Missing The Point
"Many people of religious faith know someone who is gay. Opponents to gay marriage are not all bigots. They just believe that gay marriage defies centuries of history, culture and even natural law. They do not feel the Democratic Party is even open to their arguments -- much less actually sharing their concerns." -Brian Healy, CBS News, Bullshit Here
I read this today and wondered who Brian Healy is. Because someone this brain dead should not be working for CBS News.
Ok, so gay marriage defies centuries of history? So does the whole concept that black people are the same as white people. Of course, many of the people who oppose gay marriage were the same people resisting that.
Defies culture? The American divorce rate is close to 50%. That defies our culture, pre-1950's. So lets outlaw that.
Oh, also something that defied our culture- integration.
Defies Natural Law? Were gay people made in test tubes? Was this some scientific experiment to piss religious people off? What are homosexuals if not made by the same creator as us? Was God breaking the law when he made Elton John?
Someone give me an argument. Someone show me some figures that show gay marriage will destroy the world. Someone show me where the bible says, in these exact words: "Gay people should not be married." I know for a fact that gay marriage is not outlawed in the bible. Gay sex may be condemned (depending on your interpretation), but the bible writers never said they couldn't get married. So let them get married and we'll just assume they're being celibate. Kinda like how we imagine our parents as being.
I also seriously question whether the people who advocate the ban on gay marriage "know" gay people. You don't "know" gay people by watching "The Rosie O'Donnell Show."
Not bigoted? I can't even tell you how rediculous that is.
Brian Healy?
You don't get it.
Of course the Democratic party isn't open to their arguments.
They have none.
Monday, November 08, 2004
It Begins
Creationism in Schools!!!
Lets Force Our Bigotry On Schoolchildren!!!
Yeah, well, that Darwin guy was a nut anyway. And the "dinosaurs" are just part of a liberal baby killing conspiracy.
And now the Republicans are attacking their own. Arlen Specter is being put down on Fox News daily for his comments about confirming Bush's Supreme Court nominees. All he said was that Bush might have a hard time winning over Democrats on a anti-abortion nominee.
Specter
Of course, anything that smells like dissent in the ranks causes Republicans to flip inside out, exposing their tiny, tiny hearts to the elements. So they were upset.
My theory is that the Republicans would have no problem with Specter's comments had he been, say, Strom Thurmond.
Why?
Because Spector is Jewish.
Yeah yeah, I know what you're gonna say. No, its not about that. This isn't an anti-semitic thing. Bullshit. I'm not like Uncle Leo from Seinfeld. But I honestly think the Republicans think a pro-choice, northeastern jew must be a democrat. Because Specter is Jewish, the Republicans hear words that sound close to a warning and they yell "Democrat!!!" despite the fact that Bush campaigned strongly for Specter in his reelection bid.
If Specter was a southern senator and say, his name was Jim Bunnings, I bet those guys would go a little easier on him. Or defend him at least when the "Right to Life (except for the mother!) Committee urges putting his head on a pike.
I applaud Specter for not letting his party affiliation poison his sense of decency.
It's funny, because Bush in his campaign said he wouldn't apply a litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee. The Fox News guys repeated it often. No one actually believed him, but he said it. Now that Specter says that Bush shouldn't have a litmus test, the Republicans go ape?
Yet another sad display of how Bush lies.
Creationism in Schools!!!
Lets Force Our Bigotry On Schoolchildren!!!
Yeah, well, that Darwin guy was a nut anyway. And the "dinosaurs" are just part of a liberal baby killing conspiracy.
And now the Republicans are attacking their own. Arlen Specter is being put down on Fox News daily for his comments about confirming Bush's Supreme Court nominees. All he said was that Bush might have a hard time winning over Democrats on a anti-abortion nominee.
Specter
Of course, anything that smells like dissent in the ranks causes Republicans to flip inside out, exposing their tiny, tiny hearts to the elements. So they were upset.
My theory is that the Republicans would have no problem with Specter's comments had he been, say, Strom Thurmond.
Why?
Because Spector is Jewish.
Yeah yeah, I know what you're gonna say. No, its not about that. This isn't an anti-semitic thing. Bullshit. I'm not like Uncle Leo from Seinfeld. But I honestly think the Republicans think a pro-choice, northeastern jew must be a democrat. Because Specter is Jewish, the Republicans hear words that sound close to a warning and they yell "Democrat!!!" despite the fact that Bush campaigned strongly for Specter in his reelection bid.
If Specter was a southern senator and say, his name was Jim Bunnings, I bet those guys would go a little easier on him. Or defend him at least when the "Right to Life (except for the mother!) Committee urges putting his head on a pike.
I applaud Specter for not letting his party affiliation poison his sense of decency.
It's funny, because Bush in his campaign said he wouldn't apply a litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee. The Fox News guys repeated it often. No one actually believed him, but he said it. Now that Specter says that Bush shouldn't have a litmus test, the Republicans go ape?
Yet another sad display of how Bush lies.
Friday, November 05, 2004
Purple USA
Found this on the web. When Bush thinks he's received a mandate, maybe he should look at this representation of America:
Quite a difference in perspective. Also, another version here: Stars and STRIPES
Also, for those scared about the future, check out how us kids voted: The Kids Are Alright
Found this on the web. When Bush thinks he's received a mandate, maybe he should look at this representation of America:
Quite a difference in perspective. Also, another version here: Stars and STRIPES
Also, for those scared about the future, check out how us kids voted: The Kids Are Alright
Where Kerry Went Wrong
The ideas were right. The policy was right.
But the campaign was wrong.
When you've got people... excuse me.. goblins like Karl Rove willing to do anything to win, you can't help them out. You can't be on defense. Maybe that's where Bush's terrorism policy is most useful: A strong offense is the best defense.
Kerry didn't lose because he was out of touch with America. He lost because his campaign was too slow to attack. With all of Bush's mistakes, the democrats should have had a field day. But they laid off, until it was already too late. Perhaps they too were caught up with patriotic fervor, the reluctance to criticize the commander-in-chief.
Newsweek has a great, brief breakdown of the Kerry campaign: Kerry Vs. Bush
Kerry had early momentum. He had blasted through the primaries quicker than any democratic candidate in recent history. But that momentum was killed by Kerry's reluctance to take on Bush on the topic of Iraq.
And then there was the flip flop quote, the one that the Bush campaign (and the media) seized upon. I didn't think this had much of a real effect at the time, but speaking to a moron... I mean.. Bush supporter after the election, I realized how huge Kerry's mistake had been. It planted the seed of doubt, and the Republican hate machine was more than willing to water it.
Kerry didn't come out strong against Bush's Iraq policy until very late. Perhaps he was fearful that Iraq would turn around, and he'd come off looking like a pessimist. Whatever the reason, Kerry was not saying the things his supporters wanted to hear so badly. Mainly-- that Bush had fucked up.
Because of this, Kerry allowed Bush to go on offense. Kerry allowed Bush to talk about gay marriage instead of Iraq. You think if Kerry was hammering Bush every day about Iraq that Bush would have been able to say even three words about gay marriage??
Kerry was too often on the defensive. When he went on offense, the tide turned in his favor. Winning those three debates set him in the right direction. And his last month, criticizing Bush's ignorance of the missing explosives, failure to catch Bin Laden, etc., brought Kerry back into the race, made it close. But Kerry was too far behind. He had dug a hole by responding to Rove's spin with long winded explanations-- that made sense, but, appropriately, sounded defensive. He should have deflected those attacks by attacking Bush-- something that he also started to do late in the game, when he turned around Bush's quote about "jumping to conclusions."
I loved it when he did that. And Kerry's last month solidified me behind him.
But the damage had already been done.
I hope the democrats don't take this election as a sign that they have to abandon their stances on social issues and pander to the far right. The truth is, the right isn't gonna fall for us. What can the democrats do?
Stop being (expletive for woman's reproductive opening, starts with p)s !!!!!!!
The democrats need to be strong. Solidify their base and attack the Republicans for their pro big business, anti-labor, excessive spending and war mongering. The democrats have to be on offense the entire time. When Cheney said Kerry threw away his war medals, and made a case out of it, Kerry should have responded with, "I don't think a guy with five deferments from the military has the right to question my sacrifice for this country." Instead of attacking the interviewer and accusing him of being a Republican.
Kerry should have gone on Bill O'Reilly. He should have gone on and stuck it to Bush. But he didn't.
(Instead we whined that O'Reilly was a republican hack. So? Your point?)
Kerry should have called Bush on his WMD jokes and that infamous golf swing-- but get this.. HE WAS TOO AFRAID OF WHAT THE REPUBLICANS WOULD SAY!!!!
He was afraid the republicans would paint him in bed with Michael Moore. (Not a pretty picture.) But the truth is, so what? Michael Moore, for all the 300 pounds of asshole that he is, WAS RIGHT!!!
My point is, the dems lost not because they weren't right. Not because they're out of touch. Not even because the racists got to the polls this year. They lost because they were a bunch of sweaty, unshaven (expletive for a woman's reproductive opening starting with a p)s.
It's time to stop being those, and start being just as big dicks as the republicans.
Caused if we don't, we're gonna get fucked.
The ideas were right. The policy was right.
But the campaign was wrong.
When you've got people... excuse me.. goblins like Karl Rove willing to do anything to win, you can't help them out. You can't be on defense. Maybe that's where Bush's terrorism policy is most useful: A strong offense is the best defense.
Kerry didn't lose because he was out of touch with America. He lost because his campaign was too slow to attack. With all of Bush's mistakes, the democrats should have had a field day. But they laid off, until it was already too late. Perhaps they too were caught up with patriotic fervor, the reluctance to criticize the commander-in-chief.
Newsweek has a great, brief breakdown of the Kerry campaign: Kerry Vs. Bush
Kerry had early momentum. He had blasted through the primaries quicker than any democratic candidate in recent history. But that momentum was killed by Kerry's reluctance to take on Bush on the topic of Iraq.
And then there was the flip flop quote, the one that the Bush campaign (and the media) seized upon. I didn't think this had much of a real effect at the time, but speaking to a moron... I mean.. Bush supporter after the election, I realized how huge Kerry's mistake had been. It planted the seed of doubt, and the Republican hate machine was more than willing to water it.
Kerry didn't come out strong against Bush's Iraq policy until very late. Perhaps he was fearful that Iraq would turn around, and he'd come off looking like a pessimist. Whatever the reason, Kerry was not saying the things his supporters wanted to hear so badly. Mainly-- that Bush had fucked up.
Because of this, Kerry allowed Bush to go on offense. Kerry allowed Bush to talk about gay marriage instead of Iraq. You think if Kerry was hammering Bush every day about Iraq that Bush would have been able to say even three words about gay marriage??
Kerry was too often on the defensive. When he went on offense, the tide turned in his favor. Winning those three debates set him in the right direction. And his last month, criticizing Bush's ignorance of the missing explosives, failure to catch Bin Laden, etc., brought Kerry back into the race, made it close. But Kerry was too far behind. He had dug a hole by responding to Rove's spin with long winded explanations-- that made sense, but, appropriately, sounded defensive. He should have deflected those attacks by attacking Bush-- something that he also started to do late in the game, when he turned around Bush's quote about "jumping to conclusions."
I loved it when he did that. And Kerry's last month solidified me behind him.
But the damage had already been done.
I hope the democrats don't take this election as a sign that they have to abandon their stances on social issues and pander to the far right. The truth is, the right isn't gonna fall for us. What can the democrats do?
Stop being (expletive for woman's reproductive opening, starts with p)s !!!!!!!
The democrats need to be strong. Solidify their base and attack the Republicans for their pro big business, anti-labor, excessive spending and war mongering. The democrats have to be on offense the entire time. When Cheney said Kerry threw away his war medals, and made a case out of it, Kerry should have responded with, "I don't think a guy with five deferments from the military has the right to question my sacrifice for this country." Instead of attacking the interviewer and accusing him of being a Republican.
Kerry should have gone on Bill O'Reilly. He should have gone on and stuck it to Bush. But he didn't.
(Instead we whined that O'Reilly was a republican hack. So? Your point?)
Kerry should have called Bush on his WMD jokes and that infamous golf swing-- but get this.. HE WAS TOO AFRAID OF WHAT THE REPUBLICANS WOULD SAY!!!!
He was afraid the republicans would paint him in bed with Michael Moore. (Not a pretty picture.) But the truth is, so what? Michael Moore, for all the 300 pounds of asshole that he is, WAS RIGHT!!!
My point is, the dems lost not because they weren't right. Not because they're out of touch. Not even because the racists got to the polls this year. They lost because they were a bunch of sweaty, unshaven (expletive for a woman's reproductive opening starting with a p)s.
It's time to stop being those, and start being just as big dicks as the republicans.
Caused if we don't, we're gonna get fucked.
Finally, The Explanation!
The Answer::CLICK HERE!!!!
P.S. (Nov. 7th) This seems like a more accurate assessment, from a more credible source: Morgan Quinto Education Rankings Note: Still 8 of the top 10- Kerry supporters. And who knew Californians were that stupid? (Actually, they DID vote for Ahhhrnold)
The Answer::CLICK HERE!!!!
P.S. (Nov. 7th) This seems like a more accurate assessment, from a more credible source: Morgan Quinto Education Rankings Note: Still 8 of the top 10- Kerry supporters. And who knew Californians were that stupid? (Actually, they DID vote for Ahhhrnold)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)