March 06, 2014
— Ace FAUX NOIZE!!!!
Just thought I'd say that before the trollz.
Although other polls have had Obama below the 40% mark, this is the first time FAUX NOIZE!!! has had him below that level.
Fifty-four percent disapprove. Before now ObamaÂ’s worst job rating was 40-55 percent in November 2013. Last month 42 percent approved and 53 percent disapproved (February 2014).Approval of Obama among Democrats stands at 71 percent, near its 69 percent record low (September 2013). For independents, 28 percent approve, which is also near the 25 percent all-time low among this group (July 2013). And approval of Obama among Republicans hits a new low of five percent.
Overall, a 59-percent majority thinks the White House has mostly failed at creating jobs, up from 52 percent who said the same in October 2012. Likewise, 56 percent feel it has failed on growing the economy. ThatÂ’s also up from 52 percent.
The poll goes on to note a major loss of support on his handling of foreign policy, which, you know. I'm sure that doesn't exactly shock you guys. Although many of you may be shocked to learn that some Americans noticed he was screwing up big time.
In other polling news, the Washington Post now finds support for gay marriage at the 59% mark, with 34% disagreeing, and with half of all respondents saying that a right to gay marriage actually exists in the Constitution.
You know, I used to -- I used to not link polls like this. I know they are unpopular and even accused of being "trolling" or posted in aid of the leftist agenda.
But it's important for people to know what the facts actually are. The fact that support for gay marriage is at nearly 60%, while opposition is down to 34%, doesn't prove anyone's right on this point, nor that anyone is wrong. As they say, the Truth makes a majority of one.
But very often people seem mystified as to why their representatives are not prioritizing their policy preferences to the degree they liked.
And I think sheltering people from stuff like this -- cocooning them, as the New York Times does -- is simply a bad practice, which leads to misunderstandings and a skewed notion of what the actual political reality looks like.
And this poll is not an outlier -- Pew found that support for gay marriage had jumped to 53%, not quite as high as the WaPo now finds it, but above 50%. (Pew also finds that more people oppose SSM, 41%, than the WaPo.)
Pew also finds that most of the country supports gay marriage. Except in the South... which splits perfectly on the question.
Today, majorities of Americans in the Northeast (60%), West (58%), and Midwest (51%) favor allowing gay and lesbians to legally marry, while Southerners are evenly divided (48% favor, 48% oppose).
This isn't a winning issue anymore, which doesn't mean people are required to counterfeit their preferences.
But the other parts of the agenda regarding the stigmatization of homosexuality: Those are now simply radioactive. Those will have to be jettisoned, at least on a political level.
Most People Don't Realize How Far the Ground Has Shifted on This: Interesting take-away from Allah-- see the graph about how many people accurately say that gay marriage gets majority support in polls.
Only one group, those strongly in favor of gay marriage, say so. (In their case, it's either because they're very interested in the topic or are, like most people, just assuming that most people agree with them.)
Only a small fraction of those opposed to gay marriage know this particular polling result, somewhere between 19-22%.
Posted by: Ace at
01:28 PM
| Comments (396)
Post contains 631 words, total size 4 kb.
“We’ve got a constitutional scholar as president. … If I were him, I’d consider suing Harvard Law School to get his money back because I’m not sure what he learned in three years.”
Posted by: Bobby Jindal at March 06, 2014 01:33 PM (Q1KXS)
Posted by: Say What? at March 06, 2014 01:33 PM (Q9qpj)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at March 06, 2014 01:33 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 06, 2014 01:34 PM (T2V/1)
Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at March 06, 2014 01:35 PM (9Bdcz)
Posted by: Null at March 06, 2014 01:35 PM (xjpRj)
Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 06, 2014 01:36 PM (T2V/1)
Posted by: toby928© at March 06, 2014 01:36 PM (QupBk)
Coming after that: stats that voters approve of Man/Boy love.
Coming soon after that: SMOD.
/at least we can hope for SMOD
Posted by: shibumi at March 06, 2014 01:37 PM (25HWz)
I mean, other than "he's one of our guys" at what point do you say "you know, this guy is one of our team but he really, really sucks?"
I mean if this was a baseball team, the Democrats would be the ones cheering the guy who hits .125, has 27 errors in left field on the year, and ran the wrong way on the basepath the last play.
Its one thing to be loyal but this is just asinine.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2014 01:37 PM (zfY+H)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 06, 2014 01:37 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 06, 2014 01:37 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: soothsayer at March 06, 2014 01:37 PM (/eo9F)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 06, 2014 01:38 PM (9JPz+)
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at March 06, 2014 01:38 PM (gOoFi)
Just who are these people who still oppose Ghey Marriage?
How dare they!
We must know their names and addresses!
Posted by: the Ghey Mafia at March 06, 2014 01:38 PM (W4wxS)
Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 06, 2014 01:38 PM (T2V/1)
Posted by: nip at March 06, 2014 01:38 PM (SxlUl)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 06, 2014 01:38 PM (9JPz+)
life is complicated ( or so I'm told )
Posted by: Jules at March 06, 2014 01:38 PM (omBWL)
Posted by: soothsayer at March 06, 2014 01:39 PM (/eo9F)
Posted by: ace at March 06, 2014 01:39 PM (/FnUH)
Even CA shot it down.
Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 06, 2014 01:40 PM (T2V/1)
Posted by: nip at March 06, 2014 05:38 PM (SxlUl)
The title of Anderson Cooper's new show on CNN
Posted by: Jules at March 06, 2014 01:40 PM (omBWL)
Posted by: soothsayer at March 06, 2014 01:40 PM (/eo9F)
Posted by: hello, it's me also a creep-assed cracka.. at March 06, 2014 01:41 PM (9+ccr)
WTF is up with Rasmussen ? They always have him 6-8 points above everyone else. That Gov investigation must have sent a message
They had him at 50 last week NFW
Posted by: The Jackhole at March 06, 2014 01:41 PM (nTgAI)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 06, 2014 01:41 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 06, 2014 01:41 PM (9JPz+)
Posted by: Count de Monet at March 06, 2014 01:41 PM (BAS5M)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 06, 2014 01:42 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: Cato at March 06, 2014 01:42 PM (OdVTN)
People look at Gay Marriage and are saying, "We have gay marriage and we have not seen the roof fall in." So it looks to be OK. But, What is happening to the foundation?
Posted by: Long Term? at March 06, 2014 01:42 PM (D+lxs)
Posted by: Count de Monet at March 06, 2014 05:41 PM (BAS5M)
Depends on how one defines "support."
Posted by: Your local baker, who is now shellshocked into compliance at March 06, 2014 01:42 PM (Q9qpj)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at March 06, 2014 01:42 PM (0HooB)
Posted by: frankieFix at March 06, 2014 01:43 PM (Ym5Ui)
Yep, stigmatization must be replaced by celebration at least until such time in the future when homosexuality is deemed mandatory.
Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at March 06, 2014 01:43 PM (kUgpq)
Posted by: Buzzsaw at March 06, 2014 01:43 PM (wrS2o)
Posted by: Minnfidel at March 06, 2014 01:44 PM (gLjvy)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 06, 2014 01:44 PM (9JPz+)
Posted by: Cato at March 06, 2014 05:42 PM (OdVTN)
OK. Define a "social issue" which one can separate from "liberty."
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at March 06, 2014 01:44 PM (Q9qpj)
Posted by: SE Pa Moron [/i] at March 06, 2014 01:44 PM (CnA98)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 06, 2014 01:44 PM (t3UFN)
Posted by: hello, it's me also a creep-assed cracka.. at March 06, 2014 01:45 PM (9+ccr)
But he's so young!
Posted by: Arizona "Snowbirds" at March 06, 2014 01:45 PM (YEelc)
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at March 06, 2014 01:45 PM (WdbF7)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at March 06, 2014 01:45 PM (ZPrif)
Finally, the poll asks if things are better since Obama became president. Just 34 percent of voters think the country is better off compared to five years ago, while most -- 60 percent -- disagree.
Posted by: The Jackhole at March 06, 2014 01:46 PM (nTgAI)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 06, 2014 01:46 PM (t3UFN)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 06, 2014 01:46 PM (HVff2)
Btw speaking of scifi, did you ever read A Brave New World?? It's like 200 pages for fuck's sake.
Maybe I can send you a version in French? Check it out, it definitely is a must read.
Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 01:46 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: @ChickenKievParamus at March 06, 2014 01:46 PM (ztMkL)
Posted by: soothsayer at March 06, 2014 01:46 PM (/eo9F)
Posted by: Brother Cavil at March 06, 2014 01:46 PM (naUcP)
America's least popular senator. Please AZ. Get rid of this senile POS.
But he's so young!
Posted by: Arizona "Snowbirds" at March 06, 2014 05:45 PM (YEelc)
Et tu my frendsh ?
Posted by: The Jackhole at March 06, 2014 01:47 PM (nTgAI)
Posted by: Inspector Cussword at March 06, 2014 01:47 PM (kAvHW)
'global warming isn't about the earf and it isn't about temperature
( warning: Upcoming Catholic reference ) ...
They're Stations of the Cross. Each one is only part of the Whole sequence, teaching the same essential lesson, based on the same faith
Posted by: Jules at March 06, 2014 01:47 PM (omBWL)
Posted by: wooga at March 06, 2014 01:47 PM (Q1BWs)
The solution's pretty obvious, just change the title on all of the paperwork to "Civil Union", and "husband/wife" entries to "participant 1, participant 2, attach form #37G for additional participants" and leave the ceremonial aspect called marriage to the churches to define as they see fit. They'll call each other heretics over doctrinal differences until doomsday, but hey, they were already going to do that anyway.
Posted by: Cato at March 06, 2014 01:47 PM (OdVTN)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 06, 2014 01:47 PM (9JPz+)
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at March 06, 2014 01:48 PM (gOoFi)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at March 06, 2014 01:48 PM (0HooB)
Posted by: eleven at March 06, 2014 01:48 PM (fsLdt)
Posted by: grammie winger at March 06, 2014 01:48 PM (oMKp3)
Unless it's just to provide complimentary birth control or advocate homosexuality. Which is clearly stated in the Constitution's fornication and buggery clause.
Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at March 06, 2014 01:48 PM (kUgpq)
Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 06, 2014 01:48 PM (T2V/1)
Posted by: soothsayer at March 06, 2014 01:49 PM (/eo9F)
Posted by: Jon (not the troll) at March 06, 2014 01:49 PM (DPMu1)
Either these polls are rigged or we really have become a nation of brainwashed imbeciles.
No need to choose. Yes and Yes.
Posted by: Count de Monet at March 06, 2014 01:49 PM (BAS5M)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 06, 2014 01:49 PM (9JPz+)
Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at March 06, 2014 01:49 PM (9Bdcz)
Which is a greater abomination: marriage between two morbidly obese West Virginans, or between Salma Hayek and Kate Upton?
Ooops....my head just popped.
Posted by: eleven at March 06, 2014 01:49 PM (fsLdt)
Posted by: Brother Cavil at March 06, 2014 01:49 PM (naUcP)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at March 06, 2014 01:50 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 06, 2014 01:50 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: @ChickenKievParamus at March 06, 2014 01:51 PM (ztMkL)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at March 06, 2014 01:51 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Long Term? at March 06, 2014 01:51 PM (D+lxs)
Posted by: traye at March 06, 2014 01:51 PM (ovYDh)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 06, 2014 05:46 PM (HVff2)
Theft of life is different than letting two old queens get married.
I'm no fan of gay marriage, but perhaps a less inflammatory example would prove your point better.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 06, 2014 01:51 PM (QFxY5)
Clearly what is needed is for guys in mesh half shirts wielding purses to intimidate voters at the precincts
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2014 01:51 PM (zfY+H)
Posted by: Margarita who wishes she drank more at March 06, 2014 01:51 PM (dfYL9)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 06, 2014 01:51 PM (9JPz+)
In the 1960s, nearly 70% of the people wanted to ban handguns.
Should we just have said fuck it, who needs the 2nd Amendment??
Reagan had to veto the fucking Fairness Doctrine - that soviet throwback that could have killed this little blog.
He had to veto it, and there were 60 or so stupid fucking RINOs that wanted it.
We keep looking at polls. That is why we lose. Just have some fucking principles for fuck's sake.
"Gay marriage" isn't about being gay. And it's not about being married. It is a frontal assault on the religious freedoms of this nation by those who have always been the brains of the radicals. And if we're too fucking stupid to see that, then we deserve what's coming.
Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 01:52 PM (tVTLU)
This is why it's so easy for these shites to get away with manipulating and ignoring the Constitution. No one has a f*cking clue anymore what it is, or what it means to America.
It's a tax!!!
Posted by: CJ John Roberts at March 06, 2014 01:52 PM (BAS5M)
Posted by: Cato at March 06, 2014 01:52 PM (OdVTN)
Posted by: soothsayer at March 06, 2014 01:52 PM (/eo9F)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 06, 2014 05:44 PM (t3UFN)
That's funny, because it works just fine for us.
Posted by: The Left at March 06, 2014 01:52 PM (Q9qpj)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 06, 2014 01:53 PM (9JPz+)
Looking at gay marriage from an Engineer's point of view, consider:
What percentage of the population is gay? Let's say 3%. What would happen to a society if it was reversed (97% gay/3% hetero)? How long would that society survive?
Isn't it in society's interest to encourage behavior, heterosexuality, that pepetuates its continuance rather than one that contributes to its demise?
Posted by: I'm the Honey Badger, BITCH! at March 06, 2014 01:53 PM (+7Usq)
You obviously haven't seen very many photos from same-sex unions, have you?
Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at March 06, 2014 01:53 PM (kUgpq)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 06, 2014 01:53 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 06, 2014 01:53 PM (9JPz+)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 06, 2014 01:54 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at March 06, 2014 01:54 PM (ZPrif)
I don't doubt that the ground has shifted a lot and that SSM may well have majority support now- but I also suspect there is a bit of a "shy Tory" effect going on here. Opposition to SSM has been so stigmatized in the media that some people are afraid to tell the pollster their true opinion.
Posted by: Jon (not the troll) at March 06, 2014 05:49 PM (DPMu1)
I remember many people said the same thing about the polls in November 2012. And then we woke up on Nov 7 and said WTF?
Posted by: Long Term? at March 06, 2014 01:54 PM (D+lxs)
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at March 06, 2014 01:54 PM (gOoFi)
Posted by: Vic at March 06, 2014 05:36 PM (T2V/1)
------------------------------------------------
Yup. They must have polled people in Atlanta and Austin. As one commenter stated upthread, that if this is true, why is it that gay marriage referendums are usually rejected by overwhelming percentages.
Posted by: Soona at March 06, 2014 01:55 PM (rOX4+)
Posted by: Chilling the most at March 06, 2014 01:55 PM (gxtMZ)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 06, 2014 01:55 PM (9JPz+)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 06, 2014 01:55 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: Count de Monet at March 06, 2014 01:55 PM (BAS5M)
Posted by: hello, it's me also a creep-assed cracka.. at March 06, 2014 01:55 PM (9+ccr)
You didn't say rape twice.
What's wrong....you don't like rape?
Posted by: Hedley Lamarr at March 06, 2014 01:55 PM (QFxY5)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 06, 2014 01:55 PM (9JPz+)
Posted by: Cato at March 06, 2014 01:56 PM (OdVTN)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 06, 2014 01:56 PM (9JPz+)
Posted by: Daybrother at March 06, 2014 01:56 PM (7sdJj)
Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade feeling murdery at March 06, 2014 01:57 PM (rXcBX)
Posted by: Count de Monet at March 06, 2014 01:57 PM (BAS5M)
Posted by: grammie winger at March 06, 2014 01:57 PM (oMKp3)
Posted by: toby928© at March 06, 2014 01:57 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at March 06, 2014 01:57 PM (0HooB)
Posted by: deadrody at March 06, 2014 01:57 PM (+Dpo7)
Honey Badger:
Holy shit you must be on to something.
Meanwhile, the polygamist community is wondering why there are so many haters out there.
After them the donkey shows want some respect.
This end of this government is forcing a church to host a gay donkey show on its altar.
You think I'm nuts, watch the fuck out. Did you think that a baker could be facing jail time for refusing to bake a fucking wedding cake for two gheys b/c of a religious objection?????????
Line drawn assholes.
Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 01:58 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: tasker at March 06, 2014 01:58 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: Margarita who wishes she drank more at March 06, 2014 01:58 PM (dfYL9)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 06, 2014 01:58 PM (9JPz+)
Posted by: Beagle at March 06, 2014 01:58 PM (sOtz/)
Posted by: Kensington (@NYKensington) at March 06, 2014 01:59 PM (/AHDz)
Posted by: 18-1 at March 06, 2014 01:59 PM (M3hAT)
Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at March 06, 2014 01:59 PM (9Bdcz)
Just don't be surprised that the issue keeps being a priority for me.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Laughing Maniacally While Throwing Matches. at March 06, 2014 01:59 PM (0q2P7)
The morality of SSM was the question, and you compared it to killing a newborn. That's a tad inflammatory.
I think a better example would be polygamy or being a Red Sox fan.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 06, 2014 02:00 PM (QFxY5)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 06, 2014 02:00 PM (t3UFN)
Posted by: deadrody at March 06, 2014 02:00 PM (+Dpo7)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 06, 2014 02:00 PM (9JPz+)
Posted by: spongeworthy at March 06, 2014 02:00 PM (g3wv2)
124 Are there common law marriages anymore? Where if you just stick with one person for x number if years, the state says you're married? Or is that a thing of the past?
--------
It's still a thing.
It becomes even more of a 'thing'...when long-term shackups split and it comes time to divvy up the common property.
Posted by: wheatie at March 06, 2014 02:00 PM (W4wxS)
But I think churches may soon have to withdraw from participating in government sanctioned unions to preserve their rights to say 'no, we won't be part of your wedding' and there still needs to be something to preserve freedoms for the bakers et al.
Posted by: palerider at March 06, 2014 02:00 PM (dkExz)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 06, 2014 02:01 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: Bawney Fwanke at March 06, 2014 02:01 PM (gOoFi)
I spent the 2012 campaign jumping up and down with my hair on fire shouting constantly about jobs and cost of living and economic insecurity. Which is what the polls OVERWHELMINGLY showed all that year to be the voters' big concerns. Dwarfing all else.
Meanwhile, Romney and his Ivy League management-consultant brain trust couldn't be arsed to run even one (1) attack ad about gasoline prices.
Also meanwhile, the Democrats were absolutely shitting down their pants legs terrified of having to run a campaign playing on defense with Topic A being the dour Obamaconomy.
And with absolute predictability, Democrats instead wanted to run on identity politics and gender nonsense. Which is exactly what any competent campaign manager would have been telling them to do. Stay away from your weaknesses. Find something to change the subject, fast. So, again with absolute predictability, Democrats deliberately dangled culture war bait in the form of Sandy Fluke.
Instead of relentlessly staying on target with jobs and the economy, while ignoring Fluke as the ridiculous nonentity and planned distraction that she was, certain idiots on the right (cough) Limbaugh (cough) bit down hard on the bait and called Fluke a slut. Which galvanized liberal feministas and let the Democrats successfully pivot to offense on culture-war topics instead of defense on the shitty economy.
There's a lesson here. Unfortunately not a lesson the right have learned.
THIS year, 2014, guess what? It's still "the economy, stupid".
Jobs and wages and the cost of living are still pegging the meter with voters.
So a smart political opposition party might, y'think, wanna hang the shitty economy around the necks of the incumbent party. Make jobs the crystal clear central focus, yar?
Nope. Instead the GOP is being led by "Agent Orange" John Boehner.
What are Boehner's openly stated top priorities? Passing amnesty, which is so far down the list of concerns of voters in the polls that it's not even funny. And "fixing" Obamacare, which is also way the fuck down there in the polls. It polls less well than outright repeal.
I would need an entire multilimbed Hindu goddess worth of hands to perform a facepalm of sufficient magnitude.
Posted by: torquewrench at March 06, 2014 02:01 PM (gqT4g)
Posted by: ace at March 06, 2014 02:01 PM (/FnUH)
I wonder how popular giving everyone a million dollars would be??
Holy shit, we can't stop that fucking train.
This. Is. Why. We. Lose. On reflection, Reagan may have been the only thing holding us back from the abyss for this long...
Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 02:02 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at March 06, 2014 02:02 PM (ZPrif)
Nobody else wants the two morbidly obese ones, so that one's a success story. The other one is a greater abomination, because it takes two hotties off the market simultaneously.
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 06, 2014 02:02 PM (P7Wsr)
Yup. They must have polled people in Atlanta and Austin. As one commenter stated upthread, that if this is true, why is it that gay marriage referendums are usually rejected by overwhelming percentages.
Posted by: Soona at March 06, 2014 05:55 PM (rOX4+)
California was close in 2008(?)
Minnesota rejected a gay marriage ban in 2012. It would have passed in 2010.
People are changing their views. Mostly because there are no immediate problems seen in Mass., Vermont, etc. It is becoming, "Meh, Let the gays marry, it does not affect me."
Ask me if it was a good idea in 2040.
Posted by: Sliding to Gomorrah with a smile on our faces at March 06, 2014 02:02 PM (D+lxs)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 06, 2014 02:02 PM (9JPz+)
Posted by: Chris at March 06, 2014 02:03 PM (crkWb)
29 hrs @ $10.10** == $292.90
*current Federal minimum wage
**proposed ACA-compliant minimum wage
Posted by: Payroll Math, brought to you by Preznit Obama at March 06, 2014 02:03 PM (Q9qpj)
Followed by, "Do you believe a church or temple with legitimate religious objections should have a right to not perform same sex marriage ceremonies?"
Let's see how far the line in the sand has really shifted.
Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at March 06, 2014 02:03 PM (kUgpq)
Posted by: gm at March 06, 2014 02:03 PM (/kBoL)
Wheatie:
Bingfuckiooo!!!! Yeah, the gheys got worried b/c the second it was legalized two dudes just living together were married.
hahahahaha, what a bitch.
Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 02:03 PM (tVTLU)
Suppose the ruling class decides that, if you don't join the gay cheering section, you ARE stigmatizing them?
Posted by: Margarita who wishes she drank more at March 06, 2014 05:51 PM (dfYL9)
Then I prepare the 'ruling class' for Extreme Unction
Posted by: Jules at March 06, 2014 02:03 PM (omBWL)
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at March 06, 2014 02:03 PM (gOoFi)
If it were so, there would be no need for fed judges to shove it down.
Posted by: Comrade J at March 06, 2014 02:04 PM (6kkPP)
Posted by: Harry Blackmun at March 06, 2014 02:04 PM (dfYL9)
Posted by: toby928© at March 06, 2014 02:05 PM (QupBk)
On what planet is this happening ? The media is now recording your answers to polls and forwarding that info to the IRS and NSA for official punishment ?
Are you retarded ?
Posted by: deadrody at March 06, 2014 05:57 PM (+Dpo7)
-----------------------------------------------
Are you that sure that it's not happening? Much that was lunatic fantasy a few years ago have become reality today.
Posted by: Soona at March 06, 2014 02:05 PM (rOX4+)
Texas Governor Rick Perry has made no secret that he is contemplating the possibility of running for president in 2016. But though the Republican Party often nominates candidates who have run before, like John McCain and Mitt Romney, that strategy is rarely successful. An exception to the rule is former President George W. Bush.
Layers and layers of fact checkers.
Let's look at the recent Republican presidents:
1952-1960 Eisenhower (Successful on his first run)
1968-1974: Nixon (lost his first attempt in 1960; success in 196
1974-1976: Ford (outlier; achieved office through Nixon resignation)
1980-1988: Reagan (lost his first attempt in 1976; success in 1980)
1988-1992: Bush 41 (lost his first attempt in 1980, success in 198
2000-2008: Bush 43 (success on his first attempt.)
In the modern era (since WWII), it is the most common route to the Presidency for a Republican candidate: they lose on the first attempt, and then make it through on the second. Also note, after CNN makes their stupid statement that the strategy is rarely successful, they then go on to claim Bush 43 as an exception. In fact, Bush 43 is an exception to the real rule, since he made it on his first attempt.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at March 06, 2014 02:05 PM (IN7k+)
145 That sidebar picture of Rick Perry is...hawt.
Posted by: wheatie at March 06, 2014 05:54 PM (W4wxS)
yeah, but, back problem...
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 06, 2014 06:01 PM (IXrOn)
-----------
I'm glad he's come out and acknowledged it.
Posted by: wheatie at March 06, 2014 02:05 PM (W4wxS)
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at March 06, 2014 02:05 PM (WX3R9)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 06, 2014 02:06 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: tasker at March 06, 2014 02:06 PM (RJMhd)
Now those same terms, though not based in any real science, are used to create a new privilege class, immune from any form of criticism for their actions. Not because they are an actual category of human, but simply because they know they can get away with it.
Posted by: StubbleSpark at March 06, 2014 02:06 PM (m81NZ)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 06, 2014 02:06 PM (IXrOn)
Oh, and I loved seeing women become H8ers too with only 39% approving. Even women are waking up to this asshole.
Posted by: Aslan's Girl at March 06, 2014 02:06 PM (KL49F)
at creating jobs, up from 52 percent who said the same in October 2012."
I spent the 2012 campaign jumping up and down with my hair on fire shouting constantly about jobs and cost of living and economic insecurity. Which is what the polls OVERWHELMINGLY showed all that year to be the voters' big concerns. Dwarfing all else.
Meanwhile, Romney and his Ivy League management-consultant brain trust couldn't be arsed to run even one (1) attack ad about gasoline prices.
Also meanwhile, the Democrats were absolutely shitting down their pants legs terrified of having to run a campaign playing on defense with Topic A being the dour Obamaconomy.
And with absolute predictability, Democrats instead wanted to run on identity politics and gender nonsense. Which is exactly what any competent campaign manager would have been telling them to do. Stay away from your weaknesses. Find something to change the subject, fast. So, again with absolute predictability, Democrats deliberately dangled culture war bait in the form of Sandy Fluke.
Instead of relentlessly staying on target with jobs and the economy, while ignoring Fluke as the ridiculous nonentity and planned distraction that she was, certain idiots on the right (cough) Limbaugh (cough) bit down hard on the bait and called Fluke a slut. Which galvanized liberal feministas and let the Democrats successfully pivot to offense on culture-war topics instead of defense on the shitty economy.
There's a lesson here. Unfortunately not a lesson the right have learned.
THIS year, 2014, guess what? It's still "the economy, stupid".
Jobs and wages and the cost of living are still pegging the meter with voters.
So a smart political opposition party might, y'think, wanna hang the shitty economy around the necks of the incumbent party. Make jobs the crystal clear central focus, yar?
Nope. Instead the GOP is being led by "Agent Orange" John Boehner.
What are Boehner's openly stated top priorities? Passing amnesty, which is so far down the list of concerns of voters in the polls that it's not even funny. And "fixing" Obamacare, which is also way the fuck down there in the polls. It polls less well than outright repeal.
I would need an entire multilimbed Hindu goddess worth of hands to perform a facepalm of sufficient magnitude.
Posted by: torquewrench at March 06, 2014 06:01 PM (gqT4g)
Sorry, this just needs to be repeated.
Posted by: There is a reason it is called the stupid party at March 06, 2014 02:07 PM (D+lxs)
Ricardo:
Perhaps, perhaps. I think they've fucked this up. They've moved way too fast. In 100 yrs when Christianity is a "silly" religion and the "sane" idea that we came from daffodils is universally accepted, this would be a wash.
But throwing bakers into jail for refusing to celebrate a ghey wedding is a bridge too far. I'm done if that's where we are. I'm signing a new Declaration of Independence and saying fuck you to the gay mafia.
Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 02:07 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: frankieFix at March 06, 2014 02:07 PM (Ym5Ui)
Posted by: deadrody at March 06, 2014 02:08 PM (+Dpo7)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 06, 2014 02:08 PM (IXrOn)
Followed by, "Do you believe a church or temple with legitimate religious objections should have a right to not perform same sex marriage ceremonies?"
Let's see how far the line in the sand has really shifted.
Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at March 06, 2014 06:03 PM (kUgpq)
-----------------------------------------------------
This. Very much, this.
Posted by: Soona at March 06, 2014 02:08 PM (rOX4+)
Posted by: tubal at March 06, 2014 02:08 PM (YEQ2h)
Soona:
Yep, that's why I don't trust polling at all. General trends, sure, but even polls on very controversial topics I wonder about.
There are way more guns in America than people admit to. I used to deny owning any guns, but then I lost them all in that tragic boating accident.
See what I did there.
Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 02:09 PM (tVTLU)
>>>Are you retarded ?
No I don't think he is, but a lot of conservatives are super paranoid right now. Present tech-savvy company exempted, after hearing on Fox news about internet spying by the Government, phone spying by the Government, IRS harassment of political opponents, et al; You don't think that effects the average 60yo willingness to speak out to a complete stranger over the phone about how much they *hate* the official party line? What planet do *you* live on?
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Laughing Maniacally While Throwing Matches. at March 06, 2014 02:09 PM (0q2P7)
*pfft*
I was a Bird of Paradise, not some common daffodil.
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 06, 2014 02:10 PM (P7Wsr)
Posted by: gm at March 06, 2014 02:10 PM (/kBoL)
OK. So how many state legislatures/state referenda actually approved marriage redefinition? Three or four? Versus what - 30+ states that explicitly rejected this?
So a WaPo or Pew survey is what counts. Allahpundit has been sort of lightweight for years on polls running the country - he was dying to give up in Iraq because "polls" showed the war to be unpopular. I was one of the original commenters over there but gave up after AllahP got touchy and stupid when I and a few others slapped him around for his idiotic poll-based whining on Iraq. (this was before the general decline of HotAir)
So actually here we have a pretty good microcosm of the lawless, and unserious, nature of America today.
Marriage redefinition is not popular, and almost a universal loser when put to the electoral test, across the country. But opinion surveys claim "it's getting more popular!!" (this has been going on for a years, by the way).
There's also not an iota of a legal, moral, or constitutional argument to redefine marriage, esp. with civil unions and other specific accommodations. (OK, I'm excluding the "I think it's OK and stuff and I like to seem 'open-minded' so isn't that a moral or constitutional argument??" arguments ....) So one federal judge - in a preposterous display of capricious, lawless, arrogant, rather nasty and offensive judicial abuse, overturns the will of the far-right deep red state of CA, the AG lawlessly declines to fulfill his duties, and the SCOTUS pulls the "standing scam" (nicely tossing in more baseless, offensive, bizarre polemics against the citizenry and culture) - voila!
Electoral loser, legal/constitutional non-issue - gigantic winner!
Don't give a rat's rear myself about the topic, but like most serious people realize it's a cultural question best decided by the people and not the elite institutions. And - right down to the weak-minded silly nudging by "conservative" voices like AllahP citing "polls" that are contradicted by overwhelming real-world electoral results - right there we have a perfect example of why any observant and serious citizen has long realized that they really don't have much role or voice in their own society or system, though they do have a stake. The same pathologies on textbook display with marriage redefinition are the ones responsible for every other major ill menacing our well-being, from fiscal to foreign policy.
Posted by: non-purist at March 06, 2014 02:11 PM (afQnV)
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 06, 2014 02:11 PM (XyM/Y)
That, since weÂ’re going to lose on raising the minimum wage, we should look at conservative means of implementing it, such as creating a government handout to employers to not fire employees when the minimum wage goes up.
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at March 06, 2014 06:05 PM (WX3R9)
Creating another government handout is NOT a conservative idea. But Boehner and the GOP Braintrust would probably go for it.
Posted by: Yeah, Another Government Handout, Great IDEA! at March 06, 2014 02:11 PM (D+lxs)
Posted by: toby928© at March 06, 2014 02:11 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at March 06, 2014 02:12 PM (g4TxM)
Posted by: grammie winger at March 06, 2014 02:12 PM (oMKp3)
Not one single state has ratified gay marriage at the ballot box, even some of the most liberal states it goes down.
That being said, I don't doubt that in the next decade, this will be an issue Republicans will have to just accept. I don't see the trend reversing.
I don't know how a Presidential candidate is going to run on a platform of repealing gay marriage or nullifying it on a federal level.
Most people are on the camp of "who cares, it doesn't effect me" with respect to gay marriage. I'll always oppose it, but I'm not going to hold candidates or a Party to that as I can see we live in a secular country.
I honestly think the worst thing that could happen to the Left is if gay marriage became the law of the land. It pulls in so many LIV's and young people, particularly women. Once that's gone, maybe our country can focus on real issues again.
Posted by: McAdams at March 06, 2014 02:12 PM (J1V+J)
Posted by: Margarita who wishes she drank more at March 06, 2014 02:12 PM (dfYL9)
Daffodils? I thought it was Triffids.
Posted by: Count de Monet at March 06, 2014 02:12 PM (BAS5M)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 06, 2014 02:13 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Laughing Maniacally While Throwing Matches. at March 06, 2014 02:13 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Jon (not the troll) at March 06, 2014 02:13 PM (DPMu1)
Posted by: Semi-engaged scroller at March 06, 2014 02:13 PM (/cUUk)
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at March 06, 2014 02:14 PM (5xmd7)
Polling firms are engaged based on how well they bias their questions
Posted by: phreshone at March 06, 2014 02:14 PM (Q6pxP)
Posted by: Vic at March 06, 2014 05:38 PM (T2V/1)
Because the Blue Dog Democrats are gone now. There's no significant Democratic politician left for Democrats to purge. Democratic Party leadership and their far-Left base may disagree with each other regarding tactics, but on policies, issues, and legislative goals they are one mind and one voice, more or less, which makes lockstepping so much easier. Gaia help you if you stray too far from the party line.
Keep this in mind: there are no moderate Democratic politicians left at the national level. None. Some purple-state Democrats may pretend to be moderates for the rubes back home but they will almost always acede to the will of the party's leadership. I say 'almost' because some of them aren't willing to fall on their swords for the more suicidal votes, not any more.
Posted by: troyriser at March 06, 2014 02:14 PM (V9ol4)
Posted by: seamrog at March 06, 2014 02:15 PM (8LIP9)
Posted by: grammie winger at March 06, 2014 02:15 PM (oMKp3)
See what I did there.
Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 06:09 PM (tVTLU)
---------------------------------------------------
I never speak of my guns I don't have.
Posted by: Soona at March 06, 2014 02:15 PM (rOX4+)
Posted by: gm at March 06, 2014 02:16 PM (/kBoL)
Posted by: The Political Hat at March 06, 2014 02:16 PM (XvHmy)
Posted by: Jon (not the troll) at March 06, 2014 06:13 PM (DPMu1)
Yeah, and with whom do those children of your fertile conservative cohort spend eight hours a day, five days a week, forty weeks a year?
Posted by: Yoohoo? Your local union drone teacher-who makes more than you, works less, and has a better pensio at March 06, 2014 02:16 PM (Q9qpj)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 06, 2014 02:16 PM (IXrOn)
1980-1988: Reagan (lost his first attempt in 1976; success in 1980)
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous
Third try. Reagan was a late entrant in '68 for the Stop Nixon movement. Won more of the popular vote than Nixon, under the old primary system.
But that's ok, it's like a Poli Sci 210 extra credit question.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 06, 2014 02:16 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: deadrody at March 06, 2014 02:16 PM (+Dpo7)
Posted by: McAdams at March 06, 2014 06:12 PM (J1V+J)
Romney won white voters under 30, even women. And young nonwhite voters weren't voting for Obama because of SSM.
Posted by: Jon (not the troll) at March 06, 2014 02:17 PM (DPMu1)
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at March 06, 2014 02:17 PM (g4TxM)
Posted by: Beagle at March 06, 2014 02:18 PM (sOtz/)
Posted by: gm at March 06, 2014 02:18 PM (/kBoL)
Right on! This is why our current strategy is to lie still, barely breathe, and wait until the next election sweeps us into office.
--The GOP
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 06, 2014 02:18 PM (P7Wsr)
I.E. like every other social issue there are true believers on each side and a bunch of people who may have an opinion one way or the other when asked but really don't give a damn one way or the other.
So yeah, there are more folks who turn out and vote against gay marriage amendments because there are a lot more people who feel strongly enough about traditional marriage to do so.
I'd also wager the level of support for gay marriage is higher among young white heterosexuals than it is among actual gays.
Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at March 06, 2014 02:18 PM (kUgpq)
Posted by: Margarita who wishes she drank more at March 06, 2014 02:18 PM (dfYL9)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at March 06, 2014 02:19 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Zombie Trotsky, in a faaaabulous bespoke silk suit at March 06, 2014 02:19 PM (Q9qpj)
So how hard is an 80% receiver to finish?
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 06, 2014 02:19 PM (P7Wsr)
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 06, 2014 02:19 PM (XyM/Y)
For all I care you can "marry" your mother or your cat.
The whole point is to make the photographer, the baker, Orson Scott Card renounce their faith. Deny that there is any god greater than Caesar.
All within the State.
Nothing outside the State.
Nothing against the State.
You may have a religion (*wink*wink*) only if it is State-approved.
Posted by: Margarita who wishes she drank more at March 06, 2014 06:12 PM (dfYL9)
------------------------------------------------
I agree with this also. The gay issue is not about gays just like AGW is not about the climate. It's about command and control.........and money.
Posted by: Soona at March 06, 2014 02:20 PM (rOX4+)
Super-short version: At an obnoxiously liberal Hollywood blog I like to troll, the owner/author *deleted* one of my comments (which is his right, it's his personal blog). No surprise there, in fact I'm proud of getting my first deletion.
But then this same guy *restored* another post I made in the same thread that *I* deleted, because I thought two screaming angry insulting responses on my part would just be too much. Ooookay, WTF???
Posted by: qdpsteve at March 06, 2014 02:20 PM (HVI5a)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at March 06, 2014 02:20 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: backhoe at March 06, 2014 02:21 PM (ULH4o)
Posted by: gm at March 06, 2014 06:10 PM (/kBoL)
which were shouted down by our betters.
Posted by: willow at March 06, 2014 02:22 PM (nqBYe)
That low? I'm a bit surprised actually. I don't have any problems with Jews, but it seems like too many people do.
I'd bet this number is higher in Europe.
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 06, 2014 02:22 PM (P7Wsr)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 06, 2014 02:22 PM (SY2Kh)
Just switch parties already 5%.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 06, 2014 02:23 PM (gorVZ)
What are you talking about? How ridiculous.
You give us your say, we listen, and then we get to decide if you're right or not. Isn't that easy to understand?
Posted by: Your local CongressPrinceling (R/D - everywhere - forever) at March 06, 2014 02:24 PM (HVI5a)
Posted by: Margarita who wishes she drank more at March 06, 2014 02:25 PM (dfYL9)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at March 06, 2014 02:25 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Beagle at March 06, 2014 02:26 PM (sOtz/)
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at March 06, 2014 02:26 PM (gOoFi)
Posted by: ace at March 06, 2014 02:27 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: seamrog at March 06, 2014 02:27 PM (8LIP9)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 06, 2014 02:28 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: tasker at March 06, 2014 02:28 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 06, 2014 02:28 PM (t3UFN)
Posted by: Daybrother at March 06, 2014 02:29 PM (qHGPV)
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 06, 2014 02:29 PM (XyM/Y)
Please keep fighting against sex change operations for twelve year olds.
-Democrats
Posted by: seattle slough, ten years from now at March 06, 2014 02:29 PM (Q9qpj)
And one more thing, with this women in combat/women are equal shit.
This fucking social compact is over if you think you're drafting my daughters into the military.
Done.
Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 02:29 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 06, 2014 02:30 PM (t3UFN)
Seattle slough shows up!!! It's like getting advice for the GOP from a former Mondale speechwriter! Yay!!!
Go say hi to the daffodil outside, there's a chance he's your great great great grandpa.
hahahahahahahaha. I know. I know.
Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 02:30 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: Margarita who wishes she drank more at March 06, 2014 02:31 PM (dfYL9)
I don't get this: "other parts of the agenda regarding the stigmatization of homosexuality"
Huh? Whose agenda - which state or national level political figure or organization, ever - has taken the initiative to stigmatize homosexuality? In recent times?
This is the old Israeli joke about "the trouble all started when I hit him back". Who was taking the initiative here? By definition, those seeking to redefine marriage took the initiative. Marriage's definition hadn't been controversial, or changed, for eons (it varied *somewhat*, but not much, by region/tradition ..... plural marriage in Islam and parts of Africa).
Weren't the efforts at change begun by proponents, by definition? They are the ones with an agenda. Opposing their wish isn't "stigmatizing" anything (nor, for that matter, is/was DADT, which was a perfectly sensible and reasonable accommodation that was just one of many extraordinary restrictions on personal liberty and behavior in the abnormal conditions of military service).
This isn't academic - and it's also not about the underlying issue. But what is broadly called the "culture war" is 95% the unprovoked initiative of the fascist/racist/authoritarian elements (drive religion from the public square, stigmatize firearms, turn America into an ugly race-sorted dystopia, war on Christmas, and on and on and on).
This was noted by many when whatever GOP politician it was said something about "a truce" on social issues a few years back. ????? As if those under attack had started things. As if, in fact, there weren't a non-stop, nearly ubiquitous, ugly, unseemly, un-American offensive to stigmatize all kinds of perfectly decent, normal, average things by the same quarters who have now gone crazy about marriage redefinition.
"It all started when we hit them back".
Posted by: non-purist at March 06, 2014 02:31 PM (afQnV)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 06, 2014 02:31 PM (t3UFN)
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 06, 2014 06:29 PM (XyM/Y)
----------------------------------------------------
I've noticed that too.
Posted by: Soona at March 06, 2014 02:31 PM (rOX4+)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 06, 2014 02:31 PM (HVff2)
I would need an entire multilimbed Hindu goddess worth of hands to perform a facepalm of sufficient magnitude.
Posted by: torquewrench at March 06, 2014 06:01 PM (gqT4g)
OMG, I love this imagery! I might steal it!
Posted by: Aslan's Girl at March 06, 2014 02:32 PM (KL49F)
The last time professed atheists were running a country, what did we get?
Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin. Hmmmmm. Perhaps we should think on that some more.
Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 02:32 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: bergerbilder at March 06, 2014 02:33 PM (8MjqI)
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 06, 2014 02:33 PM (XyM/Y)
Posted by: Tom Friedman at March 06, 2014 02:33 PM (xm+xZ)
Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at March 06, 2014 02:33 PM (jucos)
owning any guns, but then I lost them all in that tragic boating
accident. See what I did there.
So how hard is an 80% receiver to finish?
Posted by: bonhomme
Can you change you own brake pads?
Can you use a power tool without cutting off a finger?
Can you follow instructions?
Posted by: Jean at March 06, 2014 02:33 PM (4JkHl)
Keep fighting against an increase to the proles' Basic Living Stipend.
-Democrats
Posted by: seattle slough, twenty years from now at March 06, 2014 02:33 PM (Q9qpj)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 06, 2014 02:34 PM (HVff2)
Oh FFS. This is true, of course.
But for conservatives to have and raise children has actually very little to do with how those children will think and vote as eventual adults.
Here in the SF Bay Area, I often meet people just out of college, and ask where they grew up, and most of the time, it's somewhere not on the liberal coasts. It's in interior "flyover" country.
I ask them why they came to this place, and about NINETY PERCENT OF THE TIME they say that they wanted to get away from the conservative mores of where they grew up, and not have to deal with their conservative parents.
I'm not exaggerating that figure.
People say things like, "If I didn't get out of that horrible bigoted backward state of ______, I would have just died."
It's not all heartland driven. It's just most noticeable in those who have fled the heartland. This phenomenon of liberal young people emerging from conservative households happens to families in Commiefornia itself..
I know a quite impeccably socon pair of parents here in CA. They have a daughter who is 20, in college, and the most absolutely amazingly deluded moonbat lefty you could ever imagine. Her parents certainly didn't bring her up that way. They raised her -- quite diligently -- as what they hoped would be a demure Christian young lady of right-wing political philosophy. Whoops.
Posted by: torquewrench at March 06, 2014 02:34 PM (gqT4g)
Posted by: garrett at March 06, 2014 02:34 PM (xm+xZ)
Posted by: Hal at March 06, 2014 02:34 PM (2wZs/)
Posted by: tasker at March 06, 2014 02:35 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: --- at March 06, 2014 02:36 PM (ksJYU)
Posted by: The Political Hat at March 06, 2014 02:37 PM (XvHmy)
Posted by: tasker at March 06, 2014 02:37 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: Hal at March 06, 2014 02:37 PM (2wZs/)
Posted by: Margarita who wishes she drank more at March 06, 2014 02:37 PM (dfYL9)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 06, 2014 02:37 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at March 06, 2014 02:38 PM (jucos)
Methinks we need a name for the effect not wanting to seem homophobic to a Pollster has on the outcome of a Poll.
Excellent idea. Whatever shall we call it?
Posted by: Tom Bradley at March 06, 2014 02:38 PM (BAS5M)
43% say they WILL NOT.
OK, so you start with 57% and compete so you have to win 88% of the remaining vote to win an election and you think that's not toxic?
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Laughing Maniacally While Throwing Matches. at March 06, 2014 02:39 PM (0q2P7)
I agree. Draft my daughters and I'm taking them out of country. The trends lately have me wondering where the red lines are for people.
Posted by: typo dynamofo at March 06, 2014 02:39 PM (IVgIK)
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at March 06, 2014 02:40 PM (vVLeQ)
Thanks Margarita. But I need to craft my comments much better, because the only reason I even show up on a gay marriage thread is for the meta-observation, not much interested in the actual subject one way or the other.
Oh, and I believe the original fascisti put your slogan this way: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato"
Posted by: non-purist at March 06, 2014 02:40 PM (afQnV)
In my view, the real takeaway from the gay marriage poll is the startling speed and effectiveness of mass media manipulation of public opinion. Just a few short years ago even a politician as far left-liberal as Barack Obama had to lie about his views on gay marriage. Now, politicians (and private citizens) are villified for opposing it. So what's the next big push, I wonder. Pedophilia? Euthanasia of the elderly? Outright infanticide? All of the above?
Cultural bombardment works. How soon before some self-styled 'fiscal conservatives' tell us to drop our vehement opposition to pedophilia because social issues are a loser?
Posted by: troyriser at March 06, 2014 02:40 PM (V9ol4)
Posted by: Vote Lord Humungus 2016 at March 06, 2014 02:41 PM (Zg3a+)
If my daughters want to serve, that's fine, but I do not approve of combat. Nor do I approve of government compulsion of women in combat. Watch it, it's coming.
The left always gets bent out of shape when you say bestiality in the same sentence as homosexuality. Why?? For all the pro gay marriage folks out there, what justification do you have to be against polygamy OR bestiality????
WHAT'S THE JUSTIFICATION? You just hatin??? How dare you legislate your own view of morality on my donkey and me?? Sparkles loves me.
A man who believes in nothing, believes in everything.
Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 02:41 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: tasker at March 06, 2014 02:41 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: bergerbilder at March 06, 2014 02:41 PM (8MjqI)
Posted by: awkward davies at March 06, 2014 02:42 PM (whqez)
Posted by: tasker at March 06, 2014 02:42 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: Jen at March 06, 2014 02:42 PM (3wFh7)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 06, 2014 02:42 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 06, 2014 02:43 PM (XyM/Y)
Posted by: Jean at March 06, 2014 02:43 PM (4JkHl)
Typo:
Forced to serve gheys and drafting our daughters, red line my friend. I'm done.
Are we free men or not?
Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 02:43 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: ace at March 06, 2014 02:43 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at March 06, 2014 02:43 PM (vVLeQ)
Bonhomme:
Ah receivers, they are quite collectible and you can buy a shitton for relatively cheap and then build out. Jean - a hand drill??? that had to be tough.
They are good to keep, b/c that's all you need to accomplish the "sale". Build the rest up! I'm going to start a project on the big boy platform one of these days, .50.
Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 02:45 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at March 06, 2014 02:45 PM (vVLeQ)
Posted by: McAdams at March 06, 2014 06:12 PM (J1V+J)
---------------------
You are joking?
Progressives are NEVER satisfied. NEVER.
They don't stop at the Sudetenland.
Posted by: Margarita
They're never satisfied, but I don't know what big gay issue is going to come down the pike that is going to galvanize support they way gay marriage does.
I'm sure they'll come up with something, but it's just not going to get any real traction with swing voters.
Posted by: McAdams at March 06, 2014 02:45 PM (J1V+J)
I have expressed it this way- 20 years ago the words gay and marriage didn't exist in the same sentence. Now it is unthinkable that you could be against it.
Posted by: typo dynamofo at March 06, 2014 02:46 PM (IVgIK)
Posted by: GOP at March 06, 2014 02:46 PM (0fsZT)
Posted by: tasker at March 06, 2014 02:47 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: teapartydoc at March 06, 2014 02:48 PM (4U98b)
Posted by: polymory at March 06, 2014 02:48 PM (8SsiG)
Posted by: Jen at March 06, 2014 02:49 PM (3wFh7)
Posted by: SE Pa Moron [/i] at March 06, 2014 02:50 PM (CnA98)
Posted by: Daybrother at March 06, 2014 02:50 PM (2WFxS)
I know a quite impeccably socon pair of parents here in CA. They have a daughter who is 20, in college, and the most absolutely amazingly deluded moonbat lefty you could ever imagine. Her parents certainly didn't bring her up that way. They raised her -- quite diligently -- as what they hoped would be a demure Christian young lady of right-wing political philosophy. Whoops.
Posted by: torquewrench at March 06, 2014 06:34 PM (gqT4g)
--------------------------------------------------
Adolescent rebellion is one thing, adult thinking is another. I imagine a lot of those young people start growing up and noticing that what goes on in those super-liberal enclaves aren't particularly conducive to a happy and productive life. Then they move back to the heartland.
You've heard it expressed that children think their parents are stupid until those children start growing up. It's true.
Posted by: Soona at March 06, 2014 02:50 PM (rOX4+)
Posted by: Hal at March 06, 2014 02:51 PM (2wZs/)
bergerbilder: (on the question of the public voting for gay marriage)
Maine did it by popular vote. So did my state (Washington). Several other states enacted it via legislative majority, (which is how this should be done anyway.)
I would imagine in practically any state that has had it for a while, (such as Iowa) if you put it to a public vote today, it would win since absolutely none of the hysterical (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!) negative consequences of gay marriage materialized.
Think of how often you hear about a person who was previously against gay marriage come out and say that they've 'evolved' on the issue. Now tell me the last time you heard of someone evolving the other way. I have yet to meet or even hear about a person who used to be for gay marriage and has since evolved to the other side. Never.
This is the ultimate loser of an issue for you guys. 75% of people under 30 support gay marriage.
Posted by: seattle slough at March 06, 2014 02:51 PM (mCz8+)
Oh, and the actual headline was of more interest to me.
Meh. Approval ratings have never been that important. This president appears to rule in a post-constitutional era, generally lawless, and also (importantly) when many long-vital components of America's successful civil society (a real press, an educated and serious electorate) have vanished.
Either a significant majority of the electorate is just fine with economic malaise, wildly risky financial experimentation, international decline and increasing chaos, lawlessness in all directions, transformation into a racist dystopia from a melting pot, and stigmatization of traditional values and institutions embodying them - or perhaps there's the added wrinkle that there is no real opposition party.
Posted by: non-purist at March 06, 2014 02:51 PM (afQnV)
Here's how this goes:
Step 1:
Gay marriage legal. Anti-discrimination laws. Must serve gay weddings or go to jail.
Step 2:
Here comes "science". Ton of "research" to show that kids grow up fine and happy in homo households, in fact, in the end they'll say the "science" shows two dads or two moms or three dads and a donkey is a much more healthy environment for kids to be raised. Thus, there is no detriment to children at all from not having one mom and one dad.
Step 3:
Churches that discriminate against gheys are haters. Revoke their tax exempt status. Destroy these churches.
Step 4:
Churches that support gay marriage aren't churches, they're social events for lefties. These faux churches die. Religion dies. Family means whatever anymore.
Step 5:
Boot stomp human face. Forever.
Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 02:51 PM (tVTLU)
Much like the Republicans, the just knew that the way to convince people was not to say anything at all.
Plus cowards.
Posted by: typo dynamofo at March 06, 2014 02:52 PM (IVgIK)
When seattle slough mows the grass does he cry?? It's a veritable holocaust, think of all the people he just killed!!!
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Posted by: prescient11 at March 06, 2014 02:52 PM (tVTLU)
Back there was a "grandfathering clause"in ATF's rules I had an old policeman friend look around for submachine guns that could be registered legally but were not.
He found an M-3, a Barretta MP-38, and an M2 carbine.
Just in my small town.
And like I was taught? "you need a weapon? You take it from the man who has one...."
Yes, I am old. But very Hard School.
Make of it what you will, but Jammy-Boi & his ilk do not worry me a bit....
( And for all you left-wingers & lurkers? My friend is dead. And I never knew the names or locations of these people. But they are out there. In Ø-Merica....
Posted by: backhoe at March 06, 2014 02:53 PM (ULH4o)
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at March 06, 2014 02:53 PM (5xmd7)
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 06, 2014 02:53 PM (XyM/Y)
306: And don't forget half of the churches. When your church comes out with position papers, etc. stating that they will accept gay couples, and will perform gay marriages, you have lost the war.
Those churches are shedding members because of it. Whether they find another church that believes the Bible means what it says or just stop going all together would be interesting to find out.
Posted by: puddleglum at March 06, 2014 02:53 PM (8SsiG)
Posted by: seattle slough at March 06, 2014 02:53 PM (mCz8+)
Posted by: rickl at March 06, 2014 02:54 PM (sdi6R)
Posted by: Hal at March 06, 2014 02:55 PM (2wZs/)
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 06, 2014 02:56 PM (XyM/Y)
Those churches are shedding members because of it. Whether they find another church that believes the Bible means what it says or just stop going all together would be interestingto find out. Posted by: puddleglum
The few churches that go along with that bullshit usually find out just how many gay people there really are in their congregation. And it's not enough to pay the light bill.
I have zero doubt that much of what drives the Left is hate of traditional religion and values, but the idea that churches are going to be forced to perform gay marriages against their will is when you'll start seeing bullets flying.
Posted by: McAdams at March 06, 2014 02:56 PM (J1V+J)
Posted by: typo dynamofo at March 06, 2014 02:57 PM (IVgIK)
Posted by: Jen at March 06, 2014 02:59 PM (3wFh7)
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 06, 2014 03:00 PM (XyM/Y)
Posted by: typo dynamofo at March 06, 2014 06:57 PM (IVgIK)
----------------------------------------------
This has truth in it. The child-porn industry is as much a propaganda arm of the government as the MFM is.
Posted by: Soona at March 06, 2014 03:01 PM (rOX4+)
Posted by: wooga at March 06, 2014 03:05 PM (Q1BWs)
Posted by: The Political Hat at March 06, 2014 03:07 PM (XvHmy)
Posted by: Vote Lord Humungus 2016 at March 06, 2014 03:09 PM (Zg3a+)
I've never met a single person in favor of lowing the age of consent to allow adults to have sex with prepubescent children. Never one. NAMBLA probably has like like 80 members. It has zero traction and will never have any traction.
There's a mile of difference between what two consenting adults want to do and what an adult wants to do to a child. You might as well be asking about all those people trying to legalize necrophilia and bestiality. And realistically, those probably have a much better chance of being legalized than does pedophilia.
Most people opposed to gay marriage still believe that homosexuality is a choice. It's not, but this is obviously an evolving discussion. We've known that children are incompetent to make some decisions since the stone age. This is not new. This is not up for debate. It's a non-starter.
Posted by: seattle slough at March 06, 2014 03:10 PM (mCz8+)
Posted by: AtlasMugged at March 06, 2014 03:11 PM (6MwxO)
Posted by: The Political Hat at March 06, 2014 03:13 PM (XvHmy)
Posted by: Jen at March 06, 2014 03:14 PM (3wFh7)
That's wonderful, assuming the point of all this is to allow the fraction of the homosexual 2% who want to marry each other to do so. I think the point is to 1) split people from their churches and 2) shut down the more conservative churches. Their marketing and coordination have been excellent.
Posted by: kartoffel at March 06, 2014 03:16 PM (1zhvB)
Posted by: wooga at March 06, 2014 03:17 PM (Q1BWs)
Posted by: The Political Hat at March 06, 2014 03:19 PM (XvHmy)
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 06, 2014 03:19 PM (XyM/Y)
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 06, 2014 03:22 PM (XyM/Y)
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 06, 2014 03:23 PM (XyM/Y)
This fucking social compact is over if you think you're drafting my daughters into the military.
Done. Posted by: prescient11
Your daughters can serve as adjutants, cooks, supply personnel, mechanics, communications specialists.... Frees up more men to fight and die.
Posted by: SFGoth at March 06, 2014 03:24 PM (4IfHt)
Posted by: AtlasMugged at March 06, 2014 03:27 PM (6MwxO)
Posted by: The Political Hat at March 06, 2014 03:29 PM (XvHmy)
They obviously can make reproductive choices. They can and do get pregnant. That's a choice. I'm not for lowering the age of consent however, in any regard. And I honestly don't know anyone who is.
Fenelon:
No one says all the child abuse occurs in the RCC. But the RCC had a terrible track record of protecting the offenders. I have worked on cases involving Catholic educators and ministers who were moved from parish to parish where they were able to commit horrific acts again and again. As in the parents at one school in say, Michigan, complained about Brother So and So and so the church simply moved Brother So and So to Seattle and he got a fresh start. The particular Brother So and So in the cases we had was shuttled to no fewer than six different schools, each completely unaware that Brother So and So liked to diddle children.
I've never seen a public school system that did this.
Posted by: seattle slough at March 06, 2014 03:38 PM (mCz8+)
Posted by: rickl at March 06, 2014 03:40 PM (sdi6R)
Posted by: Kaitlyn Hunt at March 06, 2014 03:43 PM (XvHmy)
The Left will push for lowering the age of consent for "pubescent" minors, because there is a greater distinction between a 5 year old and a 15 year old, than a 15 year old and a 25 year old, biologically.
After all, the Left already believe that a pre-teen girl who can get pregnant is capable of making reproductive choices.
Posted by: The Political Hat at March 06, 2014 07:19 PM (XvHmy)
The problem is that, although the terms are now common parlance, 'ephebophilia' and 'hebophilia' are not formally accepted philias (phileae?) in the mental health community. You're not technically correct in correcting people on nomenclature, although I agree with your point.
Posted by: troyriser at March 06, 2014 03:43 PM (V9ol4)
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 06, 2014 03:47 PM (XyM/Y)
I can refrain from 'stigmatizing' homos while not joining their cheering section. Posted by: Jules at March
Which is exactly what I did in the past....before the "all gay, all the time" push. I think what you do is disgusting....get over it. Pretty sure there are things about me you don't like......don't see no crocodile tears here.
But then, I'm a man and all.
Posted by: FITP at March 06, 2014 03:48 PM (V3jzV)
Posted by: Jen at March 06, 2014 03:53 PM (3wFh7)
I think a lot of people who have changed positions on gay marriage are simply SICK of hearing about it, and want the issue resolved so we can focus on other stuff.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at March 06, 2014 03:53 PM (S11Oq)
I think it will be funny as hell when we start getting the rash of Gay divorces. Lets face it...these folks aren't the most monogamous bunch.
A great TV show..."Gay Divorce Court"
Posted by: FITP at March 06, 2014 04:02 PM (V3jzV)
Posted by: Seattle Slough at March 06, 2014 04:23 PM (mCz8+)
Posted by: Huggy at March 06, 2014 04:36 PM (3pjOr)
First comes love, then comes marriage,
then comes an adopted Somali orphan
in a baby carriage!
Posted by: joe at March 06, 2014 05:04 PM (2Hkbk)
Well -- it's not a "winning issue" until it's actually voted on in a state referendum, rather than a "poll." In state after state gay marriage "polls high" only to fall to dust when it's actually put to vote in the privacy of the voting booth.
FURTHER . . . popular opinion shifts with . . . *popularity*. Let a Ted Cruz get elected president and a conservative Senate and House, and *then* we'll see what the polls say about what people claim they believe about gay marriage.
Duck Dynasty happened two months ago. And the gay activists were mown over like new grass in front of a John Deere tractor -- and then thrown under a Greyhound bus.
Posted by: Igor at March 06, 2014 05:26 PM (stk07)
Posted by: Seattle Slough at March 06, 2014 08:23 PM (mCz8+)
Fair enough. However, if that is the case, why is there a disproportionate number of same sex molestations of the young by homosexuals ("mos")? NAMBLA? Promiscuity by mos? Former mos? Recruitment efforts of the young and confused, hormone raging teens?
I think everyone may have a certain 'mo gene' or something which may be more prominent in some than others. Like propensities of people to addictions, e.g., the 1 in 10 heroin users that become full blown addicts, there are a number for whom the mo gene trumps self discipline and there is mo behaviour. Like addicts, once lost to the vice, they let it become them and they become a 'mo' -- encouraged, of course, by previously surrendered mos.
As to the sexual, um, exhuberance by many, that is just hedonistic, selfish behaviour. As a non-mo, I would be in hog heaven in I could stroll into a park, certain bars, hit craigslist online or whatever and get a free BJ from a woman. I cannot. I can, however, from a mo. That, my moronic friend, is a matter of choice.
Just my two cents.
Posted by: eureka! at March 06, 2014 05:32 PM (xiXna)
Posted by: tsj017 at March 06, 2014 05:50 PM (tIcJF)
Posted by: Jen at March 06, 2014 05:54 PM (3wFh7)
http://tinyurl.com/mv6p6d9
Posted by: Catowl at March 06, 2014 06:31 PM (LdpjE)
Posted by: Seattle Slough at March 06, 2014 08:18 PM (UU0jV)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2014 10:08 PM (zfY+H)
Posted by: fromabroad at March 06, 2014 10:15 PM (rnV3B)
Posted by: fromabroad at March 06, 2014 10:17 PM (rnV3B)
Posted by: scottst at March 06, 2014 10:19 PM (idA6q)
Posted by: fromabroad at March 06, 2014 10:24 PM (rnV3B)
Posted by: Seattle Slime at March 06, 2014 10:27 PM (rnV3B)
Posted by: Seattle Slime at March 06, 2014 10:40 PM (rnV3B)
Posted by: Seattle Slime at March 06, 2014 10:59 PM (rnV3B)
What I am against is finding a new "right" to gay marriage under the constitution or having gay marriage forced upon us by the courts.
If a majority wants to allow gay marriage through the legislative process, I have no real passionate feeling against it. I understand the historical / family arguments against gay marriage and lean a little to supporting that side of the argument. but, it's not even remotely a top priority.
But, I am passionately against allowing the liberal judiciary to further expand the judiciary's power to bastardize the constitution and create new law and rights out of pure whim. that I am willing to fight and get worked up about.
Unfortunately, I've almost never seen conservatives take this position and instead focus only on the moral / religious side of the issue.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at March 07, 2014 04:01 AM (sOx93)
Posted by: Jen at March 07, 2014 04:55 AM (3wFh7)
Posted by: Jen at March 07, 2014 05:14 AM (3wFh7)
So you have no problem with gays, you just think it's a disability. Got it.
Why do you think gay marriage has anything to do with whether or not gay people have children? We can argue around and around about whether children who grow up in gay households are normal or not (hint: they are), but there will be children in gay households whether there is marriage or not unless we pass laws to forbid gays from having/adopting children.
But what I really don't understand is this claim that you don't have a problem with the idea of gay marriage, it's just the manner in which its being forced upon you that is the problem. Bullshit. Have you ever made this argument about anything else? Are you upset that it was (largely) Brown v. Board of Education that outlawed segregation in public schools rather than waiting for Kansas' citizenry to vote in a referendum? Do you see how patently unfair and stupid that argument is? Do you not realize that without those civil rights cases forcing the country to join the rest of us in the 20th Century, some of those states would STILL have segregated schools to this very day?
It's also a bullshit argument for several other reasons:
1. Where are you getting 3% from? Fact is, as long as there are large portions of our population where people feel compelled to hide their gayness, we have no reliable method for figuring out the number of natural born gays in our species. Whatever statistics you are using would have missed our syphilitic friend.
2. 3% is irrelevant. Who cares what the percentage is? 3% is 180 million worldwide. It's over nine million in this country alone. That's a lot of people to marginalize so that you don't feel uncomfortable.
3. It's largely a myth that gay marriage is being forced on us by judicial fiat. 16 states currently have gay marriage. Gay Marriage was approved by voters, the legislature, or both in 12 of them. It was always stupid to insist that your (alleged 97%) majority needed to vote on this in a popular vote, but regardless, even that ridiculous bar is being met.
4. Please explain why marriage was never "designed to be applied, for social and legal reasons" to gays. What social reasons? What legal reasons? What the heck are you talking about here? This is obviously just pulled right out of your ass.
5. Would your position change if gays were advocating quietly? No. So stop using this as an excuse.
Just own up to your beliefs. Don't hide behind process, because no one complains about process when things are going their way. So just tell us what you really feel. Just complete this sentence: "It would bother me if my gay neighbors could get married because ...."
Posted by: seattle slough at March 07, 2014 08:05 AM (mCz8+)
Posted by: fromabroad at March 07, 2014 08:39 AM (rnV3B)
Posted by: fromabroad at March 07, 2014 08:55 AM (rnV3B)
Posted by: seattle slough at March 07, 2014 09:06 AM (rnV3B)
Posted by: seattle slough at March 07, 2014 09:07 AM (rnV3B)
What a fucking idiot you are. What a goddamned moron. Have you suffered a traumatic brain injury at some point?
a. Who said I was friends with or support pedophiles? What a stupid argument. My only professional relationship with pedophiles is suing them and their enablers. Period.
b. Who cares what I want vis a vis my children and their natural disposition? I love my sons more than anything and want them to be happy. What they are is what they are and I'm going to continue loving and supporting them no matter what. If one or both of them is gay, I'm going to continue loving and supporting them. Why would I tell them I would rather they be straight? What if they aren't? What kind of message is that sending them? If they are gay, they are gay and I want them to be the best gays they can be.
c. "It would delete my right to be called mother or father"
(No it wouldn't and who cares?)
"it would drain social security funds to benefit people who do not stop their career to have children"
(Prove it. And no. And how?)
"It would erase all freedom of conscience, it would relegate any opposition to homosexuality with penalties and jail time."
(Says who? You can still be a homophobe - just like you can still be a racist. Being a racist doesn't result in jail time and neither will your remaining a closed minded bigot.)
You realize that none of this is in the least bit compelling.
You can't stop gays from having children. One of my sons has a teammate who has two moms and he was conceived with a goddamned turkey baster. Are you going to outlaw turkey basters? BTW, he's a totally normal kid. And none of his 3rd grade buddies give half a shit that he has two moms.
p.s. You son is gay. I can tell. He's 'different.' And he's always been interested in what Mommy wears. He's gay. Get used to it.
Posted by: seattle slough at March 07, 2014 09:26 AM (mCz8+)
Posted by: fromabroad at March 07, 2014 10:02 AM (rnV3B)
Posted by: Seattle Slough at March 07, 2014 10:39 AM (mCz8+)
Posted by: fromabroad at March 07, 2014 10:45 AM (rnV3B)
Posted by: seattle slough at March 07, 2014 11:25 AM (mCz8+)
Posted by: fromabroad at March 07, 2014 11:55 AM (rnV3B)
Posted by: fromabroad at March 07, 2014 11:57 AM (rnV3B)
There's so much stupid here, I can't even unpack it all.
I do like how you think that boy is deprived a father, when he was given a life. A life that would not exist BUT FOR a turkey baster. He's healthy, happy, and well looked after. And if that gay man and that gay woman didn't create him with a turkey baster, he would not exist. But you think there's something wrong with him because you don't understand the first fucking thing about him. Good job.
But the true masterpiece of your incoherent rambling is where you basically cede our nation to Islam, Russia, China (Which one? Who cares!) because you can't stomach gay marriage that bad. Like you'd literally end our hard won sovereignty over gay marriage. Laughable. You are a silly person. A silly, hateful, wretched, hysterical, stupid person.
Congrats on all of that.
p.s. Your youngest son is still gay.
Posted by: seattle slough at March 07, 2014 12:26 PM (mCz8+)
Posted by: fromabroad at March 07, 2014 12:58 PM (rnV3B)
Posted by: fromabroad at March 07, 2014 01:18 PM (rnV3B)
Posted by: fromabroad at March 07, 2014 01:33 PM (rnV3B)
I think he's healthy and happy because I know him. He's a normal kid. His home life is not weird or odd. They live in a nice house and he goes on ski trips and plays soccer and he's a typical third grader.
Where did anyone say those two women determined they were superior to a mother and a father? Where does something that stupid even come from? It's real simple. They wanted a child. They thought they had the stability and resources to raise a child. So they had one. Did you have children because you thought you'd be a better parent than some other person? No. You had kids because you wanted to (hopefully) and were able to do so. For the record, that's what we did. We didn't think about whether we'd be better than some other set of parents. We independently decided we want to and were able to have kids. So we did.
And also for the record, this kid knows his biological father. He's a nice guy who did a nice thing for a friend. And together they created a 3rd grader who you seem hell-bent on denigrating because you are an awful person. Does that feel good? Trashing a ten year old you've never met, I mean. I've never done that so I'm going to have to take your word for it. Was it satisfying? Should I tell him all the nice things you said about him and his parents? I definitely want you to tell your youngest son that Seattle Slough says 'it gets better.' Because he should know that.
And WOW, you found horror stories of children raised by homosexuals!?!? That's alarming because not a single kid raised by one of us straights has ever been abused, or neglected. Nope. That never happens.
And why do you keep accusing me of calling you a racist? ARE you a racist? I mean, you are demonstrably an anti-gay bigot. I'm not even sure you've denied that, but there's obviously some projection going on there. Yeesh. You might seek help on that.
Posted by: seattle slough at March 07, 2014 03:08 PM (mCz8+)
I just realize we already went round and around about this already. And you admitted then (three months ago) that you didn't even have kids! And now your pretend your "sons" and "daughters" aren't retarded or gay!
LOL
You're pathetic.
Game. Set. Match.
You're a lying idiot. And your life has no purpose. And you'll die fat and alone in a single-wide trailer that smells like cat urine.
Posted by: seattle slough at March 07, 2014 03:23 PM (mCz8+)
Posted by: fromabroad at March 08, 2014 02:38 AM (rnV3B)
Posted by: Seattle Slough at March 08, 2014 11:37 AM (b+YGs)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2926 seconds, 524 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Angel with a sword at March 06, 2014 01:30 PM (hpgw1)