay and race and gender lobbies have over language, reputation, and speech as a steeping stone to deciding who lives and who dies via bureaucratic tables and their hogwash living capacity theories and clearly falsified observational trends.
If you won’t protect freaking Paula Deen from the race mob, and Phil Roberts, or a christian bakery or a chicken place from the gay mob then eventually you wan’y have the power to oppose Gaia’s shepherds when they ask you which one of your kids you want to keep and take you along to the compost heap too when you don’t answer fast enough for them or show enough “respect”.
People need to stand up against this shit because it leads no where good.
Palaeomerus, you sound kinda like a “denier.”
We’ve been instructed by many publications and climate scholars such as Al Gore that you are to be ignored.
global warming is a neo-fascist ploy to grab power for the state
Paula Deen got screwed, but she was a huge obamawhore so I don’t really care
I think it’s rude not to bake a cake for people just cause they’re gay
communally-owned bikes make me uncomfortable
composting is fine but you have to remember to turn it everyday unless you spend a fortune on the automatic kind
I think it’s rude not to bake a cake for people just cause they’re gay
Should people be allowed to be sued for being rude?
Well, we can’t have that. I think Monday I’m going to look up some phone numbers for their board members and make sure they don’t mistake me for agreeing with them.
I think it’s rude to force yourself on people who don’t want to deal with you.
I have to agree Pablo. What happened to freedom of (and from) association? It’s why people build country clubs and join lodges.
or form orgs like the “black congressional caucus”
We can’t get into the Masonic Lodge, nr. (Well, Eastern Star, for me.) They discriminate against the papists.
I’m ready to conclude that ‘feets is Kevin Jennings. Or at least that they are fist buddies.
NTTAWWT, of course. )
He does seem to be unnaturally inclined to side with the fascists, gay or straight.
>They discriminate against the papists.<
that's ok. i discriminate against statists/commies/proggtards and their front groups
Same here.
I am reminded of Evan Sayet’s wise observation regarding discrimination…
“Modern Liberals prefer moral indiscriminateness over what they perceive as the sin of having discriminated.”
ot my 80% lowers have shipped merry christmas
You can only be shamed into silence if you make a habit of saying shameful things. Let’s hope those hypothetical Christians would cover this gem:
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
And at that point, anyone in your Sunday school would say, “Why the fuck should take advice on morals from people who’s God was fine with murdering children, and molesting women – where the losers get butchered and the winners (young girls) are sentenced to a life of rape.”
Is that all? Hardly!
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Who makes you marry your rapist? God does.
I also find it odd that you’re all for freedom of expression when it comes to saying vile things, but not when it comes to writing letters and organizing, refraining from doing business with entities that support things you object to, and using freedom speech to garner attention and raise awareness.
I guarantee you that Phil Robertson is not ashamed. You should be though, Slappy.
You can only be shamed into silence if you make a habit of saying shameful things
And so who gets to decide what is shameful? That extreme minority that forces people to not only tolerate, not only accept, but be required to express full-throated approval, on pain of losing personal property and/or employment?
Since when is fascism not shameful?
Quote all you want from the Old Testament, steve-o. My arguments are based on the fact that the Left wants to destroy its enemies, whomever they may be.
Furthermore, Steve, I’m fairly sure that if Moses were here, he’d find plenty of things to condemn YOU for.
You personally. Things that you think are perfectly OK.
Make sure you stand in judgment of people who are radically different from you more often.
Most people that quote the bible include verse and chapter (a version would be helpful as well)
But, then the context would be harder to distort wouldn’t it?
And at that point, anyone in your Sunday school would say, “Why the fuck should take advice on morals from people who’s God was fine with murdering children, and molesting women – where the losers get butchered and the winners (young girls) are sentenced to a life of rape.”
– Why are you quoting Sharia law steve-dolt?
steve, you surly sack of shit, those words were never uttered by God, but written by men of that age; in the context of that age their interpretation of God’s intent was as primitive as was their lives. Much of the OT is considered allegory.
Christ did not utter those words or sentiments. We are speaking of Christians, not prehistoric barbarians. That you drag your no-class animal ass around spewing that nonsensical venom proves you are as low as modern Godless humans can get; you have absolutely no character whatsoever; you are of no use or value to anyone alive except to your own pathetic self. You fill the empty space in your head not with God, but with your own skanky, crippled self-loving ego. It’s no wonder you are so vile and pernicious; you’ve an ugly, rotten, unsaved soul. May God have mercy on it, pathetic rag-tag thing such as it is.
Now go play fast in the traffics. Six lanes crossing; RED is the new GREEN!.
No kidding, Danger. Also cherry-picking quotes that are out of context is an old and tired ploy of non-believers who seek to undermine the righteous.
Biblical grandstanding aside, di is correct; this is about control. We’ve been saying it for years.
– Mocking your maker is always super intelligent Steve-turd.
Danger – you surly know the old testament is full of this shit.
Numbers 31:13-18
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Calling out vile things and rallying against them is why women can vote and black people don’t have to drink from a different fountain.
Calling out vile things and rallying against them is why women can vote and black people don’t have to drink from a different fountain.
– None of which is based on the word of G_d, but then again you don’t matter.
Who makes you marry your rapist? God does.
So Moses = God?
You do know Moses is not permitted to enter the promised land by God. Not exactly a strong endorsement of his reign.
black people don’t have to drink from a different fountain.
I addressed this earlier. You want us to have separate quarters and water fountains. Just admit it that if it we’re en vogue you’d kill us all.
slappy is an islamophobe and fuck you
>“Why the fuck should take advice on morals from people who’s God was fine with murdering children, and molesting women – where the losers get butchered and the winners (young girls) are sentenced to a life of rape.” <
Have you read the old testament? Here, go read the whole “God is love” steaming heap, “for context.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+31
Why do you worship the thing you think is responsible for Numbers 31? Fear? Because there’s nothing to celebrate there.
That was beautiful. Jesus loves you. And you might want to check out Matthew 5:17-19.
And I’m still not seeing the justification for “we’re not putting up with mere tolerance any more, we demand special treatment!”
What ever happened to “Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You”? Is DV advocating we start calling his boss and get him fired for his beliefs?
By what criteria do you pick and choose what parts of the bible are god’s word, and what parts are just “stuff.” BTW, Moses didn’t get to enter for one very specific (and bizarrely arbitrary) transgression, not for anything to do with The Law.
Nor am I seeing why it’s only the gender definition that should be struck down. Hey, heterophobe, if three men want to get married to each other, who are you to stop them? If it’s two men, a pre-teen boy and their pet sheep, you have no right to stand in the way of their love, isn’t that how the argument goes?
Because PROGRESS!
Yes , I have read the Bible. I will submit that you have not other than perhaps in an as literature setting and then you cribbed from Cliff’s Notes.
The argument here is the merits of the US Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. I suggest you familiarize yourself with this document before all copies are shredded.
The rights of one group do not outrank the rights of another. Special privilege for none.
We talked about this last night. Go review.
What special treatment? It’s amazing how you confuse equality with special treatment.
You are absolutely free to try. I don’t think you’d get too far with that – not least of which because I’m my own boss. But even if you called my clients, I seriously doubt they’d have much interest in what you have to say, considering where you sit on the issues.
And that’s exactly what’s happening here. The duck guy can say his vile shit. He has every right to.
And people hearing it can say, “I’m not supporting A&E. I’m not buying products from people who advertise during his show. I’m taking to social media and the air waves to express my disgust.”
How is this anything other than everyone exercising their constitutionally protected rights? Why do you think only one side has freedom of expression rights?
It’s amazing how you confuse equality with special treatment
Show me a single state where “sexual attraction” is considered a requirement for marriage.
To put it bluntly, Nathan Lane could easily marry Ellen DeGeneres under existing law. Changing the law to suit the mere preferences of an extreme minority is “special treatment”.
Calling out vile things and rallying against them is why women can vote and black people don’t have to drink from a different fountain. – See more at: https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52259#comments
Translation: You cannot assail me as unvirtuous. I have clothed myself in the virtue of things I had no part of and that I now safely acknowledge from the space of a century and four decades (respectively) as being good and right.
Good for you for speaking up for the gays, Steve, over there, from behind the crowd of burly men in leather chaps. You’ll certainly convince people who derive their conviction of the nature of sin from scripture that their path is the wrong one by yelling “Bigot” at them ever louder and more shrill. And, hey, if that doesn’t work, that’s why (ungendered) god invented the noose, right? Well that and for some wild alone time with some lotion and a safety harness.
NTTAWWT. Because there’s not anything wrong with anything, except believing that there’s something wrong with certain things, in which case those witches were asking for a burning.
So PR is being fired?
Cool.
I work in the healthcare arena… does this mean I can pursue a similar scorched-earth policy against all the open Obama voters in my hospital? After all… they voted to screw up our entire healthcare system. And we’re talking about real-world consequences here… not some vague sense of unease of “they don’t agree with my lifestyle.”
I could get a higher percentage of people who insist on hamburgers for lunch every day than the mere 3.4% that claim to be LBGTEIEIO. Should we change the law to require that everyone eat burgers for lunch, and anyone who prefers chicken lose their jobs for being H8Rs?
If not, why not?
Why do you think only one side has freedom of expression rights?
Are you serious? It’s obvious that everyone on television and radio is covering their own ass by asserting that DD is “vile”. Why? What is vile about have a traditional POV about marriage and family traditions? Vile to whom and why? If they had any integrity they and you should denounce your own parents for having the temerity to be straight.
“By what criteria do you pick and choose what parts of the bible are god’s word,”
In the New International Version you are quoting from (old testament) It (God’s word) is usually proceeded by “The Lord said… ( or a similar beginning).
You have it backwards. Letting heteros marry each other, but barring gays from doing the same is special treatment for heteros (or discrimination against gays).
Letting gays marry (pay attention) does not afford them a single thing that is not also afforded heteros.
Please go look up the definition of “special” before you make more of an idiot of yourself.
Letting heteros marry each other, but barring gays from doing the same is special treatment for heteros (or discrimination against gays).
Who says they are heteros? All that is required is one man marrying one woman. Their sexual preference was never asked after, and is irrelevant. The only mental requirement is not even whether they WANT to get married, but only whether they are WILLING to.
Try and keep the facts straight, your well-known allergy to them notwithstanding.
Letting gays marry (pay attention) does not afford them a single thing that is not also afforded heteros.
Letting gays have civil unions (pay attention) does not afford them a single thing that is not also afforded married couples.
But civil unions were never accepted as enough. Why is that?
What special treatment? It’s amazing how you confuse equality with special treatment.
Would the Klan be able to force a baker to do a hooded wedding cake?
And people hearing it can say, “I’m not supporting A&E. I’m not buying products from people who advertise during his show. I’m taking to social media and the air waves to express my disgust.”
– Yes, they could say that, but in fact their reaction to the Left doing an obvious edit on what was actually said in order to support yet another round of manufactured outrage is being greeted with lashback and the DD products are flying of the shelves.
– You’re a bit behind the news cycle Steve-deuche. If you can’t help lying for your “cause” (anything is justified with Lefturds) at least try to stay current or go home.
Would the Klan be able to force a baker to do a hooded wedding cake?
More accurately, would the Klan be able to force a BLACK baker to do a hooded wedding cake?
I don’t see why not. A black photographer should put aside his feelings and photograph a Klan rally, as well.
A job’s a job. Amirite?
>The duck guy can say his vile shit.<
what about mohammed and his follower's vile shit slappy?
– That the vast majority of the “bible belt” klanners and most of the aparthied laws and certainly the congress at the time which stood against civil rights were Democrats not withstanding, why do you hate your own party steve-deuche?
>Would the Klan be able to force a baker to do a hooded wedding cake?<
ax demonrats like bob byrd, nancy pelosi or baracky
>why do you hate your own party steve-deuche?<
make believe world turtles all the way
Moses didn’t get to enter for one very specific (and bizarrely arbitrary) transgression, not for anything to do with The Law.
The Israelites refused to enter the promised land and Moses was their leader. He paid the same price that they did.
It’s called accountability Steve, a concept foreign to the left.
– The civil rights laws had to be enacted by the Republicans because all the Southern Democrats ran out and hid. They knew if they voted for the bill they’d get thrown out of office because their supporters were so bigoted.
– So again, why do you hate your own party steve-dueche?
Why do you worship the God of Numbers 31? Fear?
You completely miss the point – failing to discriminate against people who are gay (pay attention you too) takes nothing away from people who are straight.
It’s the same thing as thinking people of different races shouldn’t marry.
– Your agitprop plan isn’t working steve-dueche. when you try to paint everyone with your own faults they don’t react the way you hope they will. They tell you to go fuck yourself, which is exactly whats happening.
(first sentence above was a Steve quote insert “” as appropriate;)
– I can’t help noticing you’ve been strangely quiet concerning your wonderful OCare policy steve-dueche, not a word.
– Why is that?
“failing to discriminate against people who are gay”
So Steve, what’s the Metrics for this non-discrimination? SSM? Gay club member Quotas? Bible burning parties?
What’s it gonna take?
failing to discriminate against people who are gay
How is it discrimination if they are being held to the (pay attention now) EXACT SAME STANDARDS as the rest of society?
Be specific.
It’s the same thing as thinking people of different races shouldn’t marry
So you’re saying that people SHOULD be able to marry animals? I wish you would stick to just one lie, DV…
You want to call it a civil union if you’re marrying same sex, and marriage if you’re marrying opposite sex, and you don’t see any special treatment there? Can you even think at all.
Oh, the southern democrats were shittacular. It’s a complete embarrassment to the party. It’s totally shameful. Now the Republicans have taken up basically the same positions. Are you ashamed of them?
You’d think for all those women, children, and babies he murdered, the good lord could have cut him some slack. Apparently a little mental breakdown isn’t really tolerated in God’s military either. You find a lot to admire about that asshole, I’m guessing?
Because gay people are horrible like the Klan. Because gay people support the extermination of the Jews just like the Klan does.
Gay = Klan. Run on that one. I double dog dare you.
You completely miss the point – failing to discriminate against people who are gay (pay attention you too) takes nothing away from people who are straight.
– In your opinion. For those that have any belief in anything, certain things are consecrated as sacred. Letting SSM’s be named “marraige” demeans the entire ceremony in the eyes of those that concieved of the whole thing in the first place. Letting that go without objection would be the same for them as aprobation of the abborant lifestyle of one man sticking his dick up another mans ass.
– Don’t know how much plainer it can be made for you. But the LBGT commune knows all that and thats why they are being so aggressive. Its not about anything but control, all else is ullshit and you know it.
>failing to discriminate against people who are gay <
thus spake big anus. clowns of the clowndisaster ™ choomgang.
Now you’re equating different races with different species. Keep digging.
Why do you worship the God of Numbers 31? Fear?
The actual translation (and real motivation) is respect.
Because gay people support the extermination of the judeochristian belief
Jews just like the Klan does.ax phil knucklehead
None of us knows why certain things were done in the Old Testament, because that world is utterly alien to us.
Do you know what societies were doing back then? Maybe the stuff you find repulsive was a step UP from what was going on.
What can you tell us about the social conventions of Egypt and Syria and Babylon and Assyria? What did THEY do when a man raped a woman? Maybe it was exponentially worse than what the Hebrews were told to do.
What about the conventions of war? What was usually done to women? Do you know? Maybe what they did in Numbers 31 was pretty damned good compared with what was usually done.
The accounts in the Old Testament leave a LOT out, because they assume that their readers know what they know. They don’t explain jack to people like us who come from a wholly different intellectual and cultural tradition.
So you can judge the text all you like — a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, written by a society whose literary and social conventions are alien to us — but if you were privy to the whole picture, if you understood the entirety of the context, you might not be so condemning.
Or you just might. Makes no difference to me. I don’t have to answer to you or anyone else.
You want to call it a civil union if you’re marrying same sex, and marriage if you’re marrying opposite sex, and you don’t see any special treatment there?
One has one definition, the other has a different definition. They both have legally recognized license requirements, a public ceremony with guests if desired, and all the bells and whistles. There is no legal difference, except the word. As long as both are receiving the same benefits and legal standards, it is no worse than the difference between a left-handed and a right handed wrench. (With the proviso that there are three times as many left-handed people out there than LGBTSMHYMCA.) But that wouldn’t have required redefining “marriage” to include anyone who wants to marry anyone and forcing the rest of the people to surrender their personal beliefs, now, would it?
It is not about marriage, it is about control. (There was a link upthread you might wish to peruse.)
The people who conceived of it in the first place thought women should be married off as children, marriages should be arranged by the parents, and polygamy was OK. Why do you keep driving around that?
And why is your marriage demeaned unless everyone practices it just like you prefer? You probably say things like, “I don’t want my kids to see two men kissing.” Why do you assume that every other living human being has an obligation to be appropriate scenery to your existence?
>Keep digging.<
big anus is anti-darwinian mr. science
Now you’re equating different races with different species. Keep digging
So you are saying blacks are not part of the human race to start with? Heterophobic, I knew, but racist, to boot?
– So then steve-dueche then your metric is any lifestyle should have the right to hijack anothers “ceremonies”, and name.
– So then child molesters could be called “steve-(last name here)’s” as a class and you’d be good with that, right?
>Why do you assume that every other living human being has an obligation to be appropriate scenery to your existence?<
anti-darwinianist are you a creationist?
Because gay people are horrible like the Klan. Because gay people support the extermination of the Jews just like the Klan does.
Gay = Klan. Run on that one. I double dog dare you.
Given that they are trying to force their own beliefs on the rest of society, that’s not far wrong, but that wasn’t the point being made, and you know it. Which is why you dodged the question.
Can a small group of people force others that are diametrically opposed on matters of personal belief to violate their consciences, under penalty of law? If gays can force religious bakers to bake a cake or take a picture, can the Klan force a black baker or photographer to do the same, and if not, why not?
The people who conceived of it in the first place thought women should be married off as children, marriages should be arranged by the parents, and polygamy was OK.
You don’t know that. You have no idea where marriage came from. You’re just citing some of the older practices by disparate peoples at different times in different places.
The one factor that has never changed was that you couldn’t exclude one of the sexes. We consider that to be a weight-bearing wall of the institution.
Only a narrow-minded, malicious person would insist that’s straight-out bigotry instead of Another Perspective.
They actually don’t. They just don’t want to be governed by it. But if you can’t force others to live by your religion, then you’ve been infringed.
Sounds a lot like separate but equal. Why make two different legal instruments for exactly the same thing? How has anything been taken away from your hetero marriage if two men marry? (if you only answer one question, answer this one) What have you lost?
Why do you think in such a limited way of an all powerful, all good, god? How do you just dismiss (which is what you did) parts of the Bible that you find uncomfortable and assume that you just must not understand it. Maybe this part of the bible isn’t actually hard to understand at all. Maybe it pretty much means exactly what it says.
– You probably say things like, “I don’t want my kids to see two men kissing.”
– Yes, absolutely, because the idea is to “normalize” abborent behavior, and no, I don’t care to take part in that or expose my children to that sort of skewed sexual display, just like I also don’t care to expose them to “small eyes”. If you don’t know what “small eyes” are, thats the term that they use in prisons for child molesters.
– There are any number of things I’m bigoted against. Just ask me. But group sex among the neurotic is none of my concern as long as they stay to themselves and do not try to force it on me or mine then I don’t care if they fuck lawnmowers or Giraffs.
– They don’t want to keep it to themselves. They want to parade it and they want to force others to affirm it as normal. It isn’t and all the bullshit agitprop narrative in the world will never change that.
– So keep on trucking steve-dueche.
It’s always amusing when a non-Christian tries to explain Christianity to Christians.
And by amusing I mean idiotic.
They just don’t want to be governed by it.
No, actually they want it destroyed. If it were so “live and let live” as you are lying about, they wouldn’t be bashing religion as fervently as any atheist with a grudge, and forcing those with whom they disagree to knuckle under, using force of law, rather than merely voting with their feet and wallet and patronizing places that want them around. They wouldn’t be using judges to write law in the face of strong opposition, civil unions be damned.
They don’t want to be governed by it? MOVE. Lots of States are more welcoming to LGBTCGBGFU than New Mexico and Utah. But that’s not good enough, is it?
Sounds a lot like separate but equal.
So it isn’t about the legal protections and benefits offered, is it? It’s all about the word.
>They actually don’t. They just don’t want to be governed by it.<
well slappy be even handed in your jerk off opinion. go get the islamists mr. big anus.
big gay is totally gay
I’ll make you a deal, if someone is rooting for your physical extermination, you don’t have to bake them a cake. Is it becoming clearer how gays aren’t just like the Klan. Maybe you’d like to think of a different analogy, because this one is repugnant.
Those disparate people would be followers of the god of Abraham, in this case.
That’s the problem, right there. You claim ownership of it. You think it’s yours. Even though marriage has been practiced more outside of Christianity than within Christianity. I’m going to let you in on something. You (and your religion) don’t own the concept. Get over yourself.
Are you really unable to distinguish between two adult men, and child abuse? Are you really incapable of understanding concepts like consent? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
How do you just dismiss (which is what you did) parts of the Bible that you find uncomfortable and assume that you just must not understand it.
You haven’t got the faintest idea of how I actually understand any passage of the Bible nor how I engage in scriptural exegesis nor where my concept of God comes from or even what it IS.
I was merely establishing that modern atheists are talking through their hats when they cite passages that they find abhorrent, because they don’t know what they don’t know and they have no intention of finding out.
YOU have no intention of finding out. Spitting on lesser beings is much more fun when you bracket out their human complexity.
Those disparate people would be followers of the god of Abraham, in this case.
Who are you to judge them?
Keep citing the Old Testament, steve-o. Keep doing it. You’re just convincing us that the God we worship is not a moonbat, and that’s jake with me.
big gay fucks big gaia with a soul train to big black but the big union humps the big edu who takes tax money from big gov’t.
steve your scam is dying
You don’t own the word. It doesn’t belong to you. It isn’t up to you to give or withhold. As a society we can make that decision. You’re free to render your argument and opinions.
America was founded on this notion that you shouldn’t have to leave this land to be free from religious persecution. Did you really say that? MOVE? Sheesh. States don’t get to be theocracies either.
So you do expect everyone to be scenery you find acceptable to your existence. Got it.
– Yes its about the “word”, and G_d’s “word” as well. An authority like none other in all of creation says its abborant behavior, so it harshes their mellow to the point where they just have to destroy that.
– Which is interesting in itself. Like all atheists they screech on and on about how they dispise all religion and think its just fools talk, yet they have to destroy it in spite of that supposed dirision they hold it in.
They can’t abide by something they put zero veracity in. Whats wrong with this picture?
– But I return to my question steve-dueche. Would you support using your name as a substitute for “child molester”?
– After all its just a name, and doesn’t mean you support child molesters, right?
You (and your religion) don’t own the concept.
Exactly. Marriage is a universal practice throughout human history. None of them have excluded one of the sexes from it, even though other variations have existed.
Why do you think that is? Why hasn’t China or India or Africa or pre-Columbian America gone ahead and sanctioned SSM? Weren’t there gays in all those societies? They didn’t have the Old Testament or the New Testament or any trace of Abrahamic religion in their cultures.
Why didn’t they try SSM? They had old-age marriages, wherein procreation was not possible.
Why not? What stopped them?
“You find a lot to admire about that asshole, I’m guessing?”
He successfully led the Jews out of slavery in Egypt and they eventually entered the promised land. He was a very important historical figure whose blood line can be traced through David to Joseph. He had flaws but God placed trust in him.
Be pretty tough to put myself in his shoes so I’ll just refrain from criticizing him. They didn’t have Geneva convention based rules of war in Moses time Steve and I’m pretty sure the Amorites did not give special treatment to non-combatants. In other words CONTEXT! War was a different endeavor in Moses day.
>Is it becoming clearer how gays aren’t just like the Klan. <
gays are storm troopers for the dnc like the klan were. see woody wilson clown
The purpose of marriage has always been about establishing a strong framework for the raising of properly-nurtured children. As you’ve noticed, steverrhoid, kids are getting to adult age without becoming adults (you, and others raised liberally, as example). A child raised sans father and mother has less chance of becoming a stable, productive adult.
SSM is, and always will be, a sham pretense.. Divorced couples, and unwed mothers trying to properly raise children without fathers: these broken homes were precursors to the SSM shams, and surely helped pave the way for them. Traditional Marriage™® began crumbling at about the same time Leftists began destroying our culture.
Sow the wind, reap the maggoty cultural rot exemplified by SSMs. And the rest of the illiberal agenda.
>As a society we can make that decision.<
really clown? the gaysters used a gay clown in ca to overturn the "will of the peeps"
>America was founded on this notion that you shouldn’t have to leave this land to be free from religious persecution <
ax the mormons clown. are you this stupid in real life? or do you wear onesies?
I’ll make you a deal, if someone is rooting for your physical extermination, you don’t have to bake them a cake.
Still dodging the question, I see…
America was founded on this notion that you shouldn’t have to leave this land to be free from religious persecution.
I agree that California shouldn’t be a part of the US any more, either, but no one in “this land” is persecuting gays. Holding them to the EXACT SAME STANDARDS as the rest of society is not persecution. (Since when is homosexuality a religion?)
If I don’t like the politics of the State I am in, I move to where the politics are more to my liking. That is the basis of freedom.
States don’t get to be theocracies either.
But you want the State to force everyone to worship at the altar of gay marriage, the beliefs of their citizens to the contrary utterly meaningless. Bakers gotta bake for them, photographers have to take pictures of them, and churches have to marry them. That’s not a theocracy? Everyone MUST believe exactly the same thing as regards the definition of “sin”?
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.
slappy go get an axeldude intervention seriously.
America was founded on this notion that you shouldn’t have to leave this land to be free from religious persecution
– Yes, well tell that to the baker driven out of business because he doesn’t want to insult his religion and bake a cake that glamorizes sexual actions his beliefs call sin.
– As usual the Left is busy with “selective equality”. Shhh, don’t say it out loud.
>States don’t get to be theocracies either.<
so says the ignoramus : go see the history of maryland and mass. for a start clown.
– I get that you don’t get it steve-dueche.
– But how about that great OCare policy you scored?
>States don’t get to be theocracies either.<
greetings from the "quaker state"
“Why do you worship the God of Numbers 31? Fear?”
yes.
As for Dog Vomit setting himself up as morally superior to God, it is to laugh. It’s like calling gravity evil for killing everyone in the airplane when the engine quit.
>States don’t get to be theocracies either.<
where is that in the us constitution exactly stevie?
“You can only be shamed into silence if you make a habit of saying shameful things ”
You mean like “binders full of women” or “You didn’t build that” or ” if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your plan you can keep your plan, period” ?
Nobody ever says anything shameful and is not attacked for it and nobody ever goes out of their way to misconstrue what was actually said into something that appears shameful ?Okay idiot.
“where is that in the us constitution exactly stevie? ”
His butt.
As per usual Stevereeno doesn’t know what he doesn’t know, and not only is he too lazy to learn, but he wraps his laziness in sanctimony in order to call it virtue, and his ignorance a strength.
Personally, I’d thank God that I wasn’t born into a tribal society where the life of the tribe counts for everything and the individual for nothing. Then I’d ask God to continue to spare me from that fate.
Here endeth the first lesson.
Well hell. I guess that link won’t work. Let’s do this:
“. I’m going to let you in on something. You (and your religion) don’t own the concept ”
And neither do the people trying to expand it into useless absurdity.
“As per usual Stevereeno doesn’t know what he doesn’t know, and not only is he too lazy to learn, but he wraps his laziness in sanctimony in order to call it virtue, and his ignorance a strength. ”
He’s building the proverbial house on sand with fad timbers to hold it up and sophistry bricks held together by wishes,
I’m sure the gods of the market approve for the moment.
big penis (hollyweird) is “behind” big anus and big vagina
“Why didn’t they try SSM?”
Quite possibly they did. But it didn’t last and they didn’t bother telling future generations how it all worked out and what a great idea it was once they had the benefit of hindsight. Instead they didn’t bother recording it. Almost like it turned out to be an embarrassment.
They probably didn’t have a whole lot of approval towards the concept after what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah…
God wanted to wipe out the town long before the citizens set out to rape his personal agents.
“The duck guy can say his vile shit. He has every right to.”
I’d argue the only vile shit going on here, is the shit GLAAD and it’s ilk, including you, are trying to smear over other men’s sexual organs.
“Sounds a lot like separate but equal.”
Especially when you call it that to bring up images of lunch counters na water fountains reserved to one race only. Except…exactly how does that apply to inheritance, power of attorney, visitation rights, joint property, patrimony etc?
And how long can gays keep passing themselves off as a species or race or class? And how long can people ignore that two gay people can marry under the existing law, they just can’t marry someone of the same sex?
Of course ‘separate but equal’ was a democrat policy…lest we forget again. About Kleagles in the senate. And such.
“So you do expect everyone to be scenery you find acceptable to your existence. Got it. ”
Nobody said or expects that you idiot.
>You don’t own the word. It doesn’t belong to you. It isn’t up to you to give or withhold. As a society we can make that decision. <
and your side says "to hell with society"!
It isn’t up to you to give or withhold. As a society we can make that decision.
Except when society says “we’d rather keep things the way they were”, then it’s back to “H8R” and finding a sympathetic judge to make Daddy love you more.
As a society we can have a split decision and have a pendulum effect on the legal definitions. Solcieties can be multimodal and lose confidence in the leadership of any group that claims to be dominant. Consider that society was and probaby still is anti- gay marriage. But you have an advocacy drama press and some judges trying to BE society and tell society to shut the hell up about ducks.
“http://tv.yahoo.com/news/duck-dynasty-fallout-glaad-reeling-biggest-backlash-years-010050637.html”
Le Pushback.
I’ll make you a deal, if someone is rooting for your physical extermination, you don’t have to bake them a cake.
So short of extermination, we have to do what they say?
THAT’S your standard? The Nazis were within the bounds of decency right up until they loaded the Jews into the cattle cars?
This is America. I get to live my life according to standards that you find despicable, and you don’t get to punish me for refusing to bend to the will of activists.
havel @165
A different situation arises, however, when the ideology of as if
is ridiculed and unmasked publically. Those who do so flagrantly
break the rules and must be punished and made to see reason. If
they do so continually as a matter of principle, they exclude themselves
from the game. Unfortunately, because they are involuntary
partners, they cannot leave the field on their own and thereby hinder
those who are still playing; this would be to ruin the game far more
completely than any external observer or prejudiced onlooker could
ever do. This is essentially the situation of the dissident in real
socialism. The only way the regime can save the game is to compel
the dissidents to leave the field, to silence them. There is too much at
stake to tolerate their disruptions.
In most cases the nation is aware of what is going on, or at least it
suspects the truth. Beyond that, it is inherently sceptical about realsocialist
ideology and suspects it of impure motives and objectives.
Yet people continue to play the game of as ifand keep their reservations
to themselves. They have grown accustomed to the confusion
of concepts and the relativity of moral values. Not only that, they
have been able to turn this weapon of real-socialist ideology to their
own advantage. With its help, they ideologize their own behaviour
vis-a-vis the regime and justify their way of life within the context of
the harsh reality. People do not steal from the co-operatives, they
merely take what belongs to everyone; they do not steal from the
state sector, but merely bring their living standard up to the mark;
they do not exploit patronage, but merely make use of their socialist
acquaintances; they do not spread slander but rather criticize
mistakes, and they are not criticized for mistakes but rather slandered;
they do not take bribes, but merely receive small tokens of
gratitude; they do not proffer bribes, but merely express their gratitude
for positive assistance;
As a society we can make that decision.
As a society?
I’d pay to see that.
As a society we’ve said, “no thanks,” over and over and over. But the Philosopher Kings overrule us because we’re awful and they’re righteous.
Because they have Ivy degrees and we don’t.
Because they don’t believe in imaginary sky gods.
Because they say the world is 4.5 billion years old instead of 10,000.
Because they can.
The second lesson will be even harder for our present-minded simpleton –or our simple-minded existentialist, as the case may be.
We’re so used to thinking of rape as a “sex crime” that we forget that rape also means theft. (Doubt me, and I’ll bust out my latin dictionaries.) In the case of Deut. 22: 28-9, the person being raped, in the sense of “robbed” is the maiden’s father, because she’s no longer betrothable. Hence the need for compensation (aka the bride price –but that’s just a guess on my part). Furthermore, and just to really blow his narrow mind, I’ll just point out that it’s as likely as not that maiden was a partner in crime to the robbery of her father.
I fully expect stevereeno to go ape shit over that last bit, but the proof, ironically enough comes from the chapter of Numbers immediately prior to the one that has stevereeno ready to storm out of Sunday school in PROTEST!
(Num 30:4-6). (n.b., the husband is granted the same privilege to abrogate a wife’s vow or pledge in the following verses.)
So, in addition to thanking God that you and yours don’t belong to the tribe, and praying that God keep you so, you might want to thank him for sending his only begotten son to prove the worth of each and every individual person through His perfect sacrifice.
Here endeth the second lesson.
big penis gives you pj boy for the satisfaction of big anus and big vagina
I like Ernst’s lessons better than Steve’s!
But it’s late and I must rest so carry-on Outlaws
and
Keep Firing!!!
at this point of time: how much is the “big 3 tv news” a pr fraud?
havel @ 89
The specific nature of post-totalitarian conditions – with their
absence of a normal political life and the fact that any far-reaching
political change is utterly unforeseeable – has one positive aspect: it
compels us to examine our situation in terms of its deeper coherences
and to consider our future in the context of global, long-range
prospects of the world of which we are a part. The fact that the most
intrinsic and fundamental confrontation between human beings and
[he system takes place at a level incomparably more profound than
that of traditional politics would seem, at the same time, to determine
as well the direction such considerations will take.
Our attention, therefore, inevitably turns to the most essential
matter: the crisis of contemporary technological society as a whole,
the crisis that Heidegger describes as the ineptitude of humanity face
[0 face with the planetary power of technology. Technology – that
child of modern science, which in turn is a child of modern
metaphysics – is out of humanity’s control, has ceased to serve us,
has enslaved us and compelled us to participate in the preparation of
our own destruction. And humanity can find no way out: we have
no idea and. no faith, and even less do we have a political conception
to help us bring things back under human control.
ha ha ha commies
the Robertsons demonstrate that it is possible to have a close, traditional family unit in modern times without relying on government handouts.
My humble thanks to Danger for his kind words; they’re much appreciated.
I also appreciate the context for the scripture.
As per usual, the anti-theists refuse to consider that the commandments and practices were addressing real problems that existed in the ancient world, and that if they saw how the non-Hebraic societies lived, they’d be appalled.
Our parish priest likes to talk about “the capacity to recieve,” i.e., God reaches us at the level we’re able to understand him,* so in a sense, this is similiar to Christ’s teachings on divorce: “Because of the hardness of your hearts, Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” (Matt. 19:8)
Because of the hardness of the Isrealite’s hearts, i.e. the proclivity to fall into sin, the sin of idolatry in this case, the Midianites had to die.
And furthermore, because context matters, the Isrealites who worshipped Baal with the Midianites died before the Midianites did. It should perhaps also be noted here that before those Isrealites worshipped Baal, they first engaged in sexual relations with the Midianite’s womenfolk cf Num. 25: 1-5)
*kinda like me and my little girls; I could try to reason with them why they shouldn’tplay with their mother’s heirloom porcelain dolls, but they’re more likely to understand pain –you touch, I spank.
….and that if they saw how the non-Hebraic societies lived, they’d be appalled.
– People with zero moral fiber or compass appalled? They’re not smart enough to be self aware to the point where they appriciate their own survival, either now or in the after life, so I knid of doubt they can feel shame or be appalled by anything. After all, anything and everything goes with these emotional children.
Matthew has another saying of Jesus’s 0n marriage that ought to be of interest to the Jesus loves me just the way I am crowd:
“Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” (Matt. 19:12) emphasis mine.
My Bible (New American ) notes “literally, ‘eunuchs.’ Three classes are mentioned, eunuchs from birth, eunuchs from castration and those who have voluntarily renounced marraige (literally, “have made themselves eunuchs” for the sake of the kingdom, [emphasis original][.]” Now, maybe I’m way off base here, but since “eunuch from birth” as a literal matter doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, maybe, just maybe, Jesus wasn’t speaking solely of the castrati when he said some were born “incapable of marriage,” or, for that matter, of the voluntarily celibate when he said “Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”
That’s me
crimethinking out loud, of course.I just noticed that I could have saved myself about 5 mintues of google research and 25/30 minutes of Bible consulting/typing:
Thus do
Ithou refutetheethyself!More like a dishonest weasel who hates Christians trying to explain Christianity to Christians.
Though I suspect non-Christians who didn’t have an axe to grind against Christians would bother with that sort of thing.
People with zero moral fiber or compass appalled?
Child sacrifice — out-of-the-womb children, that is — might get to them.
The ritual prostitution might appeal to them, though.
Celebrate deviance! Or else.
“The duck guy can say his vile shit.”
So describing in anatomical terms male homosexual sex is vile ? Do you, perhaps, sense a bit of a contadiction in your position (pardon the pun, regardless of how appropriate it might be.)
“He has every right to.”
Indeed. Explain, then, why you and the most of Big Anus(tm) are trying to shut him up, then explain in 25 words or less why various high profile homosexuals do not agree with your pogrom agains Phil.
“Now the Republicans have taken up basically the same positions.”
Name, in list form, the top 10 Republican policies that are like those the Democrats pushed from the 1865 till the Republicans pushed the Civil Rights Act through.
“They actually don’t. They just don’t want to be governed by it.”
Yet at the same time, the 2% want to use their views to govern the other 98%.
“Even though marriage has been practiced more outside of Christianity than within Christianity.”
Amazingly, though, not a single example of SSM anywhere.
Were what you spout physical manure, we could make the Sahara a verdant paradise.
Kudos to dicentra for toe-to-toeing steve back into mom’s basement. You don’t tug on Superwoman’s cape, steve.
Here’s another one for your to consider, steve, assuming you recuperate sufficiently to return.
Minds who accept an Aware, Creating Purpose, in addition to tapping endless degrees of vision and clarity — for all I care go ahead and call it Enlightenment because to bigots like you such is strictly reserved for minds presumed eternally superior to their duck-callin’ Western counterparts — realize the complexity revealed by comprehending the plain and simple. It’s a gift, but I digress (even if nearly everything with you is a digression, so meager your capacity).
See, belief is one of two things:
1. The conduit to something you, evidently, haven’t so much as allowed exists, or;
2. Madness.
Those are your only two options, Old Testament-quotin’ steve. Either there is Something that powers all of Mind’s highest transcendent ways and means or it’s all nutburgers.
So choose. Take that final, heady, liberating step that finally enables you to leave your one remaining inhibition before you too start calling for special treatment for the inconvenience of having to cohabitate Gaia with a bunch of filthy, violent bigots, sexists, and believers.
And by special treatment I think you know what I mean. A quarter billion examples of which lived right up to their rather abrupt ends in the last century alone, victims of various secular, statist cleansings.
And while you’re at it — this being the domain of either sheer, shrieking madness or of actual spirituality, and of the latter whether the Sufis or a CS Lewis — riddle me if regarding material existence it’s either turtles all the way down or if it’s turtles only down to a certain point.
Because, steve, it’s either one or the other and there too all of what I presume is your bullshit secular scientific originism doesn’t amount to a hill of beans either.
Call it a parallel.
Minds like dicentra do you an immense service. Figure out why.
Utopia is just around the corner, ain’t it? This time, for sure.
If we can just replace that stupid deity with us.
Yes, describing it is vile. Actually doing it is “love”. Oh, how bright our enlightened betters are! It all makes so much sense once you’re brainwashed.
The late M. Scott Peck, psychologist and Christian convert, once condensed the classic tiers of awareness down to four. Starting from the least actualized:
1. The psychopathic.
2. The religious herd, which replaces the Nihilism of simple, pathological instinct with rote, handed-down faith in order and structure.
3. The scientific, which replaces antiquated religions with observable fact.
4. The truly spiritual.
It’s easy to see where secularism fits. And steve. While secular humanism is clearly religious in its zeal and its faith in its own circular assumptions, and while it’s downright pathological in many of the foundational underpinnings (and dire outcomes) of its frequently statist organizations, it sees itself as progressive.
It is Rational. Good. Scientific. Even benevolent. It fancies itself a clear order more advanced than congregations of lowly believers. It is superior to belief, belief being so nineteenth century.
But it’s the outcomes of this frequent intolerance of the Progressive’s Other and subsequent squashing of their dissent that matter. It is this science of existence that cooly and rationally exterminates its enemies, whether by taking their words or taking their properties or taking their lives. This is science’s enemy’s just ends, goes the rationalization, they having obstructed the great machinery of humanity from its noble end-state where all is managed centrally and none may, therefore, express individuality.
Indeed, secular statist humanism is profoundly religious and deeply pathological — it is inherently faithful of each repeat of its many disasters, and there have been many. Check its history. Check Marx and the rest. They themselves make no bones about it.
In secular humanistic statism, none may be free to seek their own actualization and thus steve must cartoon their persons into forms acceptable to this progressive, revisionist narrative. The hivemind prohibits individuality — which is to say, it prohibits classical liberalism — because it is not scientific. It is not progress. It is not the new morality.
Scientific secularism tolerates certain spirits, however — the American Indian, the Eastern mystic, the storytold Magic Negro of stage and film, others — just not the Tibetans by the Chinese or the Christians by the American Progressives and so on.
(Victimhood Poker enters here, preferably vetted and branded by Hollywood, the official national morality branding agency. The Jews don’t count in all ways and at all times, oddly, because of some complex valuation matrix presumed and accepted as both scientific and progressive. QED.)
So basically there’s nothing scientific about any of this low-level consciousness the steves are always on about. They are religious zealots, cramming what is not them into their definitions, and having no evident compunction about having to lie to themselves and their victims in order to do so.
Very good, JHo.
Merry Christmas, my friend.
A disingenuous person, who doesn’t know how to use questions marks, asks: “By what criteria do you pick and choose what parts of the bible are god’s word”?
Some Bibles helpfully print direct quotations of the words of God (in the OT) and Jesus (in the NT) in red. I estimate that the red parts are something under 5% of the whole.
Yes, Protestant Bibles do that. It is a handy guide for persons who are new to their faith.
steve is a secularist who thinks he’s making points with his hollow rhetoric. He’s awfully boring and everyone here is about six arguments ahead of him. He’s predictable as snow in winter.
Had steve wished to ask for a useful account of the tenets of the Christian God — such that the Infinite can transcend to the finite without extinguishing it in an incandescent flash — he’d have asked for a treatise on David.
Or Paul, John, or Mark.
Or Christ.
Rather, we get uncontexted and prejudiced innuendos on ancient social mores filtered first through time and then through steve’s precious inflections.
It’s almost funny how often he addresses the side of the room nobody’s standing in.
He still hasn’t answered the question asked about what is “vile” about describing homosexuality.
Obviously, he is a prude. Or he doesn’t understand the question.
The echo he gets off the blank wall makes him think someone agrees with him, and he’s gotten almost used to the people behind him laughing.
It’s almost funny how often he addresses the side of the room nobody’s standing in.
If only it were funny. If he weren’t such an ass, I’d almost feel sorry for him.
Almost.
A perceptual and rhetorical failing that repeats itself nearly every place Progressivism infests.
Maybe it’s just me but I see that as evidence that the rationale … isn’t. If it were wouldn’t it stand up to reason, Proudly™?
Maybe it’s just me but I see that as evidence the rationale … isn’t. If it were wouldn’t it stand up to reason, Proudly™?
It’s not just you, JHo.
I’ve been having this argument with my lib friends (who have stopped talking to me about it, thank god) for years.
They are all for the Tolerance™ as long as it’s a one way street.
Mark Steyn dares Lowry to unload his trouble making self a la Derbyshire.
“It is a matter of some regret to me that my own editor at this publication does not regard this sort of thing as creepy and repellent rather than part of the vibrant tapestry of what he calls an “awakening to a greater civility”. I’m not inclined to euphemize intimidation and bullying as a lively exchange of ideas – “the use of speech to criticize other speech”, as Mr Steorts absurdly dignifies it. So do excuse me if I skip to the men’s room during his patronizing disquisition on the distinction between “state coercion” and “cultural coercion”. I’m well aware of that, thank you.”
Wow! Just…wow! Take that Jason Lee Steorts (and others who know who they are cough Lowry /Goldberg cough cough.)
Soft cheese lies on a hard cracker.
“He still hasn’t answered the question asked about what is “vile” about describing homosexuality.”
He won’t; to the “progressive” attaching a label, regardless of whether it is appropriate or accurate, is sufficient proof that something is so.
“Up north, Ezra and I decided that, if they were going to “de-normalize” us, we’d “de-normalize” them. So we pushed back, and got the entire racket discredited and, eventually, the law repealed. It’s rough stuff, and exhausting, but the alternative is to let the control-freaks shrivel the bounds of public discourse remorselessly so that soon enough you lack even the words to mount an opposing argument.”
I am sorry my editor at NR does not grasp the stakes. Indeed, he seems inclined to “normalize” what GLAAD is doing. But, if he truly finds my “derogatory language” offensive, I’d rather he just indefinitely suspend me than twist himself into a soggy pretzel of ambivalent inertia trying to avoid the central point – that a society where lives are ruined over an aside because some identity-group don decides it must be so is ugly and profoundly illiberal. As to his kind but belated and conditional pledge to join me on the barricades, I had enough of that level of passionate support up in Canada to know that, when the call to arms comes, there will always be some “derogatory” or “puerile” expression that it will be more important to tut over. So thanks for the offer, but I don’t think you’d be much use, would you?”
Dang!
“Soft cheese lies on a hard cracker.”
I denounce you as a racist, clearly this alludes to harsh plantation owners taking liberties with naive slave women.
Steyn is a mensch, isn’t he?
– Another retailer tries to run a bullshit troupe on the LoFo public. They want to keep their faggots and charge them too.
– “And what objectionable products would those be Johnny?”
– Or you could be an aging B list celeb whose popularity is flagging badly and needs to pander to whatever crowd he thinks will save him. (Intrestingly enough yahoo yanked the original article within minutes after it was posted.)
– Of course it could just be that things aren’t going to end well for the Gay mafia.
Cracker Barrel comes to its senses.
In a statement on its Facebook page, Cracker Barrel said, “When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we’ve done.”
– Which is always what happens when you decide to pander to a privaleged demogrphic before you take your head out of your ass and think about what you’re doing. Well done Crackers.
Is it just me, or did Steyn just accuse Lowry of being a cynical pragmatist who likes to play the good man card?
“I denounce you as a racist, clearly this alludes to harsh plantation owners taking liberties with naive slave women. ”
Have we really come to the point where all food references are racist?
“Is it just me, or did Steyn just accuse Lowry of being a cynical pragmatist who likes to play the good man card? ”
Yes, but he shot through Steorts to hit Lowry w/ shrapnel.
Dang, that Steyn post is fabulous.
Regarding A&E and Cracker Barrel, how is what GLAAD doing all that different from Jessie Jackson’s Rainbow Push practices? They may not be getting money out of these companies (at least not that we’ve heard), but they certainly are using these incidents to get these businesses to endorse their agenda. All part of the “silence = agreement” so you’d better denounce your guy or face our angry mob.
Steyn has slapped Lowry across the chops with his glove. Both cheeks. Rich will have to compose a pragmatic reply.
OT, but since cultural rot’s been mentioned, the latest Air Jordans hit the streets; punks are fighting over them yet again. Why, you ask?
(Note in the 2nd link, the researchers’ study group..
Disadvantaged because parent(s), or the lack thereof, I’m guessing. Cultural rot breeds criminals and societal misfits, who then create more of the same..
Woah! Someone should ‘Community Organize’ these culturally rotted sorts! Why, they’d become a powerful political force for good!, right?
I guess it was just me after all, since it’s Jason Lee Steorts Steyn flays. I made the mistake of assuming that “my editor” referred to Rich Lowry.
Having now read Mr. Steorts’s thumbsucker, it’s quite evident he’s another one of those even-handed above the fray posturers the Left finds, well,
useful.
Can’t be the Padishah Emperor without your very own Sardukar now, can you?
Steyn is subbing for Rush next week, y’all.
The saga continues.
From le Twitter
David Burge ?@iowahawkblog 20 Dec
I don’t “stand with Phil Robertson.” I stand against self-appointed happy face inquisitors determined to stomp out unpleasant sentiments.
“I stand against self-appointed happy face inquisitors determined to stomp out unpleasant sentiments.”
Good thought, but there is nothing happy faced about them.
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189
This is what Jonah wrote like before he started visibly worrying about offending the people he was writing about making a living being offended.
Of course there is.
Jonah is a big fat mama’s boy who smirks about everything in an “ironical” way.
I have no use for him.
Jonah tired to play wacky middle man between GOP and tea party for a while, then he decided to join the “there really is no GOP etsablishment” and “the tea party would have rejected Reagan lines. ” This did not go over well and he cut a few bridges. Then Derb got shanked and Jonah denounced him and then tightened up into the mealy mouthed quasi-Krytalian semi-objecting loyal party-wuss he is today.
Actually come to think of it he also tightened up and did an obligatory denouncement a bit back when Ann Coulter got tossed out of the NRO pool for her “conquer the middle east and convert them to christianity” column and she started calling him a a girly man after that. So this is a bit of a pattern with him.
Ann of course went on to be captured in the orbit of Christy and being won over by Romney just in time for him to lose.
Christie? Whatever. The Hutt.
Somebody needs to do a photoshop Presidential campaign poster of Christie with Ted Cruz and Mike Lee frozen in carbonite on the wall behind him.
That bird monkey thing can be sitting on his shoulder, while he speaks at a podium.
My Kind of Scum: Fearless and Inventive.
Steorts replies to Steyn.
Steorts is one of those guys who’s proud to be losing with honor.
Their kind of scum: frightened and conventional.
Shorter Steorts: Make your point without being a boor.
Funny, you never hear anyone make the request of Dan Savage or Andrew Sullivan.
I posted this on the new thread since this one was being neglected.
It’s heartening to see the comments to the Steyn and Steorts columns be about 99.99% in favor of Steyn.
What part of culture war does Steorts not understand?
All of it, apparently. Every last part of it
Funny, you never hear anyone make the request of Dan Savage or Andrew Sullivan.
I’m sure people do, but when you do it to a member of a designated victim group, it’s called “tone policing”.
Remember when William F. Buckley took care to not be boorish toward Gore Vidal?
Yes. Sadly his son chopped that tree down so Obama would have a stump to sit on. 2009 was a hell of a year. Which is why Iowahawk started doing all that T Coddington Van Vorhees VII stuff.
“I’m sure people do, but when you do it to a member of a designated victim group, it’s called “tone policing”.
Or ‘Mansplaining’ if you are in the Gawker demo. or ‘Being Awfully White’ if you read US Weekly.
It’s bad to be white now?
It is if you don’t have that proper air of contrition or are not involved in telling other white people how white they are and why they should be ashamed.