Palin on Dr. Laura; Coulter v. Farah

The other day I questioned whoever was tweeting for Sarah Palin about her comments on her Dr. Laura controversy. It struck me that it probably wasn't Palin, but an employee popping off.

It wasn't that I disagreed with her conclusion -- it was just that it was naked conclusion without predicates that built to that conclusion, and I thought that was pretty impolitic on a controversial issue. I was going to suggest -- this is really something better for FaceBook where you can develop your argument.

Well, she did that.

oes anyone seriously believe that Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a racist? Anyone, I mean, who isn’t already accusing all conservatives, Republicans, Tea Party Americans, etc., etc., etc. of being racists?

Adversaries who have been trying to silence Dr. Laura for years seized on her recent use of the n-word on her show as she subsequently suggested that rap “artists” and other creative types like those producing HBO shows who regularly use the n-word could be questioned for doing so. Her intention in discussing the issue with a caller seeking advice was not to be hateful or bigoted. Though she did not mean to insult the caller, she did, and she apologized for it. Still, those who oppose her seized upon her mistake in using the word (though she didn’t call anyone the derogatory term) to paint her as something that she’s not. I can understand how she could feel “shackled” by those who would parse a single word out of decades of on-air commentary. I understand what she meant when she declared that she was “taking back my First Amendment rights” by turning to a new venue that will not allow others the ability to silence her by going after her stations, sponsors, and supporters.

I, and obviously many others, have been “shackled” too by people who play games with false accusations, threats, frivolous lawsuits, misreporting, etc., in an effort to silence those with whom they disagree. That’s why I tend to defend people who call it like they see it while others stop at nothing to shut them up.

That's pretty much right. Was this a firing offense? Oh please. She didn't use the n-word in anger; she was illustrating its ubiquity among black comics and rappers.

To the extent it was "wrong" to do that -- well, she apologized. What more do you want? Oh right -- you want her job. Because that's always what this was about. It was never about principle or sensitivity; it was about cashiering someone you didn't like.

In the Coulter and Farah dust-up, here's the email Farah wrote to Coulter:

Until now, I have asked you a couple of pointed questions about your participation in the Homocon event.

Now, in the Christian spirit of Matthew 18, I want to tell you what I think in very clear terms. We don't really know each other well. But I still consider you a friend and a fellow freedom fighter.

Homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible. God calls it an abomination. Paul (Romans 1:18-32) calls it a judgment on societies that turn away from God. I'm sure it has not escaped your attention that America is now one of those societies. Meanwhile, we have people – homosexual and heterosexual – who take pleasure in the increase of this abomination and its acceptance, just as Paul said.

This is how homosexuality literally destroys societies.

I know you don't want to see America destroyed. I've read all your books, and I'm a fan of your columns. I know you want what's best for our country – and I believe you're a sincere Christian.

Whether you believe it or not, or whether or not it is your intent, your acceptance of this speaking engagement is affirming GOProud, which is, I'm sure you've noticed, winning the hearts and minds in the conservative movement – with CPAC, Grover Norquist and others who don't necessarily bring a Judeo-Christian worldview to the party. GOProud is having a field day marketing you and legitimizing itself further in the conservative movement through its association with you.

It's a very big deal, Ann, and it's bigger than you. Glenn Beck threw in the towel last week on same-sex marriage, saying since it doesn't affect him, it doesn't matter. Materialistic utilitarianism – much of the conservative movement is moving in that direction.

I believe this is a time when God is calling his people to stand up for what's right. I'm afraid you're really blurring the lines for many of your fans.

Speaking to this group is not the same as speaking to a group of college students anywhere. Presumably, you speak to them not just for money, but to change their minds. The only way you might change some minds and hearts at Homocon is to confront them with their sin. I don't get the impression that is what you are being paid to do. These are folks who are being sheltered from the consequences of their sin. By giving a standard conservative rah-rah speech to them, you are embracing them as part of the conservative movement.

GOProud truly represents a blight on the conservative movement. The more the movement embraces them and accepts them, the more it will render the conservative movement useless and irrelevant.

He also quoted from Ann Coulter's emails, which I can't find.

Here's what I think of Farah's position: It's poison. It's not merely political poison, it is moral poison.

1. The GOP cannot be an overtly, officially religious party charged with monitoring everyone's personal sins. It cannot be. Ever. I view the party on morality as I view it on economics. A government cannot create wealth; it can only, and should only endeavor to, foster a wealth-friendly environment in which wealth-creation is likely.

Similarly, a government cannot mandate what sort of sex is legal and what sex is illegal. It can only foster a morality-friendly environment win which moral behavior is likely.

There are situations when the government is required to make some kind of official legislative choice on matters typically deemed moral. The law of marriage is an obvious one; drug prohibition has typically been considered another.

But the party cannot agitate to expand and multiply the number of decisions it will make on "behalf" of citizens, against their will, to enforce a morally hygienic lifestyle.

Some may object and say what Farah is doing is not that at all; he is simply using moral suasion, not government power, to pursue his ends. Well, it's not government power, I concede that, but it is using what power he has. He doesn't have government power, he has Farah Power, and he's using that in a coercive manner.

This is the folly of liberals which breaks my heart to see conservatives follow in: That we can make people better if only we use the tools of coercion at hand to force them to be better. The fact that he's willing to use what power he has for coercive means suggests to me he'd do the same were anyone imprudent enough to place him in a position of government power.

I am far less bothered by holding these beliefs -- people have the right to believe what they want -- than by the attempt to impose them on others through whatever little chinzy lever of power one might have.

I don't believe in that; I just don't. I don't want a Mommy Party and I also don't want a more-disciplinarian Daddy Party either.

I've got a Mommy and I've got a Daddy. I don't need nor want anyone presuming to fill those slots for me.

2. Coulter is not a gay marriage advocate, but an opponent, which leads me to conclude that Farah is ultimately not agitating for a policy position like traditional marriage only, but simply for that which is impermissible: taking an anti-gay-person stance, period.

It's true that 90% of gays (including conservative-leaning gays) want gay marriage. It's also true that a significant portion of the greater conservative caucus is Paulite in its hostility towards the use of military force, and a larger (but now no longer majority, I don't think) part of the caucus is neocon in its faith in military solutions.

We generally disagree on these issues without attempting to cast out the unbelievers. (Okay, admission: During the height of the Iraq War, and the height of manufactured "Paulmania," with all of his appearances on Truther Alex Jones' show, I sure did welcome the prospect of purging the party of such people. But as a general rule, we don't do that.)

Farah's position is essentially that gays simply cannot be conservatives at all and must be purged from the party. He does not seem to be an opponent of a policy, but an opponent of specific people. That doesn't strike me as fair, conservative, or keeping with the American way of doing things.

3. I can't help but notice that homosexuality is elevated to rather higher position on the food-pyramid of sins than seems necessary. I note that in my every day life, I wrestle with all sorts of sins: Sloth, probably at the top, then Lust, then Envy, then Wrath.... actually, all four of those are separated only by the slightest titches; it's nearly a four-way tie. Pride and Gluttony aren't far behind, either.

And other sins too. Premarital sex? Sex only for lustful purposes and not procreation? Yeah, I'm all about that.

I presume Joseph Farah is as well -- on that last point. I am not prepared to believe that he only engages in sex for purposes of creating children. I do not believe that is true of nearly anyone.

I'll tell you one sin I never have to wrestle with: the sin of homosexual fornication. Why? Because I'm straight. It never even occurs to me that gee, maybe if I'm not scoring with the ladies lately I should change up my game and try for a dude.

Never. Not once has it even crossed my mind.

And I submit that this is true for 99.9% of straight men, which in turn means it's true of 97.7% of men, period.

So Farah is essentially elevating to the position of Worst Sin the one sin he has absolutely zero chance of committing, zero chance of even being tempted by.

I find this breathtakingly convenient. According to Farah's priorities, hell, I'm a pretty moral guy -- never had gay sex, never wanted to have gay sex, never even thought about gay sex. So I'm pretty pure, right?

Of course I'm not. I'm just not guilty of that sin, but I'm not free of that sin due to devotion to God or exercise of willpower or the strengthening power of faith: I'm free of that sin for the same reason I'm free of the sin (were it a sin) of eating tarantulas. Because I don't want to.

It strikes me as very convenient, self-serving position to take that the most important sin out there, the most destructive sin, the one, as Farah says, actually destroys whole societies, is the sin that those who are most concerned with it aren't ever tempted to commit in their entire lives.

And that, on the other side of the coin, the 3% of the population that is gay is soaked in sin and offense to God.

I find it a little curious that Farah flames on about gays but doesn't seem terribly bothered by non-procreative heterosexual sex, non-procreative heterosexual sodomy (which includes the old blow-jay), non-procreative lustful use of pornography.

Now some will probably say he does mention those. Yes, I would guess he does; but as far as I know he wouldn't forbid Ann Coulter from appearing at a party I was hosting, and I'm an admitted (and unashamed) pornography user and non-procreative heterosexual sex fan.

Why the special elevation here? Again, I just find it damnably convenient for a proponent of morality to pound and pound on the one sin that he is almost incapable of engaging in, due to deep-seated revulsion to the act.

I have a deep-seated revulsion to it. Most straight guys do -- it's inborn. We even shy away from touching other men.

Which is, again, why on the list of sins it's so damnably easy for me to forgo this particular activity.

But what about people who are exclusively attracted to those of their sex? Can we get an admission that it might be somewhat harder for them to avoid this particular sin? That if they sin more in this area, perhaps it is because they carry special burdens? The burdens of actually wanting to do this in the first place?

What is Coulter doing, really? Is she endorsing the gay conservatives' (likely majority) position on gay marriage? No. Is she suggesting conservatives give up legitimate positions of policy in this realm? No.

She's appearing with them and by doing so telling them "Hey, you're not bad. I like you. I'll appear with you."

This is so terrible? This is like a firing offense, to Joseph Farah?

By the way: Ann Coulter's been unmarried her whole life. And yet, at her age (I assume she's 29, like me; I mean, I will be 29, in November), she has dated a bunch of guys.

I don't want to invade her privacy: But am I to understand that Joseph Farah believes she was celibate throughout this time period? That her various boyfriends were content with some hand-holding and maybe some light necking?

Am I to understand he is that childishly naive?

So my question is: What was he doing keeping this shameless wanton hedonist whore on his payroll in the first place?

Her own lifestyle he found unobjectionable? Why?

Let me add in point four:

4. You may disagree with this, but I personally consider Ann Coulter to be very conservative on almost all issues, and I feel she occupies generally the most conservative position prudent in conventional politics, anyway. She isn't exactly super-traditionalist in her personal lifestyle decisions, but as a general matter she occupies the furthest-possible-acceptable-rightist position out there.

Maybe she likes her gays. Okay, maybe she does. But to me, if Ann Coulter is saying that you can't simply purge gays from your party (or your movement, or your circle of social acquaintances), then really, doing so is unacceptably fringe.

If your beliefs lead you to the conclusion that Ann Coulter is too damn liberal, then I really think you either need to reexamine your first principles, or consider maybe you're not really engaged in politics at all, that actual politics are not truly your interest. Something related to politics, a cousin of politics, perhaps; perhaps political philosophy, perhaps metaphysics, perhaps simply religion.

But if Ann Coulter is a licentious liberal in your eyes, you are not close enough to the Overton Window to fire through it with a sniper rifle.

Anyway: Coulter blasted Farah as a self-serving "publicity whore."


Posted by: Ace at 02:43 PM



Comments

1 First!

Posted by: I Denounce Myself at August 20, 2010 02:46 PM (y5VNb)

2 Now, in the Christian spirit of Matthew 18, I want to tell you what I think in very clear terms.
I want to like your party. Really, I do. Why do you make it so damn hard for me, man??

Posted by: Ave. Voter Turned Off by the Bible Beating at August 20, 2010 02:50 PM (mVwJ/)

3
He's right. Homosexuality isn't exactly a boon to civilization.

GOPPud is a joke, anyway. Just like GOPBlack would be a joke or GOPAsian.

Posted by: I'm Video Professor, try my CDs at August 20, 2010 02:51 PM (uFokq)

4 Lite necking is an abomination! And so is Ann Coulter!

Posted by: Holier Than Thou at August 20, 2010 02:51 PM (xxgag)

5 agree with Ace on this one, on both accounts (Palin Annie). Farrah's position is untenable.

Posted by: Vergeltung at August 20, 2010 02:52 PM (jttPx)

6 I was unaware that Coulter was part of the government

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 02:53 PM (+sBB4)

7 I'm siding with Coulter and Ace on this one.
I'll be watching lesbo porn if anyone needs me.

Posted by: SGT Dan at August 20, 2010 02:53 PM (QUuUE)

8 Your idea of non-procreative sex is flawed Ace. The only sex that is a sin in a marriage is sex with someone not your spouse. I am not sure where you get the idea that sex not singularly for procreation is a sin?

Posted by: jlfintx at August 20, 2010 02:53 PM (06kXx)

9 ...she was illustrating its ubiquity among black comics and rappers. dead Democrat Senators from West Virginia.

Fixed it for ya', Ace.

Posted by: Reiver at August 20, 2010 02:53 PM (RPPEk)

10 I want to like your party. Really, I do. Why do you make it so damn hard for me, man??

Seriously? Joseph Farah? You're going to judge the GOP based on Joseph Farah? As nasty a person as he is, he's actually less of a moral scold than the SF city council.

Farah is a gnat. And as long as he's quoting: how's about John 8:7.

A real Christian doesn't go around hierarchiving sins.

Posted by: Chevy Volt at August 20, 2010 02:54 PM (T0NGe)

11 Joe Farah is a nut. Not too long ago, he published a story saying that decades-old Soviet nuclear bombs were buried deep under dozens of US cities, awaiting cell-phone commands to detonate. (He did not explain who was changing or rechargingthe cell-phone batteries underground, or who was servicing the weapons.) Crackpot stuff. Better to shame HIM out of the cons than Coulter.

Posted by: gp at August 20, 2010 02:54 PM (B9rV2)

12 Similarly, a government cannot mandate what sort of sex is legal and what sex is illegal
It cannot, or should not?
Age of consent
Fraternization between a suborndinate and a superior (particularly between a recruit and an instructor).
sex between someone impaired and another (invalid and care giver).

Posted by: Blue Hen at August 20, 2010 02:54 PM (R2fpr)

13 I am reminded of the words of Benjamin Franklin. We will hang together or we will hang separately. Farah is opting for the hang separately tactic.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 20, 2010 02:54 PM (xxgag)

14 Oh, and for the record, I do not believe in nagging outside of marriage.

Posted by: AmishDude at August 20, 2010 02:54 PM (T0NGe)

15 Frankly I don't care what gays do as long as it does not intrude into my life, what they do in the bedroom is no concern of mine.
I do care when the state starts insisting it is perfectly normal behavour when clearly it is not.
When the state starts insists that "Heather has two mommys" gets read in my daughters school thats when I whip a 5 iron upside someones head.

Posted by: gdonovan at August 20, 2010 02:55 PM (vJr5W)

16 Pravda Yahoo news has a wonderful little article on the Palin/Dr. Laura thing. They have an "expert" from First Amendment Center who let's us know that both of them don't what they are talking about. At this point Yahoo "news" is so far left they make Kos look like National Review

Posted by: TheQuietMan at August 20, 2010 02:56 PM (kI4PT)

17 I've got a Mommy and I've got a Daddy. I don't need nor want anyone presuming to fill those slots for me.

Wait, I thought Ace was a bastard found in a basket?

Posted by: x at August 20, 2010 02:56 PM (QQn2V)

18 >>>The only sex that is a sin in a marriage is sex with someone not your spouse. I am not sure where you get the idea that sex not singularly for procreation is a sin?


Well, it has been considered such, and some sects consider it such. If your sect is more lenient on the issue, that's good for you; but it is my understanding (which may be flawed) that that is a "liberalized" position.

For example, birth control used to be illegal in this country. Why? Why birth control be illegal? Because birth control was used exclusively for purposes of non-procreative sex.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 02:56 PM (QbA6l)

19 I presume Joseph Farah is as well -- on that last point. I am not prepared to believe that he only engages in sex for purposes of creating children. I do not believe that is true of nearly anyone.
I engage in sex for the purpose of experiencing children.

Posted by: Roman Polanski at August 20, 2010 02:57 PM (QKKT0)

20 I guess I see both sides of the coin.
I respect Farrah's right to believe in what he believes. It may be wrong (I think it is) but if that is how he views his religious faith, then that is how he views it.
On the other hand, I do not see anything inherently contradictory in being a Gay Conservative. Conservatism is more than social conservatives. All elements of the conservative movement are needed to be successful.
Maybe its just time people took a more live and let live approach.
On the issue of gay marriage, I can see where a conservative can oppose the judicial imposition of gay marriage and not be against homosexuality or think homosexuality is a sin. You can oppose it because its an establishment of a right not otherwise found in the Constitution. This, of course, opens the door for the establishment of even more rights not found in the Constitution, like the right to clean air (good bye, coal burning fuel plant, wax candles, get your wax candles here), clean water (good bye barge traffic) and so forth.
So, lets not start the circular firing squad just yet.

Posted by: Mallamutt at August 20, 2010 02:57 PM (OWjjx)

21
Okay, all I want to know is what the point of GOPPud is. Why can't they just be conservatives?



Posted by: I'm Video Professor, try my CDs at August 20, 2010 02:59 PM (uFokq)

22 Joe Farah is still here?

The Mothership was due to take him back two hecblarbs ago.

Posted by: eman at August 20, 2010 02:59 PM (Nw/hR)

23 There is no side to take. Can't Farah dump anyone he likes? Did he hurt you by doing it?

/ he's kind of a nut though

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 03:00 PM (+sBB4)

24 I'm beyond tired of being told that my politics and someone else's religious views must be somehow consonant.

I aggressively don't give a shit about the religiosity of the religious right, and become actively hostile when they take their issues as the basis upon which everyone else should be judged to be conservative.


Separately:

As to Ace's comment @18, the last straw for me as a Catholic was when John Paul II, during a trip to Africa years ago, stated that avoiding marital sex for the sole reason of preventing pregnancy was a sin.

That's just fucking stupid.

Posted by: Patton at August 20, 2010 03:01 PM (bQoya)

25 That's [Palin] pretty much right. Was this a firing offense? Oh please. She
didn't use the n-word in anger; she was illustrating its ubiquity among
black comics and rappers. -- Ace

I agree.

And what of that same firing offense when "nappy headed hoes" as an illustration wasn't used in anger, but rather a backhanded compliment?

Judge Roy Bean: "I did call you whores. I apologize and I am sorry. But you should remember that I didn't call you fornicators, gutter trash...But I did call you whores and ask that you forgive me."


Posted by: mavrick muse at August 20, 2010 03:01 PM (H+LJc)

26 Why birth control be illegal? Because birth control was used exclusively for purposes of non-procreative sex. Your thinking of marriage.......oh wait, you said non-procreative sex, not non-existent sex......never mind.

Posted by: Mallamutt at August 20, 2010 03:01 PM (OWjjx)

27 Palin, on the other hand is trying to get everyone to take a stand against the radical left's PC shackles. As long as we willingly wear the shackles, we are submissive to them.

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 03:02 PM (+sBB4)

28 For example, birth control used to be illegal in this country. Why? Why birth control be illegal? Because birth control was used exclusively for purposes of non-procreative sex.
Posted by: ace

Which included both sex within and outside of a marriage. Selling birth control freely was believed to be an encouragement to sex outside of marriage, which society frowned upon, due to stuffy moral preening, like unwed teenage mothers, diseases that woman tended to contract at a higher rate than men, and who who found it harder to detect and cure (if at all). Society does tend to encourage what it finds to be beneficial (kids being created within marriages) and attempts to discourage that which it deems to be not beneficial (having kids with close relatives, those who cannot handle the consequences of having sex).

Such attitudes are not the sole (no pun intended) of various 'sects'.

Posted by: Blue Hen at August 20, 2010 03:02 PM (R2fpr)

29 Sloth. Yeah. I like that one.

Posted by: Cicero at August 20, 2010 03:03 PM (QKKT0)

30 As has been explained to you by the MFM, the progressives, and the Obama Administration ad infinitum, I am a hating hater who hates. But I can't get up a good hatred against the homos. At best they rank up there with those who drive under speed limit in the passing lane.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 20, 2010 03:03 PM (xxgag)

31 >>>The only sex that is a sin in a marriage is sex with someone not your spouse. I am not sure where you get the idea that sex not singularly for procreation is a sin? Well, it has been considered such, and some sects consider it such. If your sect is more lenient on the issue, that's good for you; but it is my understanding (which may be flawed) that that is a "liberalized" position. For example, birth control used to be illegal in this country. Why? Why birth control be illegal? Because birth control was used exclusively for purposes of non-procreative sex.>>>

Well, I would consider those that believe nonprocreative sex as a sin as a cult of nuts. Birth control is a trickier matter. I am for birth control as long as I am not the next egg taking the next shot at life.

Posted by: jlfintx at August 20, 2010 03:03 PM (06kXx)

32 Sarah Palin == Presidential material

Joseph Farah == Not

Presidential material > Not

Sarah Palin > Joseph Farah

I do believe that's enough math for one day and is an irrefutable proof.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at August 20, 2010 03:03 PM (swuwV)

33 Wait, I thought Ace was a bastard found in a basket?
Don't be silly. He was obviously raised by Belgians to be evil. You know, that old schtick.

Posted by: StuckOnStupid at August 20, 2010 03:04 PM (e8T35)

34 I thought Farrah was dead.

And why is she trashing homosexuals. Are we supposed to believe that hairdo she sported back the Charlie's Angels was the creation of a straight stylist? Oh sister, puh-leaze!

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at August 20, 2010 03:04 PM (HqpV0)

35 >>> Why can't they just be conservatives?

Why do you need a Tea Party? Why do we have Jewish Conservative groups?

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:04 PM (QbA6l)

36 3. I can't help but notice that homosexuality is elevated to rather
higher position on the food-pyramid of sins than seems necessary. I
note that in my every day life, I wrestle with all sorts of sins:
Sloth, probably at the top, then Lust, then Envy, then Wrath....
actually, all four of those are separated only by the slightest titches;
it's nearly a four-way tie. Pride and Gluttony aren't far behind,
either.

--Exactly. Leave it to the liberal homosexualist movement to obsess over sex. We should focus on things like prosperity that make everybody (even asexuals) happier.

Posted by: logprof at August 20, 2010 03:04 PM (BP6Z1)

37 "Please come upstairs and we will do a fabulous makeover"

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 03:06 PM (+sBB4)

38 Considering the number of species on the planet that display homosexual behaviour, it's hard not to determine that for a percentage of the population this is "normal".

Yes, yes, Christians see us in a fallen world and all that, jeez makes most conspiracy theories seem pretty small in comparison.

Posted by: mitchel44 at August 20, 2010 03:06 PM (/iEDY)

39 Right on again. What a surprise.

Posted by: gg at August 20, 2010 03:06 PM (l0ugf)

40 Farah's view of the conservative movement seems to be rather different than that of well, most conservatives. I'm guessing that less than 1% of conservatives have even heard of GOProud. So if it's a blight, it's a remarkably obscure one.

Posted by: Mætenloch at August 20, 2010 03:06 PM (f5vi+)

41 Sarah and Laura are wrong about one thing. It's not a First Amendment issue.

Posted by: douger at August 20, 2010 03:06 PM (FOIzz)

42 You know I really was waiting a while to find a post where this link might be pertinant. It's probably not but here it goes anyway.

Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qopyyrtzgbu

Twilight for guys, SFW no nudity, and does relate to the post by having a strong pro lesbian message.

Posted by: Mr Pink at August 20, 2010 03:07 PM (zetcy)

43
Homosexuality is not the problem or a problem.

Militancy is the problem.

Fear is the problem.

Ignorance is the problem.

Dogmatism is the problem.

Posted by: eman at August 20, 2010 03:07 PM (Nw/hR)

44 Me thinks Ace misses the whole point. If Coulter were to be speaking to a group celebrating fornication say "FornoCon" or "AdultryCon" I'm sure Farah would boot her for that as well.

Posted by: Brian at August 20, 2010 03:07 PM (WOlqe)

45 Then only unteniable position is held by gay marraige supporters. If the government of the United States or any individual state chooses to legalize (or find banning it unconstitutional) gay marraige, then they MUST legalize and/or determine constitutional the right to marry at any age, with any number of humans, with any number of non-humans, and all sorts of stuff like that, including incest.
By legalizing it or finding the banning of it unconstitutional, then they have determined that societal costs have absolutely no bearing on the topic of marraige and thus all others must be allowed.

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2010 03:07 PM (gUGI6)

46 I don't want to invade her privacy: But am I to understand that Joseph
Farah believes she was celibate throughout this time period? That her
various boyfriends were content with some hand-holding and maybe some
light necking?

--Maybe he thinks they're gay!

Posted by: logprof at August 20, 2010 03:07 PM (BP6Z1)

47 Well, I would consider those that believe nonprocreative sex as a sin as a cult of nuts.
While I would disagree with there view that nonprocreative sex is a sin, I would not say that it is nuts. Is it something I would believe.....no. But, it is their right to believe as they wish.
I raise this point only because, in a time when the left loves to hammer Christians and Christianity,I think it behooves us to be careful about judging those who have a different faith and different view of God than ourselves.They have that right to believe it....and if their belief is not impacting you, then I say no harm...no foul.

Posted by: Mallamutt at August 20, 2010 03:07 PM (OWjjx)

48 Dogmatism is the problem.
Posted by: eman

Hater.

Posted by: Zombie Old Yeller at August 20, 2010 03:08 PM (R2fpr)

49 This is the folly of liberals which breaks my heart to see conservatives follow in: That we can make people better if only we use the tools of coercion at hand to force them to be better.
-------------------------------

Damn straight. Social engineering stinks no matter which side it comes from.

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 03:08 PM (T+ReL)

50 >>>If Coulter were to be speaking to a group celebrating fornication say "FornoCon" or "AdultryCon" I'm sure Farah would boot her for that as well.

Ann Coulter is a walking advertisement for sex-outside-of-marriage. Why was she on the payroll in the first place?

Why hasn't this whore gotten hitched?

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:08 PM (QbA6l)

51 I have no idea who Farah is. Don't care much.
Anyway, I agree with most of your post, Ace.
I would say that there could be a case to be made, morallynot legally, for avoiding groups that are trying to pass off as immoral what has been long seen as otherwise. Trying to prevent one more hole in the... whoops, almost walked into a bad pun there.
But I don't think that case is very strong, and there is much more use for nuance, understanding, working together toward common goals in desperate times, etc. And I remembera certain sinless man, who had quite a hard line against sin of all sort, eating and meeting with thieves and prostitutes, so I don't see the case for saying Coulter is doing anything wrong.

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 03:08 PM (zQKSr)

52 Can't Farah dump anyone he likes? Did he hurt you by doing it?

As the '10/'12 campaign rhetoric is being formulated with taboos.

Verboten:
natural born citizen
homosexuality
gay marriage
? Blagojevich
What bill(s) the Republicans will pass to negate ObamaCare, Inc.


Posted by: mavrick muse at August 20, 2010 03:09 PM (H+LJc)

53 What I don't get is why Palin invoked the First Amendment. From the tweets alone, it looks like she doesn't understand the basics of the Constitution. The FB post doesn't make the same mistake, but still, you don't know that the Bill of Rights applies, almost exclusively, to government actions?

Posted by: Xander Crews at August 20, 2010 03:09 PM (HRnvS)

54 Homosexuality is not the problem or a problem.





Militancy is the problem.





Fear is the problem.





Ignorance is the problem.





Dogmatism is the problem.

Posted by: eman at August 20, 2010 03:07 PM (Nw/hR)
Word.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 20, 2010 03:09 PM (xxgag)

55 "This is the folly of liberals which breaks my heart to see conservatives follow in: That we can make people better if only we use the tools of coercion at hand to force them to be better. "

I used to get beaten up for this here and over at Malkins little circle jerk, but there is no such thing as a "conservative nanny state". I don't need government saving my soul any more then I need it to tell me I am an ignorant racist or whatever the control-pejorative de jour is. Crackpots like Farrah are just the obverse of the same coin.

As an aside: As one of the leading advocates of "stay at home on 4 november to teach the RINOs a lesson by helping to elect a man caused disaster who will sodomize the population into getting it's mind right" I hope Farah's dick rots off.

Posted by: Boxy Brown at August 20, 2010 03:09 PM (sl+nN)

56 Lookit, I've called all my buddies; homo, queer, faggot, etc. I've never called an actual homo a homo. Why? Why would you? He bases his opinion on scripture. Fine. BUT, America is based on The Consitution and The Bill of Rights.
All men are created equal. Even you ass pirates!

Posted by: Sgt. Fury at August 20, 2010 03:10 PM (4dEOx)

57 Opposing homosexuality is "moral poison"? Are you serious? Have you read the Bible? At least a couple of pages?

Spend some time there, my friend. It'll knock that poisonous chip off your soul.

Posted by: Jeff H at August 20, 2010 03:10 PM (jpUGh)

58 My favorite thing about both the Jews and the homos is that neither group is trying to get me to join the team.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 20, 2010 03:10 PM (xxgag)

59 So it's the Good Gays vs. the Bad Gays? Which side are we on?

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 03:11 PM (+sBB4)

60 Um, why does the opinion of an atheist on moral/sin issues matter? To a Christian, if you can't back your views scripturally, they are worthless. To non-believers the notion of sin doesn't matter anyway.

Posted by: Methos at August 20, 2010 03:11 PM (ZgsIj)

61 The FB post doesn't make the same mistake, but still, you don't know that the Bill of Rights applies, almost exclusively, to government actions?
Yes and thanks. I have a huge pet peeve with people who get in trouble for saying something (e.g....the Dixie Chicks) and then start screaming that their First Amendment rights are being violated. No, they aren't. Your employer can fire you, for the most part, if they find your speech offensive. People can not be compelled to buy your product if your speech offends them.

Posted by: Mallamutt at August 20, 2010 03:12 PM (OWjjx)

62 >>>Opposing homosexuality is "moral poison"? Are you serious? Have you read the Bible? At least a couple of pages?

Every other day I make a statement about either watching porn or having sex-out-of-marriage and no one says a goddamn thing to me.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:12 PM (QbA6l)

63 Thanks for jumping on this, I've been snipping at the GOP in chaos view the alternate-reality-based community has had with the Palin, Dr. L., Fredrick Douglas group has had.

Honestly, if Dr. L can't say what she said, then what's the point, the N-word is for white people an instant death sentence.

Posted by: joeindc44 at August 20, 2010 03:12 PM (QxSug)

64 Tempest. Teapot.

Eyes forward, folks. Hit your targets of opportunity after the main objective is achieved.

Posted by: DarkLordOfTheIntarWebs at August 20, 2010 03:13 PM (IkEhE)

65 38
Considering the number of species on the planet that display homosexual
behaviour, it's hard not to determine that for a percentage of the
population this is "normal".

Not a great argument. Many species eat their young.

In fact, most species with hands fling their own poo. Sometimes being an exception is a good thing.

Posted by: AmishDude at August 20, 2010 03:13 PM (T0NGe)

66 Considering the number of species on the planet that display homosexual
behaviour, it's hard not to determine that for a percentage of the
population this is "normal".

Lots of animals eat their own poo or their young too.

And as for that evidence, it needs better scrutiny. There's a lot of agenda-driven research in the field of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. It's not well peer-reviewed and tends to be accepted without question.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 20, 2010 03:13 PM (FkKjr)

67 Every other day I make a statement about either watching porn or having sex-out-of-marriage and no one says a goddamn thing to me.
Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:12 PM (QbA6l)
Uh, yeah Ace. I've been kinda meaning to talk to you about that...

Posted by: Cicero at August 20, 2010 03:14 PM (QKKT0)

68 Okay, all I want to know is what the point of GOPPud is. Why can't they just be conservatives?Posted by: I'm Video Professor, try my CDs

What's the point of Mama Grizzlies? Why can't they just be conservatives?

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 03:14 PM (T+ReL)

69 Farah is a fucking bible thumping nut job who I want to run out of the conservative movement, ok?

Seriously, fuck Farah. He embarrasses ME. I'm tired of having to explain his brand of whacky, fringe, conspiracy minded "conservatism" and he's frequently Exhibit A in the left's "Why The Right Wing Is Inbred, Bat Shit Insane".

I quit reading his rag back in the mid to late 90's when he started pimping bullshit conspiracy theories about Clinton (Mena, anyone?) back when there was plenty of low hanging, real fruit to pick when it came to Clintonian excess. But no, he had to go the Mena route, along with assorted other whack job nonsense.

He's a doctrinaire, humorless scold and I'm sick of him.

Posted by: Fred at August 20, 2010 03:14 PM (xWGQr)

70
I am more disturbed by knowing Coulter hangs out with Deadheads. Those stinking hippies could give you a patchouli rash.

Posted by: Atomic Roach at August 20, 2010 03:14 PM (rMMMP)

71 The one problem with your argument is that conservative Evangelical Christians still think that all conservatives are/should be with them on social issues.

The GOP has made a habit of taking political positions in line with Evangelical positions since the 1980s, like homosexuality is immoral, etc. GOP candidates counted on the Christian vote and that’s how they got it. Now that Falwell is gone, Dobson is retired and Robertson’s out of the spotlight, there’s not so much pressure on conservatives to take stands on social issues like gay marriage. They don’t need Evangelical votes as much as they did in the past.

Right now it seems to me that conservatives are trying to figure out which is more important – social issues or governmental issues like taxes and the extent of government power – and that’s where the fractures in conservatism are.

Posted by: JEA at August 20, 2010 03:14 PM (WGbtD)

72 Ace, you really assume Coulter is 29?

Posted by: Abby Adams at August 20, 2010 03:14 PM (pLTLS)

73 Farah may well be right, but conservatism isn't Christianity. Christianity isn't a government. How could politicians survive with "Thou Shalt Not Steal"?

I'd also venture to say that Paul's observation that gays are a sign of a society turning away from God merits a "Duh!" But he doesn't say to destroy them. I imagine he'd say get more active in your family, the schools, churches, and local politics and let God worry about the rest. (Admittedly, I could really be off-base here)

Posted by: t-bird at August 20, 2010 03:15 PM (FcR7P)

74 I think we can all learn something from Mr. Farah.

Posted by: Mike Huckabee at August 20, 2010 03:15 PM (QKKT0)

75 I meant to say something to ace about him killing hobos and drinking their blood, but, hey, I figured it was his site and all.

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 03:15 PM (+sBB4)

76 And as for that evidence, it needs better scrutiny. There's a lot of agenda-driven research in the field of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. It's not well peer-reviewed and tends to be accepted without question.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk

Good point. Remember when we were told that war, rapeand torture were exclusively human activities? And how Jane Goodall admitted being reluctant to report that she had seen all three exhibited by chimpanzees?

Posted by: Zombie Old Yeller at August 20, 2010 03:15 PM (R2fpr)

77 Oh, my this is just too sweet for words:
"Generic Congressional BallotGeneric Ballot: Republican 48%, Democrat 36%"
"Republican candidates have jumped out to a record-setting 12-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, August 15, 2010. This is the biggest lead the GOP has held in over a decade of Rasmussen Reports surveying."
Likely voters. Not Adults. Not registered voters.
Likely voters.
I'm beginning to think that the Republicans might also take back the Senate.
Source:
http://tinyurl.com/l4cdqt

Posted by: Lazarus Long at August 20, 2010 03:15 PM (8edQv)

78 And I remembera certain sinless man, who had
quite a hard line against sin of all sort, eating and meeting with
thieves and prostitutes, so I don't see the case for saying Coulter is
doing anything wrong.

Posted by: Randy

Touché!

Posted by: mavrick muse at August 20, 2010 03:16 PM (H+LJc)

79 I'm guessing that less than 1% of conservatives have even heard of GOProud.
The very small number of people I've heard mention it have said, basically, it's Log Cabin for conservatives. So the Huckabites (and other lefties) hate it, and everyone else thinks it's fine.

Posted by: oblig. at August 20, 2010 03:17 PM (x7Ao8)

80 Um, why does the opinion of an atheist on moral/sin issues matter? To a Christian, if you can't back your views scripturally, they are worthless. To non-believers the notion of sin doesn't matter anyway.
Posted by: Methos

You don't have to be a Christian or accept any other Faith to be a moral person.

I hope someday you see that.

Posted by: eman at August 20, 2010 03:17 PM (Nw/hR)

81 Well..no one told me Farrah was advocating that voters stay home on election day because of RINOs....
Screw him now.....Farrah, your dead to me, hear that, your dead to me.

Posted by: Don Mallamutt, looking forward to settling Family business in November, 2010 at August 20, 2010 03:17 PM (OWjjx)

82 Every other day I make a statement about either watching porn or thaving sex-out-of-marriage and no one says a goddamn thing to me.
*head spins around*
This is the trifecta of wickedness. Repent, heathen, repent!

Posted by: Thumper ready to quote the Book of Somethingorother at August 20, 2010 03:18 PM (mVwJ/)

83 47

Well, I would consider those that believe nonprocreative sex as a sin as a cult of nuts.

While I would disagree with there view that nonprocreative sex is a
sin, I would not say that it is nuts. Is it something I would
believe.....no. But, it is their right to believe as they wish.

I raise this point only because, in a time when the left loves to
hammer Christians and Christianity,I think it behooves us to be
careful about judging those who have a different faith and different
view of God than ourselves.They have that right to believe it....and if
their belief is not impacting you, then I say no harm...no foul.



Posted by: Mallamutt at August 20, 2010 03:07 PM (OWjjx)
--Well, both the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox teach against non-procreative sex, so that's more like the majority of Christians than fringe sects.("He said 'sects'!")

Posted by: logprof at August 20, 2010 03:18 PM (BP6Z1)

84 And as for that evidence, it needs better scrutiny. There's a lot of agenda-driven research in the field of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. It's not well peer-reviewed and tends to be accepted without question.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 20, 2010 03:13 PM (FkKjr)
Appalling. Anyone who fakes data to advance a political agenda whould be beaten to death with a hockey stick.

Posted by: Al Gore, Taking Care of THIS at August 20, 2010 03:18 PM (QKKT0)

85 You know, you made some real good points there, Ace, even though you did go on WAY too long about it. If you could cut the verbiage back by about 2/3 you'd have a hell of an argument.

Posted by: Tom Servo at August 20, 2010 03:18 PM (T1boi)

86 How about a GodlessOP group for all agnostic and atheist Republicans? We can show everyone how big our tent is?

Posted by: polynikes

I don't care about "showing how big our tent is," but I might join so I could hang out with people who get why political conservatism is still the best home for agnostics and atheists.

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 03:19 PM (T+ReL)

87 And as for that evidence, it needs better scrutiny.
There's a lot of agenda-driven research in the field of homosexuality
in the animal kingdom. It's not well peer-reviewed and tends to be
accepted without question.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 20, 2010 03:13 PM (FkKjr)
Dude, STFU!

Posted by: Phil Jones at August 20, 2010 03:19 PM (BP6Z1)

88 So, gay marriage really is just about marriage?

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 03:20 PM (+sBB4)

89 --Well, both the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox teach against non-procreative sex, so that's more like the majority of Christians than fringe sects.
("He said 'sects'!")
I married a Cathlolic. Sometimes, I really think she is practicing that particular part of the faith IYKWIMAYPD.

Posted by: Mallamutt at August 20, 2010 03:21 PM (OWjjx)

90 >>>He also had no trouble telling them that they were sinning but that he was the light away from their sin.

Is Joseph Farrah a political actor? Or is he more of a religious figure?

I feel there is a rejection of any scrutiny into the legitimate ends of the state, here, of the legitimate and limited ends of POLITICS.

When a political actor urges an agenda I take that to be a political position, not a religious one.

We sit here all day hammering liberals on an appreciation of the legitimate ends of political power but we're going to say that the government ought to have an official position on the relative sinfulness of homosexual sex?

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:21 PM (QbA6l)

91 Fred Thompson said, God willing, that he thought the Republicans could take back the majority in both houses.

power of thought

Posted by: mavrick muse at August 20, 2010 03:21 PM (H+LJc)

92 It appears to me (as a never-been-baptized heathen) that this is a render-unto-Caesar issue. If we mix religion with our politics we will corrupt both religion and politics. Gospel truth is that homosexuality is not destroying the country. Progressives are destroying the country. Let's keep our eye on the ball.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 20, 2010 03:21 PM (xxgag)

93 Farah may think he has the sole right to determine what is acceptable in the big-C Conservative movement: he does not. The Conservative movement may include a number of people who view homosexuality as an abomination, but it includes people who do not, and even some who don't regard it asabnormal (in the sense ofnot being a disease or disorder,as opposedto what is normative, what society holds up as an ideal to follow).
And the word, Ace, is abomination. The reason Farah elevates his concern over homosexuality above the other sins you mention is that in his view, homosexual intercourse isn't merely sin, it's a crime against God. Which puts him on the same level of theological and societal thinking as the Taliban and the Iranian mullahs on this particular issue -- though I grant that I haven't seen Farah call for homosexuals to be put to death, only shunned.
Farah has the right (under the First Amendment) to believe that homosexual sex is an abomination and the right not to associate with people who disagree with him -- but he doesn't have the right to insist that the rest of us use that same single criterion to decide who is or is not a Conservative.

Posted by: stuiec at August 20, 2010 03:21 PM (7AOgy)

94 18 My understanding about the birth control debate is that it's more about the actual point of conception than anything else. So, many of those families with 15 kids don't use birth control because they would consider it murder.
The number of people who hold that position within the Evangelical Movement are fewer than some would have you believe. Also, to add to the debate about sex, God states its purpose is more than just procreation in Song of Songs/Solomon, for one.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 03:22 PM (Yq+qN)

95 "Well, both the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox teach against non-procreative sex..."
In Catholic school I was taught how to avoid pregnancy by using the rhythm method. Btw, the lady in filmstrip had about 8 kids. That shit really works!

Posted by: Joanie (Oven Gloves) at August 20, 2010 03:22 PM (HaYO4)

96 Ave. Voter Turned Off by the Bible Beating

Yet I notice that Obama's daily verse and constant praying doesn't concern your type.

Weird.


Posted by: Rob Crawford at August 20, 2010 03:22 PM (ZJ/un)

97 amen and amen ace. farah is a hypocritical twat, who will cast out of the party who dont see God as he does. lets ask him if he's ever had premarital sex, or masturbated. I'll bet him $1000 right now he has. any one else willing to take that bet? see, his ilk are liberals who go to church and want to coerce all to do the same

Posted by: scott at August 20, 2010 03:22 PM (MsOtr)

98 PS, before you say "But Farrah isn't saying anything about poltiics" --

The conference he fired Coulter from is titled, specifically, "TAKING GOVERNMENT BACK."

So I do not embrace this notion that he was "only" offering a personal observation. It appears to me that he considers a general benign disregard for people's sexual habits to be antithetical to the program of, as he himself titled it, "TAKING GOVERNMENT BACK."

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:22 PM (QbA6l)

99 #73, I think that would be up there with assuming Ann is straight.

Posted by: SGT Dan at August 20, 2010 03:22 PM (GgXZc)

100 Every other day I make a statement about either watching porn or having
sex-out-of-marriage and no one says a goddamn thing to me....

Bullsh** Ace! Every time you make those statements, I always respond with either "What Channel" or "Sure sweetie! you wanna be top or bottom".

Why do you have to lie like this Ace? Are you ashamed of our love?


Posted by: Kasper Hauser at August 20, 2010 03:22 PM (HqpV0)

101 89,

Nicely said, arhooley.

Posted by: eman at August 20, 2010 03:23 PM (Nw/hR)

102 Then, from JG:
Moreover, the Big Apple is a Hieronymus Bosch hellscape for landlords
and developers. Rent control, historic preservation, zoning,
environmental impact, community protests, union delays — not to mention
plain old red tape and corruption — offer enough tools to stop any
project before it starts. (Heck, Ground Zero is still a gaping hole, and
everyone has wanted that land to be developed, fast.)

The notion that Bloomberg couldn’t have quietly stopped this in New
York is like saying Satan is powerless to do anything about the heat in
Hades.

Now, from ace:
The fact that he's willing to use what power he has for coercive means
suggests to me he'd do the same were anyone imprudent enough to place
him in a position of government power.

Nuance.

Posted by: Jerk the Greek at August 20, 2010 03:23 PM (VMQj4)

103 Heaven forbid we should alienate the 25 gay GOP voters. We are better off pissing off the millions of family values voters. GOPROUD wants to force the entire homosexual agenda down our throats while mentioning some boilerplate talking points about low taxes and less government. It is clear from their web site what their main priorities are and most Conservatives are against them all. The score on gay marriage is 31-0 against. We don't need to pander to the gay movement to win elections.

Posted by: Ken Royall at August 20, 2010 03:23 PM (9zzk+)

104 Good post.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 20, 2010 03:24 PM (qjTXV)

105 >>>And the word, Ace, is abomination. The reason Farah elevates his concern over homosexuality above the other sins you mention is that in his view, homosexual intercourse isn't merely sin, it's a crime against God.

I don't want to get all liberal on you but you are aware that in Leviticus there are a whole bunch of things elevated to a high level of sinfulness? And that Jesus apparently (from what we have written down) didn't himself reiterate that as among the highest of all sins?

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:24 PM (QbA6l)

106 We sit here all day hammering liberals on an appreciation of the legitimate ends of political power but we're going to say that the government ought to have an official position on the relative sinfulness of homosexual sex?
Posted by: ace

Well, having such a position may prevent what an earlier post noted, having "Heather has Two Mommies" as part of one's child's curiculum. Conversely, having no position, or the government reaching such a position via (ahem) 'back-door' means (court rulings) may be the alternative.

Posted by: Blue Hen at August 20, 2010 03:25 PM (R2fpr)

107 lets ask him if he's ever had premarital sex, or
masturbated. I'll bet him $1000 right now he has. any one else willing
to take that bet?

Posted by: scott at August 20, 2010 03:22 PM (MsOtr)

Huh? You lost me there. You like asking dudes about masturbating?

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 03:25 PM (+sBB4)

108 I like gay people, I like straight people. But we all sin and fall short. I won't disect everything, (as there are some areas I disagree with Mr. Ace of Spades and I enjoy your blog)but what I do know about homosexulity is that it is not what God created in the first place. It wasn't an Adam and Steve thing.
I treat everyone with the same respect and consideration that I myself would want,and even though I will go out and make about 5 mistakes today, I only know one thing---that whatever makes my Lord happy, I am happy too. So if I fail, I will keep on trying with His help. I am no better than you, as a matter of fact I admit to being the biggest rebel/sinner of all.Most importantthat when you stand for something, it better be for truth, and not just whatever suits the world. Oh well, be it repulican or democrat, I am still sure of one thing--that whatever God wants it will come to pass. If people don't want Him, then they have the right to choose--and sadly most will bypass Him.

Posted by: Arlene Billson at August 20, 2010 03:25 PM (yNiaP)

109 "Of course I'm not. I'm just not guilty of that sin, but I'm not free of that sin due to devotion to God or exercise of willpower or the strengthening power of faith: I'm free of that sin for the same reason I'm free of the sin (were it a sin) of eating tarantulas. Because I don't want to.""It strikes me as very convenient, self-serving position to take that the most important sin out there, the most destructive sin, the one, as Farah says, actually destroys whole societies, is the sin that those who are most concerned with it aren't ever tempted to commit in their entire lives."
Grade A insight, Ace. This is a Nature-Nurture conflict that Nature wins.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at August 20, 2010 03:25 PM (swuwV)

110 This is a theological question. I don't really mind someone holding a theological position.

But Farah is a political actor, not a theologian. He fired Ann from speaking at a conference on, his title, "TAKING GOVERNMENT BACK" over this.

Is it his belief that his theological belief is a key component of taking government back?

In what way? In what way would his conception of a restored government differ on this question than Coulter's?

If the answer is "none at all" -- why was she fired?

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:25 PM (QbA6l)

111
The number of people who hold that position
within the Evangelical Movement are fewer than some would have you
believe. Also, to add to the debate about sex, God states its purpose is
more than just procreation in Song of Songs/Solomon, for one.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 03:22 PM (Yq+qN)
--Yeah, I think I probably worded it wrong. Lest I draw fire from my Catholic friends, I think the way of putting the Catholic position is that it does not have to be procreative technically (I mean, how would you know that a given session is guaranteed to produce a child?), but rather that potential procreation is not supposed to be hindered, that is has to be "open" to childbearing.

Posted by: logprof at August 20, 2010 03:26 PM (BP6Z1)

112 I think you're misinterpreting Farah, and that's partly his fault; he doesn't seem to have considered how his words to Coulter, meant as from one Christian to another, would be read by others.

This is not about banning people from the conservative movement for immoral behavior. This is about whether prominent conservatives should provide aid and comfort to GOProud, an organization which has as one of its prime goals to institute a radical social change (gay "marriage") that would force everyone to condone a way of life that most Americans still consider immoral and socially destructive.

Posted by: Michael Bates at August 20, 2010 03:26 PM (ysK9M)

113 ubiquity ... I just love that word ....

Posted by: netanyahuwoohoo at August 20, 2010 03:26 PM (GvYeG)

114 Superb commentary Ace! Just superb.

I found the point about the convenience of condemning someone for a sin which you personally never feel the urge to commit to be particularly compelling. That certainly moves it down the self-righteous Sin-O-Meter a few notches. I hadn't thought about it in that way.

But a caveat on the logic. I've never felt the urge to rape a woman, not even in my fantasies. I regard the act of truly forced sex as repulsive. Yet that does little to make rapists more acceptable to me or want to reduce penalties for it -- i.e. because I am not personally tempted.

So lack of temptation should not result automatically in lack of sanctions. But you sure made me think, and I appreciate your insights a lot.

Regarding Coulter and Farah, I've got no problem backing Ann in this 100%.

Posted by: DaMav at August 20, 2010 03:26 PM (QNU76)

115 To non-believers the notion of sin doesn't matter anyway.

Posted by: Methos

Not quite.

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 03:26 PM (T+ReL)

116 ace, I take your point about the sin of homosexual sex being easy for straights to avoid, and difficult for homos to avoid.
I don't know why some people are gay, and others are straight. It's probably 90% inate, and 10% choice. Or something like that. Each person's percentage will vary.
Me? I'm straight. In a long term, monogomas* relationship with a woman. Not married. Living in sin and all of that. Having sex for non-procreative purposes.
Well, I don't get too much shit for that. from society. Most people seem to just turn a blind eye to it. Which is cool.
But it bugs the living shit out of me when my lifestyle is elevated to being just one of several wonderful choices, each equally valid and affirming. Married, single, mongamous* or polysexual, all are equally wonderful!!! One parent, two parents or more, super!
No they aren't. My relationship is flawed. Yeah, I know what the right thing is, and I don't do it. Shame on me. But I don't want my sins/flaws exonerated or washed away is not being existent.
Sure, I don't want to be put in the public stocks, or locked up in jail for it. But I don't want my lifestyle to be judged as completely peachy.
Which is how I feel about gay relationships. I'm willing to turn a blind eye. Forego the criminal and social penalties. You know, what goes on in private bedrooms is not my business.
But I'm not able to step up and say publically that they are just are normal/natural/aceptable/ideal/whatever as straights.Just like my single / non married relationship isn't as normal/natural/aceptable/whatever as marriage.
If this means there is a common ground between me and the gay community, then great. Build bridges and all that.
If this means there isn't, then there isn't.

*When I proof read this, I noticed how messed up my spelling for monogamus (sic?) was. But for somereason, my miss-spelling made me giggle, so I left it in for all of you morons, gay or straight to laugh at or with.

Posted by: ed at August 20, 2010 03:26 PM (Zsqn4)

117 We sit here all day hammering liberals on an
appreciation of the legitimate ends of political power but we're going
to say that the government ought to have an official position on the
relative sinfulness of homosexual sex?







Posted by: ace

The question, of course, is a good one.

But isn't it the Leftists who use government to indoctrinate our children from their youngest years on the virtues of homosexual behavior?

Wasn't it by leaving the topic a personal choice issue off the public debate burner that enabled the Leftists to monopolize definitions and meanings for our society?

How to retract what has already encroached and succeeded in usurping all authority into the authoritarian mode in government?


Posted by: mavrick muse at August 20, 2010 03:26 PM (H+LJc)

118 I am still neocon in my faith in military solutions, in case anyone is taking notes for a future purge of the movement.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at August 20, 2010 03:26 PM (ffEms)

119 I hate to say it but this looks alot like link bait for HuffPo and Kos ...
they must love these sorts of posts on the right ...

Posted by: Jeff at August 20, 2010 03:28 PM (A3tpD)

120 I note that in my every day life, I wrestle with all sorts of sins: Sloth, probably at the top, then Lust, then Envy, then Wrath.... actually, all four of those are separated only by the slightest titches; it's nearly a four-way tie. Pride and Gluttony aren't far behind, either.
You forgotecological sins.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 20, 2010 03:28 PM (qjTXV)

121
Ace is like St. Peter when he denied "knowing" Jesus. You swore you would never do that to me, Ace. sob!

Posted by: Guy Who Hangs Out In the Men's Room at August 20, 2010 03:28 PM (Ez4Ql)

122 >>>hat I do know about homosexulity is that it is not what God created in the first place. It wasn't an Adam and Steve thing.

Right, but God also didn't create Internet porn and it also wasn't in his plan that I would spend a certain number of hours pounding my genitals with the mechanical fury of a misfiring industrial robot, either, and yet...

... not really up there with homosexuality. Onanism is called out as a sin but people seem to generally treat it as a venal one, a minor one; and I can't help that's because a lot of dudes LIKE porn, but most don't like gay sex.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:28 PM (QbA6l)

123 60 Um, why does the opinion of an atheist on moral/sin issues matter? To a Christian, if you can't back your views scripturally, they are worthless. To non-believers the notion of sin doesn't matter anyway.
Posted by: Methos at August 20, 2010 03:11 PM (ZgsIj)
Ace makes cogent points, granting the grounds that what the Bible calls sin is. I see no reason he can't speak on the matter if his opinions hold.
Ace's argument reminds me of what I was reading in CS Lewis last month; along the lines of different people are tempted in various ways and in various degrees, and the naturally decent man who makes no effort to improve himself is not better than the by nature perverse man who struggles with his behavior.

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 03:28 PM (zQKSr)

124 Btw, the lady in filmstrip had about 8 kids. That shit really works!
Before we were married, Mrs. Mallamutt and I had to do a religious retreat in order to get married in the church. And yes, they talked about the rytheme method. And they had 3 couples talking about. Number of kids each couple had were: 5, 7 and 9. But it works.......it really works.

Posted by: Mallamutt at August 20, 2010 03:28 PM (OWjjx)

125 We sit here all day hammering liberals on an
appreciation of the legitimate ends of political power but we're going
to say that the government ought to have an official position on the
relative sinfulness of homosexual sex?







Posted by: ace

What of the British law prohibiting homosexuality?

Has it warded off a homosexual monopoly in government?

Posted by: maverick muse at August 20, 2010 03:28 PM (H+LJc)

126 I am not sure where you get the idea that sex not singularly for procreation is a sin?
--Ace

------------------------------

That's right, Ace. Kinda like when you're just practicin' with your cousin.

Posted by: RedneknSC at August 20, 2010 03:28 PM (MbMSS)

127 And listening to glam rock. That's like the eighth sin.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 20, 2010 03:29 PM (qjTXV)

128 At best they rank up there with those who drive under speed limit in the passing lane.
Posted by: WalrusRex at August 20, 2010 03:03 PM (xxgag)

Beg to differ. The vast majority of homosexuals lack the capacity to cause me the massively elevated blood pressure that an old lady gripping the wheel of a '95 Olds and going 25 in the passing lane can cause.

Posted by: joncelli at August 20, 2010 03:29 PM (RD7QR)

129 God dammit my link didnt work. One more try.

Guys version of Twilight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOpyyrtzgBU

Posted by: Mr. Pink at August 20, 2010 03:30 PM (V/EYZ)

130 "I am not sure where you get the idea that sex not singularly for procreation is a sin?"

Posted by: jlfintx at August 20, 2010 02:53 PM (06kXx)

I know that the catholic church is pretty adamant on this one. The catechism says:
" 2370 Every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil"

Basically the only non-procreative sex that is allow is boning during infertile periods of the month...

Posted by: bertramwooster at August 20, 2010 03:30 PM (ywGvX)

131 I don't want to get all liberal on you but you are aware that in Leviticus there are a whole bunch of things elevated to a high level of sinfulness? And that Jesus apparently (from what we have written down) didn't himself reiterate that as among the highest of all sins?
Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:24 PM (QbA6l)
What biblical reference are you refering to here? I'd like to read that. I know about the old testament prohibition, but I'm not aware of where Jesus changed it, or modified it, or whatever it is you are refering to.
Thank you.

Posted by: ed at August 20, 2010 03:30 PM (Zsqn4)

132 Homosexuality wasmostly a religious positionuntil less than a century ago.

It was considered a mental disorder less than 40 years ago.

Posted by: Penfold at August 20, 2010 03:30 PM (1PeEC)

133 Hey, who's not for forcing churches to perform gay marriages? (except mosques, of course)

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 03:30 PM (+sBB4)

134 It's amazing to me how the conservative movement has fragmented over the past 20 years or so. I used to read Farah's newspaper column all the time back in the Eighties; we were on the same side then. Now, whereas I have not moved significantly from my POV then, I find Farah's current positions baffling.

Has he never heard of rendering unto Caesar, etc.? Irrespective of how one feels about homosexuality in a religious context, it is irrelevant to our polity. America is all about people of differing backgrounds uniting under ideas, rather than blood or birth or religion.

As far as homosexuality being a sin: maybe it is on some level, insofar as it is not the way were designed to work physiologically; but even if you view it as a sin, I say: Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Ultimately, if homosexuality were as much a threat to Western civilization as Farah says, there would be eleven Commandments.

Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at August 20, 2010 03:31 PM (kJXs1)

135 --Yeah, I think I probably worded it wrong. Lest I draw fire from my Catholic friends, I think the way of putting the Catholic position is that it does not have to be procreative technically (I mean, how would you know that a given session is guaranteed to produce a child?), but rather that potential procreation is not supposed to be hindered, that is has to be "open" to childbearing.
Posted by: logprof

This is very close to current teachings in the Catholic Church. The fact that natural family planning exists refuts the lie that all sex within a Catholic marriage must be for preocreation. The fact that it can fail is held up for amusement. It's interesting to note that all other forms of birth control have drawbacks, some of which are fatal. Also, when couples are trying to become pregnant, the same behaviors are used to increase chances of success (watching cycles 'religiously').

Posted by: Blue Hen at August 20, 2010 03:31 PM (R2fpr)

136 Generic Congressional BallotGeneric Ballot: Republican 48%, Democrat 36%"...I'm beginning to think that the Republicans might also take back the Senate.
I hate to bang on the DOWNBALLOT drum, but most people vote party ID for statehouse. They generally don't have TV ads and people very rarely know who they are.
The shocking shift to those lower offices will be massive.
And the slide just keeps coming. It's a steady movement that's really not tethered to events. Though events aren't hurting.

Posted by: AmishDude at August 20, 2010 03:31 PM (T0NGe)

137 So if someone has the urge to commit a sin and I don't then the sin should not be condemned? Child molesters would certainly like everyone to think that way about their sexual preferences. Next item on the agenda will be to lower or abolish age of consent.

Posted by: Ken Royall at August 20, 2010 03:31 PM (9zzk+)

138 ' Similarly, a government cannot mandate what sort of sex is legal and what sex is illegal. It can only foster a morality-friendly environment win which moral behavior is likely. '
I hope you don't really believe this. If government can not mandate what kind of sex is legal than we would have to toss our laws in regards to bestiality, rape, and pedophilia. We would also have to get rid of all our age of consent laws. Not sure that is a country I would want to live in.

Posted by: Waste93 at August 20, 2010 03:32 PM (KHM8y)

139 >>>I'm not aware of where Jesus changed it, or modified it, or whatever it is you are refering to.

Did he mention it?

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:32 PM (QbA6l)

140 Guys like Farah don't realize their proclaimations from upon highreek of pride.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 20, 2010 03:32 PM (qjTXV)

141
Hey, I might have sex with many strange women...

but I'm not proud of it.

Posted by: I'm Video Professor, try my CDs at August 20, 2010 03:32 PM (uFokq)

142 I can't help but notice that homosexuality is elevated to rather higher position on the food-pyramid of sins than seems necessary. I note that in my every day life, I wrestle with all sorts of sins: Sloth, probably at the top, then Lust, then Envy, then Wrath.... actually, all four of those are separated only by the slightest titches; it's nearly a four-way tie. Pride and Gluttony aren't far behind, either.
Yup. I hear that. Sloth is a personal fav, but nothing comes close to gluttony. I eat like a pig way too often.
I think the reason it's easy for folk to get disproportionately worked up about teh gays is because it's a "gross" sin to those who aren't into it.The other sins listed above aren't so gross - indeed,they're easy to sympathize with. But the nuts and bolts mechanics of male homosexuality are unpleasant for most of us non-gaysto think about. Thus the emotional element. Also, we've all met those particularly effeminategays, and theirnon-masculinity creates an almost painful cognitivedissonance. But an honest person must admit that extra-marital sex with the opposite sex is just as sinful. And for those who do not believe in a religion that teaches such, it simply is nothing more than a matter of taste.
Anyway, while I'm not interested in hanging out and going back to their place, I'm willing to ally with those few gay folk who want to be on the Right side. We need every vote we can get. And they will never, ever, take over the party. There is no way possible. I think that we get a few more votes, basically for free, by letting them be part of the club. There is also an opportunity to use them for propaganda that will make the squishes less afraid of us.
That said, there is one bit of data that gives me pause, that is not religious in nature. It is my understanding that 80% of all incidents ofchild molestation are same-sex in nature.I think it is possiblethat theCatholic clergy, as an organization,MAY be seeing some of their recent trouble as a result of themassive expansion of gays in their ranks.

Posted by: Reactionary at August 20, 2010 03:32 PM (xUM1Q)

143 I know about the old testament
prohibition, but I'm not aware of where Jesus changed it, or modified
it, or whatever it is you are referring to.
Well, for one thing, Jesus turned water into wine, not amyl nitrate.

/jest

Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at August 20, 2010 03:33 PM (kJXs1)

144 I will be forming a GOPgayhobo voting drive soon.

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 03:33 PM (+sBB4)

145 Thank god ace has taken a break from porn to write this down.

I'm healthy enough already.

Healthy. Enough.

Thanyouverymuch.

oh god ... he's logging onto ewokswithoutshame.com ... again.
If I get any healthier I'll die.

Posted by: Ace's Prostate at August 20, 2010 03:33 PM (Hj0nA)

146 I think Palin is right that the Dr. Laura thing has been blown out of proportion but she's off base with this...
I understand what she meant when she declared that she was “taking back
my First Amendment rights” by turning to a new venue that will not allow
others the ability to silence her by going after her stations,
sponsors, and supporters.

I, and obviously many others, have been “shackled” too by people who
play games with false accusations, threats, frivolous lawsuits,
misreporting, etc., in an effort to silence those with whom they
disagree.

I know cries of "1st Amendment freedom" has generally become synonymous with "say what you want" but it has a real meaning (the government can't stop or sanction you for speech) and people, let alone high profile political leaders, should use the term correctly.

No government was trying to shut Dr. Laura down and the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee her advertisers or protect her from the speech of others, even if costs her money.

Greg Sargent at the Washington Post was running equal wrong BS when he said critics of the Ground Zero mosque were stepping over the line in their criticism because it would stop people from donating to the project.

I get why Palin is sensitive to distortions and over the top blowback but I hate to see her fall into what is usually a dishonest liberal ploy.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 03:34 PM (X/Lqh)

147 eman, I meant, and maybe I was being too terse, that without the same basic assumptions of what "morality" means, it's useless to attempt to be persuasive on the topic (specifically ace's use of the phrase "morale poison"). You can be ethical, for whatever that's worth. You can be "a decent guy we can work with," which I think is the usual American standard.

Herr Morgenholz has argued pretty convincingly, to me anyway, that the notion of 'all sex outside marriage is sinful' is an overstatement mis-summary of all the don't lists in the Bible. But he could only make those arguments because we have a common frame of reference.

If ace wanted to argue the constitutionality of gay activism, or the electoral ramifications of supporting or opposing it, that would be one thing. Instead he's apparently trying to make the case that this Farah fellow shouldn't even be allowed his first amendment right to voice an opinion about it. In an email.

Posted by: Methos at August 20, 2010 03:34 PM (ZgsIj)

148 ubiquity ... I just love that word ....

Posted by: netanyahuwoohoo at August 20, 2010 03:26 PM (GvYeG)
2010: The year of the ubiquity of iniquity.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 20, 2010 03:34 PM (xxgag)

149
Next item on the agenda will be to lower or abolish age of consent.

Now you're talking!

Posted by: Roman Polanski and Mohamed at August 20, 2010 03:34 PM (rMMMP)

150 Your idea of non-procreative sex is flawed Ace. The only sex that is a sin in a marriage is sex with someone not your spouse. I am not sure where you get the idea that sex not singularly for procreation is a sin?
As far as I can tell, a lot of Christian doctrine (particularly that whole entire Catholic thing about hating on condoms and birth control pills) comes from 1 part of the bible alone.
A part where this dude dies and leaves behind a childless widow, so god tells this dude's brother to go bone his wife and give her children. Dude says OK and has sex with his widowed sister-in-law, but, he pulls out at the endand sews the lawn instead. God got pissed and smited him or something.
Now... some people read that to mean apparently that 'every sperm is sacred' and god hates it when you spank one into a sock. IE this guy had sex for pleasure only so god went all Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction on his ass.
It seems to me though that one might have other reasons to be pissed off and smite this jackass in this scenario. For one thing, god told him to do something and he got all smartass about it, either because he didn't want a kid or because he wanted to keep 'trying'. For another, the only reason the woman who wasn't hot on him was sleeping with him was for donor insemination and he was kind of playing her.
So yeah, he was banging her for fun, presumably, because he was trying not to get her pregnant. But at the same time he was also doing it under false pretenses andtrying to put one over on her, and on god. So which thing pissed god off? The sex? Or the manipulation, exploitation, dishonesty and disobediance?
God supposedly also got pissed off at Job and smacked him around a bit, but it was for not listening when he told him to do shit, notbecause he was masturbating on the floor.
I've never been entirely clear how the catholics use that to justify banning birth control. But... I really don't care.

Posted by: Entropy at August 20, 2010 03:34 PM (IsLT6)

151 59 So it's the Good Gays vs. the Bad Gays? Which side are we on?
Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 03:11 PM (+sBB4)

The gays who tell you that that shirt with that tie is a HUGE mistake. And the gays who make the party tape.

Posted by: joncelli at August 20, 2010 03:35 PM (RD7QR)

152 The matter of Leviticus Israel is also a different matter, as God had a specific covenant with the Jews that included their form of government. That would also include the enforcing of the Ten Commandments as given in both Exodus Deuteronomy. Therefore, the Jews had the right to do certain things that are no longer allowable. The state still retains the right to punish for acts of murder, theft, specific acts regarding lying, but not-so-much with the other 7 (except in certain cases).

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 03:35 PM (Yq+qN)

153 OK. Before I give myself a concussion pounding my head into my desk.

Let me make something clear. Morality is an individual choice; it must be such, or it has no meaning.

How many times, when we get tired of redistributive policies or social engineering programs, do we scream to the effect that 'forced virtue is not virtue'? And it isn't; if one is forced to take a given course of action at the direction of a coercive power, there is no virtue in the act and no change in the heart (other, likely as not, than to harden it).

The sole intersection of morality and politics should be that we do not support those we find immoral in the political arena. Government should not be allowed under any circumstances to enforce a moral code upon the people; this is not the fit purpose of government, nor is it a viable champion for morality.

If you believe a thing is right or wrong, then preach on, try to convince others. But it is a thing between hearts, where the state has no legitimate jurisdiction.

Posted by: DarkLordOfTheIntarWebs at August 20, 2010 03:35 PM (IkEhE)

154 Beck keeps talking about "being nudged"....he seems to think that is how things get so "progressive". So I guess you can nudge everyone towards acceptance of almost anything. What will be next? Will the "we have sex with minors group" go to bat next? Or the "we love screwing horses" crowd? What about the "we want more than one husband/wife lobby? are they next?
It is disappointing that Beck is said to have thrown in the towel on the marriage issue. It shows weakness and makes you wonder what his agenda really is.

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 03:36 PM (p302b)

155 Isnt the left always talking about CHILLED SPEECH? But now they are giving us lectures on how the first amendment is just for protection from the government.

Unless you are glenn beck cuz congress targets your advertisers, or Sarah Palin whose life was targeted for destruction by left wingers filing lawsuits who had ties to obama. NEVERMIND.

Posted by: Dan at August 20, 2010 03:36 PM (1jzSs)

156 38 Considering the number of species on the planet that display homosexual behaviour, it's hard not to determine that for a percentage of the population this is "normal".
Posted by: mitchel44 at August 20, 2010 03:06 PM (/iEDY)
It's important to maintain the distinction between natural, normal and normative.
Having six fingers on one hand may be natural -- that is, it may happen that a baby is born with six fingers on one hand purely through a random genetic event. It isn't normal.
Being left-handed or blue-eyed is natural and, because neither of these conditions affect how an individual functions, they're both normal. We generally don't consider eye color or handedness normative -- though the Nazis declared blue eyes normative and not all that long ago schoolteachers enforced right-handed normativeness by rapping kids' knuckles with a ruler any time they picked up a pencil with their left hand.
Homosexuality seems to have components of genetics and intrauterine hormonal environment, so that some people are born that way or born with that predisposition, which means that it may be natural. Given that we don't mandate that couples or households only form for the purpose of producing and raising children, homosexuality may have achieved normalcy in our society -- that is, being gay isn't an impediment to living a life comparable to a straight citizen.
But I don't believe it is or should be normative, held up as a Good Thing for a child to grow up to be. I think it is right and proper for our society to hold up the heterosexual couple, nuclear family model as the ideal. That probably affects far fewer gays than it does unmarried couples having children out of wedlock: also natural, also normal, but something that should not be normative.

Posted by: stuiec at August 20, 2010 03:36 PM (7AOgy)

157 I suspect Farahs biggest problem with Coulter is that she has been one of the most vocal critics of WND's never ending Birther nonsense.

And as Ann pointed out, how can he "let her go" from an organization she doesn't work for? Answer: for Publicity. All she has ever done is contribute occasional columns to WND, which she still does. Farrah's full of Huckabee-level shit.

Posted by: ktgreat at August 20, 2010 03:36 PM (GDaD0)

158 Anyone else get the feeling we are getting way too much information about Ace's life. We were down with the drinking and pr0n and genital self-mutilation, but i didn't need to know about pride, sloth or gluttony.

Posted by: Penfold at August 20, 2010 03:36 PM (1PeEC)

159
I
know about the old testament
prohibition, but I'm not aware of where Jesus changed it, or modified
it, or whatever it is you are referring to.

Jesus did that whole "New Commandment" thingie which, He claims, supercedes the Old Testament prohibitions.


Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 20, 2010 03:36 PM (Hj0nA)

160 But isn't it the Leftists who use government to indoctrinate our children from their youngest years on the virtues of homosexual behavior?Wasn't it by leaving the topic a personal choice issue off the public debate burner that enabled the Leftists to monopolize definitions and meanings for our society?How to retract what has already encroached and succeeded in usurping all authority into the authoritarian mode in government?Posted by: mavrick muse

-----------------

This is how affirmative action got started. To combat one injustice, we introduced an equal and opposite injustice. We should have unleashed plain, pure justice and not tried to socially engineer things back into place.

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 03:36 PM (T+ReL)

161 >>>I think the reason it's easy for folk to get disproportionately worked up about teh gays is because it's a "gross" sin to those who aren't into it. The other sins listed above aren't so gross - indeed, they're easy to sympathize with. But the nuts and bolts mechanics of male homosexuality are unpleasant for most of us non-gays to think about. Thus the emotional element.

I think you are probably 100% right -- it is the EWWW factor behind this that gives it all this heat.

But that's a non-rational response, you know, it's neither logical nor Scriptual. Most people are against homosexuality because it strikes them (and me, honestly) as gross. (Well... male homosexuality... let's say I have a "liberal" position on the other one....)

And that is inborn, and, I should say NORMAL (in as much as 90% of men, definitely, are grossed out by the idea of it), and no reason for shame.

But at the same time an inborn aversion to it shouldn't be elevated to some kind of rational, logical, Scripture-backed, critical-government-function position, either.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:36 PM (QbA6l)

162 He also had no trouble telling them that they were sinning but that he was the light away from their sin.
Posted by: polynikes at August 20, 2010 03:18 PM (m2CN7)
Of course; but I don't think every word he said to them was about their sin; and I don't think Coulter will tell them they are paragons of perfection.

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 03:37 PM (zQKSr)

163 Heaven forbid we should alienate the 25 gay GOP voters
Uh, there are far more than that my friend. I know you were trying to make a point, but believe me there far more conservative gays than you may think.

Posted by: jewells at August 20, 2010 03:37 PM (l/N7H)

164 Divorce is a sin. What's Farah's take on that?

Posted by: BB at August 20, 2010 03:37 PM (qF8q3)

165 s God had a specific covenant with the Jews that included their form of
government.

I have altered the covenant. Pray that I don't alter it further.
and make a burnt offering while you're at it.
It's been ages since I've had a good burnt offering.

Posted by: God at August 20, 2010 03:38 PM (Hj0nA)

166 All I can think of related to this was a question posed by Steve H. Graham (of the late Hog on Ice blog): "I wonder how many gay boogers Ann Counter eats in a year?"

Posted by: Michael Rittenhouse at August 20, 2010 03:38 PM (577yw)

167 Where does Beck get his pseudo history? Is that mormon heretical doctrine?

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 20, 2010 03:39 PM (i6UsH)

168 I've always felt liberalism and social conservatism aretwo sides of the same coin. Both want to coerce--try to force their own viewpoint upon you.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 20, 2010 03:39 PM (qjTXV)

169 D'oh, somehow missed the firing thing. I thought that was just some fellow offering criticism, based on the quoted text.

Posted by: Methos at August 20, 2010 03:39 PM (ZgsIj)

170 One of the lamest "conclusions" ever, Ace

"Because I, straight porno-loving male, can't abstain from sex outside of marriage, no one can."

Posted by: Gerry at August 20, 2010 03:39 PM (g6ozZ)

171 What biblical reference are you refering to here? I'd like to read that. I know about the old testament prohibition, but I'm not aware of where Jesus changed it, or modified it, or whatever it is you are refering to.Posted by: ed

---------

Is this synchronicity or what? That very passage has been made into a Dr. Laura joke.

http://tinyurl.com/ybgkezm

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 03:39 PM (T+ReL)

172 93...Is Joseph Farrah a political actor? Or is he more of a religious figure? You tell me; I've never heard of him before.

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 03:39 PM (zQKSr)

173 >>>If ace wanted to argue the constitutionality of gay activism, or the electoral ramifications of supporting or opposing it, that would be one thing. Instead he's apparently trying to make the case that this Farah fellow shouldn't even be allowed his first amendment right to voice an opinion about it. In an email.

He did more than that. He decided Coulter's what-do-I-care position was incompatible with the mission of his TAKING GOVERNMENT BACK conference.

Why? What part of government policy was he planning to change that he felt Coulter's position undermined?

See the problem? Probably not. Maybe you don't.

If he's talking about TAKING GOVERNMENT BACK and finds her position incompatible with that -- WHAT IS HIS IDEA OF A GOVERNMENT SUCCESSFULLY "TAKEN BACK"?

Sorry for the all caps; meant for stress, not anger.

But I don't get that -- can you explain?

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:40 PM (QbA6l)

174 If being gay is a sin, then it is a sin against whom? Me? No, I don't feel sinned against. Is it a sin against God? If you say so. God doesn't tell me what he's pissed off about.
Maybe he speaks directly to some with a list of his grievances. I don't know. I feel somewhat comfortable that if you take scripture as fact and that God created the entire Universe and everything in it, then he made some people gay. If you say, no God didn't make Gays. Then you're saying God made a mistake. Or, God isn't all knowing or all doing. IF that is true, then were all just here on a ball of dirt flying through space by a series of wonderful mistakes.
AND, if our lives are all just cosmic happenstance, then let the gays have butt sex. It don't matter on a ball of dirt circling a unspectacular star in a tiny corner of the Universe.

Posted by: Sgt. Fury at August 20, 2010 03:40 PM (4dEOx)

175 Heaven forbid we should alienate the 25 gay GOP voters
Uh, there are far more than that my friend. I know you were trying to make a point, but believe me there far more conservative gays than you may think.
Posted by: jewells

An excellent point. It would be an interesting question to determine what numbers are 'in play' here. We talk about a big tent, and then agree, either implicitly or explicitly, that our current tent does not accomodate all. And should it? Can it? Ad we've already decided that Social Cons should lump it and get out to vote anyway. Depending upon what the numbers reveal, why not treat Gay activists the same way evangelicals are treated?

Posted by: Blue Hen at August 20, 2010 03:40 PM (R2fpr)

176 @155,

Bible study was not a big thing in my family, but there is a part that says I have to bang my sister in law if my brother dies. Who knew Christians were so kinky?

Posted by: Penfold at August 20, 2010 03:41 PM (1PeEC)

177 >>>"Because I, straight porno-loving male, can't abstain from sex outside of marriage, no one can."

I know no one seems to give a fig that I sin in this area!

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:41 PM (QbA6l)

178 I'm really liking Palin more and more.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 20, 2010 03:41 PM (qjTXV)

179 There are probably 25 GOP congressmen.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 20, 2010 03:41 PM (i6UsH)

180 Onanism is called out as a sin but people seem to
generally treat it as a venal one, a minor one; and I can't help that's
because a lot of dudes LIKE porn, but most don't like gay sex.







Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:28 PM (QbA6l)
--I thought onanism was more like interruptus than masturbation?

Posted by: logprof at August 20, 2010 03:41 PM (BP6Z1)

181 Heaven forbid we should alienate the 25 gay GOP voters

By all means, let's keep being typical Republicans and alienate our natural constituencies.

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 03:41 PM (T+ReL)

182 I know that Entropy is an ignorant bigot, but as to how it came to be ....
I don't care.

Posted by: Gerry at August 20, 2010 03:41 PM (g6ozZ)

183 Methos,

I see you read the part about the conference. In fairness, I should say "firing" is a loaded term; she was dis-invited from a previous scheduled appearance.

Whether that's a firing or not is a semantic point; but there was more to it than criticism and argument.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:42 PM (QbA6l)

184 There are probably 25 "gay" GOP congressmen.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 20, 2010 03:42 PM (i6UsH)

185 100 million Christian Republicans vs. (let's be generous) 26 or 27 GOP fans of Judy Garland .. what would Solomon do?

Posted by: Gerry at August 20, 2010 03:43 PM (g6ozZ)

186 When your kid comes home from school and tells you how he learned that having anal sex with his buddies is normal perhaps those of you who want to pander to the gays will remember this moment in history. Tell your kid it is just fine that his Boy Scout troop leader wants a blow job from him.

Who knew that fecal contamination and misusing body organs was such a great thing? I think it is great that we will now be promoting the very activity that is cited as the leading cause in the spread of AIDS. And for those who think I am exaggerating I have a name for you: Kevin Jennings.

This shit goes well beyond "gay marriage".

Posted by: Ken Royall at August 20, 2010 03:43 PM (9zzk+)

187 >>>--I thought onanism was more like interruptus than masturbation?

Ah, maybe; I had seen it used to include masturbation as well.

But even so. I mean -- okay, I do THAT too.

I don't mean to get all graphic and parade my sins. I just mean to point out a lot of us are pretty far from the mark but we're not like on each other's nuts about how sinful each other is.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:43 PM (QbA6l)

188 There are probably 25 "gay" GOP congressmen
These findings are the result of a very exhaustive survey.

But it was worth it.

Posted by: Minority Whip at August 20, 2010 03:44 PM (R2fpr)

189 153
ubiquity ... I just love that word ....

Posted by: netanyahuwoohoo at August 20, 2010 03:26 PM (GvYeG)
Then you must absolutely adore me.

Posted by: Propinquity at August 20, 2010 03:44 PM (kJXs1)

190 Sloth, probably at the top, then Lust, then Envy, then Wrath
Damnit Ace! get out of my head!

Posted by: dananjcon at August 20, 2010 03:44 PM (pr+up)

191 >>>I'm not aware of where Jesus changed it, or modified it, or whatever it is you are refering to. Did he mention it?
Ace,
I agree with your post, but I have to disagree with you here.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Mt 5:17-1
Jesus may not have entered into a point-by-point ratification of everything in the Old Testament, but he did confirm the imporance of the law the scriptures laid down. He did not refute it their contents.
But that's a small point where I disagree with the rhetoric of the comments, not the post itself.

Posted by: LibertarianJim at August 20, 2010 03:44 PM (PReJ3)

192 152,

Methos,

Consider the possibility that the morals you live by, the religion you believe with all your heart, the God you worship, are all human inventions.

This is what I believe. So, from my point of view, we share many of the same morals.



Posted by: eman at August 20, 2010 03:45 PM (Nw/hR)

193 A show of hands?

Posted by: Onan the Barbarian at August 20, 2010 03:45 PM (i6UsH)

194 arhooley @118

Okay I'll bite. How is it that people who don't believe in God worry about falling short of God's rules?

Again I'm trying to be terse rather than fall too far behind in comments, but I don't mean to imply everyone is either a Christian or a non-believer. But as a non-exhaustive sample, I would very much doubt that an honest Christian and Muslim quoting their own scriptures back and forth are going to convince the other of much of anything.

Posted by: Methos at August 20, 2010 03:45 PM (ZgsIj)

195 BTW, way to dodge the issue, Ace

Posted by: Gerry at August 20, 2010 03:45 PM (g6ozZ)

196 I know no one seems to give a fig that I sin in this area!


If you were running a group called GOPorn, advocating for the pornography-loving conservative, I think it's a fair bet you'd run into some troubled waters with some conservatives.

Y'know, I wonder if that domain name is available...


Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 20, 2010 03:46 PM (FkKjr)

197 In Old Testament times polygamy was the social norm (Abraham, Jacob, King David, etc.). In Jesus' time, infidelity could get you stoned (Joseph thought about quietly 'divorcing' Mary before the angel showed up, the woman cought in adultery). Societies change. So does morality.

Posted by: JEA at August 20, 2010 03:46 PM (WGbtD)

198 While the Bible-thumping makes me cringe for the reasons that the conservative movement cannot be restricted to only Christians who go to specifically old-fashioned Southern Baptist style churches that Farah likely tends to follow,

J. Farah has every right as a private citizen to choose whom he allows to comment on his private forums.

Obviously he is one who at least considers himself to be a very devout Bible follower, taking passages against homosexuality as they're written, and feels homosexuality is something destroying the nation.

I can respect that opinion, even if I disagree with it. For that reason I don't normally follow his stuff, as it's a mixed bag of things I do and don't agree with. (agree with him on conservative stuff, not so much on Bible thumping preachyness or forwarding fodder for chainmail about birther conspiracies.)

So, I say neither should be bashed for their actions. Personally I will pay less attention to Farah and more to Coulter subconsciously.

Posted by: TehSchlip at August 20, 2010 03:46 PM (xm1A1)

199 Bringing religion into government is frustrating for me. If it were the other way around and the left wanted to bring government into religion we would all be outraged.
What really pisses me off is we have a good chance to defeat Patty Murray this fall and Clint Didier just said he would only endorse Rossi if Rossi agrees to sponser a bill should he get to the Senate outlawing abortion. A fucking insane demand for in the State of Washington. Does Didier think if Rossi loses because his voters stay home that Patty Murray is going to introduce an anti abortion bill? Does he think if Rossi agreed and introduced one and it passed that Obama would sign it? Does he think that even if Obama signed it that it would somehow reverse the Supreme Court dicision in Roe V. Wade?
Fuck no. Absolute insanity.

Posted by: robtr at August 20, 2010 03:46 PM (fwSHf)

200 100 million Christian Republicans vs. (let's be generous) 26 or 27 GOP fans of Judy Garland .. what would Solomon do?


Posted by: Gerry at August 20, 2010 03:43 PM (g6ozZ)
Split Barney Frank in half? Because if so, I'm down with it.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 20, 2010 03:46 PM (xxgag)

201 Farrah is alive and E-mailing Ann Coulter.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 20, 2010 03:46 PM (i6UsH)

202 179: Ace, I think we're on the same page here (oh no, not again...) in suspecting that some of these folks aren't about limiting government, just redirecting it. Which is what went wrong and saddled us with the current mess--a government that's defining society is...well, pretty much what we have now. What this Farah person is up in arms about isn't that we have a government grown far beyond its legitimate bounds, but that it isn't acting beyond its legitimate bounds in ways he finds acceptable.

Both camps are our enemy. If you want a traditionalist world view and propound it in the context of limited government, that's the ally I want. And if you are nontraditional in morality but still want limited government, welcome aboard! The key is limited government. Period, full stop, end of sentence, end of paragraph, end of file.

Posted by: DarkLordOfTheIntarWebs at August 20, 2010 03:47 PM (IkEhE)

203 Well, of course God changed certain aspects of the covenant, we can get into a debate about dispensationalism vs. covenant theology, but that isn't really the point (though part of it).Point is that many of the prohibitions inLeviticus were given to a certain people at a certain point in time, but that's doesn't override the Ten Commandments. Loving God loving others isstill largely explained by way of the Ten Commandments.
Regardless, you can still say homosexuality is a sin without wanting to stone gays, there is no precedent in the New Testament for killing homosexuals. So, sin still exists, but the point people forget is that Israel handled things differently because they were God's chosen people. Anyone still advocating a majority of those Israel-specific laws in Leviticus in trying to state that American has a covenant with God, which simply isn't true.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 03:47 PM (Yq+qN)

204 Posted by: ed at August 20, 2010 03:26 PM (Zsqn4)
I applaud your hypocrisy. (no sarcasm intended)

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 03:47 PM (zQKSr)

205 this is the bomb Iran thread ... right?

Posted by: netanyahuwoohoo at August 20, 2010 03:48 PM (GvYeG)

206 When your kid comes home from school and tells you how he learned that having anal sex with his buddies is normal perhaps those of you who want to pander to the gays will remember this moment in history. Tell your kid it is just fine that his Boy Scout troop leader wants a blow job from him.Who knew that fecal contamination and misusing body organs was such a great thing? I think it is great that we will now be promoting the very activity that is cited as the leading cause in the spread of AIDS. And for those who think I am exaggerating I have a name for you: Kevin Jennings.This shit goes well beyond "gay marriage".
That's quite a leap you took there.

Posted by: jewells at August 20, 2010 03:48 PM (l/N7H)

207 Entropy@155,

I look forward to your King James Bible, Annotated Ed. Let us know when it goes on Amazon.com.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at August 20, 2010 03:48 PM (swuwV)

208 And since we're discussion holier-than-thou sermonizing and browbeating: No one does is more frequently and tiresomely --and coercively-- than Demotards using Christian "social justice" to justify all kinds of social engineering and confiscation.

Nothing Falwell or Robertson ever promoted has had such insidious, wide-ranging consequences.

Posted by: logprof at August 20, 2010 03:49 PM (BP6Z1)

209 You know I live in a blue state. I do have gay friends. One of the interesting things is that I understand why someone who is gay would want to enter into a union with another gay person (well I try to understand) and I understand it is horrible to be kept out of a significant other's hospital room and such. But I can't fathom the term "marriage" applied to this at all. It almost seems like the insistence of using the word marriage is for the effect of using the word to rub it in the face of the far right bible thumpers. My gay friends understand me. They understand why I'm against it being called "marriage". In fact one recently said "at least you have an opinion and you defend it as opposed to everyone else who is so busy being PC that they've lost their ability to communicate". If you define marriage as anything but between a man and a woman you ultimately undermine society and it has been undermined enough. I'm wondering when someone will draw the line. When people will say enough already.

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 03:50 PM (p302b)

210 As far as singling homosex out goes, Ace may have a point in the psychology of it, but there's also - to be fair - some literary theological basis for the emphasis as well.
I just do not recall very many "Thou shalt not 'smitest thine tiny Phillistine"'s in the thing. The church has always pushed this 'sex for procreation' for ages. But of all that I know, there is - like I said - one weak ass rational for most all of it from a single interpretation of a single event.
On the other hand, the bible not only has severalconcise "Thou Shalt Not"'s on the butt-banditry, it goes a step further with a couple of"Take them from the village andstone them to death"'s. Hard to misinterpret that.
In Leviticus homosexuality was a capital offense.
I'm not sure bestiality even was.
The Hebrews did not like the homos.

Posted by: Entropy at August 20, 2010 03:50 PM (IsLT6)

211 "I know no one seems to give a fig that I sin in this area!"

Because we know that you are not going to force my kids to watch porn in the 2nd grade.

This is not difficult to understand.

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 03:50 PM (+sBB4)

212 Onan was instructed by his father to carry on his (deceased) brother's lineage, but he didn't want to, so he "lay with her" but kept pulling out. It really wasn't about rubbin one out, it was refusing his duty (it was customary back then, not so much now). That's all.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at August 20, 2010 03:50 PM (WvXvd)

213 Most gay people will continue to be gay regardless of the opinion of Farah or anyone else. In the meantime, a bunch of them have organized with the intent of promoting smaller, less intrusive government and increased fiscal sanity. Why would you cast this group out? Why stigmatize and repudiate them?

Are you afraid that they will recruit your children? Are you afraid that they will "normalize" homosexual behavior leading you or your sons to think, "hey, maybe I'll go ahead and toss that guys salad, everybody on the MTV is doing it."

You don't have to actively support a group like this, but actively opposing them is shortsighted and moronic.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at August 20, 2010 03:50 PM (+lsX1)

214 183>>>"Because I, straight porno-loving male, can't abstain from sex outside of marriage, no one can." I know no one seems to give a fig that I sin in this area!
Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:41 PM (QbA6l)
My comment at #119 addresses this "fig" and the weight I asign this fig.

Posted by: ed at August 20, 2010 03:51 PM (Zsqn4)

215 I don't want to get all liberal on you but you are aware that in Leviticus there are a whole bunch of things elevated to a high level of sinfulness? And that Jesus apparently (from what we have written down) didn't himself reiterate that as among the highest of all sins?
Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:24 PM (QbA6l)
You mean like witchcraft? Grave disrespect to one's parents? Entering the Holy of Holies in a state of uncleanliness? All of which merited capital punishment back in the Biblical Nation of Israel?
Yes -- but what of it? I'm not saying Farah is right to pick out this one item from that list to hang onto (though maybe he doesn't see too many actual witches around compared to gays). The point is, he has the right to whatever religious beliefs he wants. He doesn't have the right to make everyone else accept those beliefs.
As for what Jesus said, if you whittled Christianity down to what Jesus actually said, I don't think anyone would recognize the resulting faith as Christianity, not as we know it after 2,000 years of embellishment.

Posted by: stuiec at August 20, 2010 03:51 PM (7AOgy)

216 Honestly, if Farah truly believes what he's saying, then he should remember that you go to where to sinners are to heal them. Silly little man.

Posted by: DWags at August 20, 2010 03:51 PM (CN+i6)

217 For those who think there are just millions and millions of gays out there who would vote Republican if only we would embrace gay marriage, you're nuts. The number of gays in general is exaggerated.

They are a LOUD constituency and their causes are constantly promoted in the media so it makes them appear larger than they are. If they were so legion, why are they losing every time gay marriage is on the ballot?

The true % of the entire population that is gay is probably 3-5% max if not less. Of that, take out those who either are not of voting age or who do not vote. The ones that are left are going to go Democrat by probably 10-1. Compare that to the MILLIONS of family values voters which, as we found out, cause the GOP to LOSE BIG if they stay home.

Caving in on gay marriage, whether you agree with it or not, will give the impression that we are abandoning moral issues as a party. The amazing thing is the country is WITH US on the issue! Why do we have this fucking inferiority complex about our moral values?

Posted by: Ken Royall at August 20, 2010 03:51 PM (9zzk+)

218
WWABD?

What would a bear do?

Posted by: I'm Video Professor, try my CDs at August 20, 2010 03:51 PM (uFokq)

219 This is how homosexuality literally destroys societies.

Frah's a nut.

It's amazing that people who say they love America so much think it's so weak.

It strikes me that for some folks teh gheys are like the Jews...they are crafty! They can do anything!

Yes, liberals elevate the number and importance of gays in our society but there are a lot of folks on the right who seem to think gays are hell bent on destroying this country and are powerful enough to do it if they aren't fought at every corner. They are a tiny minority and nowhere near as monolithic as many seem to think.

I'd like to offer up a thought on gays (with all credit to Pat Moynihan)....we need a period of benign neglect.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 03:51 PM (X/Lqh)

220 >>>Anyone remember the Jesus Twins from the Howard Stern Show and the song they were pushing - Feel My Ubiquity.

HAH! Now that you say it I do.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:52 PM (QbA6l)

221 a government cannot mandate what sort of sex is legal and what sex is illegal.

So, where all the posts decrying those bigoted anti-incest, anti-rape, anti-necorphilia, and anti-bestiality laws?

Posted by: Gerry at August 20, 2010 03:52 PM (g6ozZ)

222 138
note that in my every day life, I wrestle with all sorts of sins: Sloth, probably at the top, then Lust, then Envy, then Wrath...
Notice we're not creating GOPwrath or GOPenvy groups.
I'm holding out forthe GOPlust group though.
Posted by: polynikes at August 20, 2010 03:31 PM (m2CN7)
Hmm... the name of this groups is GOProud. Pride is a sin as well. They are compunding matters with that. Better that they just call is GOPblow-jobs, I'd guess.
tongue-in-che... er, nevermind.

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 03:52 PM (zQKSr)

223 Here's my ideology in six words:
Cut my taxes. Leave me alone.
Can we get leaders talking in those terms, instead of talking about wanting to stick their noses into everyone's business, moral and fiscal, including mine?

Posted by: LibertarianJim at August 20, 2010 03:53 PM (PReJ3)

224
here's a good ground zero mosque cartoon-- borders on tasteless, but gets the point across

Posted by: I'm Video Professor, try my CDs at August 20, 2010 03:53 PM (uFokq)

225 GOProud truly represents a blight on the conservative movement. The more the movement embraces them and accepts them, the more it will render the conservative movement useless and irrelevant.
"Social conservatives" are not true conservatives.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 20, 2010 03:53 PM (qjTXV)

226 Split Barney Frank in half? Because if so, I'm down with it.
Posted by: WalrusRex at August 20, 2010 03:46 PM (xxgag)
I am sure he'd be down with it too, if the splitting was in the sense that Gore Vidal mentioned in Myra Breckenridge.

Posted by: stuiec at August 20, 2010 03:54 PM (7AOgy)

227 Are people still confused about the whole homosexual pedophile thing? Jesus Christ, a homosexual is no more likely to be a pedophile than a straight person.

Posted by: Penfold at August 20, 2010 03:54 PM (1PeEC)

228 This shit goes well beyond "gay marriage".
That's quite a leap you took there.
Posted by: jewells

I and several others noted that the government can and does define what sex is legal and what isn't. I also noted before that many school districts are dealing with the question of what gets taught to kids today. And parents are often vilified for being "close minded' or 'bigoted'. The reality here is there is no real live and let live mentality, with everyone doing what and as they like. It results in concepts changing from being "something that goes on in someone's bedroom' to this isa standard topic that your child must be taught, and to which they must demonstrate acceptance.

Posted by: Minority Whip at August 20, 2010 03:54 PM (R2fpr)

229 Gee so what you're saying is that holding a moral position out of concern for the ethics of America and the conservative movement is... immoral.


Gotcha.


Black is white and up is down too, right?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 20, 2010 03:55 PM (PQY7w)

230 I'm not sure bestiality even was.
The Hebrews did not like the homos.
Posted by: Entropy at August 20, 2010 03:50 PM (IsLT6)
Yeah - it was. Not only the animal-raper, but the animal itself were to be done away with. I endorse this even today. Some things go too far. If you can't control yourself enough to leave the sheep alone, well, you're not ready for human society.
Hope I didn't step on too many toes, there...

Posted by: Reactionary at August 20, 2010 03:55 PM (xUM1Q)

231 conservatives are just learning how to play at the progressive's game. If they were smart they would move get the state out of the "marriage" business before the opportunity passes if it hasn't already. That's just the lay of the field now.


Anywho... comedy thread time?

Posted by: Ground zero Mosque at August 20, 2010 03:55 PM (YT1fV)

232 89,





Nicely said, arhooley.

Posted by: eman

Tks.

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 03:55 PM (T+ReL)

233 My 2 cents.

I don't know about that 90% of gays want gay marriage number. Anecdotely (sp?) the two closest people that are gay to me, my brother in law and by beloved late great uncle, both thought gay marriage was a joke. They are both pretty butch, though.
Also, I too am a committed christian, I take my faith very seriously and am deeply involved in my church. However, I am not the sin police. I have enough sin in my own life, thank you (val - u - rite vodka anyone?). For a conservative to say "we don't want you heathen sinners in our movement because you are icky and make me uncomfortabe" is, well, gay.
The bible does talk about sexual immorality in the old testament and new. Paul is big on the issue. But, sexual immorality is much more than homosexuality. Premarital sex for one is just as sinful. Jesus himself said that looking at a woman lustfully is the same as boinking her. So I think this prissy blowhard should take the plank from his eye and all that. I can quote Matthew too.

Posted by: fugazi at August 20, 2010 03:56 PM (4bvZp)

234 231
Here's my ideology in six words:
Cut my taxes. Leave me alone.

Hear, hear.

I noted reading Farah's column, he specifically believes that homosexuals are 'infiltrating' the movement and 'destroying' it.

Since when does the method of sex in one's bedroom, or whether or not you choose to go to church determine that you believe in smaller government, lower taxes, and individual freedom?

Farah is demonstrating the very type of fundamentalism that drives people AWAY from the conservative movement.

Posted by: TehSchlip at August 20, 2010 03:56 PM (xm1A1)

235 I used to think a pedophile was keeping a log of the walks I took.

Posted by: I. DuNotno at August 20, 2010 03:56 PM (BP6Z1)

236 142 So if someone has the urge to commit a sin and I don't then the sin should not be condemned? Child molesters would certainly like everyone to think that way about their sexual preferences. Next item on the agenda will be to lower or abolish age of consent.
Posted by: Ken Royall at August 20, 2010 03:31 PM (9zzk+)
That's not Ace's arguement. It's that it is suspect to condemn only or wors sins you are not tempted towards.
Though I think murder is uniquely bad, and I'm not tempted towards it (often...) , so the arguement isn't absolute.

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 03:56 PM (zQKSr)

237 You guys are forgetting: Since Farah has never sinned, he can look down upon, pass judgement, and insult those who do.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 20, 2010 03:56 PM (qjTXV)

238 ace @179, please see me @ 175, I missed a fairly important detail in the discussion.

Posted by: Methos at August 20, 2010 03:56 PM (ZgsIj)

239 238 That could alienate the GOPJihad community.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 20, 2010 03:57 PM (i6UsH)

240 holding a moral position out of concern for the ethics of America and the conservative movement is... immoral.


Gotcha.


Black is white and up is down too, right?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor
------------------

I'm deeply concerned about "the ethics of America." I really don't trust "America" to make the right choices. That's why I'm taking their money and spending it for them.

Posted by: Hillary et. al. at August 20, 2010 03:57 PM (T+ReL)

241 >>The point is, he has the right to whatever religious beliefs he wants. He doesn't have the right to make everyone else accept those beliefs.

Well that's my point; perhaps we disagree on whether his action crossed over from "mere belief" into "attempting to force that belief."

I just do not see what this has to do with TAKING GOVERNMENT BACK.

Further, I have to say, this position, and going on and on and on about it as if it's a legitimate function of government to tell us gay sex is evil, makes TAKING GOVERNMENT BACK that much harder.

I don't think most people care -- which is also their right. And they will recoil from a movement that seems so obsessed with none-of-your-business trivialities.

There's also the bully factor... Americans generally root for the underdog, and it just seems kind of assholish to keep picking on people who were, yeah, born that way.

And I do say born that way: This idea that they have a "choice" is a dodge. Yes, they have a choice as to whether they will have gay sex; but they don't have a choice as to whether they WANT gay sex.

Just as no straight guy here really has a CHOICE as to whether he's attracted to to women or men.

You're attracted to women, period. No fuzziness on it, no ambiguity, no depends on what kind of mood you're in, no depends on the person.

You want one thing and one thing only sexually, and that's a woman.

You don't have a choice. You couldn't really "choose" to be gay (absent some sort of truly distasteful forced conversion process).

Extend out from your circumstances.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:58 PM (QbA6l)

242 If the GOP is going to succeed...they're going to have to put their social issues on the back burner.
This economy isn't going to be fixed before the next election cycle. If they don't want that albatross hanging around their necks in 2012, they're going to have to show that they're working on the number one issue in America right now.
Whether Neal and Bob tie the not certainly ain't it.

Posted by: douger at August 20, 2010 03:58 PM (FOIzz)

243
Farah's position is essentially that gays simply cannot be
conservatives at all and must be purged from the party. He does not
seem to be an opponent of a policy, but an opponent of specific people.
That doesn't strike me as fair, conservative, or keeping with the
American way of doing things

It is also unChristian. Apparently Farah believes he is without sin and therefore justified in casting the first stone.

Posted by: gail at August 20, 2010 03:58 PM (f46PC)

244 You guys are forgetting: Since Farah has never sinned, he can look down upon, pass judgement, and insult those who do.
That's my take, too

Posted by: The Pharisee at August 20, 2010 03:59 PM (PReJ3)

245 "Social conservatives" are not true conservatives.
Posted by: rdbrewer

That's an interesting declaration. So the tent really is too small, or too well heeled for social conservatives? And it's the bible thumpers that are being divisive?

Posted by: Blue Hen at August 20, 2010 03:59 PM (R2fpr)

246 218 That's becauseIsrael had a covenant with God to be a holy priesthood. They were in the very presence of God. Priests died for mishandling the ark of the covenant, were stricken with illness for polygamy other sins, etc. They had certain laws they had to follow. But God also showedHis forgiveness, grace, mercy, which is rather difficult to explain without going into the side issue of covenants how God handled those.
/For instance, the Old Testament fathers should have all died due to their many sins, but they didn't. Abraham lied, Davidcommittedadultery murder,another man was striken with leprosy for his disobedience, but they wereall saved due to their repentence God's acceptance of the same. Didn't mean that they didn't get punished, but they still received grace mercy.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 04:00 PM (Yq+qN)

247 Anecdotely (sp?) the two closest people that are gay to me, my brother
in law and by beloved late great uncle, both thought gay marriage was a
joke. They are both pretty butch, though.

--From my anecdotal perspective, it is a joke.

The two "married" gay couples I know have, ahem, "open" marriages (there are a handful of ground rules but as far as scope it's fair game). In other words, no different from a civil union with an extra codicil or two.

Posted by: logprof at August 20, 2010 04:00 PM (BP6Z1)

248 Farrah- and those of his ilk- have forgotten several important things about Christianity.

Firstly, the commands in the Bible are personal commands. God/Jesus doesn't tell people to go out and form a government to help/fix/improve people or society. He commands us individually to do so. The reasons for that should be pretty self-evident, but I guess they're not since we have goobers on the left (the social justice Christians) and the right (people like Farrah) who try to force everyone to conform to their ideals. So let me articulate them. Reason 1: The Bible is pretty explicit on us having free will and the necessity for us to actively choose God and his ways. Otherwise what would be the point? God doesn't want puppets or slaves. Reason 2: It also explicitly states that there's never going to be governmental perfection (perfection of rule) until the Messiah (Jesus) comes back. That doesn't mean we can't work to improve our situation, but it does mean we shouldn't be looking to government to fix all our problems. That puts government in the place of God, which is most definitely a sin.

Secondly, the Bible (New Testament) is also pretty clear on the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing. Jesus was very loving toward a whole host of sinners. Doesn't mean he accepted or validated the sins themselves. In fact, he told more than one person to "sin no more". But he still loved them and treated them with dignity. The same should be true for Christian behavior towards homosexuality. We can oppose same sex marriage, activity, etc, for moral reasons, but we shouldn't mistreat homosexuals. They are people, too and we are all created equally in the eyes of God.

I honestly believe that Christians should stop trying to force our beliefs on others via politics. The absolute best thing we can do is to pursue equality and justice for all. Much as it sucks, there will always be people who are hungry, poor, downtrodden, etc. The thing is to recognize which in which system you find the smallest percentage of unfortunates and promote the heck out of it. That system, without a doubt, is the system that was formed for us by our founders. Therefore, it is the job of the Christian in America to personally go out and try to fill in the gaps in the ways that they can: feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, uplift the downtrodden. That's our societal calling.

I'm an extremely socially conservative Christian.....on the local level. But I recognize that federalism is a governmental good because it ultimately leads to people having the greatest amount of freedom. I also recognize that what works in my little town isn't going to work everywhere else. Conservatives, even of the Christian variety, have to start getting back to promoting their values and beliefs where they can produce the most fruit: our own homes, neighborhoods, and communities. The only way we are going to change hearts and minds is to start at home. Keep the feds out of things as much as possible and let people live, for Pete's sake.

Sorry to get all Biblical on ya, Ace. This is just a topic that is close to my heart. Going back into "lurk mode" now.


Posted by: Mandy P. at August 20, 2010 04:01 PM (MK6Kx)

249 >>>ace @179, please see me @ 175, I missed a fairly important detail in the discussion.

I have since noted that, yes, I saw.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:01 PM (QbA6l)

250 Has Fred Phelps weighed in on this issue yet?

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at August 20, 2010 04:01 PM (+lsX1)

251 If you are going for that 'crush your enemies, drive them before you, and hear the lamentations of their women' thing this November, the first thing you do is keep as many allies heading that way as possible and not drive them away because they aren't 100% part of your little hobby-horse issue.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at August 20, 2010 04:02 PM (O9Cc8)

252 The country is getting bogged down in the marriage thing and real people, like at wally mart see it very clearly. Marriage is between a man and a woman. they think gay people should have contracts to protect their unions. Go out and ask them. Americans feel this is fair and just but don't touch their "marriages". I think the politicians are all missing this little fact.

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 04:02 PM (p302b)

253 258
Has Fred Phelps weighed in on this issue yet?


Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at August 20, 2010 04:01 PM (+lsX1)
I'll wait until the primaries are over.

Posted by: Rev. Fred Phelps, Democrat at August 20, 2010 04:04 PM (BP6Z1)

254 Maybe Ann C. is suffering Hetero-guilt? Personally I could give two shits. I'm a simlpe man; stay out of my house, my buisness, my family matters.I'm not gonna overthinkthis issue, esp. if it involves man ass. The gay GOPers need jobs and have a right to theirearned wages notbeing launderedthrough the Fed. just as much as us.This will be the issue that gets them to the polls in Nov, not whether not some guy Farah approves of their lifestyles.

Posted by: dananjcon at August 20, 2010 04:04 PM (pr+up)

255
If the GOP is going to succeed...they're going to have to put their social issues on the back burner.
Here, let me put it another way and you can tell me if it's still okay with you: If the GOP is going to succeed...they're going to have to agree exactly with Democrats on all social issues.
Still sound like a good plan for a political party's future?

Posted by: I'm Video Professor, try my CDs at August 20, 2010 04:04 PM (uFokq)

256 Is Joseph Farrah a protege of Fred Phelps? Cause he sounds like him. Homosexuality is ruining this nation? Really, less than 1% (or do they constitute a whopping 2-3%) of our population is ruining this country. Bullshit. They are not the problem.

What's ruining this country is a government and politicians looking to control every aspect of our lives. Homosexuality is not the problem. Let's get our priorities right.

Posted by: Penfold at August 20, 2010 04:05 PM (1PeEC)

257 The GOP cannot be an overtly, officially religious party charged with monitoring everyone's personal sins. It cannot be. Ever.
Especially when we so love nutting on things and stuff.
Now, the 'N' word...didn't someone vote that word off the island after the last racist dust up?

Posted by: HornetSting at August 20, 2010 04:05 PM (8F9TW)

258 @50: "Ann Coulter is a walking advertisement for sex-outside-of-marriage."
If she's actually walking, she not a good advertisement for it.

Posted by: Zombie Wilt Chamberlain at August 20, 2010 04:06 PM (ySNz/)

259 As one of those "evil Christianists", I have never heard of this Farah guy. I also wish the Christian community would not be defined by all the dolts who have a grave misunderstanding about many aspects of the Bible aboutWhose job it is to punish reward. It is also completely unhelpful in that they undermine communication give people false impressions.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 04:06 PM (Yq+qN)

260 1)Dr. Laura's crime was pointing out the hypocrisy of the black "artists" and their accepted ubiquitous use of the n-word. She didn't go on a tirade and throw the word about as an insult as the media is lying that she had.
2) Fuck Farrah

Posted by: beedubya at August 20, 2010 04:06 PM (Q3TFM)

261 The gay GOPers need jobs and have a right to
theirearned wages notbeing launderedthrough the Fed. just as much as
us.This will be the issue that gets them to the polls in Nov, not
whether not some guy Farah approves of their lifestyles.


Posted by: dananjcon at August 20, 2010 04:04 PM (pr+up)
--Amen!

Posted by: logprof at August 20, 2010 04:06 PM (BP6Z1)

262 Fuck no. Absolute insanity.
Posted by: robtr at August 20, 2010 03:46 PM (fwSHf)

---------------------

Didier sounds as stupid and ignorant about government as Dems.

Posted by: Hillary et. al. at August 20, 2010 04:06 PM (T+ReL)

263 OT
Great news! Both of the people who had jobs in Kansas, still have them:
http://tinyurl.com/38nlkrw
The four people who used to work in Missouri though are screwed.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at August 20, 2010 04:06 PM (r1h5M)

264 Wow... just looked up Farah.. what a homo-stache this guy sports!

http://www.abdiel.ca/?p=150

Posted by: ChiTown Jerry at August 20, 2010 04:06 PM (f9c2L)

265 If the GOP is going to succeed...they're going to have to put their social issues on the back burner.
Word.

Posted by: Gov. Mich Daniels at August 20, 2010 04:08 PM (mVwJ/)

266 I honestly believe that Christians should stop trying to force our beliefs on others via politics.
Fine. Let's see a declaration on that all other groups, including agnostics and athiests. Or are you aiming only at religious beliefs?
The absolute best thing we can do is to pursue equality and justice for all.
Funny how Chirstian beliefs are conflated with inequality and injustice.
Much as it sucks, there will always be people who are hungry, poor, downtrodden, etc. The thing is to recognize which in which system you find the smallest percentage of unfortunates and promote the heck out of it. That system, without a doubt, is the system that was formed for us by our founders.

You mean the Founding Fathers, who openly and repeatedly referring to Judeo-Christian principles as being guiding concepts?
Therefore, it is the job of the Christian in America to personally go out and try to fill in the gaps in the ways that they can: feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, uplift the downtrodden. That's our societal calling.

And you know for a fact that we're not doing that right now? r that agnostics and athiests aren't as well?

So. It's my job to shut up, vote as you desire, and fork over money. And this is different from the platform of the Democratic party how?
Oy.

Posted by: Blue Hen at August 20, 2010 04:08 PM (R2fpr)

267 185 There are probably 25 GOP congressmen.
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 20, 2010 03:41 PM (i6UsH)
Not by my count! HOOO-HA!!

Posted by: Massa-ge at August 20, 2010 04:08 PM (pr+up)

268 Isn't the point of a political party to elect candidates?
This group is called GOProud. That tells me that, as a group, they're going to support Republicans. It strikes me as nonsense to alienate them on purpose. If Ann Coulter can stir them up so their support increases, then thank you, Ann Coulter.
I don't agree with anyone on everything, but I'm not going to say "Go ahead and vote for Obama in 2012, you stupid Islanders fan!" to anyone. That'd be just ...
... I don't know.

Posted by: FireHorse at August 20, 2010 04:08 PM (sWynj)

269 For those who think there are just millions and millions of gays out there who would vote Republican if only we would embrace gay marriage, you're nuts. The number of gays in general is exaggerated.
Except no one outside the Frumite RINO faction is really suggesting that Republicans embrace gay marriage.
The question is- is it really necessary or adviseable to shun and ostracize an otherwise conservative voter because they're gay, or because we might disagree with them on gay marriage?
Not only do you alienate that relatively small demographic, but their friends, family, or those small government / fiscal conservatives who are more moderate on social issues. And for what? To prove that we're so hardcore conservative that we won't willingly be seen in the same room as a gay person?
Welcoming someone with similar political views into your political party doesn't imply you're promoting or even condoning every aspect of their lives and every single position they hold.
Are we really to believe that disagreement on that one issue- gay marriage- is enough to warrant purging someone from our sight?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at August 20, 2010 04:09 PM (plsiE)

270 Would this be an appropriate time to look up the naked Dr. Laura pics and rub one out?

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at August 20, 2010 04:09 PM (+lsX1)

271 I've re-read his missive again. This guy is slimy. He plays it fast and loose with subjective perception of reality and definition of terms throughout. What is real for him depends upon what is expedient in the moment.
"But I still consider you a friend and a fellow freedom fighter."
He considers himself a freedom fighter?
"Homosexuality is a sin."
Yeah, and there are many others. But it's not for us to pass judgement. Itis for us to forgive.
"I believe this is a time when God is calling his people to stand up for what's right."
Fight your own sin, asshole. Not those of others.
"I'm afraid you're really blurring the lines for many of your fans."
Lucky those poor, stupid people out there who shouldn't be allowed to exercise the choice God gave them have Farah (and elite liberals) to tell them what is best for them. Arrogant ass.
"The only way you might change some minds and hearts at Homocon is to confront them with their sin. I don't get the impression that is what you are being paid to do. These are folks who are being sheltered from the consequences of their sin."
Hubris. We're not here to determine when our fellow man has sinned. We're to try to make sure we don't when we exercise the choice God gave us. His job is simply to pass on the message, not act like a jackass. Not only is he dumb,he's a little psycho about it.
Pride, the biggest sin of all.
I think we should boycott his organization until he purges himself of pride. He's a sinner! We must save him from his sin! (Kinda sounds like I view my role as that of God himself, eh?)

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 20, 2010 04:10 PM (qjTXV)

272 257 Well said. I largely agree with that, especially the part about beginning at home. Will add that the government wouldn't be as tempted to reach-out "take care" of certain issues if we were doing our part.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 04:10 PM (Yq+qN)

273


Posted by: God at August 20, 2010 03:38 PM (Hj0nA)

comparing God to Darth Vader?
oh man, someone's asking for a good smiting

Posted by: chemjeff at August 20, 2010 04:10 PM (Pm5H8)

274 Why so much Bible hate?

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 04:11 PM (+sBB4)

275 BTW, since several people are taliking about not retreating from anti-gay-marriage, etc:

I agree; I don't think gay marriage is in the state's interest. I certainly don' think judges can claim the consitution mandates it.

Nor do I want gay stuff taught to kids-- egregious, revolting.

But I think it's one thing to object to a policy and another thing to object to a person, or class of people.

I can oppose the gay left (and gay right) all day on these things without having to take the next step and find them deficient as human beings.

(Well, the gay left, yeah.. but more because they are just repulsive and stalinist and less because they'e gay.)

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:11 PM (QbA6l)

276 Let me share with you morons exactly how it is. Christians are required to love all people, even while hating sin. We cannot separate that love from g/l (and whatever) by telling others, in effect, that we hate them because of their actions.
Since I am on my soap box, let me also say, that any Christian who votes for a pro-abortion politician has committed sin. There is no other way to look at it. Allowing others to end the lives of the unborn is the greatest blight on America, and it will eventually destroy our country if not stopped.

Posted by: timothyj at August 20, 2010 04:11 PM (b+pBW)

277 God/Jesus doesn't tell people to go out and form a government to help/fix/improve people or society. He commands us individually to do so. The reasons for that should be pretty self-evident, but I guess they're not since we have goobers on the left (the social justice Christians)...
Welcome to the 20-year running conflict between myself and my (essentially) Christian socialist dad. He argues that the Gospel (especially the Gospel of the Last Judgement in Matthew) commands welfare and government run health care; I argue that individualChristiansare charged with caring for others (through charity and good works), and that him voting to make one group pay for another group's needs then washinghis hands of the matteris no credit him.
Same church. Same level of religiosity. Same native area. Completely different worldviews. Don't know how that happened.

Posted by: LibertarianJim at August 20, 2010 04:11 PM (PReJ3)

278 /not ace, of course

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 04:11 PM (+sBB4)

279 And I do say born that way: This idea that they have a "choice" is a dodge. Yes, they have a choice as to whether they will have gay sex; but they don't have a choice as to whether they WANT gay sex. Just as no straight guy here really has a CHOICE as to whether he's attracted to to women or men. You're attracted to women, period. No fuzziness on it, no ambiguity, no depends on what kind of mood you're in, no depends on the person. You want one thing and one thing only sexually, and that's a woman. You don't have a choice. You couldn't really "choose" to be gay (absent some sort of truly distasteful forced conversion process). Extend out from your circumstances.
Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 03:58 PM (QbA6l)
OK ace, let me just step up and address this. In comment #119, I said I think gayness/straigtness is about 90% innate, 10% choice. (with some variation for all individuals) You think its pretty much 100% inaate.
Here's why I disagree. And I'll never admit this to anyone using my real name.
When I was growing up, I was a total horndog. Thought about girs/women all the time. Was overjoyed when I discovedbeatin' off at the age of 16.
Anyway, the vast majority of the time, I'd be thinking about girls. But EVERY NOW AND THEN, well a thought about some boy would creep into my thoughts.Sometimes I'd go "whoa, where did that come from?" Other times these thoughts would just ... linger a little. Not very often, but it happened.
Never followed through though. I was really bad with picking up women/girls back then. Painfuly shy, awkward, whatever.
There was one time, when I started to wonder if a situation I was in was going to happen with some dude. I wasn't sure. I didn't follow through.
As I grew older, these "questioning" thoughts faded. So I'd say I'm 100% straight now.
Honestly though, it pains me to say it, but I don't think I was when I was a kid. Mostly straight back then. But maybe not 100%.
True story.
End of confession.

Posted by: ed at August 20, 2010 04:12 PM (Zsqn4)

280 "Apparently Farah believes he is without sin and therefore justified in casting the first stone."
Well, he is without *that* sin. Ace has it right, we tend to judge the worst sins as things we don't do. It is part of human nature, just not a very good part. And yes, it is unChristian, since, you know, Christ, being without sin, gets to judge all of them as really, really bad.
So, enjoy that hellfire, morons.

Posted by: mrshad at August 20, 2010 04:12 PM (2S0jK)

281 He sounds like the kind of guy who swaggers around talking about how he's "doing God's work." As if God needs his help on anything, anything at all.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 20, 2010 04:12 PM (qjTXV)

282 It's come to this:

Cleveland to fine residents $100 for not recycling cans

The Nazis are in our garbage cans now.

Posted by: Rod Rescueman at August 20, 2010 04:13 PM (QxGmu)

283 Posted by: Mandy P. at August 20, 2010 04:01 PM (MK6Kx)
Very well said.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at August 20, 2010 04:13 PM (plsiE)

284 I'd personally like to practice sloth more often, but I just can't seem to get off my ass to do it.

Posted by: buzzion at August 20, 2010 04:14 PM (oVQFe)

285 OT, but I never thought this day would come!

Who would ever have thought I'd be so excited or happy about a fella named Andy Sullivan?

Posted by: Ms. Benes, if you please at August 20, 2010 04:14 PM (LyOUH)

286 Considering the number of species on the planet that display homosexual behaviour, it's hard not to determine that for a percentage of the population this is "normal".
Normal, as in natural, sure. But animals will, absent a better option, also bone other species. Bone relatives. Cannabilize relatives. They really don't have any morality or shame of any sort whatsoever. They are animalistic.Animals arealso big on rape.
All of which is to say only that - animals really don't give a rats ass. They are not all very clever and half lack a great deal of self awareness to even realize what they're doing, let alone thing philosophically about it.
Unless you reject human exceptionalism, it's simply irrelevant what animals do to the question of what rational humans do, one way or the other.
Among animals it's perfectly normal to have sex in public in front of children and then turn around and deficate in public in front of children on top of your own food... and then brush it off and eat it.
It's sort of like food. Sure, you have a preferance (and maybe a strong one) for one thing or another, but if you're hungry enough you'll eat anything.
The sex drive is physiological and instinctual. Instinct doesn't get that complex to get into choosiness. The animal urge to bust a nut is just that - how/what/when/where/why/who don't matter.
Humans have this instinct too, but also are capable ofa lot of other thoughts to consider. Animals, however, have only that urge, and not nearly as much capacity toconsider other thingsas we do. But this is why, for instance, practiceof homosexuality skyrockets in prison.
Because the physiological urge is just a physiological urge, it does not go away and it is not choosey about how it gets satisfied, so long as it's sated. Maybe woman > man > goat > pile of pebbles but at the end of the day the animal urge urges you to make do with whatever you got because you can't fit 8oz of sperm in two 3oz bags.
For whatever it's worth, I disagree with Ace about the 99.9% thing. I think if you want to guess look at prison populations where there are no other options. And that's WITH cultural baggage. Take away your whole life history of being conditioned to view homosexuality a certain way, AND take away the options, and you get a higher number still.
I maintain if you gave me a desertedisland of 6 year olds ala Lord of the Flies and I was so inclined to conduct this sociology experiment on them, I could probably get 75%+ of them to go homosexual.
To say that 99.9% of the hetero male population in our culture has absolutely no desire to enguage in homosex under normal circumstances is probably correct. But to say they were incapable of said desireunder any circumstances is quitewrong.

Posted by: Entropy at August 20, 2010 04:14 PM (IsLT6)

Posted by: Penfold at August 20, 2010 04:14 PM (1PeEC)

288 ed, do you remember that night you passed out on my couch and you woke up with a sore throat?

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 04:14 PM (+sBB4)

289 Here, let me put it another way and you can tell me if it's still okay with you: If the GOP is going to succeed...they're going to have to agree exactly with Democrats on all social issues.
Still sound like a good plan for a political party's future?
Posted by: I'm Video Professor, try my CDs at August 20, 2010 04:04 PM (uFokq)
My question to that would be how much government do you want in you personal/social life. Do you want the government to come to your church and say you have to teach homsexualality is right or wrong? Do you want the government to tell you to stop worshiping on Sunday because they feel Saturday is better for traffic?
You go to your church because you believe in it and that's how you want to try and live your life and you like being around people that feel the same way. What if the government becomes more involved and comes to your church and tells you you have to worship Buddha, are you going to be down with that?
I probably agree with everything you do. Where we part is the insistance that government has to be involved.

Posted by: robtr at August 20, 2010 04:15 PM (fwSHf)

290 what's wrong with being gay ... I feel pretty ... oh so pretty ...I feel pretty and witty and .... the bombing of Iran will begin in 3-2-1

Posted by: netanyahuwoohoo at August 20, 2010 04:15 PM (GvYeG)

291 I can oppose the gay left (and gay right) all day on
these things without having to take the next step and find them
deficient as human beings.





(Well, the gay left, yeah.. but more because they are just repulsive and stalinist and less because they'e gay.)







Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:11 PM (QbA6l)
--Exactly: I hate the gay left because they're left, not because they're gay.

Posted by: logprof at August 20, 2010 04:16 PM (BP6Z1)

292 Ace, the whole "non-procreative sex" thing you go on and on about has about as much to do with conservative, fundamental Evangelical theology as burning matches to ward off space aliens. That is, none.
Pre-marital sex? Yeah, there's a concern there. Blowjobs? If they're pre-marital or adulterous, yeah then there's a problem.

But the concept that somehow us Evangelicals are somehow hung up on blowjobs or using birth control with our spouses being somehow bad?Well, that is a ridiculous fantasy based on some weird mixture of urban myth and ignorance.
We're generally not Roman Catholic, you know. And even the Roman Church believes in a full, loving sexual life in marriage - otherwise, you know, even the Roman Catholic Church would have had a problem with the Rhythm method - which has been part and parcel of their pastoral approach for nearly a century or more.
The idea that all of us Christians are somehow only to have sex for procreation is an insulting falsehood.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at August 20, 2010 04:16 PM (yq74b)

293 I figured Joe Farah was deeper into the well-deserved obscurity bag than he is, I guess. I don't quite understand why he's fuss-worthy in any way. I used to read WorldNutDaily, but when I decided Farah was an Art Bell (albeit harping on social-con issues and wild conspiracy theories instead of UFOs and "chemtrails," and without Bell's redeeming entertainment value), I gave up.

I see Farah's intractability on issues such as homosexuality as symptomatic of the attitudes that will keep large numbers of voters from ever supporting social conservatives. It's isn't enough to not like gay sex or abortion on a personal level; that's understandable, and I say bless anyone who feels that way.

No, these zealots insist that such things are evils that should be scourged from the earth. In short, they will not be happy until everyone lives and believes exactly as they do. They actually sound somewhat like the Muzzies who want to impose their doctrines on all of us.

I know some see these horrible acts as the thin end of the wedge, that we're only a step away from mass chicken-fucking. I don't. I think there will always be people who use common sense to live the way they think is right and lead by example.

We need to apply a bit of that Big Tent theory to our lives and get off the bashing of people who mean no harm and who probably agree with us in most respects.

As for me, I'll pitch my Big Tent for Coulter. Anytime.

All that said, when it comes to the Palin/Dr. Laura thing, it has all been said above. See: Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 03:34 PM

Dr Laura is an anthill not worth fighting for.

Posted by: MrScribbler at August 20, 2010 04:17 PM (Ulu3i)

294 >>>Not only do you alienate that relatively small demographic, but their friends, family, or those small government / fiscal conservatives who are more moderate on social issues. And for what? To prove that we're so hardcore conservative that we won't willingly be seen in the same room as a gay person?

It's not just pure politics; it's also... well, supporting Israel gets me no Jewish votes but I do so because it's right.

But in terms of politics-- HollowPoint is right, it's not just about the gay vote, which is tiny. It's also about people who are more bothered by a hostility towards gays (as people, not in terms of their agenda) than by gays themselves.

There are more of the former than the latter.

Opposing gay marriage is a majority position held by 55-60% of the people; opposing gay *people* is a very minority one, and tends to turn people the hell off.

Again, oppose them if your beliefs dictate that, but what has this to do with government policy? The two must be separated out, if government is to remain limited in function and purpose.

This isn't "libertarian," this is classic conservatism. The government should not be involved in areas of life it doesn't need to be involved in. Ruling on the morality of specific sex acts is hardly something it needs to be doing.*


* One caveat: As predicted by Scalia, overturning the legality of unenforced anti-gay-sodomy laws would then be used by gay advocates to claim that there was no legitimate distinction the government could draw between straight and gay marriage.

Scalia was right.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:17 PM (QbA6l)

295
So. It's my job to shut up, vote as you desire,
and fork over money. And this is different from the platform of the
Democratic party how?

Oy.


Posted by: Blue Hen
---------------

Who is asking you to shut up? No one. Not me, at least.

I think what some are trying to say is that the Christian right cannot run the party and pick and choose who can and cannot join, and insist on what issues must be front and center.


Posted by: ChiTown Jerry at August 20, 2010 04:17 PM (f9c2L)

296 All of which is to say only that - animals really don't give a rats ass.

Tell me about it! I haven't gotten laid in weeks!

Posted by: Horny Gay Rat at August 20, 2010 04:17 PM (Pm5H8)

297 Or, God isn't all knowing or all doing. IF that is true, then were all just here on a ball of dirt flying through space by a series of wonderful mistakes.
Posted by: Sgt. Fury at August 20, 2010 03:40 PM (4dEOx)
That's a lot of nonsense. God leaves space for man's free will and the laws of nature to act, either of which could explain sinful inclinations.

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 04:18 PM (zQKSr)

298 Posted by: ed at August 20, 2010 04:12 PM (Zsqn4)
Ummmm. ...Iknow you're using a Sue-do-nym..but really, sometimes things are better left unsaid

Posted by: beedubya at August 20, 2010 04:18 PM (Q3TFM)

299 We're generally not Roman Catholic, you know. And even the Roman Church believes in a full, loving sexual life in marriage - otherwise, you know, even the Roman Catholic Church would have had a problem with the Rhythm method - which has been part and parcel of their pastoral approach for nearly a century or more

That's rather gracious. Kinda. But I'll take it at this point.

Posted by: Papist Bograt at August 20, 2010 04:18 PM (R2fpr)

300 >>>>We're generally not Roman Catholic, you know.

But Roman Catholics ARE.

Why are you insisting that I can only talk about the specific forbiddences of your sect?

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:18 PM (QbA6l)

301 Ace has it right, we tend to judge the worst sins as things we don't do.
Interesting thought. I see it a little differently. I think we tend to judge as worst the things we know we shouldn't do but feel we might give in to -- in order to erect a moral bulwark to keep us from doing those things.

Posted by: LibertarianJim at August 20, 2010 04:19 PM (PReJ3)

302 294
Considering the number of species on the planet that display homosexual behaviour, it's hard not to determine that for a percentage of the population this is "normal".
Normal, as in natural, sure. But animals will, absent a better option, also bone other species. Bone relatives. Cannabilize relatives. They really don't have any morality or shame of any sort whatsoever. They are animalistic.Animals arealso big on rape.
WTF, man...I guess this explains why our male dog likes to assrape pit bulls.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 20, 2010 04:19 PM (8F9TW)

303 On Ratigan's show right now there is some hot GOP strategist with big tits, and a tight short red dress..
..Ed...check it out

Posted by: beedubya at August 20, 2010 04:19 PM (Q3TFM)

304 But EVERY NOW AND THEN, well a thought about some boy would creep into my thoughts.
The spank bank is like the Hotel California. They can check in but they can never, ever leave.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 20, 2010 04:19 PM (xxgag)

305 Sarah is quickly losing major credibility by inserting herself in these stupid fights. Dr. Laura went over the line with the use of the word like 10 times and then whines about her 1st Amendment rights? really? She gets paid to exercise those rights everyday. When people complain they don't like what you say, they are exercising their rights as well. Why would Palin defend this is beyond me.

It is starting to look like Palin is attaching herself to just about anything to keep her name in the news cycle and she is starting to grate on my nerves.

Seriously, Sarah. WTF? Get back to policy issue. Get back to Obama debating your Facebook page. Stop interjecting yourself into every stupid fight out there.

Posted by: tinkerbelle at August 20, 2010 04:19 PM (bAa0K)

306 This isn't "libertarian," this is classic conservatism. The government
should not be involved in areas of life it doesn't need to be involved
in. Ruling on the morality of specific sex acts is hardly something it
needs to be doing.*

Well, that's not really "classic conservatism"; I think Burke might say that there _can be_ a state interest in forbidding _or promoting_ homosexual behavior if it served to further the traditions of that society.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 20, 2010 04:20 PM (Pm5H8)

307 For whatever it's worth, I disagree with Ace about the 99.9% thing. I
think if you want to guess look at prison populations where there are no
other options. And that's WITH cultural baggage. Take away your whole
life history of being conditioned to view homosexuality a certain way,
AND take away the options, and you get a higher number still.
This.

The notion that your sexuality is an on/off switch is rather simplistic. Considering the volume of different and weird porn out there, it's pretty clear sexuality is not a function of your genetics (unless there's a 'into two girls, a horse, and a man dressed like a police officer' gene) anymore than being a vegetarian is.

Humorously enough, psychiatrists consider bisexuals to be confused individuals in need of therapy. Because in their worldview, sexuality is either gay or straight.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 20, 2010 04:20 PM (FkKjr)

308 Backburner = capitulation ???11??1


... Need more brain power captain.

Posted by: Not a truce at August 20, 2010 04:20 PM (pv1c/)

309 274The difficulty with "a city on a hill" the advocating ofJudeo-Christian values being important to society is that we largely lost thatparticular battle. I think it still should be the basis of our society, as the Founders described, but Ican't tell youwhether it's still a possible. Peopleseem to want a moral society while still holding to the concept of moral relativity, history shows this has never worked.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 04:20 PM (Yq+qN)

310 I want cannibal marriage. "eat me" has a whole new meaning.

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 04:21 PM (+sBB4)

311 Seriously, Sarah. WTF? Get back to policy issue. Get back to Obama
debating your Facebook page. Stop interjecting yourself into every
stupid fight out there.

Well, I can understand it - from her POV, Dr. Laura is a comrade-in-arms. She's helpin' out a sister, because of what Sarah herself went through.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 20, 2010 04:21 PM (Pm5H8)

312 >>>s. But EVERY NOW AND THEN, well a thought about some boy would creep into my thoughts. Sometimes I'd go "whoa, where did that come from?" Other times these thoughts would just ... linger a little. Not very often, but it happened.

You are only the second person to ever confess that to me. One other guy did on the blog.

Okay, let me tell you: Your situation is very much an outlier. Since two people have told me they were straight-but-with-gay-thoughts, I believe them, and can guess there are more for whom this is a "choice."

But we are talking a tiny, tiny percentage of people. 1/10th of 1%? I don't know. I just do not know any straight guys who were really tempted. (Of course, they might not be telling me.)

Now, ask me "Then why does everyone go gay in prison?" That's a hard question: I have no friggin' idea. I'd imagine that part of the answer is about for some guys the sex being less important than the rape part, and that having bad repercussions.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:22 PM (QbA6l)

313 284
Let me share with you morons exactly how it is. Christians are required to love all people, even while hating sin. We cannot separate that love from g/l (and whatever) by telling others, in effect, that we hate them because of their actions.
Bingo...I always give myselfthe standardreality check. If my kidor niece/nephew were gay would I really show them the door??

Posted by: dananjcon at August 20, 2010 04:22 PM (pr+up)

314 296ed, do you remember that night you passed out on my couch and you woke up with a sore throat?
Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 04:14 PM (+sBB4)
Yeah, and a terrible taste on my tongue too. I think there was something wrong with the chicken enchaladas you served for dinner.
Why do you ask?

Posted by: ed at August 20, 2010 04:22 PM (Zsqn4)

315 In comment #119, I said I think gayness/straigtness is about 90% innate, 10% choice.
At most, 20-30% innate.
70%+ "other".
Some of that you can call 'choice',a great deal of it issocial conditioning. At least 50% conditioning.
Humans however, are quite complex and can't be managed. Different people respond in different ways to the same conditioning. It's difficult (or even impossible) to completely control.

Posted by: Entropy at August 20, 2010 04:22 PM (IsLT6)

316


Listen, there's a truth to the notion that societies that countenance homosexuality are decadent and/or nearing collapse.

It's called history.

As you so cogently point out ace, 97% of the public doesn't give a rip about trying gay sex. What you don't point out is that a sizable majority of that number (I think, but don't have research for) finds gay sex physically repellent and repulsive. A physio-psychological rejection response (the UCK factor, in technical terms) occurs across a large part of the population when confronted with same sex activities. Now for most guys, the thought of Scarlet Johansen and Penelope Cruz getting it on is pleasant, but the real world female same sex activities are going to trend more to the Rosie/Ellen match ups. Again, UCK.

Now, if you get a society that basically FORCES everyone to deal with the UCK factor constantly, what you are going to get is not a general tolerance, but a withdrawal from society of those who will contribute most to society's continuation (the fundie breeders). Aggressive advocacy for gay tolerance WILL result in a general rejection of society by such people. Participation in civic life will be discouraged, children homeschooled, discouraged from military service, tax cheating, voter apathy, all that great stuff that will ensure that we will be weak and ill-governed.

Conservatives traditionally (ha) view human nature as a given and as a fairly constant force. Ignoring it in the case of gay marriage will make the homos feel warm and fuzzy, but at a cost of making 20 times their number feel alienated from the very society that they will be unwilling to be part of that society.

Who needs em, right?

OK, talk about alienating the majority by being a purist.

Remove the love of country because people are disgusted with their society and people will simply refuse to wage the millions of small battles against chaos that face any culture (from random adults scolding misbehaving children walking down the street [that used to happen a lot, it's virtually non-existent now] to people refusing to help the victim of violent crime when they witness it happening). People simply disconnect from society. Apathy is a culture's deadliest disease.

Western civilization might very well actually depend on rejecting this stupid emo non-issue

Posted by: s'moron at August 20, 2010 04:22 PM (UaxA0)

317 Maybe Farah should just shut up instead worry about what will happen when God gets tired of the bullshit. His included.

Posted by: Steph at August 20, 2010 04:22 PM (580hG)

318 Really, Sarah Palin said N****r a bunch of times? I thought she was more astute than that.

Posted by: Penfold at August 20, 2010 04:23 PM (1PeEC)

319 it's
pretty clear sexuality is not a function of your genetics (unless
there's a 'into two girls, a horse, and a man dressed like a police
officer' gene)

You mean there isn't?

Posted by: Andi Sullivan at August 20, 2010 04:23 PM (Pm5H8)

320 Humorously enough, psychiatrists consider bisexuals to be confused
individuals in need of therapy. Because in their worldview, sexuality
is either gay or straight.

Ironically enough, hardcore gay activists treat bisexuals as nothing but fence-sitters unable to commit to being full homo. In any LGBT group, the B's are always on the outs for still practicing that nasty hetero stuff.

My point is that gays are as intolerant as anyone.

Posted by: Rod Rescueman at August 20, 2010 04:23 PM (QxGmu)

321 The Cleveland recycling SS thing is on Fox w MM.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 20, 2010 04:24 PM (i6UsH)

322 So, should a call for repeal of anti-bestiality laws be added to the Republican platform?


Posted by: Gerry at August 20, 2010 04:24 PM (g6ozZ)

323 326
Really, Sarah Palin said N****r a bunch of times? I thought she was more astute than that.

No - but Sarah, like Dr. Laura, was hounded and harrassed repeatedly and particularly because they were conservative women. As Ace said, it really wasn't about the N-word, it was about finally succeeding at taking away Dr. Laura's job.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 20, 2010 04:24 PM (Pm5H8)

324 Since I am on my soap box, let me also say, that any Christian who votes for a pro-abortion politician has committed sin. There is no other way to look at it. Allowing others to end the lives of the unborn is the greatest blight on America, and it will eventually destroy our country if not stopped.
It's not the role of government to enforce God's laws. Those choosing to get an abortion or performing one may be committing a sin, but it's a stretch to suggest that refusal to enact legal restrictions on it is.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at August 20, 2010 04:24 PM (plsiE)

325 So. It's my job to shut up, vote as you desire, and fork over money. And this is different from the platform of the Democratic party how?
Oy.Posted by: Blue Hen---------------Who is asking you to shut up? No one. Not me, at least.I think what some are trying to say is that the Christian right cannot run the party and pick and choose who can and cannot join, and insist on what issues must be front and center.
Posted by: ChiTown Jerry

1. I responded to a post that said that "Christians should not force their beliefs on anyone". When everyone else engages in political activities, what are they employing, their glands? (besides Ace, that is)
2.Okay Christians cannot run the party.But then, Idon't remember anyone saying that they should. So, who should? Who does decide what issues are front and center?
3. We've heard several times, both here and on earlier thread (paging Mitch Daniels) that social issues should 'take a back seat'. Also, that social cons (who apprantly are not "true conservatives) should still definitely come on out and vote as desired.
Having said that, I appreciate your post.

Posted by: Papist Bograt at August 20, 2010 04:24 PM (R2fpr)

326 As one of those "evil Christianists", I have
never heard of this Farah guy. I also wish the Christian community would
not be defined by all the dolts who have a grave misunderstanding about
many aspects of the Bible aboutWhose job it is to punish
reward. It is also completely unhelpful in that they undermine
communication give people false impressions.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby

Well, they're louder than the rest of you, so you'd better speak up.

Posted by: Hillary et. al. at August 20, 2010 04:24 PM (T+ReL)

327 "So Farah is essentially elevating to the position of Worst Sin the one sin he has absolutely zero chance of committing, zero chance of even being tempted by."
I'd say that about sums his position, whether he recognizes it as the logical conclusion or not, his is a "righteousness religion" rather akin to Islam I'd say.

Posted by: gary gulrud at August 20, 2010 04:25 PM (/g2vP)

328 "Dr. Laura" is kind of a liar: she uses the title "Dr." and allows people to assume that her degree is in an area related to what she talks about on the radio. It ain't.

I'm not sure that Ann Coulter really qualifies as someone who takes the farthest right position in all situations: after all, she endorsed Hillary Clinton over John McCain. She may not have been wrong, as I was tempted to do the same thing myself. (I wanted someone in the White House who would scare our enemies, and I happen to think that H. Clinton might have done so better than John McCain would have.)

But I'm not positive that endorsing Hillary was the "farthest right" position. Things are more complicated than that.

Posted by: Little Miss Attila at August 20, 2010 04:25 PM (saBHO)

329 two girls, a horse, and a man dressed like a police officer'
So that's what those squirrels were doing.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 20, 2010 04:25 PM (xxgag)

330 Posted by: Hillary et. al. at August 20, 2010 04:24 PM (T+ReL)


woops, sock

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 04:25 PM (T+ReL)

331 You are only the second person to ever confess that to me. One other guy did on the blog.
Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:22 PM (QbA6l)
Yeah, not many people confess to that. But keep in mind, my "confession" is totally anonymous. This will never come out in public. Ever.

Posted by: ed at August 20, 2010 04:25 PM (Zsqn4)

332 A Balrog of Morgoth

Fred Thompson, a constitutional conservative neoconservative kind of amalgam of common sense, is my favorite Republican. No, he doesn't walk on water. He doesn't try to act like he can, either.

I can't see Fred saying that he looked into Putin's eyes and found trust.

If Iraq aligns with Iran given the undead al-Qaeda there, I can't see Fred explaining to folks back home in Tennessee the virtues of MORE nation building in Islam after the valiant work accomplished by our troops is only to be negated upon departure. Perhaps those special forces left to remain in Iraq will stay indefinitely, as the rhetoric from Hussein's man wrote last week. "You destroyed Iraq. You can't leave us now to the wolves."

After his own tempered diplomatic efforts on America's behalf,
determining when and where to conduct warfare is something Fred Thompson
might direct better than other neoconservatives given that Teh Fred
neither takes guff, nor does he try to teach pigs to dance.

The Quran is dogmatic on the point of Islamic Theocracy. No amount of American sacrifice or charity is going to alter that Muslim dogma.

We don't want a Muslim Theocracy telling us what to do any more than Sharian Islam wants to forfeit power to be ruled by Western ideologies.

It's an impasse. Since we won't convert to Islam, the choices remain holding Islamic Theocracy at arms length, and as that fails, persist in macro level nation building, or at Newt's new micro level, sponsor and build "free cities" there until Muslims respond with Armageddon, repulsed by the persistence of intrusive Western democracy. That's the vicious circle.

It doesn't matter how sincere or generous our gift, Islam doesn't buy American propaganda any easier than you can teach a pig to dance. But they will gladly use us for their own reasons, taking lessons observing Obama.

Ron Paul's account of history may well be accurate. But we're where we are now, not then. It isn't as if pulling all US military home would halt the Islamic aggression, or protect our interior better. So far as our interior is concerned, we're sabotaged by our politicians and judges, no military solution there.

Islamic Manifest Destiny may use anti-colonial propaganda to attempt playing on the white elitist guilt complex. But whether or not any nation ever had any designs on the Middle East, let alone actually manipulated Islam, the point remains that Islam has designs to conquer the innocent along with conquering the world through immigration and non-assimilation accompanied with terrorism and military conquests. That's where we are, along with a shattered economy that will only improve given Libertarian direction. Quagmire.



Posted by: maverick muse at August 20, 2010 04:25 PM (H+LJc)

333 You guys have convinced me. I am going to ask ed to marry me. We will be looking for sperm donors so we can have 30-40 kids. We will have wonderful colors in our room.

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 04:26 PM (+sBB4)

334 This isn't "libertarian," this is classic conservatism. The government
should not be involved in areas of life it doesn't need to be involved
in. Ruling on the morality of specific sex acts is hardly something it
needs to be doing.

Ace


"My criticism is that
[the gay movement] isn't just asking for civil rights; it's asking
for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I
do not believe society can condone, nor can I."

Ronald Reagan 1980


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at August 20, 2010 04:27 PM (O/Vgs)

335 Ace,

I agree with you 100% on the Coulter/Farrah dust-up (and I'd add that Farrah is a loon who is better off ignored), but I wish Palin had stayed out of the Dr. Laura affair entirely. She's right, of course, but I still don't think any good can come of it.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at August 20, 2010 04:27 PM (Fg/7E)

336 Really, Sarah Palin said N****r a bunch of times? I thought she was more astute than that.

Posted by: Penfold

Hm? Of course she didn't, but Laura did. Or maybe I need to read some previous posts or get a clue.

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 04:28 PM (T+ReL)

337 Hey morons.

Had Lenny Bruce lived, do you think we would still be arguing over usage of the N-word and other terms that remain hot-button to this day? You need more like him so as to unlock your shackles, not bitch-slapped into meek apologists as seem to congregate here.

You deserve to be stripped of your pirate logo.

I bet somewhere race hustlers and Statists have a shrine to the Hollywood vice squad that persecuted Bruce, and hold drug laced celebrations on the anniversary of his death.

Worse -- how few of you even know what Lenny Bruce almost accomplished? Pathetic that you do not see the need to start using n~gger, k~ke, sp~c, d~go, m~ck, etc all the time to break the bonds of this oppression.

Posted by: Disgusted at August 20, 2010 04:28 PM (mE7Cl)

338 Ace, what I was saying is that you were even wrong about the RCC - you oversimplified their ban on birth control devices and drugs as being against sex for fun in marriage. Thathas not been the position for a very, very long time (over 100 years I believe). The Rhythm (spelling?) method is specifically for avoiding procreation while having sex.
Also, no, you're quite insulting again to spew back insults such as calling the broad range of Evangelical theology as being some "sect".
The fact is that you would be hard pressed to find any denomination - major or minor - which agrees with the idea that sex is only for procreation in marriage as an official theological position. You're basically lashing out with a rather distasteful over-generalization based on your specific lack of knowledge and myths- because sure as hell it ain't based on fact.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at August 20, 2010 04:28 PM (yq74b)

339 Your idea of non-procreative sex is flawed Ace. The only sex that is a sin in a marriage is sex with someone not your spouse. I am not sure where you get the idea that sex not singularly for procreation is a sin? Posted by: jlfintx at August 20, 2010 02:53 PM (06kXx)
So you're sayin beating it like it owes me money is a sin?

Posted by: Jack Off at August 20, 2010 04:28 PM (OefT/)

340 I'd imagine that part of the answer is about for some guys the sex being less important than the rape part, and that having bad repercussions.
That's no doubt part of it - some small percentage of people will get off on things like violence or domination with gender not being a big concern.
Some other part of it is a social environment where it's accepted.
Some other part of it is simply a question of availbility and opportunity and not being picky.

Posted by: Entropy at August 20, 2010 04:28 PM (IsLT6)

341 >>>The notion that your sexuality is an on/off switch is rather simplistic. Considering the volume of different and weird porn out there, it's pretty clear sexuality is not a function of your genetics (unless there's a 'into two girls, a horse, and a man dressed like a police officer' gene) anymore than being a vegetarian is.

Simplistic because it's simple, yes. Studies have found that there is no real male bisexuality, for example, except in the tiniest numbers; male "bisexuals" have sex with both sexed but in fact are strongly attracted to one and little to the other.

It's easy enough to test the claim that homosexuality will run rampant if we don't clamp down: Check Europe's homosexuality rates vs. America. Europe is certainly more decadent and licentious than the stodgy US: it's not utterly decadent, of course, but certainly a lot more decadent.

So what are the rates in Europe vs. the US? We really should know the relative danger we're fighting before embarking on a crusade.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:28 PM (QbA6l)

342 303 I think what some are trying to say is that the Christian right cannot run the party and pick and choose who can and cannot join, and insist on what issues must be front and center.
I think you also can't claim that we all agree with Farah. How many of us here have claimed that homosexuals don't belong in the Republican Party? Gay marriage right to be a member of the GOP are two completely different things. I also don't remember too many stating that our party shouldn't focus on fiscal issues, many have even said that is a higher priority.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 04:29 PM (Yq+qN)

343 "The question is- is it really necessary or adviseable to shun and
ostracize an otherwise conservative voter because they're gay, or
because we might disagree with them on gay marriage?"

Shun them? No. But when push comes to shove I think you have to tell them you are against their agenda at some point if that is what you believe. When you do that, they will consider themselves shunned. It will be interesting to see how Coulter threads the needle because one thing Farah is right about is that GOPROUD is playing this up for all it is worth.

I can totally see how someone would not look at the promotion surrounding this and assume Coulter is on board with the gay agenda. Personally I think deep down she IS with them and Limbaugh is too. What she is doing is taking baby steps in their direction hoping to bring other Conservatives along. Who would have thought Ted Olsen would have gone to court to over this. If you would have told me that a year ago I wouldn't have believed it. Beck has thrown in the towel too while he claims we should all get back to our religious roots.

People who don't think there will be blowback on this from religious conservatives are nuts.

Posted by: Ken Royall at August 20, 2010 04:29 PM (9zzk+)

344
"Social conservatives" are not true conservatives.
Posted by: rdbrewer
Hold on there a second, Champ. Now is not the time to start that crap. I could just as easily say that an understanding of the connection between public morality and polity is an unalienable part of conservatism.

Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at August 20, 2010 04:29 PM (kJXs1)

345 Ace Wrote:
"I don't want to invade her privacy: But am I to understand that
Joseph Farah believes she was celibate throughout this time period?
That her various boyfriends were content with some hand-holding and
maybe some light necking?

Am I to understand he is that childishly naive?"
I watched Coulter during an interview some years ago. Someone asked her if she was a virgin. She refused to answer the question, instead deflecting it onto another subject.

For some reason, I think that if Ace were correct, she would have answered the question. The fact that she did not is peculiar in my mind, unless she actually was a virgin and was embarrassed by the question.






Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 04:29 PM (eVJ7T)

346 Now, ask me "Then why does everyone go gay in
prison?" That's a hard question: I have no friggin' idea. I'd imagine
that part of the answer is about for some guys the sex being less
important than the rape part, and that having bad repercussions.







Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:22 PM (QbA6l)
--Yeah the idea that most of the homosexual activity in prison is consensual is, well, crazy. If anything, it's more like the power dynamic of the ancient Greeks, or of many --ahem-- Arab societies.

Posted by: logprof at August 20, 2010 04:29 PM (BP6Z1)

347 So I can haz comeback?

Posted by: Zombie GOP Brand at August 20, 2010 04:29 PM (95Y6l)

348 So, should a call for repeal of anti-bestiality laws be added to the Republican platform?
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: The Chicken at August 20, 2010 04:29 PM (plsiE)

349 I want to take this post and all it's wonderful points, roll it up into the shape of a bat, and hit people like Farah over the head with it.

Posted by: blackhawk12151 at August 20, 2010 04:29 PM (5+4Xn)

350 It's amazing that people who say they love America so much think it's so weak.
Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 03:51 PM (X/Lqh)
I love America, liberty, civillization. I think it is very weak indeed. In fact I think it requires eternal vigilance to preserve.

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 04:29 PM (zQKSr)

351 Posted by: Disgusted at August 20, 2010 04:28 PM (mE7Cl)

Hey troll, go back to Kos and DU where that type of language is tolerated.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 20, 2010 04:30 PM (Pm5H8)

352 The spank bank is like the Hotel California.
What about the Hotel New Hampshire? There's Nastassja Kinski in a bear suit, and ...
( ... lost my train of thought.)

Posted by: FireHorse at August 20, 2010 04:30 PM (sWynj)

353 So, Disgusted, you are saying the Gay Man has been keeping us down?

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 04:30 PM (+sBB4)

354 I took a short gig a couple year back where I worked with a younger man. In discussing the hours I would be available to be manager on duty I offered weekends as he was a younger man who 'probably had a family he wanted to be with'. He looked at me and said that he had a life partner.

I just smiled. "Okay, I said, that's fine. Tell me you're a Log Cabin Republican and you'll make my day."

He wasn't, but we got along just fine. We just stayed away from political discussions.

I judge not as I'm not without sin. I don't really care for overly religious people, who wish to extend their beliefs into politics. It's my whole "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar, and unto the Lord, what is the Lords" belief.

Posted by: Downsized Upscale at August 20, 2010 04:30 PM (IhHdM)

355 Every now and then I think of sheep, sweet, sexy sheep. And then I nail 'em. And by nail I mean screw, cook and eat, not necessarily in that order.

Posted by: Pat Caddell at August 20, 2010 04:30 PM (jbVm4)

356 America's military is strong. American society, like any society, is a fragile web.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 20, 2010 04:30 PM (Pm5H8)

357 Opposing gay marriage is a majority position held by 55-60% of the people; opposing gay *people* is a very minority one, and tends to turn people the hell off.
Call me a hardcore conservative, butI am against gay marriage because one advcocay group does not have the right to redefine a concept that has been around for a couple of millenia..
Marriage is a social construct born of biological predicates.I don't hate gay people...or even chicks who just want to experiment....and don't tell me that they can marry because of the 'consenting adults" argument..
..should siblings wed?.....parents/offspring??
I am all for homosexicles having the same civil rights......or any sort of relationship where someone has another for the mutual attainment of aiding and furthering their living/financial circumstances

Posted by: beedubya at August 20, 2010 04:30 PM (Q3TFM)

358 --Exactly: I hate the gay left because they're left, not because they're gay.
Posted by: logprof at August 20, 2010 04:16 PM (BP6Z1)
And there parades are god-awfull and over the top and frightening.

Posted by: dananjcon at August 20, 2010 04:31 PM (pr+up)

359 Let's win the next couple elections, repeal all the really dangerous crapola that is hanging in the air over our heads, okay, then we can set down over root beer and argue about individual sexual preference. If we decide to shun someone because of who they are in love with, great. They probably don't want to talk to us anyway. Ace, you be on a roll. In all seriousness dude, it takes ginormous cojones to take a strong position on such an emotional topic. Well said! Keep out eyes on the goal.

Posted by: emrys at August 20, 2010 04:31 PM (msqTW)

360 Chemtrail skidmarks is back.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 20, 2010 04:31 PM (i6UsH)

361 I see the Didier factor has already been discussed, but I'm assuming we are going to get a pretty nasty action alert from Ace about this. The epitome of stupid.

Good going, Clint. I actually liked you... now, I hope you never run for office, again.

Posted by: Editor at August 20, 2010 04:32 PM (pUfK9)

362 The problem I have with people like Farah is their statist impulse to control people. And after the Terri Schiavo cluster-fark, I'm quite inclined as a party to never go there agian.

Posted by: DocinPA at August 20, 2010 04:32 PM (PmyVI)

363 So what defines a Christian? Is it a Southern Baptist, an Evangelical, a Lutheran, A Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, all of the above plus a bunch of others?

I don't know the religious breakdown of this country, but pretty sure a majority consider themselves Christian of some sort. The more appropriate question to ask (among others) is do we want the party's leader to be Christian who make all decisions based on the Bible or something else.

Posted by: Penfold at August 20, 2010 04:32 PM (1PeEC)

364 Your idea of non-procreative sex is flawed Ace. The only sex that is a sin in a marriage is sex with someone not your spouse. I am not sure where you get the idea that sex not singularly for procreation is a sin? Posted by: jlfintx at August 20, 2010 02:53 PM (06kXx)
So you're sayin beating it like it owes me money is a sin?
Posted by: Jack Off

Depends. Did you show it a nice time on your anniversary? have you ever yelled at it for burning dinner?

Posted by: Papist Bograt at August 20, 2010 04:32 PM (R2fpr)

365 My problem with social cons is that they have little need for any other conservative issues (free-market capitalism, spending cuts, state rights) so long as they're being fed a steady diet of "Tons O' Jesus". How else to explain the popularity of Mike Huckabee, who is a Democrat on every issue that isn't a Jesus-freak issue.

Posted by: Rod Rescueman at August 20, 2010 04:32 PM (QxGmu)

366 >>>I think you also can't claim that we all agree with Farah.

Well I don't claim that at all. I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I do worry if people read implications into my words.

Inspector A-hole, for example, seems to have read my words as generally an argument to Evangelical Christians, or something... I really wasn't looking to pick on a particular group (and had none in mind), just disagree with this one position.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:33 PM (QbA6l)

367 It's hard to tell which group i'm more tired of, pushy Christians or pushy gays. If we were being honest we'd admit that that the whole nonsense about gay marriage is just gays trying to get revenge on Christians for years of anti-gay nonsense. Christians condemn and "convert" gays so now gays are going to take marriage away from Christians. The whole thing is stupid and a pox on both their houses is long overdue.

Posted by: Martha Stewart's Left Nipple at August 20, 2010 04:33 PM (u6OBh)

368 Anyway, the vast majority of the time, I'd be thinking about girls. But EVERY NOW AND THEN, well a thought about some boy would creep into my thoughts.Sometimes I'd go "whoa, where did that come from?" Other times these thoughts would just ... linger a little. Not very often, but it happened.
Never followed through though. I was really bad with picking up women/girls back then. Painfuly shy, awkward, whatever.
There was one time, when I started to wonder if a situation I was in was going to happen with some dude. I wasn't sure. I didn't follow through.
As I grew older, these "questioning" thoughts faded. So I'd say I'm 100% straight now.
Honestly though, it pains me to say it, but I don't think I was when I was a kid. Mostly straight back then. But maybe not 100%.

You disgust me.
okay, not really, I guess that's ok.

Posted by: Tom Servo at August 20, 2010 04:33 PM (T1boi)

369 ..Ed...check it out
Posted by: beedubya at August 20, 2010 04:19 PM (Q3TFM)
Who is it? S.E. Cupp? Yeah, she's pretty hot.
By the way, am I the only one who thinks her very name makes you think about tits?
S.E. Cupp? Cupps? Like DD Cupps. Cuz everytime I hear or read her name, I'm wondering if that is deliberately ambiguous.
Just wonderin'.

Posted by: ed at August 20, 2010 04:34 PM (Zsqn4)

370 Just found this quote the other day. Jefferson's thoughts on the issue. Strange how distant it is from what passes for modern thought nowadays.


"Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman
shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting
thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the
least. - Bill Number 64, authored by Jefferson and "Reported by the Committee of Advisors, 18 June 1779"
"

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 04:34 PM (eVJ7T)

371 Similarly, a government cannot mandate what sort of sex is legal and what sex is illegal.


That's
simply wrong as a matter of fact--as well as of policy. The law can
and should prohibit many kinds of sexual activity. The last time I
checked, adultery, for example, was still a crime in Maryland, Virginia,
and D.C.

Incest, bestiality, rape, and other forms of sexual abuse are all still illegal (at least this week).

Here's
the problem with our contemporary approach to homosexuality: our
culture cannot support a policy of toleration--toleration meaning
leaving alone what we strongly disagree with. In our culture, it seems,
it's either complete prohibition or total acceptance. (It reminds me a
bit of R.J. Neuhaus's dictum: where orthodoxy is made optional, it will
eventually be proscribed.)

This is how we go, in a matter of a
few years, from a situation where half the states outlaw sodomy to a
federal judge saying the Constitution not only permits but actually
requires SSM.

Here are the reasons I oppose any public recognition of homosexuality:

(1)
It's unhealthy. This has been documented a thousand times over. The
AIDS crisis was driven by an ocean of unsafe homosexual practices. But
instead of AIDS ushering in a new Victorian era, as a sensible society
would have had it, instead we've had a further weakening of sexual
morality.

(2) Homosexuality is not a purely biological or genetic
phenomenon. Twin studies have proven that (if it were purely genetic,
then all identical twins would share the same sexuality--but they
don't). That means that there is a huge cultural component to it. If
the culture supports it, then there will be more of it. Young people
who are in an unsteady state with regard to their sexuality can very
easily be tipped on to the wrong side.

(3) Homosexuality as a
political movement has in the last few years made it its goals to attack
the bedrock institutions of society: marriage and the military, the
very institutions that protect women and children on the one hand and
the nation on the other. Excuse me if I oppose those who threaten me
and mine.

(4) Public acceptance of homosexuality and SSM
permanently alters the understanding of marriage as the primary means of
reconciling the sexes and of providing for the orderly procreation of
children. I don't say that homosexuals led on this front: the
acceptance of contraception, abortion, and divorce led the way, but SSM
seals the deal. There's no going back from that change--short of
apocalypse now.

(5) Lastly, there is a theological point:
Acceptance of open homosexuality and SSM is basically a proclamation of
atheism. It is a repudiation of all traditional religious belief about
the distinctive and complementary nature of the sexes and about the
universal moral law--the law of nature and of nature's God. It is the
establishment of unbelief and the disenfranchisement of the majority of
religious believers in this country. Won't I now be a thought criminal
when I teach my children that homosexuality is wrong and SSM is a
tragedy and a fiction?

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at August 20, 2010 04:34 PM (mAm+G)

372 Good going, Clint. I actually liked you... now, I hope you never run for office, again.
Posted by: Editor at August 20, 2010 04:32 PM (pUfK9)
I am really pissed at that BS, really pissed.

Posted by: robtr at August 20, 2010 04:34 PM (fwSHf)

373 Now, ask me "Then why does everyone go gay in prison?"
Ihad a friend that spent about six years in the pen for drug trafficking..he told me that there was all kinds of homo sex going on...but he just got really creative with his onanism..
I'm pretty fucking sure I'd do the same

Posted by: beedubya at August 20, 2010 04:34 PM (Q3TFM)

374 I've never been entirely clear how the catholics use that to justify banning birth control. But... I really don't care.

Ok but, it is point of fact that the largest Christian faith in the world IS Catholic. And that faith teaches, sex in marriage in which artificial means are used to control conception (including pulling out) is sinful. Whether you agree or not is not relevant to the fact that a whole lot of Christians do agree. If you choose not to care enough to read Humanae Vitae the Churches foundational work of theology and position on the topic, then you choose to be too ignorant to argue the Churches opinion.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2010 04:36 PM (0q2P7)

375 So what defines a Christian?
The Bible. Specifically, the New Testament.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 20, 2010 04:36 PM (hsBue)

376 Posted by: ed at August 20, 2010 04:12 PM (Zsqn4)

What you described is a normal part of sexual development. The majority of teenage boys experience thoughts of other males at least once when going through puberty. It is not surprising you don't have those thoughts anymore, as your sexual development was complete by age 18-19.

The same thing happens to girls as well. Usually at an earlier age, though. (starting around 10-12 yo).

I have a master's in Psychology with a specialty in Human Development...so this is an area I know something about.

Posted by: tinkerbelle at August 20, 2010 04:36 PM (bAa0K)

377 "Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman
shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting
thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the
least. - Bill Number 64, authored by Jefferson and "Reported by the Committee of Advisors, 18 June 1779"
"

And Jefferson famously owned a Koran.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 20, 2010 04:37 PM (xxgag)

378 For some reason, I think that if Ace were
correct, she would have answered the question. The fact that she did not
is peculiar in my mind, unless she actually was a virgin and was
embarrassed by the question. Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 04:29 P


Forgive me for doubting the idea that no one has ever rung Coulter's bell. Likewise, forgive me for saying I don't care, except if she's taking applications for a volunteer to remedy that wasteful situation.
Nothing "peculiar" about it. I would laugh my ass off if someone asked me that question, and I suspect the majority of morons/moronettes would do likewise.

Or they'd lie. I mean, how can you take someone seriously if they ask shit like that?

Posted by: MrScribbler at August 20, 2010 04:37 PM (Ulu3i)

379 @274

Ever hear of two wrongs don't make a right? It's just as wrong of us to force our beliefs on others as it is for the goobers on the left to do so. And I never said Christian beliefs are unequal or unjust. I think they are very much equal and just. But I also recognize that not everyone holds the same ideals as Christians do and forcing the rest of society to conform to those beliefs makes us all less free. My point was that instead of trying to use the government to push people into a more Christian-friendly lifestyle, we should be trying to win people over by changing minds (and no, I'm not saying people aren't already out there doing that...it's just an observation).

I fail to see however, where pointing out the obvious- that it is the
duty of Christians to fill in the gaps for the people who get lost in
our society- is a suggestion that Christians don't already do those
things. With the amount taken in by charities in the US each year, it's
pretty obvious that we- and that includes both Christians and
non-Christians- already do a lot in the way of trying to fill those
gaps. My point in reiterating that calling is to make sure it was
articulated for those on either side of the aisle that think government
is supposed to be used to eradicate all the evils of the world. Liberals
are really bad with that, but there are a fair amount of conservatives
who fall into that trap, too; hence Mike Huckabee and his ridiculously
loyal following.

And yes, the founders based our system of government on natural law. But if their idea was to force Christianity on people then why even bother with the freedom of religion part? Why not just make it freedom of Christian denomination? If they'd intended for the nation to be a carbon-copy of the ideal Christian civilization, they certainly left out a lot of things.

I also never said anyone should vote any specific way, so please stop with that nonsense. I personally vote as socially conservative as I can in my local elections, and to a great extent in my state ones as well. But at the federal level, I think the greatest good can be had if they leave us all alone as much as humanly possible. That's my opinion and you're entitled to yours.


My overall point in criticizing Farrah is that he's missing the boat on winning people over, both to the conservative cause and the Christian one. You don't win people to your side by mistreating and shunning them. You do so by engaging them. The people at GOProud are already on our side on so many issues. Why on earth is it a good idea to drive them away when we can welcome them, cordially agree that we disagree on some issues but work together where we overlap, and ultimately we can work on changing hearts once we have them on board? We're not talking about people who disagree on 90% of the issues and overlap on one. We're talking about people who agree on 90% of the issues and disagree on one. What sense does it make to throw those people overboard?

Posted by: Mandy P. at August 20, 2010 04:37 PM (MK6Kx)

380 #346. In case no one replied yet: hey Disgusted, chill yo.

That was like 1 commenter or something. Palin is doing just dandy.

Posted by: Eucalyptus at August 20, 2010 04:38 PM (huLF0)

381 Farah's position is self-righteous horseshit. I say this as an opponent of "gay marriage" who also thinks gays have 100% full voting rights, political rights, speech rights and assembly rights as citizens.

Ace is on the money that Coulter "occupies generally the most conservative position prudent in conventional politics."

Farah is not going to win anything politically ever. All he will ever do for you is push your rage buttons on inflammatory issues, in order to coerce you to buy the products he hawks.

Coulter is the clear winner here. She is the argument winner, and she is the real-world-politics winner.

Posted by: Albus at August 20, 2010 04:38 PM (efvKa)

382 The problem I have with people like Farah is their statist impulse to control people. And after the Terri Schiavo cluster-fark, I'm quite inclined as a party to never go there agian.
Posted by: DocinPA

Did you read Mark Steyn's take on Terri Schiavo? Her demise was the result of the state, not eeeevil religionists. Once she became incapacitated, she was the property/chattel of her husband, that had spent money destined for her care and who had already taken up with another woman and was having kids with her. If this was truly about individual rights, he would have gone off into the sunset, and she would have had either a family member or a cort appointed guardian who would be an advocate for her interests, not her husbands'.

So standing up for a disabled person, a woman no less, is somehow a clusterfuck to be avoided? If that is the definition of a conservative, then I definitely am not one.
Blue Hen

Posted by: Papist Bograt at August 20, 2010 04:38 PM (R2fpr)

383 ~~ tap tap tap tap tap ~~

I am like Gregory Hines or a member of Tap Dogs, yes?

~ ~ tappa tappa tappa ~ is good? Yes? and so.

Thank you AOSHQ people for your warm welcome

I have not had this much fun since I watched Ann Coulter trade fashion tips with three gay republicans and a mop, which may have been lesbian. I am not knowing.

We of Islam do not have these problems.

There are no gay men who worship Allah.

Wait, that is not a joke. We have no gay men in Islam. Please you are to stop laughing.

Well, there are no gay men in Islam-Islam ...

sure, we of the Muslim faith have men who insert their erected manhoods into the anuses of men but that is only done as as punishment. And some people need punishment two or three times a night ... with a nice relaxing bath and some liniment.

I'm told.

Me? I'm one hundred percent of the sexing of the females. So, ladies, let see you give it up for Hadji ... show me those ankles, a calf if you are a dirty, dirty infidel.

Oooooh. yessssssssssssss

Is it me or did somebody open the tent flap and let the hotness of the sirocco in here?

So, on with the funny.

What is the difference between an American Catholic man and a Muslim man who are having sex with each other?

The Muslim man is not gay.


Thank you thank you thank you.

Tip the waitresses and ask if the veal is hal-el.

.

Posted by: Hadji the Muslim Comic at August 20, 2010 04:38 PM (Hj0nA)

384 163
I suspect Farahs biggest problem with Coulter is that she has been one
of the most vocal critics of WND's never ending Birther nonsense.




And as Ann pointed out, how can he "let her go" from an organization
she doesn't work for? Answer: for Publicity. All she has ever done is
contribute occasional columns to WND, which she still does. Farrah's
full of Huckabee-level shit.

Posted by: ktgreat at August 20, 2010 03:36 PM (GDaD0)

I sent her an email the other day after she said the "birther nonsense" had been debunked and listed a few website that had debunked it. I couldn't find the articles she was talking about so I asked her if she might give me some links. I am very interested in the issue being debunked because it would save me a lot of headache if someone could prove the issue one way or the other.Haven't got a reply yet. She's probably too busy to mess with me.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 04:39 PM (eVJ7T)

385 >>>Ace, what I was saying is that you were even wrong about the RCC - you oversimplified their ban on birth control devices and drugs as being against sex for fun in marriage. That has not been the position for a very, very long time (over 100 years I believe). The Rhythm (spelling?) method is specifically for avoiding procreation while having sex.

Well, look, I said I might have this wrong. I know birth control was illegal in connecticut until the SC overturned the ban in the mid-fifties.

>>>Also, no, you're quite insulting again to spew back insults such as calling the broad range of Evangelical theology as being some "sect".

I have no idea what you mean: I thought it was perfectly clinical and right to refer to different religions as different "sects." I had no idea that the word was dirty to some.

What am I supposed to say? The word I know for differening *Sectarian* groups is "sects."

It doesn't mean "cult," you know. It means party or faction.

>>>The fact is that you would be hard pressed to find any denomination - major or minor - which agrees with the idea that sex is only for procreation in marriage as an official theological position. You're basically lashing out with a rather distasteful over-generalization based on your specific lack of knowledge and myths- because sure as hell it ain't based on fact.

Fine, fine, dwell on the nit and avoid the main point -- sex out of wedlock is a sin in just about everyone's eyes, so is masturabation, lust, etc., and yet everyone isn't constantly yammering about that.

And sex out of wedlock leads to abortions a high percentage of the time, and yet it's STILL only mentioned maybe once for every two or three times the evil of gay sex is.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:39 PM (QbA6l)

386 Depends. Did you show it a nice time on your anniversary? have you ever yelled at it for burning dinner? Posted by: Papist Bograt at August 20, 2010 04:32 PM (R2fpr)
Are we talkin sex stuff or Incontinence?

I'm just tryin to keep up here.

Posted by: The Other Wet Spot at August 20, 2010 04:40 PM (OefT/)

387 The same thing happens to girls as well. Usually at an earlier age, though. (starting around 10-12 yo).
No, it happens 18-25! LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

Posted by: LibertarianJim at August 20, 2010 04:40 PM (PReJ3)

388 Okay here's my two gay friend stories.

1. I have a friend who's a gay conservative from Wyoming. (talk about minority!) He's a great guy, good handyman, can fix just about anything, can drink pretty much anyone under the table with whiskeys 'n' coke. Great dude.

2. I also had a dear, dear friend who was a lesbian. She was an amazing person, full of energy. I would hang out with her when I had spare time, she was very spontaneous and that's what made her so great. She passed away about 8 months ago, she had a stroke, it was a terrible blow, sometimes I still miss her. But she knew about my conservative views, and I asked her once, why she chose to hang out with me even knowing about my conservative views and what conservatives generally think about homosexuals. She said, plainly, "because it doesn't get in the way". And I think that's a lesson we could all learn: here she was, a lesbian ARTIST for god's sake, having fun and hanging out with an arch-conservative right-winger, because our disagreement over politics didn't get in the way of our friendship. We shouldn't let our disagreement over what is sinful and what is not get in the way of the acceptability of conservative ideas generally to everyone. Individual liberty is a great thing, for sinners and saints alike.

That's my anecdote for the day.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 20, 2010 04:40 PM (Pm5H8)

389 BTW, since several people are taliking about not retreating from anti-gay-marriage, etc:





I agree; I don't think gay marriage is in the state's interest. I
certainly don' think judges can claim the constitution mandates it.





Nor do I want gay stuff taught to kids-- egregious, revolting.





But I think it's one thing to object to a policy and another thing to object to a person, or class of people.
I can oppose the gay left (and gay right) all day on these things
without having to take the next step and find them deficient as human
beings.
(Well, the gay left, yeah.. but more because they are just repulsive and stalinist and less because they'e gay.)







Posted by: ace

Agreed.

But exactly how, without involving the government, do conservatives retract gay indoctrination from public tax funded educational and child care facilities?

And how, exactly, would gay-marriage become either legal or illegal without government intervention.

The conservatives didn't attempt to pass a law prohibiting gay marriage until gays demanded to be gay married, gays trying to legally force non-homosexual institutions to perform the marriage regardless of the institution's preference.

I didn't introduce being against gay people. You did. Agreed, it is not the government's role to discriminate against any American citizen.

Now, either without using or by using the government, explain how "special" people become every bit as equal as the rest of us under the law.

Posted by: maverick muse at August 20, 2010 04:40 PM (H+LJc)

390 "In the meantime, a bunch of them have organized with the intent of
promoting smaller, less intrusive government and increased fiscal
sanity."

Really?

Seems to me there are lots of effective organizations for that.

This one is about promoting the above, *plus* social engineering the basis of human existence.

Posted by: someone at August 20, 2010 04:41 PM (DfAwB)

391 Hey chemjeff -- what sort of drugs do you use at your celebrations of the death of Lenny Bruce?

Posted by: Disgusted at August 20, 2010 04:41 PM (mE7Cl)

392 249 >>The point is, he has the right to whatever religious beliefs he wants. He doesn't have the right to make everyone else accept those beliefs. Ace: Well that's my point; perhaps we disagree on whether his action crossed over from "mere belief" into "attempting to force that belief." I just do not see what this has to do with TAKING GOVERNMENT BACK. And back to me:
I only disagreed with the aspect of your post puzzling over why homosexuality stands out in Farah's statements more than other sins. He thinks it's worse than sin, that it's an abomination in the sight of the Lord. Arguing that he shouldn't elevate its gravity over other sins is a religious argument, not a political one.
As for ejecting Coulter from the conference, hey, it's Farah's conference -- but he's (in my opinion) being stupid and short-sighted to kick out Coulter. And his letter to her is pure arrogance, as if he has the right to tell her what kind of Christian she should be -- and worse, that only the right kind of Christian should be allowed to lead the Conservative movement. (As a Jew and a Conservative, I take personal offense at that line of thinking.)
Of course, TAKING GOVERNMENT BACK for Farah might be an expressly evangelical Christian endeavor rather than a broader Conservative one. Maybe he wants to strategize about making public policy explicitly reflect his religious beliefs. Here is the Publishers Weekly review of his book Taking America Back:
It's time for a revolution, declares Farah, co-author of This Land is Our Land: How to End the War on Private Property and founder of WorldNetDaily.com ("an independent newssite committed to...reporting on government waste, fraud and abuse"). In this fiery volume, he calls on Americans to embrace God, get government out of their lives and clean up the moral wasteland he feels the country has become. Beginning and ending with a firm belief in the Constitution and the power of religious faith, Farah stakes out a rigidly populist view of reform as he rails against conservatives and libertarians alike (while reserving special venom for liberals) for undermining the country's strength, its moral core and the "revolutionary creed of freedom and responsibility" on which it was founded. Indeed, Farah feels that the federal government is "intentionally encouraging and spreading immorality" and "turning us into slaves." His proposal for change includes, but is not limited to: abolishing the income tax and the IRS, withdrawing from all international treaties and institutions, repealing all gun laws and ending federal funding for schools, the arts, conservation, housing and agriculture. What's left, you ask? Farah calls for churches and religious institutions to assume a broader role in molding the national character, including actively censoring the entertainment industry and having a direct role in education and family life. There's certainly a choir out there to whom Farah can preach, but most readers will find both his positions and his rhetoric uncomfortably extreme.

Posted by: stuiec at August 20, 2010 04:41 PM (7AOgy)

393 Posted by: Hadji the Muslim Comic at August 20, 2010 04:38 PM (Hj0nA)
I don't know who you are...but that's some good, funnyshit right there

Posted by: beedubya at August 20, 2010 04:41 PM (Q3TFM)

394 Posted by: tinkerbelle at August 20, 2010 04:19 PM (bAa0K)

Why do you think she shouldn't be involved in Dr. Laura's fight? Dr. Laura's fight is Sarah's fight too.

If the tactics use to shut down a person'a free speech are allowed to go on, untouched, then we are all at risk. If PC makes us all "self censoring" then we are all at risk.


Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 04:41 PM (p302b)

395 @141: "And the slide just keeps coming. It's a steady movement that's really not tethered to events. Though events aren't hurting."
Of course, this time, the GOP has to deliver once in power. If/when they fail to roll back, repeal and repair, they are probably done for good. They've got a perfect storm election coming - they don't have to do anything other than not be democrats. However, once they get the power, people are going to expect results. If they can't deliver, they'll get tossed right back out.

Posted by: Zombie Wilt Chamberlain at August 20, 2010 04:42 PM (ySNz/)

396 i really had no idea "sect" was a bad word. I actually don't even think it is -- but I didn't know some people THOUGHT it was a bad word.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:42 PM (QbA6l)

397 Which Bible? And yeah, I am being snarky.

Posted by: Penfold at August 20, 2010 04:43 PM (1PeEC)

398 It's a possibility that this is a stunt cooked up by Farah and Coulter

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 04:43 PM (+sBB4)

399 Nothing "peculiar" about it. I would laugh my ass
off if someone asked me that question, and I suspect the majority of
morons/moronettes would do likewise.
Or they'd lie. I mean, how can you take someone seriously if they ask shit like that?

Posted by: MrScribbler at August 20, 2010 04:37 PM (Ulu3i)

Her behavior left me with the impression that she was "old school" in her attitude about sexual promiscuity. That's all I can say.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 04:43 PM (eVJ7T)

400 >>>No he's talking about this sin because its the one that has to do with GOPproud.

And giving that licentious Jezebel Ann Coulter a pass on her whorish lifestyle?

Did it escape his notice that the emissary to this Gathering of Sinners was indeed an egregious sinner herself?



Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:44 PM (QbA6l)

401 "My criticism is that
[the gay movement] isn't just asking for civil rights; it's asking
for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I
do not believe society can condone, nor can I."

How can civil rights exclude recognition and acceptance? "Here, have your civil rights, but you can't be recognized or accepted." ?????

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 04:44 PM (T+ReL)

402 Or did he just not care about THAT sin, because he'd like to sin with her?

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:44 PM (QbA6l)

403 ace is part of the gay hobo sect

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 04:45 PM (+sBB4)

404 And yes, the founders based our system of government on natural law. But if their idea was to force Christianity on people then why even bother with the freedom of religion part? Why not just make it freedom of Christian denomination? If they'd intended for the nation to be a carbon-copy of the ideal Christian civilization, they certainly left out a lot of things.
The Founding Father repeatedly said explicitly that the basic guiding documents were based upon Judeo-Chritian principles. I have no idea where the phrase 'natural law' comes from.They were particularly concerned with state sponsored religions, particularly those that demanded tithing and membership for entry to political or military office. I would also draw your attention to the preamble of the Constitution of the United States. They stated that they were doing this "in order to form a more perfect union". The concept that anything manmade cannot be perfect is part of Chiristianity. Please also note that they used the word 'ordain'.

Posted by: Papist Bograt at August 20, 2010 04:45 PM (R2fpr)

405 If you have proof Coulter is not a virgin, I'd like to see it.

Posted by: Dr Spank at August 20, 2010 04:46 PM (jbVm4)

406 FYI: a sect is a cult

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 04:46 PM (+sBB4)

407 Or did he just not care about THAT sin, because he'd like to sin with her?
Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:44 PM (QbA6l)
I get it now, it was a pick up line

Posted by: robtr at August 20, 2010 04:46 PM (fwSHf)

408 Are you talking about sects before marriage?

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 20, 2010 04:46 PM (i6UsH)

409 405
i really had no idea "sect" was a bad word. I actually don't even think
it is -- but I didn't know some people THOUGHT it was a bad word.

yeah, "sect" implies fringe kookiness

Posted by: chemjeff at August 20, 2010 04:46 PM (Pm5H8)

410 Why do you think she shouldn't be involved in Dr. Laura's fight? Dr. Laura's fight is Sarah's fight too.

Posted by: curious

Maybe. Lots of people's fights are Sarah's fight, but not all of them are presidential. Woops, I'm a Sarah-for-prez nut, so I have my agenda.

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 04:47 PM (T+ReL)

411 Shun them? No. But when push comes to shove I think you have to tell them you are against their agenda at some point if that is what you believe. When you do that, they will consider themselves shunned. It will be interesting to see how Coulter threads the needle because one thing Farah is right about is that GOPROUD is playing this up for all it is worth. I can totally see how someone would not look at the promotion surrounding this and assume Coulter is on board with the gay agenda.
Have you never read their columns?
Again- we're talking about politics. Coulter is engaging with those of similar (but not necessarily identical) political views.
That the GOProud folks are eager and willing to vote and associate with a party that disagrees with them on gay marriage suggests that they're not a single issue group. If disagreement over gay marriage was a deal-killer for them, they wouldn't likely be Republicans in the first place.
If they can put aside differences over gay marriage, why shouldn't you or anyone else?

Posted by: The Chicken at August 20, 2010 04:47 PM (plsiE)

412 ACE I had the understanding that you are essentially agnostic regarding religious belief. But IMO you have a very good idea of sin, a very Biblical understanding of sin, and how it works. And the breakdown of how as humans we elevate sins to a hierarchical structure, yet such an assessment is not evident in New Testament teaching. In fact we all do tend to pick out the sin we do not have any problem with ourselves and then make that a really, really bad sin. My take is that all sin unrepented of will send you to Hell.

Anyway I think your take here is a very good treatment of how we relate to the political world versus the religious, or spiritual world. Christ never taught about bringing spirituality via the edge of the sword...that is Islam, or the Left. In fact when in the Gospels people tried to make Him a King, he withdrew from those people. And the greatest sin recorded in the Gospels is the sin of Judas whose demand that Christ become a political figure, even a dictator, cause him to be the greatest traitor in human history.

Beware the impulse to confuse your religious beliefs with you political system. This is why the Left is such a danger, they have made their political beliefs THEIR religious beliefs. They do think of and act as if government is their God.

All Christian evangelism should be based on moral persuasion and demonstration, accompanied by miracle healing and deliverance. The miracle side of Christianity disappears, and thence the power to persuade when it whores itself out to a political system. That is what caused the dark ages. We go from a vibrant miracle-driven Christianity that was conquering the Roman world to the perversion of a politicized Church, more interested in wealth and power, than the salvation of human souls.

It has taken about 500 years to dig out of the cesspool of a mixed political/religious system, and indeed the genius of the American system was to separate these two realms or human dimensions, yet they were not to be antagonistic to each other...just separate. Men were still to be spiritual beings, as so many write and witness that you cannot have a democracy without a MORAL public

So it is folly to become like the Left...driving out real moral based religions and turning the State into your religion..that is death. But the other side of the same coin is to mix a religious belief with a political system, that is the Dark Ages, or Islam. Both sides of this have been seen, and both are murderous to humanity.

Posted by: Jehu at August 20, 2010 04:47 PM (YkTMO)

413 Oops- sock off

Posted by: Hollowpoint at August 20, 2010 04:47 PM (plsiE)

414 chemjeff

Homosexuality doesn't get in the way of either friends or family so long as no one forces the issue on the other.

Almost like Don't ask. Don't tell.


Posted by: maverick muse at August 20, 2010 04:47 PM (H+LJc)

415 Did you read Mark Steyn's take on Terri Schiavo? Her demise was the
result of the state, not eeeevil religionists. Once she became
incapacitated, she was the property/chattel of her husband, that had
spent money destined for her care and who had already taken up with
another woman and was having kids with her. If this was truly about
individual rights, he would have gone off into the sunset, and she would
have had either a family member or a cort appointed guardian who would
be an advocate for her interests, not her husbands'.


Well put. That was the central problem of the Schiavo case. Her husband, who had abandoned her, had taken up with another woman, and who was the person who stood to gain the most from her demise (in terms of his freedom to remarry without having to divorce), was the one person recognized (improperly, IMO) by the state to act for her. I wouldn't wish Terri's situation on my worst enemy.

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at August 20, 2010 04:47 PM (mAm+G)

416 Revirgination is popular.

Reheterosexualization is a new procedure. Maybe ed could try it.

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 04:47 PM (+sBB4)

417 Hobo Homos?

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 20, 2010 04:47 PM (i6UsH)

418 Coulter is the clear winner here. She is the argument winner, and she is the real-world-politics winner.

Posted by: Albus at August 20, 2010 04:38 PM (efvKa)
She's building bridges.The Olberman / Kos Kook contingency would be hooting and hollering if they read this thread. If Ann Coulter is not conservative enough for the Republican Party, we might as well concede now.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 20, 2010 04:48 PM (xxgag)

419 the show "modern family" has shown America what a real gay couple is like. The gay couple in the show is very appareling. they aren't what you would expect but they are real.

My most embarrassing moment was when I was dared by my friends to ask a guy in one of my classes to go for coffee after class. So I said "we always talk before class, let's continue this after class". He said "oh that would be great, but I hope you aren't thinking that this could develop into something cause my boyfriend wouldn't like that". the guy was a big brawny good looking hot as a pistol football player. We are still friends. Apparently that is the reddest I have eve turned. I responded to him "well that would have been nice but let's have that coffee anyway". We are still friends.

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 04:48 PM (p302b)

420 405
i really had no idea "sect" was a bad word. I actually don't even think
it is -- but I didn't know some people THOUGHT it was a bad word.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:42 PM (QbA6l)
--Actually, in its original sense, "cult" was not a bad word either. It was virtually synonymous with a mode of worship and is indeed the root of the words "culture," "agriculture," etc.

Posted by: logprof at August 20, 2010 04:48 PM (BP6Z1)

421 if sect means 'cult," why is fighting between religions called "sectarian violence"?

Is everyone calling all the parties cults?

No, it's not. It doesn't mean cults. You guys are just wrong on what the word means.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:49 PM (QbA6l)

422 If the tactics use to shut down a person'a free speech are allowed to go
on, untouched, then we are all at risk. If PC makes us all "self
censoring" then we are all at risk.
Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 04:41 PM (p302b)


So when conservative values groups target the advertisers of TV shows they think are morally harmful, will Palin stand up for the show and go after the family values groups on 1st Amendment grounds?

The market place of ideas works both ways. Palin made a major category error here. Quite frankly it makes her look silly.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 04:49 PM (X/Lqh)

423 I missed the Porn convention that Coulter spoke to. I don't keep up with such things. I have a 36k baud modem.

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 04:49 PM (+sBB4)

424 Fixed:

"I'll tell you one sin I wrestle with: the sin of
homosexual fornication. Why? Because I'm not straight. It constantly occurs to me that gee, maybe if I'm not scoring with the ladies lately I
should change up my game and try for a dude."

Posted by: thekid at August 20, 2010 04:50 PM (Adg3a)

425 Could care less if anyone is gay, straight, bi, or fucks chickens...sexuality makes up a very small percentage of what type a person someone is. Plus, why is it the people that rage the loudest against the homos are the ones that get caught sucking off truckers at rest stops?

Posted by: beerologist at August 20, 2010 04:50 PM (r2UKM)

426 Whore does not mean whore. It means sister. Everyone called my sister a whore.

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 04:51 PM (+sBB4)

427 Posted by: Papist Bograt at August 20, 2010 04:45
Please also note that my spelling is sinful.

Posted by: Papist Bograt at August 20, 2010 04:51 PM (R2fpr)

428 One certainly hopes that Farah called for Dick Cheney to be banished from the GOP and conservative movement for his notorious and open association with a lesbian.

Cheney doesn't even pretend to shun the lesbian he associates with.

Posted by: XBradTC at August 20, 2010 04:51 PM (hREsp)

429 403
Posted by: tinkerbelle at August 20, 2010 04:19 PM (bAa0K)Why do you think she shouldn't be involved in Dr. Laura's fight? Dr. Laura's fight is Sarah's fight too. If
the tactics use to shut down a person'a free speech are allowed to go
on, untouched, then we are all at risk. If PC makes us all "self
censoring" then we are all at risk.

How exactly are people trying to shut down her free speech? The woman gets paid to express her free speech rights everyday. She decided to quit. She wasn't fired. The government didn't shut her program down or fine her. She quit. No one is denying her the right to speak, they just don't like what she said. And she quit. Did I mention that SHE QUIT? She doesn't like the criticism so she quit. Let her quit...that just opens up another slot for someone else to exercise their free speech everyday.

Another thing - your right to free speech does not guarantee you the right that I will listen. And if I do listen and don't like what you have to say, I have free speech rights too....and can use them to tell you I don't like what you said.

But none the less - stupid argument for Sarah to wade into. She seems to latch on to the most controversial stuff and says shit...just to say shit. This went from being a Dr. Laura story to a Sarah Palin story. And I think that is exactly what Palin wanted.

Posted by: tinkerbelle at August 20, 2010 04:51 PM (bAa0K)

430 Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 04:49 PM (X/Lqh)

Drew, I don't think Palin is predictable. I think she is who she is and I wouldn't be surprised by anything she does. Look, we have to have some real human beings out there, real people. Everyone can't always be watching the polls and deciding what they believe based on a bunch of polls and not an inner core.

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 04:51 PM (p302b)

431 No, it's not. It doesn't mean cults. You guys are just wrong on what the word means.

It is a connotation thing. Strictly speaking, by the dictionary, you're right - sect just means a type of religious division. But it's been my experience that calling someone a member of a "Christian sect" implies that you think they are a fringe nutter, because the more mainstream phrase is "Christian denomination".

Posted by: chemjeff at August 20, 2010 04:51 PM (Pm5H8)

432 434 Sure bring me into this.

Posted by: Lindsay Graham at August 20, 2010 04:51 PM (i6UsH)

433 Did you read Mark Steyn's take on Terri Schiavo?

Papal Bograt, did you read Krauthammer's take on Terri Schiavo? It's entirely reasonable that the family we choose (e.g. spouse) comes before the family we were born into when it comes to making decisions on our behalf.

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 04:52 PM (T+ReL)

434 Keep that thing away from me

Posted by: TheChicken at August 20, 2010 04:52 PM (+sBB4)

435 Cheney doesn't even pretend to shun the lesbian he associates with.
Posted by: XBradTC at August 20, 2010 04:51 PM (hREsp)
Cheney is also for gay marriage.

Posted by: robtr at August 20, 2010 04:52 PM (fwSHf)

436 Wow ain't this the hot topic D'jeur! I leave for 10mins to google "two girls, a horse, and a man dressed like a police officer'and the thread is 400+ and counting. Has Anne Althouse chimed in yet? She is a law professor ya know.

Posted by: dananjcon at August 20, 2010 04:52 PM (pr+up)

437 I have a 36k baud modem.

SINNER!!!!!!!!

Posted by: chemjeff, monitor of the sin of Sloth at August 20, 2010 04:52 PM (Pm5H8)

438 434
Could care less if anyone is gay, straight, bi, or fucks
chickens...sexuality makes up a very small percentage of what type a
person someone is.


Posted by: beerologist at August 20, 2010 04:50 PM (r2UKM)
Honey, you obviously have not met us yet, have you?

Posted by: GLBT Studies Department at August 20, 2010 04:53 PM (BP6Z1)

439 I am really pissed at that BS,
really pissed.

Posted by: robtr at August 20, 2010 04:34 PM (fwSHf)
Me too! I am actually crafting a sincere email to Clint to beg some sense into him. If he shapes up and says, "You know what, I actually do need to endorse this guy with all I have for the sake of the Country..." then I might amend the never run again, comment.

Posted by: Editor at August 20, 2010 04:53 PM (pUfK9)

440 "well that would have been nice but let's have that coffee anyway". We are still friends.
Is "having coffee" a euphemism for a dirty, dirty sex act???

Posted by: beedubya at August 20, 2010 04:53 PM (Q3TFM)

441 Uh, did you folks read Ace's take on Schiavo?

He convinced me that she got screwed by both the husband and the left's culture of death (and yes, this really crystallized the truth of that phrase).

Posted by: someone at August 20, 2010 04:53 PM (DfAwB)

442 Posted by: tinkerbelle at August 20, 2010 04:51 PM (bAa0K)

If you know Dr. Laura's history, it has always been a battle to stay on the air. There is always some group that doesn't like something she said. It is actually sad that she resigned and took herself off the air, it means she is tired of fighting. Those are the tactics used....tactics which exhaust you and make you tired of fighting. This is how society just accepts stuff they shouldn't just accept.

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 04:54 PM (p302b)

443 I have no need for Joseph Farah or anyone who thinks like him in the Republican party.

I really don't.

Posted by: Tommy V at August 20, 2010 04:54 PM (qU57d)

444 logprof at August 20, 2010 04:48 PM

Yes. And literally, Christianity would be a cult given the worship of Jesus Christ. But usage left "cult" in the dark for the undesirable circumstances surrounding followers of charismatic frauds.

"Jonestown was the informal name
for the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project, an intentional community
in northwestern Guyana formed by the Peoples Temple, an American cult
led by Jim Jones." wiki

Posted by: maverick muse at August 20, 2010 04:54 PM (H+LJc)

445 Drew, I don't think Palin is predictable. I think she is who she is and
I wouldn't be surprised by anything she does. Look, we have to have
some real human beings out there, real people. Everyone can't always be
watching the polls and deciding what they believe based on a bunch of
polls and not an inner core.
Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 04:51 PM (p302b)

It's not a question or 'real' or 'predictable', it's a question about a basic understanding of the issues involved and the intellectual integrity one applies to them.

If 'real' means their 'inner core' requires a subjective application of fundamental principles based on a preference for certain political affiliations, I'll take 'fake'.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 04:54 PM (X/Lqh)

446 There's certainly a choir out there to whom
Farah can preach, but most readers will find both his positions and his
rhetoric uncomfortably extreme.


Posted by: stuiec at August 20, 2010 04:41 PM (7AOgy)

This extremism thing is peculiar. If you simply stake a position when you are young, and do not change from it when you are old, having not moved at all, you are considered extreme.
How can this be? Did you happen to see my Thomas Jefferson Quote?
Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman
shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting
thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the
least. - Bill Number 64, authored by Jefferson and "Reported by the Committee of Advisors, 18 June 1779"

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 04:54 PM (eVJ7T)

447 Fine, fine, dwell on the nit and avoid the main point -- sex out of
wedlock is a sin in just about everyone's eyes, so is masturabation,
lust, etc., and yet everyone isn't constantly yammering about that.






Onanists aren't organizing to change any laws or parading around celebrating their sin. I mean Woody Allen is the only person I've ever heard come out for SSM--Self-Same Marriage. "Don't knock masturbation — it's sex with someone I love."

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at August 20, 2010 04:54 PM (mAm+G)

448 Could care less if anyone is gay, straight, bi, or fucks chickens...sexuality makes up a very small percentage of what type a person someone is.
I find your lack of intolerance disturbing.

Posted by: The Chicken at August 20, 2010 04:55 PM (plsiE)

449 I'd personally like to practice sloth more often, but I just can't seem to get off my ass to do it.
Posted by: buzzion at August 20, 2010 04:14 PM (oVQFe)
Sounds like you don't need any more practice -- you've perfected the technique.

Posted by: stuiec at August 20, 2010 04:55 PM (7AOgy)

450 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR0G9XKuHdEfeature=av2e

There was a BLACK FLAG on my morning.......

Posted by: Sponge at August 20, 2010 04:55 PM (UK9cE)

451 Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 04:51 PM (p302b)
It's de rigeur for the self-stled, wishful-thinking elistist contrarians to bash Palin

Posted by: beedubya at August 20, 2010 04:56 PM (Q3TFM)

452 So when is this party you are inviting Coulter to? And can we come to it?

Posted by: thekid at August 20, 2010 04:57 PM (Adg3a)

453 Anybody following the Australian election?

Here you go courtesy of our favorite Taiwanese anime news: http://goo.gl/bs1o

God, I love these people!

Posted by: Moi at August 20, 2010 04:57 PM (Ez4Ql)

454 450
"well that would have been nice but let's have that coffee anyway". We are still friends.
Is "having coffee" a euphemism for a dirty, dirty sex act???
Posted by: beedubya at August 20, 2010 04:53 PM (Q3TFM)
Maybe not dirty dirty, but I think Grand Theft Auto may have given it a sexual connotation.

Posted by: buzzion at August 20, 2010 04:57 PM (oVQFe)

455 Or, paying attention to how to use this New Comments Thingy.......

How long is it New, anyway?

Posted by: Sponge at August 20, 2010 04:57 PM (UK9cE)

456 "abolishing the income tax and the IRS, "

What's wrong with that?

Also, getting rid of Federal involvement in schools is a grand idea.

Farah is a nut, but not so because of those two things.

Posted by: eman at August 20, 2010 04:57 PM (Nw/hR)

457 Posted by: beedubya at August 20, 2010 04:53 PM (Q3TFM)
hahhahhaha no i'm a good girl....it was having a cup of coffee

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 04:57 PM (p302b)

458 While the whole birth control debate just seems like another opportunity to get Catholics Protestants to fight, I'm going to say that there's great disagreement over the issue. Personally, I was never taught that birth control was wrong, neither were many of my friends. Perhaps there were a few who believed otherwise, but they were in the minority.
/No offense to anyone who believes otherwise on this one.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 04:57 PM (Yq+qN)

459 >>>It's entirely reasonable that the family we choose (e.g. spouse) comes before the family we were born into when it comes to making decisions on our behalf.

Except when the spouse is seeking to remarry promptly upon your death. In that case the spouse is no longer really a spouse and your are elevating a legal fiction above a plain reality.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:57 PM (QbA6l)

460 Me too! I am actually crafting a sincere email to Clint to beg some sense into him. If he shapes up and says, "You know what, I actually do need to endorse this guy with all I have for the sake of the Country..." then I might amend the never run again, comment.
Posted by: Editor at August 20, 2010 04:53 PM (pUfK9)
I was going to write him as well but all I could think of is "What the f*ck is your malfunction" so I gave up

Posted by: robtr at August 20, 2010 04:57 PM (fwSHf)

461 Onanists aren't organizing to change any laws
*AHEM*

Posted by: Jackoffs for Obama at August 20, 2010 04:57 PM (Q3TFM)

462 I don't give a fuck about how many fudge packers vote republican. Start lobbying for liberal shit like gay marriage though, and you should be shunned on the spot. None of the "compromise" assholes would accept someone who's conservative on abortion, gay marriage, guns and the war on terror but wants socialist economics. So why the fuck do I have to put up with assholes who demand that the government subsidize their personal relationships?

Posted by: Johnny at August 20, 2010 04:58 PM (aB5St)

463 OT: The UK warns Libya not to celebrate the one year anniversary of the release of the Lockerbie bomber or else they'll, I don't know, hold their breath until they turn blue?

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 20, 2010 04:59 PM (xxgag)

464 Is "having coffee" a euphemism for a dirty, dirty sex act???


No, but it IS used for enemas.......

Posted by: Sponge at August 20, 2010 04:59 PM (UK9cE)

465 Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 04:57 PM (Yq+qN)

my mom told me you could tell who was using birth control by who didn't receive communion.

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 05:00 PM (p302b)

466 #379 Leo, amplifying your (2), if homosexuality were strictly genetic, it would have been selected against immediately.

Posted by: SteveN at August 20, 2010 05:00 PM (7EV/g)

467 Marriage is between a man and a woman as it always has been defined, and homosexuals willing to put up with being "Auntie Toms" are more than welcome in the conservative movement. What's the problem?

Posted by: mugiwara at August 20, 2010 05:00 PM (F8rwu)

468 DrewM,

But I don't understand why what Dr. Laura said was a firing-offense, i.e., a racial felony. Wasn't it akin to a misdemeanor?

I have said before that I dont' think white people should use the n-word, and I don't. However, when you're using it clearly as just the word itself -- i.e., you're not really using it as an epithet-- how is that a racial felony?

I note that Bill Maher uses it all the time, to indicate that he is above such concerns and will not demean himself to say "the n-word." He also doesn't use it as an epiethet, but he will proudly say, "The GOP isn't calling Obama arrogant, what they're really saying is he's a n*gger."

He says that frequently.

Is that a firing-level offense? Apparently it's not even worth a scolding.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 05:00 PM (QbA6l)

469 hahhahhaha no i'm a good girl....
Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 04:57 PM (p302b)
Holy Shit Good Golly...what the fuckheck are you doing here then

Posted by: beedubya at August 20, 2010 05:01 PM (Q3TFM)

470 458
Could care less if anyone is gay, straight, bi, or fucks
chickens...sexuality makes up a very small percentage of what type a
person someone is.
I find your lack of intolerance disturbing.




Actually just got in from a 5k run, slammed a couple beers on an empty stomach and am feeling all warm and inclusive and shit.

Posted by: beerologist at August 20, 2010 05:01 PM (r2UKM)

471 381
Now, ask me "Then why does everyone go gay in prison?"
Ihad a friend that spent about six years in the pen for drug trafficking..he told me that there was all kinds of homo sex going on...but he just got really creative with his onanism..
I'm pretty fucking sure I'd do the same
Posted by: beedubya at August 20, 2010 04:34 PM (Q3TFM)
Another option apparently is to be a really good artist. There's a pretty good chance you'll be left alone/protected if you become the source of pornography for the other prisoners.
So if you're going to prison you might want to practice drawing the naked female form.

Posted by: buzzion at August 20, 2010 05:01 PM (oVQFe)

472 Also, to those worried about societal breakdown: the teachers/public school system is an infinitely greater and more imminent threat; media too (but media control is not a valid party platform - just like moral control isn't - it just isn't - try it on for size). This place depends on a moral people someone once said. "Depends" meaning "requires", not "generates". it's up to the people to determine their character, whether to pas it on, or dilute it, or to lose it.

too be honest this past year is making me think McCarthy at least deserves a 2nd look.

Posted by: Jolly Roger at August 20, 2010 05:01 PM (SC4Vy)

473 I don't give a fuck about how many fudge packers vote republican. Start lobbying for liberal shit like gay marriage though, and you should be shunned on the spot. None of the "compromise" assholes would accept someone who's conservative on abortion, gay marriage, guns and the war on terror but wants socialist economics.
Why hello there.

Posted by: Mike Huckabee voters at August 20, 2010 05:01 PM (plsiE)

474 I don't give a fuck about how many fudge packers vote republican. Start
lobbying for liberal shit like gay marriage though, and you should be
shunned on the spot.

Coincidentally, I feel the same way about people over the age of 12 who feel comfortable tossing out names like 'fudge packers'.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 05:01 PM (X/Lqh)

475 413 The Founding Father repeatedly said explicitly that the basic guiding documents were based upon Judeo-Chritian principles. I have no idea where the phrase 'natural law' comes from.

Natural law? God's natural law? Those phrases don't ring any bells?

Look, no one's arguing that Judeo-Christan values weren't the basis of our founding. But they obviously weren't the entirety of it. Prime example is slavery. At the founding the authors of the Declaration and the Constitution all argued that slavery was wrong and against God's law. But ultimately they did what? They left it up to the states and hoped that we would eventually figure it out and stop it on our own.

Again, the big point I was trying to get across here is that we shouldn't be mistreating gays, OK. What Farrah is doing is trying to pressure someone else into shunning them because he disagrees with their lifestyle. Heck, I disagree with them on that, too. But I'm not going to refuse to speak to a homosexual, or even a group of homosexuals because I don't agree with gay unions or their sexual lifestyles. Do I absolutely believe it's a sin? Yes. Do I think that we're going to get them to change their ways by turning our backs on them? Absolutely not. Speaking strictly as a Christian, you don't condone what they do. But you absolutely sit down with them, love them, treat them with dignity, and ultimately try to convince them to sin no more. Not force, convince.


Posted by: Mandy P. at August 20, 2010 05:03 PM (MK6Kx)

476 Drew, Palin was riffing off of what Schlessinger said, and the fact is people almost always mean "free to jabber whatever I want" unless they signpost otherwise--unless they signpost the limited, specificlegal meaning. You're attacking her use of the conceptby conflating the general usagewith the specific usage and byarbitrarily deciding the latter is more appropriate.
I like what she said because she'sright, and because she had the balls toenter into that debate.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 20, 2010 05:03 PM (qjTXV)

477 459 I'd personally like to practice sloth more often, but I just can't seem to get off my ass to do it.
Posted by: buzzion at August 20, 2010 04:14 PM (oVQFe)
Sounds like you don't need any more practice -- you've perfected the technique.
Posted by: stuiec at August 20, 2010 04:55 PM (7AOgy)

Hence my attempt at a joke with that comment.

Posted by: buzzion at August 20, 2010 05:03 PM (oVQFe)

478 My problem with social cons is that they have little
need for any other conservative issues (free-market capitalism,
spending cuts, state rights) so long as they're being fed a steady diet
of "Tons O' Jesus". How else to explain the popularity of Mike
Huckabee, who is a Democrat on every issue that isn't a Jesus-freak issue.

Posted by: Rod Rescueman

Word!

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 05:03 PM (T+ReL)

479 Keep that Al Gore guy away from us

Posted by: GaySexPoodles at August 20, 2010 05:03 PM (+sBB4)

480 chemjeff: sect sectarian v. denomination denominator

Which is easier to say and type, btw?

Really, its personal upbringing that determines whether sect is the norm or denomination.

I grew up hearing about Christian sectarians long before the MFM settled on the expression for the audience in saying "sectarian violence" in order to not introduce Muslim Sunni and Shia into the public dialogue.

Don't tell me that nondenominational is the only PC term, leaving ecumenical politically incorrect.

Posted by: maverick muse at August 20, 2010 05:03 PM (H+LJc)

481 Which Bible? And yeah, I am being snarky.
Anything grammatically translated from the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic. I was actually expecting that question.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 20, 2010 05:04 PM (hsBue)

482 Is that a firing-level offense?

For Bill Maher, noted liberal, on cable TV? No.
For Dr. Laura, noted conservative, on broadcast radio? Apparently yes.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 20, 2010 05:04 PM (Pm5H8)

483 I also have dropped it on the site, when I was quoting someone else's use of it... surely the rule isn't that any use of the word by a white person, no matter how the benign the context, is a firing-level offense.

That just can't be the rule; it can't be.

I note she did apologize. She said she shouldn't have said it. When larry king asked her if she understood jews can say things about jews that gentiles can't, she said she did.

I just did not see a lot of animus there on her part, and I saw an actual apology, not a forced one, not all begrudging.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 05:04 PM (QbA6l)

484 I responded to him "well that would have been nice but let's have that coffee anyway". We are still friends.
Very good response.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 20, 2010 05:05 PM (hsBue)

485 What is Beck smoking today? He actually said to challenge your professors and read what they don't want you to read. So, after you've paid all that money and challenged a few professors and made your conservative beliefs know, you aren't getting into grad school cause you have a lot of F's D's and C's....the power is held solely by the professors and they use it beautifully. If you disagree with them you won't get an A and you won't advance to the next level. You have no choice. Beck has obviously never been to college.

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 05:05 PM (p302b)

486 I'm willing to compromise a bit. If Gay Marriage is allowed, then make it a law that all gay couples who wish to marry, must marry in a makeshift Mosque right next to the Ground Zero Mosque.

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2010 05:05 PM (gUGI6)

487 maverick muse @ 490, oh that's not what I'm saying - I'm just relating my understanding of the connotation behind "sect", that it suggests more of a fringe-y kooky non-mainstream type of religious practice than your typical Southern Baptist.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 20, 2010 05:06 PM (Pm5H8)

488 But I don't understand why what Dr. Laura said was a firing-offense, i.e., a racial felony. Wasn't it akin to a misdemeanor?
It's not even that. She was simply saying that no one should own the word. It is offensive. Period.
She used the word to demonstrate its accepted use by blacks.
Where is that line drawn as to whom can use it??...

Posted by: beedubya at August 20, 2010 05:06 PM (Q3TFM)

489 But I don't understand why what Dr. Laura said was a firing-offense, i.e., a racial felony. Wasn't it akin to a misdemeanor?


Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 05:00 PM (QbA6l)

I don't disagree.

In my first comment in the thread I said Dr. Laura's thing was blown out of proportion (though I think she was an ass for saying what she did to the woman). Personally, I had the whole "N Word" euphemism. If you want to say it, say it. I'm glad Dr. Laura did, if that's what she meant.

I don't think she exactly got fired, she's not renewing her contract when it's up at the end of the year. Maybe there was some pressure but she didn't say so.

My problem is with Palin's "First Amendment" defense. It's either based on a misunderstanding of the concept or she's too lazy to layout the actual issue at stake.

I'll admit, the whole "First Amendment=freedom from criticism" thing is a pet peeve of mine.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 05:06 PM (X/Lqh)

490 495
What is Beck smoking today?


I like Beck, but he kinda gives me the creeps now and again.

Posted by: beerologist at August 20, 2010 05:06 PM (r2UKM)

491 Except when the spouse is seeking to remarry
promptly upon your death. In that case the spouse is no longer really a
spouse and your are elevating a legal fiction above a plain reality.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:57 PM

Yes, there are always exceptions. But the general principle is right.

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 05:07 PM (T+ReL)

492 As far as Social Cons VS Religous Cons goes, I've always speculated that if the Dems were able to recast theirselves as reliably pro-life, the Repubs would be eternally a minority party. Thank god the Dems will never cave on baby killing!

Posted by: mugiwara at August 20, 2010 05:07 PM (F8rwu)

493 I'm sorry, but the whole "You have to believe in Jesus or be a good Christian to call yourself a conservative" bullshit has got to go. Whether or not you are a conservative is not determined by your religious affiliation. The notion that gays who believe in limited government, a robust foreign policy, lower taxes, less government spending, the ascendancy of free markets over government intervention can't call themselves conservative because some whiny groupofself-righteous asshole bigotChristian fuckwadscalls their personal behavior sinful is so fucking retarded, it is hard to put it in words.
It isdouchebags like Farah that make the term "social conservative" more and more an oxymoron. Opposing the murder of the innocent in the womb is one thing, but enforcing some sort of Christian orthodoxy? How in the fuck is that remotely conservative? If it is wrong for the government to judge people in such a fashion, why should we tolerate it when some self-appointed cabal of bigots does it?The notion that being attracted to someone of your own sex disqualifies you from being conservative is just plain fucking stupid. Aside from opposition to abortion, the rest of social conservatism, such as the insistence that creationism be taught in schools, is a bunch of complete fucking nonsense.

I don't believe in any bullshit having to do with Jesus or any other related nonsense and I will be damned if someone claims I am not a conservative because of my religious views, or lack thereof. And anyone who claims believing in the Bible and being a christian is a prerequisite to being a conservative can go fuck himself.

Posted by: Obama is Carter at August 20, 2010 05:07 PM (/G0pB)

494 This faggot doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Gays can't be conservatives? I can tell you from experience, they certainly can.
When you discover you're gay you do not stop being the daughter of a 30 year Chief Master Sgt in the USAF who drug you onto army and air force bases all over the world and taught you about life and honor and duty and the price of freedom. You don't stop being the granddaughter of two WWII Vets, the daughter and neice of two Vietnam Vets and the sister of two Persian Gulf War Vets.
You don't let them take your guns, either. EVER. You never lose the heathy skepticism and disgust of government and it's tendancy to grow itself at the expense of your individual liberties. Over-reach like speech codes and hate crimes (thought crimes, really!) and the tyranny of socialism don't stop disgusting you.
You don't stop believing that this is a blessed and wonderful nation. You never stop feeling that you indeed are blessed to be born an Americancitizen by the grace of God. Yeah, you also don't stop believing that Jesus died fror your sins, either (so there, you puke Farah).
And you'll never stop thinking that all the hot wenches are on the right!
Naming their converntion (or gala) HomoCon was stupid, but that's what happens when you let the boys plan the party! Having a group like GOProud or Log Cabin Repuyblicans is not really aimed at our choir here on the right. We are surrounded and besieged by the nasty, hateful, spiteful, intolerant, liberals leftist queers that make us the 3% of the 3%ers, who deem us self-hating traitors to their little groupthink positions.
It's hard out here for a conservative queer (hee)and we like to rub it in their faces that we do indeed exist and we're not playing their fucking games. They are our real target. The damned sheep who think they can ever speak for us. That's the reason we form up and show ourselves at their pride rally's (talk about a hostile crowd!). They have nerve talking about angry Tea Partiers, some of the most wonderful people I have ever had the priveledged tostand beside.
Fuck him, I say. Someone else is going to have to do it, though. I don't swing that way.

Posted by: redstatedeb at August 20, 2010 05:08 PM (ykmvs)

495 The market place of ideas works both ways. Palin made a major category error here. Quite frankly it makes her look silly.
Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 04:49 PM (X/Lqh)
DrewM, you're attributing Dr. Laura's words to Sarah Palin. What Palin said was:
I understand what she meant when she declared that she was “taking back my First Amendment rights” by turning to a new venue that will not allow others the ability to silence her by going after her stations, sponsors, and supporters.
Now, you may argue that of course Palin was making the same mistake as Dr. Laura in claiming a First Amendment protection from non-governmental criticism of speech -- but that argument is purely circumstantial. Nowhere in her Facebook post does Palin claim that the people shackling her and Dr. Laura are violating her First Amendment rights, and she doesn't say she agrees with Dr. Laura's words or echoes them -- only that she understands the intent behind them.

Posted by: stuiec at August 20, 2010 05:08 PM (7AOgy)

496 Beck has obviously never been to college.That is true

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at August 20, 2010 05:08 PM (EKjIP)

497 Barrack the magic negro lived in D.C........

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 20, 2010 05:09 PM (i6UsH)

498 I was shocked when I was voted down hard over at BigGovernment for defending Ann, and for giving a shoutout to my favorite conservative converts (who happen to be gay)over at HillBuzz. Really?

Posted by: sybilll at August 20, 2010 05:09 PM (Ai3Ye)

499 Well I guess I get that, sort of.

Look, it is common on the right to be a little hypocritical on this issue. When a lefty loses a deal due to her noxious speech, we say "The first amendment guarantees a right, not a forum, and not a record deal, " etc.

When coercive practices are used against us we start equating the First Amendment with freedom from external coercion.

It's a thing I do, a failing, a hypocrisy... I guess you don't and that's what makes you mad about it, because you're pure on it.

Personally, I slide into that on occasion.

At first I did take Palin's tweets (I didn't think they were her tweets and still don't) as simplistic and stuff but her fuller FaceBook posting makes sense.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 05:09 PM (QbA6l)

500 Coincidentally, I feel the same way about people over the age of 12 who feel comfortable tossing out names like 'fudge packers'.



Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 05:01 PM (X/Lqh)

Hey! We vote too!

Posted by: Fudge, Cookie and Pastry Packers Local #2739 at August 20, 2010 05:09 PM (Pm5H8)

501 Doctor Laura was stupid in using that word. Palin should have said it was stupid if she said anything at all about it..
Does anyone give a shit if black people use it? Are we missing out on something by not using it?
Do we fell the need to stop black people from using it?
My answer is no to all.

Posted by: robtr at August 20, 2010 05:09 PM (fwSHf)

502 I'd personally like to practice sloth more often, but I just can't seem to get off my ass to do it.
Dammit! A joke about a deadly sin. I could've come up with that. That should be my joke!

Posted by: FireHorse at August 20, 2010 05:10 PM (sWynj)

503 also have dropped it on the site, when I was quoting someone else's use of it... surely the rule isn't that any use of the word by a white person, no matter how the benign the context, is a firing-level offense.
It probably is. And I agree with people like Bill Cosby, if it’s a bad word for one…..its a bad word for all. Dr. Laura, Chris Rock, et. al. But, lets be honest here: there has, is and, unfortunately, always will be two standards: one for a liberal like Bill Maher, the other for conservatives. Part of it has to do with media bias and part of it has to do with the so-called aggrieved parties association with the Democratic Party.

I actually thought Dr. Laura could have done something about that by refusing to quit. Stay on the air, ride out the anger and get on with life. She decided not to. Too bad.

Posted by: Mallamutt at August 20, 2010 05:10 PM (OWjjx)

504 485 That's because some of the Founders were divided over which took precedence, Judeo-Christian values or Hobbes' def. of natural law, so they tried to cobble the two together.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 05:10 PM (Yq+qN)

505 The Fudge Packers Local here in Philly is fully supporting Drew on this.

Posted by: SEIU Local 1256 at August 20, 2010 05:10 PM (+sBB4)

506 I make fun of retards. And while Dr. Laura 'stepped in it', I get a pass. Because I say 'Fuck Bush'.
I like these rules.
PS...go see my shiteous new movie. Please?!?

Posted by: Jen Aniston-the most unwanted woman on the planet with the hawtest body at August 20, 2010 05:11 PM (mVwJ/)

507 >>>Yes, there are always exceptions. But the general principle is right.

The exception was actually the case in Schiavo.

And we have judges to make those exceptions where the law, per its literal meaning, is an ass.

In the Schiavo case the judge decided the fiction was the reality.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 05:11 PM (QbA6l)

508 468
While the whole birth control debate just seems like another opportunity to get Catholics Protestants to fight, I'm going to say that there's great disagreement over the issue. Personally, I was never taught that birth control was wrong, neither were many of my friends. Perhaps there were a few who believed otherwise, but they were in the minority.
/No offense to anyone who believes otherwise on this one.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 04:57 PM (Yq+qN)
Part of the issue for Catholics and birth-control is what the pills do. I'm drawing on my memory of Catechism in high school here but there was an explanation of birth control pills engaging in three methods of preventing the pregnancy. The third method was something along the lines of killing the developing embryo/zygote if the other 2 hadn't prevented that from occuring. That pretty much made it an abortion.
That's also the big issue the morning after pill has. Its killing the already fertilized egg. So with Catholics being pro-life (or supposed to be pro-life), the birth control pills cause a problem with that view.

Posted by: buzzion at August 20, 2010 05:11 PM (oVQFe)

509 I'm just wondering what Joseph Farah would look like in a pair of leather chaps.

Posted by: nickless at August 20, 2010 05:11 PM (MMC8r)

510 I see our representative has already spoken on this issue.

Posted by: SEIU Local 1256 at August 20, 2010 05:11 PM (+sBB4)

511 505



Well said redstatedeb

Posted by: beerologist at August 20, 2010 05:11 PM (r2UKM)

512 Did someone say fudge packer?

Posted by: Tom Cruise at August 20, 2010 05:11 PM (i6UsH)

513
This Republic owes its birth to the Enlightenment.

Our Founders lived in a time when people knew full well how Churches did and had done very bad things. They were rightfully wary of them.

The First Amendment protects Churches from the Government, and the Government from Churches, and, with an able assist from the Second, protects the rest of us from both of them.

Posted by: eman at August 20, 2010 05:12 PM (Nw/hR)

514 Redstatedeb is absolutely right - gays can definitely be conservative. They'll naturally tend to be more libertarian than goin' all So-Con, but they can just as easily be revolted by the behavior of Dems as the rest of us here are.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 20, 2010 05:12 PM (Pm5H8)

515 Hence my attempt at a joke with that comment.
Posted by: buzzion at August 20, 2010 05:03 PM (oVQFe)
You stirred yourself to reply to me?
I take back what I said. You are not ready, grasshopper. When you are truly committed to your sloth, you will be secure in your indolence and no longer feel the need to reach out.

Posted by: stuiec at August 20, 2010 05:12 PM (7AOgy)

516 >>>Doctor Laura was stupid in using that word. Palin should have said it was stupid if she said anything at all about it..

But was it actually hateful and worthy of such a scandal?

I mean, honestly. Yes I agree with the basic rule: Whitey shouldn't say the n-word. But this was really, really an empty, for-illustrative-purposes-only use of it.

All this heat over that? Really?

It's utterly out of proportion.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 05:12 PM (QbA6l)

517 @524

Truth to Power!!

Posted by: Penfold at August 20, 2010 05:13 PM (1PeEC)

518 It's a thing I do, a failing, a hypocrisy... I guess you don't and
that's what makes you mad about it, because you're pure on it.
Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 05:09 PM (QbA6l)


It''s about the only thing I can claim purity it on and as I said, it's a peeve.

I also think it does a real disservice when someone of Palin's stature does it. She should know better and be clear about what the deal actually is.


Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 05:13 PM (X/Lqh)

519 I was going to write him as well
but all I could think of is "What the f*ck is your malfunction" so I
gave up

Posted by: robtr at August 20, 2010 04:57 PM (fwSHf)
That's how I started out, but I took some deep breaths and wroteear Clint,First, I want to congratulate you on what I see as a great
showing for a first timer. You put your heart and soul into the campaign and
you convinced a great number of voters that you were the best candidate to
unseat Patty Murray. Your battle was far more uphill than either of the top 2
candidates and you gave them a run.I also understand your frustrations
with Dino. I, by far, related more to Clint Didier during the campaign than
Dino Rossi. Kudos to you.However, I am disappointed in your
unwillingness to throw your complete support behind Dino, now that voters have
spoken. Yes, you have left that door open and made it clear you want to, but
this race is too important to not pick a side. I know he is not the ideal
candidate, but the reality of the situation is that we have a choice between
Dino Rossi and Patty Murray.I also know you will receive a number of
requests like this, so it is nothing extraordinary, but I feel it is
necessary.Clint, please, for the sake of our Country, I , as a citizen
of the greatest nation the World has know and a lifetime resident of Washignton
State, ask that you quickly put these disagreements aside and whole heartedly
endorse and campaign for Dino Rossi. I believe you have the key to the victory
or defeat Dino Rossi at this time. I beg that you make the right decision and
quickly. Do not hand this election to those who do not believe in American
exceptionalism. Thank you for you time.

Posted by: Editor at August 20, 2010 05:14 PM (pUfK9)

520 ~ ~ tap tap tap ~ ~

it is the same as before?

Like a viking?

I do not understand that.What is meant by a viking?
Is it the same? - Yes? It is same. Then say yes next time.

Hello again! The manager told me that there was a four joke minimum for Hadji to receive his monies.

By my fingers that works out to about 20 alms per joke.

But I am joking.

That is one joke, mister manager. In Mecca that would be threee jokes but you cannot travel to the Holiest of Holies because you are a Jew ... or an Episcopalian. I am never sure of the difference.

But we were talking about how Islam is blessedly free of the homosexually while you infidels in New York City and Los Angeles and San Francisco are simply awash in homosexual this and homosexual that and men kissing men and women kissing women and men kissing goats ... wait, no.

That last part is Mecca.

That is joke number two.

In Islam there is also no woman having sex with woman without a man present. Oddly the bigger offense in Islam is not the sexing of the women if it for some reason did come to be - the bigger problem it is if the man is not a relative of the women.

As you people say, go figure.

Why was the Call to Prayer late at the Ground Zero Mosque and Community Center?

The Muezzin was giving oral sex to the iman at the time of the prayer call.

How late was the Call to Prayer?

Thirty seconds plus a cigarette.

and so, for the big finish ... I will give an tribute to my hero Johnny Carson who I watched on a little television in my family home back in, as you say, the day.

Allow me to be Karnac of Magnificent.

9 W

What Chancellor Angela Merkel said when asked if Obama was her favorite American president?

Hey-oh.

Now, ululate for me as I leave to get my money.

I have earned it.

.







Posted by: Hadji the Muslim Comic at August 20, 2010 05:14 PM (Hj0nA)

521 I was actually gonna ask my wife to make some homemade fudge this weekend...not really hungry for it now.

Posted by: beerologist at August 20, 2010 05:15 PM (r2UKM)

522 I'm gonna take two weeks, gonna have a fine vacation

I'm gonna take my problem to the United Nations

Well I called my congressman and he said Quote:

"I'd like to help you son but you're too young to vote"

Sometimes I wonder what I'm a gonna do

But there ain't no cure for the summertime blues

Posted by: Boppin' 'Bama at August 20, 2010 05:15 PM (xxgag)

523 I, for one, will follow our Leftist overlords, and have vowed submission to them.

Posted by: ingenus at August 20, 2010 05:15 PM (+sBB4)

524 All this heat over that? Really? It's utterly out of proportion.
Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 05:12 PM (QbA6l)
I didn't say she should get fired or quit I said it was stupid. I also said they underlying argument for using it is stupid.
If blacks like to call each other that I don't care. I don't care if there is a double standard because I don't want to use the word and I don't care if they do.

Posted by: robtr at August 20, 2010 05:16 PM (fwSHf)

525 So except for the douchebag troll, most of the commentors are conservatives of one sort or another. Isn't diversity wonderful!!

Posted by: Penfold at August 20, 2010 05:16 PM (1PeEC)

526 Have you seen me?

Posted by: Mike Hawk at August 20, 2010 05:17 PM (6s9um)

527 I note that Bill Maher uses it all the time, to indicate that he is
above such concerns and will not demean himself to say "the n-word." He
also doesn't use it as an epiethet, but he will proudly say, "The GOP
isn't calling Obama arrogant, what they're really saying is he's a
n*gger."Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 05:00 PM (QbA6l)


Hmmm....I did not know that (I wouldn't watch Maher's show if you paid me). So if the long knives come out for her over this, Sarah can point to Bill Maher and tar the left as hypocrites.

I still wish she would have stayed quiet over it. And if you're right that it was an employee popping off via her Twitter, she needs to fire them ASAP.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at August 20, 2010 05:17 PM (Fg/7E)

528 I mean, honestly. Yes I agree with the basic rule: Whitey shouldn't say the n-word. But this was really, really an empty, for-illustrative-purposes-only use of it. All this heat over that? Really? It's utterly out of proportion.
I'd like to see Laura change her mind and stay. Sometimes taboo is elevated over rationality, and it has to be challenged.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 20, 2010 05:17 PM (qjTXV)

529 Posted by: redstatedeb at August 20, 2010 05:08 PM (ykmvs)
If its not a common saying among gay conservatives it should be: "Its easier to come out of the closetto your conservative friends that you're gay than it is to come out of the closet to your gay friends that you're conservative.

Posted by: buzzion at August 20, 2010 05:18 PM (oVQFe)

530 The exception was actually the case in Schiavo.



And we have judges to make those exceptions where the law, per its literal meaning, is an ass.



In the Schiavo case the judge decided the fiction was the reality.





Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 05:11 PM

-----------
The Florida judge was true to the law, however inadequate it was to address a human tragedy. I wouldn't have wanted to be in his shoes.

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 05:18 PM (T+ReL)

531 Fuck him, I say. Someone else is going to have to do it, though. I don't swing that way.
Posted by: redstatedeb at August 20, 2010 05:08 PM (ykmvs)
So back in the 1970s, I go to see Straw Dogs at the revival theater on University Ave. in Berkeley. Very crunchy crowd, and I am sitting a few seats away from two stocky lesbians in lumberjack shirts.
At the climax of the movie, when Dustin Hoffman is in the clutches of the evil ex-boyfriend of his English wife (who also raped her earlier in the movie) and when Dustin is shouting at his wife to shoot the ex-boyfriend, I noticed that the lesbian couple was halfway out of their seats along with the rest of the crunchy crowd, and we were all shouting at the screen, "Kill him! KILL HIM!"
Certain values transcend our differences. Wanting to see the rapist dead, for one. Believing we're taxed enough already, for another.

Posted by: stuiec at August 20, 2010 05:18 PM (7AOgy)

532 This is from a couple hundred posts upthread - but it can't be correct:
Catholic was when John Paul II, during a trip to Africa years ago, stated that avoiding marital sex for the sole reason of preventing pregnancy was a sin. The only form of birth control condoned by the Catholic Church is Natural Family Planning, which involves avoiding sex when a woman's body signals let her know she's fertile. I believe some calendar planning can be used with it as well.
Is there a link to this statement that JPII purportedly made?

Posted by: kallisto at August 20, 2010 05:19 PM (+FkcS)

533 513
I'd personally like to practice sloth more often, but I just can't seem to get off my ass to do it.
Dammit! A joke about a deadly sin. I could've come up with that. That should be my joke!
Posted by: FireHorse at August 20, 2010 05:10 PM (sWynj)
and its such an obvious joke too.

Posted by: buzzion at August 20, 2010 05:19 PM (oVQFe)

534 Thank you for you time.
Posted by: Editor at August 20, 2010 05:14 PM (pUfK9)
Good for you, maybe I can do the same tomorrow.

Posted by: robtr at August 20, 2010 05:19 PM (fwSHf)

535 520
I'm just wondering what Joseph Farah would look like in a pair of leather chaps.

Because you asked -

Joseph Farah in a Village People Cowboy costume
(okay not really, but it's close)

Posted by: chemjeff at August 20, 2010 05:19 PM (Pm5H8)

536 And giving that licentious Jezebel Ann Coulter a pass on her whorish lifestyle? Did it escape his notice that the emissary to this Gathering of Sinners was indeed an egregious sinner herself?
Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 04:44 PM (QbA6l)
I don't think that's fair; has Coulter ever advocated being proud of extra-marital sex?

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 05:20 PM (zQKSr)

537 I think a lot of the problem here is the way females communicate and how that differs from the way males communicate.

Women, usually being moms, have to be the peacemakers, the ombudsmen, the communicators among family. They are used to listening carefully and then trying to understand to reach a common ground. Most females say "they can understand that" when they do and they listen and really try to understand. It's a different approach. I had no problem with what either woman said and I bet the other women had no problem with it either...we are women and we communicate with other women all the time. It might be a good sign cause after all weren't we told the soccer moms rule the world and aren't soccer moms women?

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 05:20 PM (p302b)

538 You go Sarah. We can't have enough conservative demographics alienated before November.

Posted by: Clint Didier at August 20, 2010 05:20 PM (EL+OC)

539 I was actually gonna ask my wife to make some homemade fudge this weekend...not really hungry for it now.
Posted by: beerologist at August 20, 2010 05:15 PM (r2UKM)
Just eat it straight out of the pan, instead of putting it into some other container first.

Posted by: stuiec at August 20, 2010 05:20 PM (7AOgy)

540 I think we can all agree that Farah is an asshole.I don't want to write anyone out of the conservative movement,even assholes.We can agree to disagree on some issues.

Posted by: steevy at August 20, 2010 05:20 PM (GAViH)

541 475 My mom said you could tell who was using birth control by who didn't receive communion.
I wouldn't know, as I am not a member of that Church. But that's always been something for them to decide.
Also find it interesting that some ascribe views to the catholic (universal) Church withoutconsidering thedifferent denominations disagreements between them. Furthermore, while I understand the hard feelings against Christians to a certain extent, it alsogives me pause.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 05:20 PM (Yq+qN)

542 All are created equal (implying treated so under laws and taxes etc etc)... (which also means a.a. is against principle of the doi but I digress).



The enemy is not homsexuality nor abortion. It is PROGRESSIVISM/COMMUNISM-LIGHT. Period. Eyez on prize.

Posted by: noone at August 20, 2010 05:20 PM (DlaQY)

543 Drew, Palin was riffing off of what Schlessinger said, and the fact is
people almost always mean "free to jabber whatever I want" unless
they signpost otherwise--unless they signpost the limited,
specificlegal meaning. You're attacking her use of the conceptby
conflating the general usagewith the specific usage and byarbitrarily
deciding the latter is more appropriate.
Posted by: rdbrewer at August 20, 2010 05:03 PM (qjTXV)

I know people always use the expansive meaning and it's wrong. It's not just a little hyperbole, it's a very important concept that way too many people get wrong.

I'm not 'arbitrarily' deciding which version is more appropriate, I'm saying one is right and one is wrong. That's not an opinion, it's a demonstrable fact.

We kill liberals for doing this all the time (think the Dixie Chicks) and rightly so. Personally, I think someone like Palin should be able to do better than the Dixie Chicks.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 05:21 PM (X/Lqh)

544 it's better to call yourself a libertarian than a conservative, because a libertarian can think, "that's a sin and he may go to hell for it," then shrug and think hell's a long way off for both of us, so let's solve problems that are less divisive here and now.

Abortion is a different matter, b/c you're taking human life in each abortion. That's dispensing death to someone right here and now.

I think Mr. Farah should remember that Jesus had more to say about beams and motes in people's eyes than their privates. Here you are ignoring the loss of life so you can make headlines at Ann Coulter's expense.

Posted by: Steve Poling at August 20, 2010 05:21 PM (db5YN)

545 OT

Gotta go clean out my father in laws house this weekend, he passed away a couple months ago..it looks like an episode of Hoarders..giving me a new appreciation of getting rid of shit around me I do not need...BTW this is the 3rd estate I have dissolved in the last year and a half, fucking sucks.

Posted by: beerologist at August 20, 2010 05:21 PM (r2UKM)

546 Same words have different meanings in different cultural areas. In the realms of Christian theology, "religion" specifically contrasted (as an example) against the word "faith" has a distinct, negative meaning. Same goes for "sect", even though technically you are right in saying it denotes a division - it still is negative when contrasted with "denomination", "assembly", "organization", "church", etc. It is more akin to "schismatic", not "denomination". Themeanings aredependent on the milieu.
The same can be said, say, in discussing the difference in vocabulary for science fiction writers/fans versus dirty hippies. Specifically, "sentient" for sci-fi writers means "intelligent" as in, "Run for the hills! A sentient super-cabbage is sending a ship to kill us all!!!"
However, for hippies, "Sentient" means "capable of detecting the world via senses". "Sapient" means "approaching a human-like intelligence" - so for hippies, they would only understand a warning if you said a sapient squid race was sending death ships - otherwise they'd sit and babble self-righteously about eating meat, correcting you on saying "sentient" and trying to irritate you enough to kill them with a piece of iron rebar.
Hippies are infuriating. Um. that's it.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at August 20, 2010 05:22 PM (yq74b)

547
We support this post.

Now give me a rabbit and let me use your toilet.

Posted by: Proud Gay Republican Bears at August 20, 2010 05:22 PM (En7xg)

548 511
Coincidentally, I feel the same way about people over the age of 12 who feel comfortable tossing out names like 'fudge packers'.



Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 05:01 PM (X/Lqh)

Shut up, conesmuggler!

Yeah-yeah, turdburglar!

Posted by: Beavis and Butt-Head at August 20, 2010 05:22 PM (BP6Z1)

549 Allow me to be Karnac of Magnificent.9 W What Chancellor Angela Merkel said when asked if Obama was her favorite American president?Hey-oh.
Posted by: Hadji the Muslim Comic at August 20, 2010 05:14 PM (Hj0nA)
Now THAT'S funny!

Posted by: stuiec at August 20, 2010 05:23 PM (7AOgy)

550 Cripes, there's so many good posts I'm completely sliding.

But about Laura quitting: my take is that she's been biting her tongue on politics for so long she can't stand it anymore. Over the past 10 years I've listened to her just a handful of times, and she never waded much into party politics even though it's clear where her sympathies lie. Her rant about people voting for Obama just because he's half-Black sounded waaaay atypical. I think it's a dam breaking. I think she just wanted to drop the objective counselor thing and cut loose on venting her opinions about everything, including politics.

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 05:24 PM (T+ReL)

551 Good for you, maybe I can do the
same tomorrow.

Posted by: robtr at August 20, 2010 05:19 PM (fwSHf)
Yeah. You probably just need time. My rage started early Tuesday evening when it was clear Dino was going to be the guy and Didier kept twiddling his thumbs. Then I was really pissed Wednesday when there wasn't anything the next morning.Then, when I heard he was going to pull some stunt, I knew it was not going to be to endorse. It was going to be about Didier. Me, me, me, me. Oh, I was steaming yesterday.
So, finally got over it enough to play nice.

Posted by: Editor at August 20, 2010 05:24 PM (pUfK9)

552 Ace, you are on a f'ng roll! I don't know how you can write so much and so well. I'm thinking that maybe you hired Bill Ayers to help you pen this stuff. I heard he's pretty good at ghosting.

Posted by: Z as in Jersey at August 20, 2010 05:24 PM (kZT4X)

553 I heard Dr. Laura on the Mad Cow morning show about 2 months ago and it was very obvious what she thought of Obama and she came off sounding pretty conservative.

Posted by: CDR M at August 20, 2010 05:25 PM (5I8G0)

554 The exception was actually the case in Schiavo. And we have judges to make those exceptions where the law, per its literal meaning, is an ass. In the Schiavo case the judge decided the fiction was the reality. Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 05:11 PM-----------The Florida judge was true to the law, however inadequate it was to address a human tragedy. I wouldn't have wanted to be in his shoes.
Posted by: arhooley
Actually, the judge repeatedly allowed the 'husband' to not file custodial reports, fought to continue conrol over the case, and refused to allow her family anywhere near her. And remember that the court ordered action was to stop all feeding and fluids. A court ordered her starved to death.

Posted by: Papist Bograt at August 20, 2010 05:25 PM (R2fpr)

555 Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 05:20 PM (Yq+qN)

It's really quite simple....Catholicism is the one true church and every body else left cause they didn't like the rules...

There are a lot of "cafeteria Catholics" in the church today. They seem to think they can pick and choose what rules they like and want to follow and what rules they don't like. We are living in interesting times.

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 05:25 PM (p302b)

556 386
"Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman
shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting
thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the
least. - Bill Number 64, authored by Jefferson and "Reported by the Committee of Advisors, 18 June 1779"
"

And Jefferson famously owned a Koran.


Posted by: WalrusRex at August 20, 2010 04:37 PM (xxgag)

What, a slam at Islam?
It may surprise you to learn that Jefferson was actually trying to be kind. Prior to his introducing this proposed law, the normal penalty for homosexuality (in all 13 states) was Death. Jefferson felt that only murder and treason should warrant the death penalty. He believed in making the punishment fit the crime.
Seriously, he was trying to LESSEN the punishment. .

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 05:26 PM (eVJ7T)

557 #549 right... And we were so poised to capture a non-zero block of the black vote not to mention msnbc viewers.

Posted by: get some at August 20, 2010 05:26 PM (tsBlD)

558 beerologist aww that's sad, my condolences

Posted by: chemjeff at August 20, 2010 05:26 PM (Pm5H8)

559 414
If you have proof Coulter is not a virgin, I'd like to see it.


Posted by: Dr Spank at August 20, 2010 04:46 PM (jbVm4)

Me too.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 05:28 PM (eVJ7T)

560 552
475 My mom said you could tell who was using birth control by who didn't receive communion.
I wouldn't know, as I am not a member of that Church. But that's always been something for them to decide.
That's not much of a very good indication actually, and sounds more like a gossipy sort of response. If you've sinned and have not gone to confession you are not supposed to take communion. Its not an only if you're on birth control thing. Hell, if you do take communion with a sin on your heart you're actually committing an even bigger sin IIRC.

Posted by: buzzion at August 20, 2010 05:29 PM (oVQFe)

561 It's really quite simple....Catholicism is the one true church and every body else left cause they didn't like the rules...


Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 05:25 PM (p302b)

lol, I'm Episcopalian, or as we like to call it, Catholic-Lite. The whole, "till death do you part" thingy got messy with all the decapitations.

Posted by: mugiwara at August 20, 2010 05:29 PM (F8rwu)

562 519 468 ...That's also the big issue the morning after pill has. Its killing the already fertilized egg. So with Catholics being pro-life (or supposed to be pro-life), the birth control pills cause a problem with that view.
Well, I can understand the morning-after pill; my point was more that there is a disagreement within the Church about not only this issue but the matter of sex. For example, how many here knew that priests were once allowed to marry?
524 This Republic owes its birth to the Enlightenment...
Considering how much the Founders also relied on men like John Calvin, I would add the Reformation. But I agree that they were well-aware of what happens when you give the Church the same power as the state.The triangle between state, church, people helps to create balance.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 05:30 PM (Yq+qN)

563 Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 05:28 PM (eVJ7T)

Isn't Coulter in her late 40's? Is it really anyone's business whether or not she is a virgin?

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 05:30 PM (p302b)

564 It may surprise you to learn that Jefferson was actually trying to be
kind. Prior to his introducing this proposed law, the normal penalty for
homosexuality (in all 13 states) was Death. Jefferson felt that only
murder and treason should warrant the death penalty. He believed in
making the punishment fit the crime.
Seriously, he was trying to LESSEN the punishment. .
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 05:26 PMBlech, not enough. That reminds me of how Muslims talk about what a women's libber Mohammed was because he reduced the legal number of wives from 40 to 4.

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 05:30 PM (T+ReL)

565 Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 05:21 PM (X/Lqh)
The Dixie Chicks dissed our President in a foreign country. A little different, I think.

Posted by: Steph at August 20, 2010 05:30 PM (580hG)

566 I also think it does a real disservice when someone of Palin's stature does it. She should know better and be clear about what the deal actually is.
Ithink you're being unnecessarily picky.See #486. Selecting the more specific meaning (for"First Amendment rights," "freedom of speech," whatever)while notrecognizing the existence ofanother, more general meaning, and then using that as a stepping off point for criticizing someone's understanding of the term is kinda more on your dime.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 20, 2010 05:30 PM (qjTXV)

567 I also think it does a real disservice when someone of Palin's stature does it. She should know better and be clear about what the deal actually is.
Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 05:13 PM (X/Lqh)
But PALIN DID NOT DO IT. Dr. Laura did. Palin said, " I understand what she meant" -- not "I agree about her First Amendment rights" or "I echo her words."
In fact, the formulation "I understand what she meant" actually distances Palin from Dr. Laura's specific words. That's the formulation one uses when one wants to agree with a sentiment but one takes exception to the specific words someone else used to express that sentiment.
If you're going to insist that Palin be pure in not claiming a First Amendment protection from private speech, then be pure in only attributing her own words to her.

Posted by: stuiec at August 20, 2010 05:31 PM (7AOgy)

568 beerologist,
My Dad's house, ninety six 33gal contractors bags and a roll off 3/4 full of old appliances and mowers and such

Posted by: Beto at August 20, 2010 05:31 PM (j5CHE)

569 Right on Ace. Right smack dab on the nose.

Posted by: real joe at August 20, 2010 05:31 PM (IpIBJ)

570 Did someone say fudge packer? Posted by: Tom Cruise at August 20, 2010 05:11 PM (i6UsH)
You got a problem with fudge packers?

Posted by: The Brotherhood of Keebler Elves Local #525 at August 20, 2010 05:31 PM (OefT/)

571 @Beavis and Butt-Head

Aw shit, I meant to type "bonesmugglers," but "conesmugglers" is pretty funny too and sounds like something Beavis and Butt-Head would make up.

Posted by: logprof at August 20, 2010 05:31 PM (BP6Z1)

572 o, finally got over it enough to play nice.

Posted by: Editor at August 20, 2010 05:24 PM (pUfK9)

Wait until you here my spokesidiot on David Bose at 3pm.RINO

Posted by: Clint Didier at August 20, 2010 05:32 PM (EL+OC)

573 Oh yeah.... Btw.... Is the catholic church even conservative anymore? Don't they support a host of liberal agenda items? With friends like these Larry...

Posted by: No need to reply at August 20, 2010 05:33 PM (hEvBt)

574 571 552 475 I was trying not to enter the Protestant vs Catholic debate. But we too endorse the idea that you can't take communion if you have a sin on your heart. We may do it a bit differently, but it's the same concept.
/I'm sorry if I offended.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 05:33 PM (Yq+qN)

575 Palin on Dr. Laura--Pics or it didn't happen.

Posted by: AoS Pervy Guy at August 20, 2010 05:34 PM (BP6Z1)

576 Isn't Coulter in her late 40's? Is it really anyone's business whether or not she is a virgin?

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 05:30 PM

No more than it is whether Adam is having sex with Steve. But oddly, Farah and his ilk are consumed with Adam's sin rather than Ann's. I believe that's ace's point.

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 05:34 PM (T+ReL)

577 I don't believe in any bullshit having to do with Jesus or any other related nonsense and I will be damned if someone claims I am not a conservative because of my religious views, or lack thereof. Posted by: Obama is Carter at August 20, 2010 05:07 PM (/G0pB)
Well, at least you are respectful towards your allies as you wish in return.

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 05:36 PM (zQKSr)

578 I think we were talking about science fiction television programs, weren't we?

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at August 20, 2010 05:36 PM (yq74b)

579 Apparently the catholic church gave like ten million to ACORN. Wasn't so thrilled with them about that.

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 05:36 PM (p302b)

580 585
571 552 475 I was trying not to enter the Protestant vs Catholic debate. But we too endorse the idea that you can't take communion if you have a sin on your heart. We may do it a bit differently, but it's the same concept.
/I'm sorry if I offended.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 05:33 PM (Yq+qN)
Not offended. Just merely discussion/clarification of the issue. About the only thing that really offends me is "Catholics aren't Christians" idiots start opening their mouths.

Posted by: buzzion at August 20, 2010 05:37 PM (oVQFe)

581 Posted by: stuiec at August 20, 2010 05:31 PM (7AOgy)

Please, Palin knows the power of her facebook platform and she chose to use it to stand with Dr. Laura and her comments.

This wasn't like linking to something in blog post where you aren't vouching for the content or saying you are agreeing with it, just that it's interesting. She even went into the whole thing about how it was reminiscent of her own situation.

Dr. Laura isn't a victim, she's a big girl who has been in the radio business a long, long time. I don't get why Palin decided to defend her on the terms Dr. Laura chose to rely on.




Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 05:37 PM (X/Lqh)

582 IN that case, I just discovered that Stargate SG-1 is on hulu, all 10 seasons, 214 or so episodes.
Pretty cool.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at August 20, 2010 05:37 PM (yq74b)

583 579
beerologist,My Dad's house, ninety six 33gal contractors bags and a roll off 3/4 full of old appliances and mowers and such

Yeah, you gotta just throw stuff away..no way to go through it all..it is in a rural area so I'm gonna get a flatbed trailer and just haul it to the dump.

Posted by: beerologist at August 20, 2010 05:38 PM (r2UKM)

584 For example, how many here knew that priests were once allowed to marry?

*Raises hand*. Which is why they still don't want it permitted. It still smacks of money-grubbing concerns about estates. One of my Top Five issues with the Church. Especially in light of the near-global scandals.

Posted by: Downsized Upscale at August 20, 2010 05:38 PM (IhHdM)

585 It's never about being gay, it's about using fear and revulsion to convince people to do things they would normally question.
I like the article better if it wasn't a back handed slap in the face. "sure gays are fine but it's still a sin".

Posted by: Tim at August 20, 2010 05:38 PM (nA+tQ)

586 I don't get why Palin decided to defend her on the terms Dr. Laura chose to rely on.

My hypothesis was that it was a form of solidarity, from one henpecked public conservative woman to another.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 20, 2010 05:38 PM (Pm5H8)

587 It is pricks like Farah that lead to all conservatives being tarred as bigots. It makes me cringe that he calls himself a conservative. Even worse is that the media gleefully points to his bullshit, just like they did with Robertson and Falwell, and then say "see, this is what conservatives are like".

Posted by: Obama is Carter at August 20, 2010 05:39 PM (/G0pB)

588 I'm sorry, but the whole "You have to believe in Jesus or be a good Christian to call yourself a conservative" bullshit has got to go.
I agree. I was actually very pleased and surprised when I stumbled upon this website and later, Big Hollywood, to discover that many people who aren't Christians are conservatives.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 20, 2010 05:40 PM (hsBue)

589 But apparently missing the point that there has been no other group formed around a specific sin.

Posted by: polynikes

That's because those other sins are ubiquitous, as ace also noted. Form a group that comprises 99% of the human race?

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 05:40 PM (T+ReL)

590 Speaking of personalities their authority, how about this bit from CNN via Breitbart TV:
http://tinyurl.com/2cv2hdp
Wasn't that clever?
/

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 05:40 PM (Yq+qN)

591 594
IN that case, I just discovered that Stargate SG-1 is on hulu, all 10 seasons, 214 or so episodes.
Pretty cool.
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at August 20, 2010 05:37 PM (yq74b)
Still? I thought they stopped having them all available back in May.

Posted by: buzzion at August 20, 2010 05:40 PM (oVQFe)

592 Is that a firing-level offense? Apparently it's not even worth a scolding.





Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 05:00 PM

I could be missing something here, ace (wouldn't be the first time), but I was under the impression that Dr Laura fired herself. If Palin wants to sympathize because they both bailed on their gigs when the kitchen got hot, that's a different kettle of fish.

Admittedly, if I owned a broadcast network, I fire Dr Laura's bony ass, too. Not because she used a word I dislike, but because she's an annoying, whiny, rude pain in the ass.

But if her bosses want to fire her because she used -- over and over -- a word that isn't considered "proper," that's their right. They aren't stopping her from saying anything; they are stopping her from being paid for it on their turf.

There are limits. Just as there are limits here. You would ban anyone who used the word, right? And I'd agree with you, just as I agree with those who think the First Amendment doesn't guarantee free speech everywhere and anywhere under all circumstances.

If it were otherwise, George Carlin couldn't have cooked up one of his most famous routines.

Posted by: MrScribbler at August 20, 2010 05:40 PM (Ulu3i)

593 574
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 05:28 PM (eVJ7T)

Isn't Coulter in her late 40's? Is it really anyone's business whether or not she is a virgin?


Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 05:30 PM (p302b)

I thought the question was completely inappropriate. The thought actually occurred to me that she was holding out for Mr. Right, and perhaps simply hadn't met a man up to her standards. (What kind of superman would it take to meet Coulter's standards? )
I thought the question was hurtful, but I figured the stooge asking it was completely unfamiliar with the celibacy before marriage concept.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 05:41 PM (eVJ7T)

594 My hypothesis was that it was a form of solidarity, from one henpecked public conservative woman to another.

Funny thing is Dr. Laura wasn't a fan of Palin's nomination.

And they aren't henpecked. They are two women who are/were in high profile public positions. You're gonna get some enemies doing that.

Posted by: Joe Farah at August 20, 2010 05:41 PM (X/Lqh)

595 606 was me.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 05:41 PM (X/Lqh)

596 stuiec,

Not to drag this into a religious debate (which it shouldn't be), but...

I'm pretty well convinced that "abomination" is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word. Or at any rate, it doesn't capture the word's true meaning.

The word so translated, in Hebrew, is to'eva. Here is an incomplete list of other things to which the term is applied:

Offering a blemished animal on the alter.
Keeping dishonest weights and measures.
Eating "creeping things" and the like.

A bit of googling "toeva" will lead to more, as well as a series of analyses from sources I will not necessarily vouch for.

I haven't studied the philology of the word, so I won't speculate on what it really means. All I'm saying is don't get hung up on the word "abomination." All translation is interpretation, and I think this interpretation is wrong.

Posted by: Mastiff at August 20, 2010 05:42 PM (8dy/N)

597 I know people always use the expansive meaning and it's wrong.
. . .
I'm not 'arbitrarily' deciding which version is more appropriate, I'm saying one is right and one is wrong. That's not an opinion, it's a demonstrable fact.
Meh. I think the common understanding is equally valid, depending upon the circumstances. I also think it's not thatbig of a deal.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 20, 2010 05:42 PM (qjTXV)

598 sock off
So............who's goin out tonightand tryin to get some boom boom?


Posted by: Old Hippie Vet at August 20, 2010 05:43 PM (OefT/)

599 But apparently missing the point that there has been no other group formed around a specific sin.

No other group formed around a specific sin? Then what the hell is NARAL?
I don't know, call me crazy, but killing babies has gotta be worse than sleeping with your grilfriend, if we're ranking sin here and all.

Posted by: redstatedeb at August 20, 2010 05:43 PM (ykmvs)

600 Gotta go. If anyone answers me and I don't answer back it's because I'm doing stuff (like you lovable morons care).

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 05:43 PM (T+ReL)

601 It's really quite simple....Catholicism is the one true church and every body else left cause they didn't like the rules...
Lutherans will say that some people left the Catholic Church because they got kicked out (and some of the rules were really bad anyway).
And ditto #592.

Posted by: FireHorse at August 20, 2010 05:43 PM (sWynj)

602 *Raises hand*. Which is why they still don't want it
permitted. It still smacks of money-grubbing concerns about estates.
One of my Top Five issues with the Church. Especially in light of the
near-global scandals.


Posted by: Downsized Upscale at August 20, 2010 05:38 PM (IhHdM)
--The Catholic Church allows some married men to become priests (but not bishops), but does not allow single priests, once ordained, to marry.If someone desperately wants poontang and still feels called to be a priest, he should join one of the Eastern Catholic Rites where it's not the exception.

Posted by: logprof at August 20, 2010 05:44 PM (BP6Z1)

603 Even if you want to say Palin wasn't defending Dr. Laura's First Amendment BS, how in the world was she being "shackled"?

She had a radio show, she said stuff, people didn't like stuff she said, they said things about her, they let advertisers know they would base their purchasing decision on whether or not the company continued to sponsor the radio show.

No one is being "shackled". It's called free debate.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 05:44 PM (X/Lqh)

604 592 585 571 552 475 Not offended. Just merely discussion/clarification of the issue. About the only thing that really offends me is "Catholics aren't Christians" idiots start opening their mouths.
I had never heard that issue linked to communion before, I'd like to study that part more. But no, I would say that Catholics are Christians.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 05:45 PM (Yq+qN)

605 No more than it is whether Adam is having sex with
Steve. But oddly, Farah and his ilk are consumed with Adam's sin rather
than Ann's. I believe that's ace's point.

Posted by: arhooley at August 20, 2010 05:34 PM (T+ReL)\
Ohhhh... i'm gonna regret this, but here goes. Adam and Steve are far more likely to spread venereal disease and molest little boys. If they see nothing wrong with sex with another male, why would they see anything wrong with an age difference?
John Wayne Gacy, Jeffery Dahmer, All those priests, etc.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 05:45 PM (eVJ7T)

606 "thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church"

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 05:45 PM (p302b)

607 I wonder if it ever occurs to proponents of SSM, that in the absence of procreative sexual activity (work with me, I know it's a stretch, just imagine humans reproduced asexually for a second) marriage would have never existed.

Things I like to do with another person more than sex.

Chiropractor visit.
Massage (Yes my back is f*d up)
Go hunting.
Drink beer.
Argue (In all fairness, marriage does facilitate this, but my wife isn't that great at it)

Then Sex.

If they can be done in that order, even better. My point is, marriage as it relates to *enduring* human relationships, and sexual activity in general, is defined from the standpoint of procreative sex only. Otherwise sex would just be another innocuous entry on the above list just above "play mmorpgs" and I'd have hunting buddies, drinking buddies, F* buddies, and guild buddies (Actually kin buddies in my game) and nobody would care; Many do that exact thing now, no marriage, no family, just a bunch of mutual interest friends, some of which are life long *enduring* type friends.

Society (or God) created the concept of family for and because of procreation, and it is a benefit to society for that reason. Redefining marriage outside of social obligation characterized by a very specific type of relationship into the realm of social entitlement defined for broad category of relationships, runs counter to having any institution of marriage at all.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2010 05:46 PM (0q2P7)

608 A lot of people are harshing on Laura and Sarah Palin, saying that they said their first amendment rights were being infringed.
And people are interpreting this as meaning Laura and Sarah were saying that they had been Censored.
I don't think that's quite right. As I understand it, what they both seem to generally mean is that Laura should move/"reload" to a format where Laura can exercise her 1st amendment rights with fewer consequences.
Which makes sense. Ace isn't doing this blog on the airwaves. Otherwise he'd probably have been fired too. Which isn't a violation of his rights, but just a consequence.
Where as here he can make "pooter jokes" all he wants. Or discuss who can and cannot usethe word "n****er and under what circumstances.

Posted by: ed at August 20, 2010 05:47 PM (Zsqn4)

609 well by "henpecked" I meant "needled to death by crazy protestors who would stop at nothing until the target is completely destroyed". hope that helps Drew.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 20, 2010 05:48 PM (Pm5H8)

610 If you want to disown people for preferring folks with similar tender bits then what other sin is too egregious to bear company?
Jesus said it was set up as the whole law or nothing and since no one could live up to those standards he would destroy the law by allowing a sinless man to be executed by the law.
Furthermore, he gave one overarching charge to his followers, Love one another.
There wasn't anything in there about kicking those who displeased you to the curb.
But of course, that's exactly what started to happen as soon as he was out of pocket.
The only people he mentioned would be kicked out of the Kingdom were the preachers who prophesied in his name falsely, those who showed no mercy to the poor and those who ignored the downtrodden.
Judgmental people would be held to whatever standard they metered others with and if found lacking would be convicted and tossed out.

Posted by: Beto at August 20, 2010 05:50 PM (j5CHE)

611 I'm sorry, but the whole "You have to believe in Jesus or be a good Christian to call yourself a conservative" bullshit has got to go.
I agree. The idea that Christian can't be conservatives also needs to go. It works both ways. No litmus test RE sexual orientation, colour, or religion so long asthe individual is conservative.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 05:51 PM (Yq+qN)

612 And from the "oh, I forgot about this" department....
Dr.Laura:don't
retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx
2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")

No Sarah, her First Amendment Rights didn't cease to exist.

And this...

Dr.Laura=even more
powerful effective w/out the shackles, so watch out
Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!

What fucking "constitutional obstructionists" is she talking about?

Add those tweets to her facebook essay and yeah, she was definitely playing the First Amendment card. And playing it incorrectly.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 05:51 PM (X/Lqh)

613 621well by "henpecked" I meant "needled to death by crazy protestors who would stop at nothing until the target is completely destroyed". hope that helps Drew.
Posted by: chemjeff at August 20, 2010 05:48 PM (Pm5H
The first amendment is a harsh mistriss.

Posted by: ed at August 20, 2010 05:51 PM (Zsqn4)

614 But apparently missing the point that there has been no other group formed around a specific sin.
There the International Federation of Competitive Eating. There's also Playboy Enterprises, which is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Then there's the New York Stock Exchange itself.

Posted by: FireHorse at August 20, 2010 05:52 PM (sWynj)

615 Look, if you feel that your first amendment rights are being violated isn't it the same as if they actually are?

Women, have always had to be aware, on the defensive, cognizant of that glass ceiling. Many actually believed that NOW was for all women. Sarah Palin's experience changed that for a lot of women. Women are used to having to figure out what's coming next. this is not a good sign....not a good sign....when people stop fighting and take htemselves out of the mix cause they are tired of the fight, the battles are lost.

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 05:53 PM (p302b)

616 Well think about it: both are popular, public conservative women who attracted a whole host of crazy protestors who fixated on them and would stop at nothing to bring them down. Yeah it's stupid to say anyone's rights were violated, but I think the connection between the two is more empathetic than anything else.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 20, 2010 05:54 PM (Pm5H8)

617 622But there's a great difference between the Kingdom of God the GOP.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 05:55 PM (Yq+qN)

618 Ohhhh... i'm gonna regret this, but here goes. Adam and Steve are far more likely to spread venereal disease and molest little boys. If they see nothing wrong with sex with another male, why would they see anything wrong with an age difference?
John Wayne Gacy, Jeffery Dahmer, All those priests, etc.
Huh. I assume you equate sex between consenting heterosexuals as condoning the horny teacher brigade currently sleeping their way through home room as okay then? I mean, why would they have a problem with age?

Posted by: redstatedeb at August 20, 2010 05:55 PM (ykmvs)

619 Farah is right, he is welcome to join the LIBTARD party any time he wants.
He'll find far less offensive sodomites there.

Posted by: gus at August 20, 2010 05:55 PM (Vqruj)

620 And now I must download some porn involving 2 girls, a horse and a police officer.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 20, 2010 05:55 PM (Pm5H8)

621 Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 05:51 PM (X/Lqh)
You don't get it because you don't want to. Nit pick it to death. Been reading the left narrative, huh?


And, yes, I know you're not a lefty. But, on this issue, you're spouting the narrative.

Posted by: Steph at August 20, 2010 05:56 PM (580hG)

622 well whatever people think "sect" means, I was not aware that it had anything but a neutral meaning, meaning just "denomination."

I did not mean it as demeaning or to mean cult (and in fact didn't think that's what it meant, and still don't).

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 05:56 PM (QbA6l)

623 Righteousness exalteth a nation and sin is a reproach to any people (KJV)...in other words: Godliness makes a nation great, but sin is a disgrace to any people (NLT) or, Doing what is right makes a nation great, but sin will bring disgrace to any people. (NCV)

Posted by: PaulUK at August 20, 2010 05:57 PM (rANMf)

624 The fact is an adulterer is a sinner as much is a non-celibate gay person. But you won't hear much moralizing from Farah on those folks who commit such.

You simply cannot legislate morality or salvation. You can call a gay person to hear the Word, but you can't save him. You can use scripture to prove that a gay lifestyle is against God's commands, but you can do the same for an adulterous lifestyle or many other lifestyles.

Government has no place in faith and salvation.

Posted by: Alan Davidson at August 20, 2010 05:57 PM (0QoI4)

625 Look, if you feel that your first amendment rights are being violated isn't it the same as if they actually are?

Um, no.

Women, have always had to be aware, on the defensive, cognizant of that
glass ceiling. Many actually believed that NOW was for all women.
Sarah Palin's experience changed that for a lot of women. Women are
used to having to figure out what's coming next. this is not a good
sign....not a good sign....when people stop fighting and take htemselves
out of the mix cause they are tired of the fight, the battles are lost.

I'm not real big on two sets of rules, one for guys, one for women.

First of all Dr. Laura and Palin aren't exactly the poster children for the horrors of the patriarchy. They are bot very successful and influential. I don't think we should cut them slack because they might get the vapors.

Second, it's not like their male counterparts don't get that shit too (think Rush and just about any Republican guy who holds office).

Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 05:57 PM (X/Lqh)

626 >>>I don't think that's fair; has Coulter ever advocated being proud of extra-marital sex?

Only half-kidding:

You see the way she's dressed?

She may not expressly advocate for a footloose-and-fancyfee lifestyle but hot damn is she a black-pump advertisement for it.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 05:58 PM (QbA6l)

627 Hey, I might have sex with many strange women...

but I'm not proud of it.


Posted by: I'm Video Professor, try my CDs at August 20, 2010 03:32 PM (uFokq)

Neither are we.

Posted by: many strange women at August 20, 2010 05:58 PM (Rwudm)

628 OK Drew we get your point, Sarah was technically incorrect. But you really are nitpicking. People commonly use 1st Amendment as a synonym for the right to speak freely. It's not such a stretch.

Posted by: real joe at August 20, 2010 06:00 PM (IpIBJ)

629 >>>I thought the question was completely inappropriate. The thought actually occurred to me that she was holding out for Mr. Right, and perhaps simply hadn't met a man up to her standards. (What kind of superman would it take to meet Coulter's standards? )

Isn't it a lot more likely she's had sex a few times in her 29 years of age?

Why are we insisting on silly theories?

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 06:01 PM (QbA6l)

630 632 And now I must download some porn involving 2 girls, a horse and a police officer.
Oh man, chemjeff, you're gonna love that pic! My favorite part is after the cop ride off on the horse!

Posted by: redstatedeb at August 20, 2010 06:01 PM (ykmvs)

631 Posted by: Steph at August 20, 2010 05:56 PM (580hG)

I don't think I'm spouting the lefty narrative (of course I'd say that). What I'm not doing is spouting the righty/Palin narrative (they aren't always the same).

I think it's idiotic when the left plays this "You're messing with my rights" shit. Should I just ignore it when Palin or some righty does it?

In point of fact, I did kind of ignore it. I could have posted this this morning and taken out after Palin in a full post but even I'm a team player. We're inside 2 1/2 months until very important elections, I'm not going to go after someone for a misdemeanor in a big way if they are on my side.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 06:01 PM (X/Lqh)

632 The word "sect" once referred toheretics,so some see it as a loaded word. I think it's still used to refer to people/churches inside a movement but not belonging to the church, whereas a denomination is a well-regarded member of said church.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 20, 2010 06:02 PM (Yq+qN)

633 Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 05:57 PM (X/Lqh)

drew, i'm not going to get into the "perception versus reality" thing with you. I am sort of pointing out that you are making a lot of this Sarah Palin/Dr. Laura thing. A lot more than it is.

Real regular folks see Sarah Palin as she is....just a person....dr. laura too....they both aren't lawyers...they are regular folks who are starting to feel a change in their country and maybe they don't understand the legal nuances of what is happening but they sure as hell feel it...and they are discussing it on facebook for God's sake...

The entire country voted for a guy on feelings and emotion and promises and you want to hold sarah palin to a standard that the whole country won't hold her to?

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 06:03 PM (p302b)

634 People commonly use 1st Amendment as a synonym for the right to speak freely
Posted by: real joe at August 20, 2010 06:00 PM (IpIBJ)

That doesn't make it right but as I said, it's peeve with me.

It'll be interesting the next time a lefty plays this card. I suspect they won't get cut too much slack.

I won't say anything about double standards because...oh, who the hell am I kidding? Of course I will!

Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 06:04 PM (X/Lqh)

635 Huh. I assume you equate sex
between consenting heterosexuals as condoning the horny teacher brigade
currently sleeping their way through home room as okay then? I mean, why
would they have a problem with age?

Posted by: redstatedeb at August 20, 2010 05:55 PM (ykmvs)

To answer, I would ask you this: Is a little boy more likely to be traumatized by having consensual sex with an older woman, or having non-consensual anal intercourse with an older male? From my reading, many homosexuals claim to have themselves been molested as young children. It actually seems to be a pattern.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 06:05 PM (eVJ7T)

636 We Vote Too!Now Defend Us !

Posted by: GOPchildMolesters.org at August 20, 2010 06:07 PM (wvt8M)

637 Drew, I didn't say anything about two seperate standards for men and women....I'm talking about women are women and men are men and they are different....they are...

women think differently from men, they do.

Look Carly Fiorina got a lot of flack about how she ran HP but damn, she ran HP and the male CEO, Mark Hurd apparently had a lot of trouble running HP....on all levels...


Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 06:08 PM (p302b)

638 US TOO!

Posted by: GOPAnimalFuckers.org at August 20, 2010 06:08 PM (wvt8M)

639 Please, Palin knows the power of her facebook platform and she chose to use it to stand with Dr. Laura and her comments. This wasn't like linking to something in blog post where you aren't vouching for the content or saying you are agreeing with it, just that it's interesting. She even went into the whole thing about how it was reminiscent of her own situation.
Dr. Laura isn't a victim, she's a big girl who has been in the radio business a long, long time. I don't get why Palin decided to defend her on the terms Dr. Laura chose to rely on.Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 05:37 PM (X/Lqh)
Wait, are you objecting to Palin making a First Amendment claim or are you objecting to Palin defending Dr. Laura at all?
Because by going into the whole thing about how Dr. Laura's situation reminds her of her own, Palin explained pretty clearly why she doesn't like it when activists pounce on minutiae to destroy the careers of prominent conservatives:
I, and obviously many others, have been “shackled” too by people who play games with false accusations, threats, frivolous lawsuits, misreporting, etc., in an effort to silence those with whom they disagree. That’s why I tend to defend people who call it like they see it while others stop at nothing to shut them up. I learned this valuable lesson when the partisan obstructionists in my state tried to shackle, bankrupt, and destroy my family and supporters, and my record, with endless frivolous litigation when I returned from the Vice Presidential campaign trail. In order to shake off the shackles they wanted to paralyze us with, I handed the reins to another, much like Dr. Laura is doing, so that these obstructionists who hated a Commonsense Conservative agenda wouldn’t win. I didn’t retreat; I reloaded in order to fight for what is right on a fairer battlefield. So, more power to someone with good intentions who refuses to be shackled by their detractors when they are falsely accused of being racist.
She's saying that Dr. Laura was unfairly tarred as a racist for merely using the n-word to make a point (and she acknowledged that because the caller felt insulted, Dr. Laura apologized). Nowhere is she saying that the First Amendment means people shouldn't be free to disagree with her or Dr. Laura, or to be vocal in that disagreement -- nowhere does she mention the First Amendment at all (except when quoting and empathizing with Dr. Laura).
Palin does rail against "people who play games with false accusations, threats, frivolous lawsuits, misreporting, etc., in an effort to silence those with whom they disagree." I'd say that false accusations, threats, frivolous lawsuits, and misreporting are all worthy of being railed against.
Dr. Laura, as a big girl who's been in the radio business a long, long time and made a lot of people a ton of money, may be illustrating to her corporate employer and radio affiliates that a boycott can run both ways: she's as free to withhold her services and let them figure out how to replace her ratings points as her critics are to demand her firing or boycott her sponsors. It may be that the Dr. Laura Show is too big a cash cow for them to cave to her critics, and it may be that she will exact from them a promise to stand behind her more squarely in future. Or maybe it's exactlyas she says: she's decided that she can use other means to reach her audience and keep her income while spreading her particular message.

Posted by: stuiec at August 20, 2010 06:09 PM (7AOgy)

640 This discussion is about Republican organizations and groups. But it did make me think of Republican Women for Pro-choice which I think is a loosely formed group. I think Farahs response to Coulter speaking to them would be similar.
There are many pro-choice Republicans currently in office. Would Farah exclude them from the party then? Unacceptable to appear with? I haven't heard him sound off on that. have you?

Posted by: redstatedeb at August 20, 2010 06:09 PM (ykmvs)

641 Isn't it a lot more likely she's had sex a few times in her 29 years of age?



Why are we insisting on silly theories?

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 06:01 PM (QbA6l)

You may not be familiar with people that take this stuff seriously. I have met many. I don't know what to tell you other than the entire country is not promiscuous. It is not peculiar to me that Ann Coulter might be trying to live her beliefs, and that her beliefs might preclude sex before marriage. I don't know.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 06:09 PM (eVJ7T)

642 Farah is the innerweb's version of the National Enquirer. He used to have a radio show - don't know if he still does - but my local station carried it for the two hours between Rush and the local drivel-fest. I tried to listen to it, I really did, but I just couldn't keep up with all the conspiracy theories without a study guide.
He, like many evangelicals who have a public outlet to voice their opinions, hammers homosexuality as the Worst Sin Evertm because it's the easiest to sell to the masses. People who aren't gay find the whole idea pretty, well, yucky. Fan the fires of "yuck" into some righteous indignation, throw in a bully pulpit like WND, and there you go - instant Uber-Sin.
If being "fired" by Joe Farah is the worst thing that ever happens to Anne Coulter, she'll have lived a charmed and charming life. Personally, I'd list it first on my resume.

Posted by: antisocialist at August 20, 2010 06:10 PM (Rwudm)

643 Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 05:51 PM (X/Lqh)
Man, I hate twitter.

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 06:10 PM (zQKSr)

644 Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 06:01 PM (X/Lqh)
It doesn't stop you from going after her in this thread though.
Hell, Ace isn't always in her corner, but even he understands what she was going for here. You just don't want to. I'm done with it. You won't change your mind, anyway.Refuse to see anything other than what you want to.Digging in and all that.
Good for you. You're a purist on the First Ammendment issue.

Posted by: Steph at August 20, 2010 06:11 PM (580hG)

645 In point of fact, I did kind of ignore it. I could have posted this this morning and taken out after Palin in a full post but even I'm a team player. We're inside 2 1/2 months until very important elections, I'm not going to go after someone for a misdemeanor in a big way if they are on my side.
Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 06:01 PM (X/Lqh)
Heh. For some reason, your comment made me think of all the Mobys' from last election. (I'm a concerned Christian Conservative whose voted GOP for the last 20 years. But...this election I find myself voting for Obama.")
I know you're not a moby DrewM.
But I was wondering: I haven't really seen any of that bullshit this election cycle. Does anyone think it will start up again, or was it a one-time thing specific to '08?

Posted by: ed at August 20, 2010 06:11 PM (Zsqn4)

646 Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 06:03 PM (p302b)

I'm not a populist so I don't think 'being a regular' person is really a plus for the most part when it comes to high political office.

Maybe most people use the whole 1st Amendment thing incorrectly (and that's a shame) but I think if you've been a governor of a state, you really should be expected to know the difference and communicate the concept appropriately.

Is this the biggest deal in the world? Of course not. I'm just saying in my book it's a strike against Palin.

I get to have 'a book', it's in the First Amendment! Don't shackle me, bro!



Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 06:12 PM (X/Lqh)

647 Considering the number of species on the planet that display homosexual
behaviour, it's hard not to determine that for a percentage of the
population this is "normal".

This is a particularly hilarious bit of non-reasoning as it would condone both the eating of one's young and one's waist matter.

Yum!

Posted by: kidney at August 20, 2010 06:13 PM (ENRGu)

648 655
Farah is the innerweb's version of the National Enquirer.



Posted by: antisocialist at August 20, 2010 06:10 PM (Rwudm)
I have to admit, this characterization seems about right to me. Everything on his website is sensationalized to the extent that it's just too over the top. That's not to say he doesn't find real nuggets occasionally, but he does appear to be hamming it up for effect.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 06:14 PM (eVJ7T)

649 Every other day I make a statement about either watching porn or having
sex-out-of-marriage and no one says a goddamn thing to me.

Eh. I've got my own planks to worry about,Pron, swearing and the like, (some even say *gasp* I am arrogant) before I care much about your specks.

I am generally support the GOProud-ers, I generally oppose their stance on SSM but otherwise they seem to be a benefit to the cause. Again their "sinful" life? Well when I achieve the title of MikeThePerfectlyPious, maybe I'll start worrying more about others.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2010 06:14 PM (0q2P7)

650 FORBIDDEN LOVE, FREE AT LAST !


Posted by: GOPNecrophiliacsUnited.org at August 20, 2010 06:15 PM (wvt8M)

651 Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 06:10 PM (zQKSr)

It's very dangerous for people in the public.

I get the appeal but man, it can bite you.

I work with clients who want to do social media and I try to keep them away from it. The only real use it should have for companies or public figures is to point to other things like fb or a blog.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 06:16 PM (X/Lqh)

652 Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 06:12 PM (X/Lqh)

Drew, I would suggest you just do the post on Palin, forget about being a team player, get it all out, it would be a cathartic experience. Why hold back. I doubt she wants the presidency so that shouldn't stop you.

Look if I see those old men standing there in 2012...romney, huckabee, guiliani, thompson....i'm going to be really annoyed cause it means that the republicans have decided to give BO a second term. They need new faces, maybe not Sarah Palin (ultimately it's her choice) but these old guys have got to go...

Don't you see the politics you crave no longer exists and unless you change...the wave is going to leave you behind.

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 06:16 PM (p302b)

653 BTW, GOProud is not formed around sin. Theya re formed around Conservatism. The only voice a gay kid hears is the chanting ignorant groupthink of the left. They need to know that they do not have to abandon their principles and beliefs just because they're gay. trust me, that's a new thought to many.
Queers don't belong on the plantation any more than blacks do.

Posted by: redstatedeb at August 20, 2010 06:17 PM (ykmvs)

654 "That we can make people better"

Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again.
. . .
They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.

Posted by: Capt. Malcolm Reynolds at August 20, 2010 06:17 PM (EqdW6)

655 638 >>>I don't think that's fair; has Coulter ever advocated being proud of extra-marital sex? Only half-kidding: You see the way she's dressed? She may not expressly advocate for a footloose-and-fancyfee lifestyle but hot damn is she a black-pump advertisement for it.
Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 05:58 PM (QbA6l)
There's a difference between committing a sin and publicly advocating for one, though.

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 06:18 PM (zQKSr)

656 That's not to say he doesn't find real nuggets occasionally, but he does appear to be hamming it up for effect.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 06:14 PM (eVJ7T)
Yeah, but it's kind of like the whole John Edwards fiasco - sure, the Enquirer broke the story, but it took a while for the rest of us to take them seriously, because...well, it's the Enquirer.

Posted by: antisocialist at August 20, 2010 06:18 PM (Rwudm)

657 Queers don't belong on the plantation any more than blacks do.


WASF

Posted by: GOP--DONE.org at August 20, 2010 06:20 PM (wvt8M)

658 666

BTW, GOProud is not formed around sin. Theya re formed around
Conservatism. The only voice a gay kid hears is the chanting ignorant
groupthink of the left. They need to know that they do not have to
abandon their principles and beliefs just because they're gay. trust me,
that's a new thought to many.

Queers don't belong on the plantation any more than blacks do.

Posted by: redstatedeb at August 20, 2010 06:17 PM (ykmvs)

If the notion is for us to be colorblind, should we have the Black American caucus, or just the American Caucus? I thought all of those "victim" groups were Democrat ideas?

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 06:20 PM (eVJ7T)

659 "Similarly, a government cannot mandate what sort of sex is legal and what sex is illegal."

I stopped reading at that. Really? Seriously? Surely not. Let's hope common sense rules here..

Posted by: Andrew at August 20, 2010 06:21 PM (XOsG9)

660 Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 06:16 PM (p302b)

It's not that big of a deal.

I try not to do rant posts. Not because aren't fun, they are, but because that's not really my role here. I've gotten more into opinion/personality stuff over the years but I try to stick to news and issues for the most part.

This is barely news, look how Ace combined it with something else.

Sometimes though I do want to rant like everyone else and here we are.






Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 06:21 PM (X/Lqh)

661 There's a difference between committing a sin and publicly advocating for one, though.

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 06:18 PM (zQKSr)

Re Ann Coulter...
And this may be the actual truth. I simply can't tell for sure.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 06:22 PM (eVJ7T)

662 Isn't it a lot more likely she's had sex a few times in her 29 years of age? Why are we insisting on silly theories?
Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 06:01 PM (QbA6l)
I think it's a certainty that every person has committed some sin in their life. I don't think we should act like it is impossible to abstain from sex before marriage.

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 06:23 PM (zQKSr)

663 To answer, I would ask you this: Is a little boy more likely to be traumatized by having consensual sex with an older woman, or having non-consensual anal intercourse with an older male? From my reading, many homosexuals claim to have themselves been molested as young children. It actually seems to be a pattern.

Really? I need to check out your reading list. I've never met one who has told me that.
Most often when I hear of an Amber Alert - it's a little girl...and some dirtbag man has snatched her up. I don't think all straight men are prone to that, however. Perhaps that's where we differ.

Posted by: redstatedeb at August 20, 2010 06:24 PM (ykmvs)

664 Queers don't belong on the plantation any more than blacks do.
Posted by: redstatedeb at August 20, 2010 06:17 PM (ykmvs)
But they do such a nice job decorating...

Posted by: buzzion at August 20, 2010 06:25 PM (oVQFe)

665 Isn't it a lot more likely she's had sex a few times in her 29 years of age?

Didn't she date Olbermann at one point?

For her sake I hope she did take a pass on that opportunity.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 06:25 PM (X/Lqh)

666 Yeah, but it's kind of like the
whole John Edwards fiasco - sure, the Enquirer broke the story, but it
took a while for the rest of us to take them seriously, because...well,
it's the Enquirer.


Posted by: antisocialist at August 20, 2010 06:18 PM (Rwudm)

WND has long had a credibility problem. (Paranoid Nutjobs.) But they occasionally find stuff that stands on it's own merits.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 06:25 PM (eVJ7T)

667


I'm sorry, but the whole "You have to believe in Jesus or be a
good Christian to call yourself a conservative" bullshit has got to go.


How teh FUCK is advocating for the radical change of a millenniums-old institution in any way, shape or form CONSERVATIVE?

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Posted by: s'moron at August 20, 2010 06:25 PM (ds8Yk)

668 Gay = choice
Black = no choice

( short list of Logical shit we use to know without having to be told
from Chapter 73 -
The Sane World Before Progressives VOL XVI )

Posted by: GOP--DONE.org at August 20, 2010 06:26 PM (wvt8M)

669 Isn't it a lot more likely she's had sex a few times in her 29 years of age?


Why are we insisting on silly theories?

Because many don't want to admit that Ann could be such a stalwart for traditional institutions and values and yet been a temporary storage center for miles of man sausage, as most single women of her age (and appearance) have been. Because in their short sightedness they equate "don't be a single mother" with "don't have sex outside marriage" when responsible adults have been getting married both years after losing virginity, and years before having kids since birth control was made widely available.

BTW, to you people who cringe at all of this.

You CANNOT sell Ultra Pious® Brand Conservatism to someone who doesn't already want to buy it.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2010 06:26 PM (0q2P7)

670 Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 06:21 PM (X/Lqh)

Look if you feel strongly about something and want to cohesively express it I think you should go for it. anything that makes people think, really think, critically is a good thing.

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 06:27 PM (p302b)

671 Gay = choice
Posted by: GOP--DONE.org at August 20, 2010 06:26 PM (wvt8M)


And you know this how exactly?

I'm going to presume you are straight. Are you saying that you could wake up tomorrow morning and think, "You know, I've always wanted to fuck a guy and I've chosen today to be that day!"


Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 06:29 PM (X/Lqh)

672 664 It's very dangerous for people in the public.I get the appeal but man, it can bite you. I work with clients who want to do social media and I try to keep them away from it. The only real use it should have for companies or public figures is to point to other things like fb or a blog.
Posted by: DrewM. at August 20, 2010 06:16 PM (X/Lqh)
I just mean the illegibility

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 06:29 PM (zQKSr)

673 Posted by: polynikes at August 20, 2010 06:25 PM (m2CN7)

she right, technically isn't being gay a sin? (unless of course you attend one of the specifically designated gay churches, then it's ok)

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 06:29 PM (p302b)

674

isn't being gay a sin?


No. Acting on teh impulse is. That is the "choice" everyone refers to in the homo context.

You don't have to stick your dick in something.


Posted by: s'moron at August 20, 2010 06:31 PM (ds8Yk)

675 With you on both points here, Ace. It seems to me many are judging Palin's input in regard to its political expediency. Why couldn't she just be speaking out about what she perceives as an injustice? I am not so jaded as to think there are no people who generally try to do the right thing without excessive regard for their own benefit.


Posted by: mikeyboss at August 20, 2010 06:32 PM (MX5qJ)

676 Really? I need to check out your reading list. I've never met one who has told me that.Why would they tell you? Seriously, it's ILLEGAL.

Most often when I hear of an Amber Alert - it's a
little girl...and some dirtbag man has snatched her up. I don't think
all straight men are prone to that, however. Perhaps that's where we
differ.

Posted by: redstatedeb at August 20, 2010 06:24 PM (ykmvs)

I would expect that the Male heterosexual child molesters would outnumber homosexuals. Last I heard, Male Homosexuals comprise about 3% of the population or so. Of course occasionally you get one that's both, like that fellow in Wyoming (I think) that killed the family of that boy and girl, molested both of them then killed the little boy.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 06:32 PM (eVJ7T)

677 But they do such a nice job decorating...
Posted by: buzzion at August 20, 2010 06:25 PM (oVQFe)

True, buzz. Give credit where its due!

Posted by: redstatedeb at August 20, 2010 06:32 PM (ykmvs)

678 Judgmental people would be held to whatever standard they metered others with and if found lacking would be convicted and tossed out.
If Drew gets to rant about the 1st ammendment I want to rant about this.
"judgemental people".
What a load of crap.
Everyone judges everyone about everything. Thus is life, and thus is right and proper. Get over it.
When people whine about "being judged" I judge them poorly.

Tell me, will you have sex with me right now? No? Why not? But you would with somebody else? Are you judging me?!?!?
Of course you are.
Would you buy Adolf Hitler a beer and let him stay in your guest bedroom? No? Are you judging him!??!?

Posted by: Entropy at August 20, 2010 06:33 PM (eL+YD)

679 @687 um yeah




Posted by: GOP--DONE.org at August 20, 2010 06:34 PM (wvt8M)

680 Mr. Ace,
Intellectual Dishonesty #1): You have taken a letter that was written from one person and self-servingly cast it as the author's political platform. Contrary to your screeching about efforts to require that the GOP be a "Christian party", Mr. Farah did not impose Christianity on Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter is a self-professed Christian. It was her declaration of Christianity that made him write that letter to her in that vein. That's what he says. You, however,weave this attempt to approach her fromamutual world viewinto some kind of demand that she be a Christian.
Intellectual Dishonesty #2): You complain that Mr. Farah is making a big deal out of their particular sin involved, ignoring the fact that GOProud is a group entirely devoted to the particular sin. GOProud's very existence highlights this particular sin. That's the point of the group. If there were a group called "GOPremarital Sex", Mr. Farah would probably take issue with them, too.
Intellectual Dishonesty #3): You and every libertarian on the web have completely ignored all of the non-religious, sociological arguments against gay marriage and homosexuality in favor of casting this controversy as something only "Bible-thumpers" care about. There are many, many non-religious reasons to oppose gay rights, but you take no interest in them. This is not about your concern that the GOP has weakened itself by alienating homosexuals. This is about you grabbing the opportunity to drive out the influence of Christians in the movement and jerk it to the libertarian side.
One more thing: Congratulations on being a confident heterosexual. But this yarn you've spun about how self-contained homosexuality is is an unfortunate lie. Children and young people who are sexually abused are seven more times likely to be self-described homosexuals. The public's gradual acceptance of All Things Gay rests on a solid foundation of fraudulent science that approaches East Anglia levels of malpractice.

Posted by: FurrowedBrow at August 20, 2010 06:34 PM (iFIKG)

681 A Belgian lambic.
Like $5 a bottle.

Posted by: Entropy at August 20, 2010 06:40 PM (eL+YD)

682 697
Would you buy Adolf Hitler a beer and let him stay in your guest bedroom? No? Are you judging him!??!?
Posted by: Entropy at August 20, 2010 06:33 PM (eL+YD)
What kind of beer?
Posted by: polynikes at August 20, 2010 06:35 PM (m2CN7)
And how much? If I get to keep buying it for him until he dies of alcohol poisoning then hell yeah

Posted by: buzzion at August 20, 2010 06:40 PM (oVQFe)

683 @687 I am assuming you are Caucasian.
Can you wake up tomorrow and decide to be Black?

Posted by: GOP--DONE.org at August 20, 2010 06:41 PM (wvt8M)

684 isn't being gay a sin?
No. Acting on teh impulse is. That is the "choice" everyone refers to in the homo context.You don't have to stick your dick in something.

What most don't want to discuss on this whole "sin" issue is polishing the old bedpost is "sin" as well. Which men are most likely doing if they are,

Not married and have no girlfriend.
Have been married for more than one year.

I wonder if Farah has corporeally disciplined the primate...

Sin in order to become law should have some real deleterious effect on society. Homosexual activity between consenting adults just doesn't in my mind. SSM however, does.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2010 06:42 PM (0q2P7)

685 Coulter is not high up on my list of people I'd want to take on in a battle of words.
Good luck to Farah.

Posted by: Nemo from Erewhon at August 20, 2010 06:45 PM (9tOd2)

686 What most don't want to discuss on this whole "sin" issue is polishing the old bedpost is "sin" as well.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2010 06:42 PM (0q2P7)
Do you have a citation for that? Lust is a sin; denying your spouse as well. The act of masturbating, I don't think so.

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 06:48 PM (zQKSr)

687 "Abused adolescents, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused."
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/21/1855

Posted by: FurrowedBrow at August 20, 2010 06:49 PM (iFIKG)

688 Sin in order to become law should have some real
deleterious effect on society. Homosexual activity between consenting
adults just doesn't in my mind. SSM however, does.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2010 06:42 PM (0q2P7)

It used to. Modern medicine and mass communications are probably the only thing that has allowed the modern gay community to grow so large and flourish. In centuries past, their behavior probably caused their death at an early age. This is probably why a stigma developed against them.Had modern medicine not discovered the cause of the AIDS epidemic, they wouldn't have been warned, they would have continued the extreme promiscuous practices of the 70s and early 80s, and as a result, most of them would have died.
Modern Medicine to discover the illness, mass communications to spread the word of it.
The current situation is artificial. If the economy collapses and we revert back to a more miserable existence, I think the population will become far less tolerant than they had been while we were prosperous.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 06:49 PM (eVJ7T)

689
Okay, all I want to know is what the point of SocialCons are. Why can't they just be conservatives?

FIFY. You're welcome.

Beside, we should ban gay marriage because if they got married, it would depreciate the value of marriage. I mean, straight folks have done such a wonderful job of protecting their marriages, right?

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at August 20, 2010 06:51 PM (1hM1d)

690 I will be 29, in November

I'm a wee bit ashamed that I find such a young little snot-nosed punk so compelling and entertaining.

Posted by: FUBAR at August 20, 2010 06:51 PM (LPL4Z)

691 Wonderful tome Ace. I would have gone with .....Joe Farah is a Birther Nutjob, who cares what he thinks........but that's just me.

Posted by: Aaron at August 20, 2010 06:51 PM (pSM+3)

692 The ONT isn't going to reach these numbers, is it?

Posted by: Cincinnatus, Keeper of Ancient Memes at August 20, 2010 06:52 PM (TGmQa)

693 "Abused adolescents, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused."
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/21/1855

Posted by: FurrowedBrow at August 20, 2010 06:49 PM (iFIKG)

I've read articles such as this before. As I haven't argued this issue in a very long time, I didn't have any ready at hand. Good find.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 06:53 PM (eVJ7T)

694 I would expect that the Male heterosexual child molesters would
outnumber homosexuals. Last I heard, Male Homosexuals comprise about 3%
of the population








Homosexual population is 10-20%...lots of closet cases out there.

Posted by: fuckyouhomophobes at August 20, 2010 06:53 PM (r2UKM)

695 Well, in that case it would be helpful for gays to refrain from shoving their lifestyles down my throat and the throats of schoolchildren, but we all know that you fucking worthless moderates/libertarians/anti-Christians don't give a shit about that. But god forbid anyone say that their stance on a given issues is inspired by the fucking Bible - oh no, fascist theocracy! Fucking goddamned hypocrites, all of you!

Posted by: Amalia at August 20, 2010 06:53 PM (AtP8n)

696 Isn't it a lot more likely she's had sex a few times in her 29 years of age?



Why are we insisting on silly theories?

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2010 06:01 PM (QbA6l)
My Sacred Honor and Unimpeachable Personal Integrity require me to disclose that I dorked Ann Coulter in the squeakhole many, many times.

Posted by: Will Folks at August 20, 2010 06:54 PM (Fg/7E)

697


Ace isn't really 29. He gjust stopped counting at that point, b/c he can't count any higher than the number of fingers, toes and teeth combined.

Posted by: s'moron at August 20, 2010 06:54 PM (ds8Yk)

698 FIFY. You're welcome.Beside, we should ban gay marriage because if they got married, it would depreciate the value of marriage. I mean, straight folks have done such a wonderful job of protecting their marriages, right?
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at August 20, 2010 06:51 PM (1hM1d)
You want to get rid of no-fault divorce\? That's a good idea in my book.

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 06:54 PM (zQKSr)

699
Homosexual population is 10-20%...lots of closet cases out there.

Posted by: fuckyouhomophobes at August 20, 2010 06:53 PM (r2UKM)

I do not believe those numbers. Evolution itself argues against such numbers.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 06:56 PM (eVJ7T)

700 You want to get rid of no-fault divorce\? That's a good idea in my book.

Right, because women being savagely beat really should get a judge's permission before leaving.

Posted by: Rod Rescueman at August 20, 2010 06:56 PM (QxGmu)

701


Homosexual population is 10-20%...lots of closet cases out there.
Bullshit. It's like 50-90% queer

Posted by: even bigger stereotype of a homo drama queen at August 20, 2010 06:57 PM (ds8Yk)

702 Responding to Ace from earlier:

Studies have found that there is no real male bisexuality, for example,
except in the tiniest numbers; male "bisexuals" have sex with both
sexed but in fact are strongly attracted to one and little to the other.

Studies? Whose studies? And where? I hope you don't think the people conducting these studies are disinterested parties. And why, precisely, would women be wired that differently than men when it comes to sex?

Our society very strongly tells boys they are either straight or gay. Girls are told increasingly that if they are bisexual, that is a good thing. A 'study' does not determine what causes that any more than anything else does.

There's a long history of bisexuals males in history; Afghanistan is chock full of them nowadays. So was ancient Greece. A Turkish friend of mine told me to never moon a Turk, because "it's a hole and they don't care." Culture more than anything else determines sexual taboos.
So what are the rates in Europe vs. the US? We really should know the
relative danger we're fighting before embarking on a crusade.


By saying homosexuality isn't genetic we're embarking on a crusade?

At this point most western countries in Europe have a non-sustaining birthrate. Obviously we don't want to emulate what they do.

They also have low crime rates. They claim it's because guns are illegal. Should we ban all guns?

Posted by: Zuggs at August 20, 2010 06:57 PM (h60Tu)

703 Homosexual population is 10-20%...lots of closet cases out there.
Posted by: fuckyouhomophobes at August 20, 2010 06:53 PM (r2UKM)
No, I thi9nk that's a propa ganda number

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 06:58 PM (zQKSr)

704 That 10% number was a fraud put out by the Kinseys. They took their sample frommen's prisons and placed anyone who answered "Yes" to "Have you ever engaged in homosexual activity?" in the homosexual category. The generally-accepted statistic is 2-3%.

Posted by: FurrowedBrow at August 20, 2010 07:01 PM (iFIKG)

705

Right, because women being savagely beat really should get a judge's permission before leaving.

Got your second delivery, coming right up.

Posted by: strawmen 'R' us at August 20, 2010 07:02 PM (UaxA0)

706 "Social conservatives" are not true conservatives.


Actually the opposite is true. Libertarians aren't true conservatives. That doesn't make them wrong or bad, nor even unwelcome. They're just called "libertarian" because they aren't actually conservatives; they are fiscally conservative and socially leftist. Thus, the different label from pure conservatism.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 20, 2010 07:06 PM (PQY7w)

707 If gays are only 3% of the population then they must all be in DC.

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 07:07 PM (p302b)

708 Great analysis. Thank you for writing this. We need to focus on stopping progressives from ruining this country. Who cares when, where, how people have sex.

Posted by: Laurie at August 20, 2010 07:12 PM (xido1)

709 Oh. Shit. You know, Ed is bad enough, and Allah is a pale imitation of his former self, but you know what makes HotAir suck? The commenters.


Is Ace supposed to be a conservative?

faraway on August 20, 2010 at 7:02 PM

Posted by: FUBAR at August 20, 2010 07:16 PM (LPL4Z)

710


If gays are only 3% of the population then they must all be in DC


Preach it, sister!


Posted by: kal penn, rahm emanuel, barry sotero, reggie love, and sam kass at August 20, 2010 07:17 PM (UaxA0)

711 Look, most of the people screeching about Farah's "mean-spiritedness" and "bigotry" have no clue about this issue. Look at how they talk. They've gotten most of their information fromTV and movies. This is the clearly the case with Ace as well.It's sad that a guy with such a popular website is propogating so much ignorant poison of his own.

Posted by: FurrowedBrow at August 20, 2010 07:17 PM (iFIKG)

712 I am not sure where you get the idea that sex not singularly for procreation is a sin?
Posted by: jlfintx at August 20, 2010 02:53 PM (06kXx)
Nota sinbuta wickedness (in other contexts) directed to the good of procreation within a faithful marriage. Some of those later guys misinterpreted my stuff.
I knowcarnal wickedness. Pick upConfessions.

Posted by: St. Augustine at August 20, 2010 07:17 PM (sOtz/)

713 Damn, Amalia, lighten up a bit here. I know a few relaxation techniques, if it'll help....

Posted by: redstatedeb at August 20, 2010 07:18 PM (ykmvs)

714 Do you have a citation for that? Lust is a sin; denying your spouse as well. The act of masturbating, I don't think so.

Really jackass? You need me to point you to Wiki so you can read about how which faiths think it is a sin and why? Or do you insist that I use *your* religious texts to cite example? Well homosexuals don't want to consider their activity a sin either, regardless of what the book you think is the end all be all says.

Let me sum it up.

Catholic Sin
Orthodox Sin
Protestant May be sin
LDS Sin
Islam Sin
Judaism Sin
Hindu Not sin
Taoism Detrimental to the Qui
Wicca Not sin
Buddhism A bar to enlightenment.

http://bit.ly/cXk101

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2010 07:20 PM (0q2P7)

715 If the GOP doesn't get out of people's bedrooms, it has no right calling itself the party that stands for freedom - and a party that stands for freedom is what we need in the fight against tyranny.

Posted by: Cara C at August 20, 2010 07:21 PM (8wRvt)

716 Rant:
It's late at night and raining. You're driving down an empty road in a rural area miles from the nearest home.
You see a car pulled over on the side with the flashers on and the hood up, a Mitsubishi Eclipse, and an attractive young woman in buisiness attire is standing out in the rain looking despondant.
Would you stop and give her a ride?
Would you say that you aren't judging her?

It's late at night and raining. You're driving down an empty road in a rural area miles from the nearest home.
You see a car pulled over on the side with the flashers on and the hood up, a ratty old rust-spottedwhite van with no windows,a demon face painted on the side and a swastika on the back doors. Some dude wearing a leather apron with dark stains on it,denim overalls,a camo jacket and a hockey mask, with long unkempt hair and a very bushy beard poking out of the mask, carrying a machetewith a shotgun straped on his back is standing by the road looking angry,shaking his fist menancingly at your car while howling something unintelligable.
Would you stop and give him a ride?

ARE YOU JUDGING HIM!?!?!? Why do you have to be so judgemental? He could be a nice guy! Who are you to declare he's a bad person just because you don't like his fashion choices? So close minded. This is a free country! Don't judge him! You think you're perfect? Can you see in his heart?
Fact of the manner is your ability to judge people and things and draw conclusions from probable indicators (ie stereotypes) - even if that judgement isn't always correct - is a large part of what elevated H. Sapiens to the top of the food chain and it might also be the only reason you're alive right now.
Every time you get thirsty and do NOT simply reach under your sink for the first random bottle of fluid you find and then drink it, instead insisting on finding something non-poisonous/toxic or at least non-lethal, you are guilty of discrimination.
We all judge each other based on the clothes we wear, how we wear our hair, what we drive, how we talk, our posture and how we move, what we say, how we say it, how much money we make, what hobbies we enjoy, how attractive we are, what our politics/religion/beliefs are, and everything else to boot.
And we draw conclusions about what kind of people we think we're looking at, and whether (based on surface indicators we've observed) we want to invest the time to get to know them any better to find out if our assumptions are true, or if there's anything more to the person that isn't yet evident.
Sometimes our conclusions are solid and sometimes they're bogus and bad logic. Sometimes they're not. Sometimes stuff is generally true, but it still doesn't apply to individuals. People are not and never will be perfect so they make lots of mistakes and try to take shitty logic shortcuts when judging.
But, because we're fallible, if you want to get rid of poor judgement, the only way is to get rid of all judgement.
If you want it any other way you have to lobotomize yourself.
Unless you have stabbed part of your brain out with an icepick in the eye-socket, you shouldn't think yourself any less judgemental and you shouldn't whine about human nature.
If you claim to be non-judgemental I will believe you, but firstyou blow me.
I know you certainly won't judge and discriminate betwix people since you're so noble, so unless you're totally asexual or celibate and never perform oral sex on ANYONE at all, then you will have no problems with blowing me.

Posted by: Entropy at August 20, 2010 07:21 PM (eL+YD)

717 "726
Oh. Shit. You know, Ed is bad enough, and Allah is a pale imitation of
his former self, but you know what makes HotAir suck? The commenters.


Is Ace supposed to be a conservative?

faraway on August 20, 2010 at 7:02 PM



Posted by: FUBAR at August 20, 2010 07:16 PM (LPL4Z)"this is scary....I mean is there a little box marked conservative and you can't deviate from its parameters? Just had a discussion with a libertarian friend. He said he thinks people should be free to do as they please. So I said "so you are in favor of gay marriage, using the word "marriage" then and he said "well no, I don't think it should be called marriage"...so then my friend is supposed to be a libertarian and he deviated from being a libertarian.....so he's bad and not considered a libertarian?This is what's wrong with the world...there are the strict adherents and then there are the "do what ever you want cause we are" crowd and the rest of us are in the middle...Silent

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 07:26 PM (p302b)

718 If you claim to be non-judgemental I will believe you, but firstyou blow me.
I know you certainly won't judge and discriminate
betwix people since you're so noble, so unless you're totally asexual or
celibate and never perform oral sex on ANYONE at all, then you will
have no problems with blowing me.

Posted by: Entropy at August 20, 2010 07:21 PM (eL+YD)
Very good presentation of a simple idea. I like to use the example of a snake.If you are walking, and you see a snake, do you immediately think it's harmless, or do you immediately think it might be dangerous?
Judging is necessary for survival.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 20, 2010 07:27 PM (eVJ7T)

719 "That we can make people better if only we use the tools of coercion at hand to force them to be better"

Well spoken Ace. This is the core of what it is to be conservative, and frankly a core to being a Christian as well. Conservatives are not the opposite of Liberals, believing simply that if our magical policies were substituted with theirs, then everyone would be come good. Our position is that NO POLICY can really make people better. You can provide incentives for actions that benefit society, and penalize actions that violate others rights - but you cannot change the way people are.

And FFS it's even less logical to hold this moralizing belief as a Christian. As any true Christian knows - Christ, and Christ alone is the one who changes people's hearts. End of story. Hello? Grace = unmerited favor. ...Not by works, are you saved.... blabbity-blah. etc.etc. For God's sake (literally) this is basic Christianity 101...

It's not our own "good" or "moral" actions, and it certainly isn't society, that can change a soul and/or fix someone's life. You cannot legislate morality beyond the point of protecting human rights, just the same way it is not charity to legislate "giving" of money from rich to poor.

As you stated - that idea is poison. It is pathological and politically immature. It is anti-liberty ultimately, and is really un-Christian in it's basis.

I can disagree with the choices that some people make - but I have no more right to force them to accept what I believe, then they have to force me. It's shocking to see a Christian arguing in such an unthoughtful way - though I have sadly come to expect it from many so-called Christians of late. I hate to say it - but if you think you're a Christian because you are "basically good" and are therefore qualified to moralize, then you totally missed the freaking boat. Try reading Romans a few hundred more times.

Or do we as Christians really believe that man can set up a government system that will MAKE people accept Christ's teachings? Hot tip: it wouldn't involve freedom... Or do you prefer being an mindless thoughtless drone? Even God isn't interested in that weak-ass sh*t.

Sheesh.

Sorry for the epic rant, but Christians like this do such a disservice to the cause of liberty, the cause of Christ, and Christianity in general. It's long past due that true believers in Christ called these frauds the f**k out!

Posted by: adc at August 20, 2010 07:27 PM (l4wgH)

720 Damn, Entropy. You sure got a way with words!
And I make no claims to being non-judgemental....so don't get all exicted and shit.

Posted by: redstatedeb at August 20, 2010 07:30 PM (ykmvs)

721 Ace,
I mostly agree with everything you've written here--
and certainly with your larger argument--but on a minor point, I must object.
You may be projecting your own stuff onto Ann.
Don't ASSUME she's not celibate.
I know a number of unmarried women of approximately the same age and, believe it or not, same degree of attractiveness as Ann--and they're healthy, red-blooded, heterosexual women--and because of either their own dignity and self-respect, or traditional values (sex is something you save for marriage) or Christian convictions, they choose to remain celibate.

Speaking for myself, when I was single, even though I was not a Christian, I chose to stay celibate because I figured anything that Nature designed for the purpose of procreation, must be awesome in and of itself--even when it didn't result in a new life--awesome enough, in fact, to forgo enjoying it until I found the one person who was willing to make a lifetime commitment with me.

I repeat: I was NOT a Christian at the time--but I was a scientist, and have always looked at the world both biologically and with awe and wonder. Remember Einstein? "Either it is all a miracle, or none of it is a miracle." I have always been, like Einstein, in the miracle faction.

Since I don't know Ann Coulter personally, I don't know personal details about her. But don't rule out the possibility that she's like some of us others, chaste by choice.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at August 20, 2010 07:32 PM (8TplD)

722 If the GOP doesn't get out of people's bedrooms, it has no right calling itself the party that stands for freedom
Your statement is a total misrepresentation.
The GOP is basically divided into three groups.
A. Those that support SSM
B. Those that have no problem with homosexual couples doing whatever together but oppose SSM
C. Those that think homosexuality should still be illegal based on religious moral beliefs.

You say we ought to just purge all of the C people then, despite the fact they are way outnumbered by the A and B people who want nothing to do with what happens in your bedroom (unless you're hot, are you hot?), sure we can do that, as soon as the Democrat party purges itself of avowed socialists and communists.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2010 07:33 PM (0q2P7)

723 Heck on a lonely country road I am not even stopping for Mother theresa. Instead I'll call 911 and alert the local police to Mother Theresa's plight.

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 07:33 PM (p302b)

724 By the time you reach anne's age, dating is like a trip to the refrigerator. Only leftovers and picked over food. There's no feast. No newly prepared stuff unless you go trolling for the youngsters. It's a tough, why bother road.

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 07:36 PM (p302b)

725 Heck on a lonely country road I am not even stopping for Mother theresa.

Well considering that if you saw her.
A. It's a miracle she actually is a Saint (Then she doesn't need your help does she?)
B. It's the end of days, the righteous have risen (Better get hold up in the basement and start praying)
C. She wants to eat your brains.


Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2010 07:38 PM (0q2P7)

726 I'm not for purging anybody from our ranks, nor for shutting them up even if I wholeheartedly disagree with them. The First Amendment's a bitch, but a bitch work hanging on to. IMHO.

Posted by: redstatedeb at August 20, 2010 07:38 PM (ykmvs)

727 you're 29? i knew it! would explain why you dont know shit.

Posted by: booj at August 20, 2010 07:40 PM (kxKI2)

728 By the time you reach anne's age, dating is like a trip to the
refrigerator. Only leftovers and picked over food. There's no feast.
No newly prepared stuff unless you go trolling for the youngsters.
It's a tough, why bother road.

If I was single, I would so hit it. I doubt a woman of her prominence and attractiveness spends many nights alone that she doesn't want to.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2010 07:42 PM (0q2P7)

729 717
You want to get rid of no-fault divorce\? That's a good idea in my book.

Right, because women being savagely beat really should get a judge's permission before leaving.


Posted by: Rod Rescueman at August 20, 2010 06:56 PM (QxGmu)
1-You don't need to get divorced to leave the room where you are being beaten. Nor to press charges for assault.
2-Why wouldn't physical abuse be considered a fault?3-You are aware, right, that kids are much more likely to be abused by mom's new boyfriend than their real dad?

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 07:43 PM (GtTYq)

730 Homosexual population is 10-20%...lots of closet cases out there.

Posted by: fuckyouhomophobes at August 20, 2010 06:53 PM (r2UKM)
Actually, everybody is gay, they just don't know it yet. What do you have against homophones anyway?Oh, and that's a misnomer. In the vast majority of cases, people aren't afraid of homosexuality or homosexuals, they just think it's bizarre and disgusting. You know, the whole "poop dick" thing.

Posted by: FUBAR at August 20, 2010 07:44 PM (LPL4Z)

731 Something about openly conjecturing about the sex life, or lack of, about Ann Coulter strikes me as wrong. Something about gay people openly engaging in sex on the streets of San Fransisco strikes me as wrong.

I want sex back in the bedroom. An act of intimacy between two people should remain between two people and is no one else's business. I don't want the government peering over my shoulder in any way. I don't care what sort of pre-sex, during sex, or after sex sort of drug you care to use - nor do I think the government should have a say in the matter.

I really don't know what label should be affixed on a person like myself. Probably intolerant.

*shrugs*


Posted by: Public Service Message at August 20, 2010 07:45 PM (IhHdM)

732 Homosexual population is 10-20%...lots of closet cases out there.
Heh. And yet Ace thinks it's 3% and 99.9% of the males in the 97% are 'incapable' of it.
10% - I don't buy it.
20% - you're smoking crack coccaine. Not even if you count the 'fashion lesbos' who only do it in the bar to tease the guys.
But... it depends on who you count and where you draw the line. Human sexuality, like all human behavior, is a spectrum and not binary.
Which is why I cannot buy 99.9% "incapable". It's a bell curve. Half of those guys may not be gay, but they're still relatively more gay then the other half. Absent strong social conditioning and belief in certain learned relationship roles they've got a relative inclination to being copacetic withthe buttsex.
Just look at the lesbos.
Didn't some pop-star interviewer ask Lady Gaga if she had ever tried sex with a woman and her answer was 'Oh, of course! But I prefer men."
If you don't have a moral, social,or intellectual objection to it, it's all pretty similar in the dark really.

Posted by: Entropy at August 20, 2010 07:47 PM (eL+YD)

733 Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2010 07:42 PM (0q2P7)

You should hear some of the older single women stories...they can be very funny and very sad at the same time. Prominence can sometimes be a prison. They always start out with "how come you didn't go out with that nice guy". ....and that leads to the stories of regret about all the nice guys they didn't date while climbing the ladder of success. They somehow feel they have to make sure younger women don't make the mistakes they made.

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 07:48 PM (p302b)

734 731
Do you have a citation for that? Lust is a sin; denying your spouse as well. The act of masturbating, I don't think so.

Really
jackass? You need me to point you to Wiki so you can read about how
which faiths think it is a sin and why? Or do you insist that I use
*your* religious texts to cite example?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2010 07:20 PM (0q2P7)
I really don't see why the jackass is called for. Generally if someone is asking for a citation in regards to "sin" they mean biblically, at least in America. Of which, as you say, homosexual acts are definitively condemned, and masturbation not.
So chill out

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 07:50 PM (GtTYq)

735 You want to get rid of no-fault divorce\? That's a good idea in my book.Right, because women being savagely beat really should get a judge's permission before leaving.

Posted by: Rod Rescueman at August 20, 2010 06:56 PM (QxGmu)
1-You don't need to get divorced to leave the room where you are being beaten. Nor to press charges for assault.

Just to expand...

Right dude, with domestic violence laws that could land you in the slammer for no physical contact whatsoever and what my grandparents would have considered a decent tuesday night spat???

What F*ing planet are you living on where having to justify divorce suddenly becomes re-enactment of the thumb rule?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2010 07:51 PM (0q2P7)

736 "BTW, GOProud is not formed around sin. They are formed around Conservatism."

Really? How do you know? This is from their website:

Who we are

Click here to learn about our board of directors, advisory council, and staff. (coming soon!)
Perhaps you know who is behind this group, but honestly most people vouching for them probably don't.

Posted by: Ken Royall at August 20, 2010 07:52 PM (9zzk+)

737 Really? So It's a poopdick thing? Well, luckily I can attest that I have never gotten poop on my dick, FUBAR.

Here I was thinking some straight guys liked a little anal action too. Too many porn flicks, probably. I mean, I'm not a guy, but I've read things...17.2% if ICR...

Posted by: redstatedeb at August 20, 2010 07:52 PM (ykmvs)

738 If you don't have a moral, social,or intellectual objection to it, it's all pretty similar in the dark really.

Posted by: Entropy at August 20, 2010 07:47 PM (eL+YD)
Disagree. What on a woman is similar to a penis on a man?

Posted by: FUBAR at August 20, 2010 07:53 PM (LPL4Z)

739 Her pinky finger? I mean, some guys of course but not you, FUBAR.

Posted by: redstatedeb at August 20, 2010 07:59 PM (ykmvs)

740 What on a woman is similar to a penis on a man?

The fact that the vagina is nothing but an inside out penis?

Posted by: Public Service Message at August 20, 2010 08:06 PM (IhHdM)

741 What F*ing planet are you living on where having to justify divorce suddenly becomes re-enactment of the thumb rule?

There are plenty of knuckle-dragging troglodyte Judges left in this country. Don't fool yourself into thinking it all looks like the 9th Circuit.

Posted by: Rod Rescueman at August 20, 2010 08:06 PM (QxGmu)

742 If you think its all similar in the dark you must have a really teeny wang.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 20, 2010 08:07 PM (PQY7w)

743 I really don't see why the jackass is called for...
Because you made a demand which I under stood to mean "Where does it say in the Bible explicitly that..." which means, "justify this on my terms or don't do it at all. "; that, when the vast vast majority of the religious world considers something to be "sin", is the height of arrogance. You want to make something "sin" because *your* interpenetration of *your* book says so, along with wearing linen/wool blends, and eating lobster. While excluding something the vast majority, including the worlds largest Christian Church, say is sin, because *your* interpretation of *your* book says it's not. That wouldn't have something to do with you actually wanting to do that would it? You fail to see the larger point I was making, that imposing religious piety though law isn't necessarily a good idea nor wanted. We live in a representative Republic, which generally means morality and "sin" is a majority rules game. If you want to make the argument that homosexuality is bad *because* it is SIN and that is enough, then masturbation falls into the same category as clearly most Christian and other faithful world wide believe it to be so even if you don't. Moreover, eventually the super pious will find something you care about to control because it is clearly defined as SIN like eating lobster. In which case your insisting of the application of *your* or anybody else's interpretation of piety without sound societal justification is no better than the global warming gang or the PC police.

So I can cite the Catechism if you like (which happens to be one of my books) if that doesn't do it for you to bad, it's the largest Christian church in the world, and today we are using MY rules on what is sin to decide what you get to do in your private life.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2010 08:13 PM (0q2P7)

744 There are plenty of knuckle-dragging troglodyte Judges left in this
country. Don't fool yourself into thinking it all looks like the 9th
Circuit.

What? First off, divorce is paperwork, marriage doesn't involve a real ball and chain, you are always free to leave your spouse if you want.

Second. Given that any form of physical spousal abuse would be automatic cause for divorce in any sane drafting of reasonable divorce laws, what realistic judge would overlook that? How many appeals would it take to overturn it? So 99.9999% accurate with the remaining case corrected on appeal is just not good enough huh? In essence you argue that the system of justice is so flawed we shouldn't allow it to perform any function at all because if it can't reasonably find the right answer of fault in a divorce where physical spousal abuse is present, than it is clearly completely incapable of handling the much more complex, and critical questions of justice which plague our society.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2010 08:23 PM (0q2P7)

745 You fail to see the larger point I was making, that imposing religious
piety though law isn't necessarily a good idea nor wanted.
Forgive me for addressing a tangent you threw out, but I didn't fail to see
We live in a representative Republic, which generally means morality and "sin" is a majority rules game.
Which is protestant Christianity, isn't it?
In which case your insisting of the application of *your* or anybody
else's interpretation of piety without sound societal justification is
no better than the global warming gang or the PC police.
Show me where *I* did that, "jackass."

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 08:24 PM (GtTYq)

746 All of the Christian-bashing -- in the form of supposedly defending gays against closed-minded busybody Christians -- is about one thing: Distracting everyone from the fact that, when actual consequences oflibertarianism are examined, libertarianism probably doesn't work the way the pie-in-the-sky libertarians say it does. America was never a libertarian country the way libertarians want it to be today. The dominance of Christianity prevented that, because the population's voluntary submission to Christian teachings prevented anyone from seeing the philosophy actually applied.
Look at the socially-liberal places that have legalized hard-core drugs/prostitution. Some of them are trying to reduce the locations, because even in a legalized setting, they attract a criminal, anti-social element.
If the primary secondary consequences ofsame-sex marriage devastates society as much as the science indicates it will, libertarianism is a failed theory. "Stay out of my bedroom" sounds like a good idea, but what if it isn't?
Guess what. The Red-Light District in the Netherlands isn't exactly a place most people would want to live. There's a reason for that.

Posted by: FurrowedBrow at August 20, 2010 08:36 PM (iFIKG)

747 Disagree. What on a woman is similar to a penis on a man?
Who says you have to take it?
I'm not saying that. That's a totally seperate issue. Ask the ladies how they like that either.
But a hole is a hole in the dark, and you WILL get off either way. If he's clean shaven, lips are lips.
I'd guess at any rate. I'm kinda grossed out by poopdick so I've never nailed an asshole on a male or a female and I've never so much as kissed a guy.
Or wanted to...Er, at least not that I knew was a guy at the time.
I have objections to it, frankly. Social and intellectual and possibly moral. I'm 110% straight so far as I can tell. But I'm not fool enough to think my judgment unbiased either. I am to some extent a product of my environment. I can admit that I am not incapable of enjoying gay sex. I don't, and I'm not desirous to start either, so it ain't gonna happen.
My formative years are over, I'm an 'old dog' now, my views are formed. Having to rethink the 'gay sex' issue would mean having to rethink all kinds of things, my ideas about masculinity and what it means to be a man as well as what I think about myself and what kind of guy I am, and how I view my relationships with other people- all that and more would need to go up in smoke to make room for rethinking on whether I want man-ass.
Plus that whole poopdick thing. I take a shower after I poop or else I don't feel sanitary. I'm not a very fastiduous guy, but except that one thing I am. I'll eat a worm, I don't care, but if I have to pick up dog crap I'm gagging and choking the whole time.
BUT, I can admit that logically, I tell you, had I lived a different life in a different culture around different people, I could have as easily been bi or gay as anyone else. If you and I had been Lacedonian warriors we'd be buggering each other in the ass. No one is 'incapable' of it. Case in point - the figgure about sexual abuse.
Learned behavior.
Get homosex molested as a child by a respected and loved family member and role-model, you're 7 times more likely to want more of it as an adult.
Tell me, how similar is your hand to a vagina?
Not very. But it works and it don't feel bad right? Good enough if it's all you got AND you have no moral/social/intellectual qualms or reservations over it.
Your non-desire to sleep with men does not come from aninability to get it up when grinding on a dudes ass - Oh, if you tried I bet it would work. Physical stimulus. It's not that picky. It's nigh-uncontrollable.
It's not a genetic thing that's made you born "straight". It's other reasons that give you horror or disinterest or make you want to vomit - reasons stemming from the higher cerebreal functions in your cortex that are too complex to be passed on in genetics and animal instinct.
Sans those reasons, you MAY still have a preferance for females (or you may not), but in the absence of a female you wouldn't turn down a perfectly good hole.

Posted by: Entropy at August 20, 2010 08:41 PM (eL+YD)

748
Which is protestant Christianity, isn't it?

No it's an aggregate Christianity that agrees with me.
Show me where *I* did that, "jackass."

*reads whole thread*

OK I take that part back.

However demanding that I define sin based on *your* definition and belief rather than my own or the popular opinion amongst the religious theologians of Judeo Christian faiths, lest it not be true, was still a jackass thing to do and is exactly what I was trying to argue against. I didn't want to get into a word parsing exactly what is sin what is not can you have masturbation without any lust when Onan jizzed on the ground why was God pissed arguments that the vast majority of the community has already come to a conclusion on; and rather focus on the negatives of the definition of sin being a societal imperative for government intervention.

But no, we had to get all, "where does it say that?"

Let me give you an example of the frustration.

Most Christians believe the word of Christ supersedes the old law. (Yes I can F*ing cite that if you need it) So I ask, what does Christ, not an apostle, words-in-red-new-testament Christ, explicitly state as sinful?

It must be Christ, he was the only one who was the living word.
It must be explicit.

I'll give you a hint; homosexuality is not on the list.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2010 09:00 PM (0q2P7)

749 I take a shower after I poop or else I don't feel sanitary. ................Heh, good to know i'm not the only one. I've said it before and i'll say it again, the one thing euro-trash has done right is bidets. Why in the world American homes are built without bidets i'll never understand, toilet paper just doesn't get your ass clean. Sure, it'll get the bulk off, but as for that last bit all TP does is smear it on your ass. A bidet though actually washes you clean, which is how it should be. Welp, now that i've ranted about ass hygeine, i feel better.

Posted by: Martha Stewart's Left Nipple at August 20, 2010 09:07 PM (bJevO)

750 "The dominance of Christianity prevented that, because the population's voluntary submission to Christian teachings prevented anyone from seeing the philosophy actually applied."



So, are you now proposing an involuntary one? there is another name for that.

Posted by: boo hoo at August 20, 2010 09:07 PM (vQoSF)

751 "Stay out of my bedroom" sounds like a good idea, but what if it isn't?

Then demonstrate it isn't. That is the threshold for restricting freedom in this country. I have argued against SSM because the traditional institution of marriage needs to remain intact for good reasons. But why is what two (or more for that matter) consenting adults are doing in the privacy of their own home any of my concern?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2010 09:13 PM (0q2P7)

752 Sex in marriage that isn't unitive and open to children i.e. contraceptive sex is a grave sin. See Humanae Vitae. It's a beautiful Church document that will stand the test of time -- and has for 2000 years.

Posted by: Chuck at August 20, 2010 09:15 PM (P3iQe)

753 I warned you Xters but you wouldn't listen.

Guess who's laughing now.

Posted by: Christoph at August 20, 2010 09:15 PM (7+pP9)

754 So Farah is essentially elevating to the position of Worst Sin the one sin he has absolutely zero chance of committing, zero chance of even being tempted by.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that Farah actually is tempted by it every single day.

Posted by: Average Jen at August 20, 2010 09:16 PM (fRnux)

755 Gay sex-I guess I'm too Libertarian to give a shit.
I agree with Ace.
Over Sarah Palin.

Now, can we learn more about these married people that have sex? This intrigues me. I thought it was a myth, like Big Foot, or something.

Posted by: di butler, maker of bad decisions at August 20, 2010 09:16 PM (8TRAy)

756 ph and to all the Palin naysayers.... if she doesn;t defend Ms. Laura then WHO the eff will?... hmmm? who will speak up against the progressives? I don't here anyone else? Fox News? nope.

I see only weaklings. And all this crying about losing the culture war, progressives taking over language, gay marriage etc. etc yada yad.... you guys are sorry. sorry warriors. You wouldn't know a leader if it hit you in the face. Maybe she won't be president. who knows? Know that the WAR over society is not fought from the oval office/throne.

duh.

Posted by: bh at August 20, 2010 09:22 PM (vQoSF)

757 I didn't propose an involuntary anything. I'm just trying to point out that all of the breezy libertarians mocking traditionalists for their concerns on here should be a bit more circumspect about what is actually happening here.

Posted by: FurrowedBrow at August 20, 2010 09:23 PM (iFIKG)

758 "But why is what two (or more for that matter) consenting adults are doing in the privacy of their own home any of my concern?"-- MiketheMoose
Because they're not keeping it in the privacy of their own home. GOProud certainlyisn't. They'readvocacy group exists based on the thing they"just want to do in their own home". If GOProud just wants to do it in the privacy of their own home, why not just join the conservative movement as conservatives, rather than gay-conservatives?

Posted by: FurrowedBrow at August 20, 2010 09:29 PM (iFIKG)

759 ME: "Stay out of my bedroom" sounds like a good idea, but what if it isn't?MikeTheMoose: "Then demonstrate it isn't."
Red Light Districts demonstrate it isn't. Even in liberal North European countries -- that don't have all of us horrible judgmental Christians -- gays have elevated levels of depression, suicide.

Posted by: FurrowedBrow at August 20, 2010 09:36 PM (iFIKG)

760


Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2010 09:00 PM (0q2P7)

That's a long, somewhat rambling response. If you're going to get offended when someone asks you "Why do you believe x is wrong" you aren't going to be listened to much . a Simple "My priest says so" would have sufficed.

Posted by: Randy at August 20, 2010 09:45 PM (GtTYq)

761 I could give a rat's ass what people do in their bedrooms. If you want gay sex in the bedroom, go for it.
I have a problem with it when it leaves the bedroom.
Case in point, I keep hearing about it, there's arguments about it, debates about it, policy.... And I've never even been in a gay person's bedroom!
There's so much 'gay sex this' and 'gay sex that' talkaround that's not in a bedroom, I've come to believe that gay people must only use their bedrooms for sleeping and playing sudoku.
By the numbers there's probably more people into dressing in leather and getting whipped than homosexuality and yet we don't hear nearly so much from those people.
There's no push for teachers to discuss 'the fine line between pleasure and pain' to schoolchildren.
No legislative debates about legalizing voluntary slavery for submissives.
No lawsuits alleging anyone was fired for liking it when chicks walk on their nuts with stilletos.
It's no more acceptable in public - some people will leer at you and judge you poorly and call you a freakfor being gay, some people will leer at you and judge you poorly and call you a freakfor saying you like it when your SO strangles you.
No 'coming out' parties or BDSM pride parades (unless they're also gay TOO, but then there is). No push for 'understanding and acceptance' amongst people who don't get it and never will.
It's in their bedrooms.
Hell, I don't hear as much from the fucking voyeurs as I do from gays.

Posted by: Entropy at August 20, 2010 09:49 PM (eL+YD)

762 I haven't finished really all the comments yet, mostly just Ace's, but I will. While I get his going on at Farrah to a point from a political standpoint it's the only thing I can see in this thread he has even a decent understanding of. It's sure he's clueless on theology. Leviticus? The Shellfish argument? Really? Jesus doesn't talk about gays? Have you spent even five minutes studying theology or reading blogs or news on it Ace? There are things which are sinful and things which are abhorrent. They aren't the same. An awful lot of straight people abuse children, sexually and otherwise, is there and doubt in your mind that Christ finds this abhorrent and not just sinful? If there is it's time you read the New Testament again.

And he does no better with science. We are born with our sexual performances? Complete garbage. You are no more born gay than you are born straight. Any more than you are born liking chocolate and hating spinach. The choices we make throughout life, and they are beyond doubt choices, may be unconscious and largely due to environment but we aren't born with them. Tell me exactly how does some one who only gets off on pain happen to be born with such desires? It's total bullshit. It's learned behavior. We are born hungry, wanting to have sex and to procreate. So we find food and put it in our mouths. We look at our sexual organs and it's pretty obvious what they are for. So 97% of us like stuff that tastes good and straight sex. Why? Because it's easy. It's a no brainier. People do what's easy for the most part. The other 3%? They have either had a difficult life or like being difficult. Whichever it is I don't think it should play any role in policy making, especially for things, like marriage, which solely concern the other 97%.

As far as the politics GOProud is not conservative. They are certainly Republicans but not conservative. Anybody reading their Federal legislative priorities on their web site can see that. The con in Homocon is just that, a con.

Posted by: Rocks at August 20, 2010 09:56 PM (xXyXP)

763 What makes libertarians so utterly contemptible is their refusal to acknowledge how they have personally benefitted from a Christianized society.How can these people bemyopic enough tothink our "Constitutional Republic" isthe only reason we have it so good here in America? Whatever other contributory circumstances you mention, justmake sure Christianity doesn't get any credit, or you will be maligned.

Posted by: FurrowedBrow at August 20, 2010 10:00 PM (iFIKG)

764 The Farah/Fred Phelps comparison isn't quite fair to Farah. He's not arguing that God hates gays, is he?
How easilythe media could dismantle Phelps, if only they knew the first thing aboutChristianity.
"If God hates gays becausehomosexuality is a sin, and a lie is a sin, then God also hates liars...long story short,God hates sinners, we're all sinners,ergo God hates everybody."
Ace is dead-on target with the preaching against the sins you aren't attracted to anyway. "Thank God I am not asnot as other men..."
...says the Pharisee.

Posted by: wormme at August 20, 2010 10:05 PM (xg1eR)

765 Since no one else cares, Rocks, let me sum up. Ace has joined the chorus of libertarians who are taking advantage of the gay marriage issue to drive Christian influence out of the conservative movement. All of this is couched in hollow concerns about the Constitution, which, in spite of being created by a group of menthat includednon-religious types, and yet did not include any protection for people's sexual proclivities. But that doesn't really matter, because the important thing here is to focus on how dangerous and unreasonable traditional conservatives are, and how much they"poison" the conservative movement.

Posted by: FurrowedBrow at August 20, 2010 10:09 PM (iFIKG)

766 benefitted?


benefitted?


look chief. Im exstatic to have been born here. But knowing that Im likely much younger than you... and will be paying for your retirement... and that you let the schools be overrun... not to mention the taxes I face and lack of any retirement fund (zero). yes the load is heavy and I am furious. If you are older than me I can't say it any clearer but FUCK OFF YOU LOSERS. we are here now. you lost her not me. Im just starting out here.

it's called effing strategy. triangulation. baby steps or something Lord you socials are dense.


here I deleted this from earlier:



Look I feel your plight, but you/we lost. you/we were delinquent.

please, pretty please, just stay quiet in the next election and let the real men try to save this place (just 2 years - 2 EFFING YEARS PLEASE - everytime you guys open your mouth on TV you knock away the independent vote - you can change there minds later if you like but not in 2 years). Then you can go on your next crusade or whatever your passion. No one really cares. You, talking like that, have never brought anyone to the true Lord.



---
I mean it's like you think you can shoot the moon in one go. it's retarded. But you are all I have *looks up*. Just dont think Im exstatic about pairing with proven losers (yeah - you lost - wake up and smell reality). be grateful to god he gives us this last chance.

Posted by: poor baby at August 20, 2010 10:10 PM (vQoSF)

767 Well, poor baby, thank you for that substantive response. Your thought-provoking eloquence really has me reassured, especially in light of the fact that people like you are taking the reins.

Posted by: FurrowedBrow at August 20, 2010 10:13 PM (iFIKG)

768 oh and im no liberatarion or whatever. I am me. none like before. Full Stop.

Posted by: poor baby at August 20, 2010 10:14 PM (vQoSF)

769 well whats your plan? Huckabee?

Posted by: poor baby at August 20, 2010 10:15 PM (vQoSF)

770 Also it seem to me Ace has clearly bought Kennedy's rational in striking down sodomy laws. While I think sodomy laws are total bullshit the idea the state has no interest in passing laws related to sex acts simply because they are consensual is bullshit. The state seems to have no problem with the idea that I have to pay extra for life insurance because I smoke but would surly sue the crap out of any insurance company that tried to up the fees on gays despite the fact they regularly participate in an activity as deadly as smoking. If the state has an interest in telling me where and when I can smoke they have just as much interest in sex acts.

Posted by: Rocks at August 20, 2010 10:16 PM (xXyXP)

771 My plan is to insist that public school actually teach the scientific realities about the homosexual lifestyle in health classes, rather than the physical techniques: early deaths from cancer, high depression suicide rates, etc. My plan is for more people to examine the fraud science that has been manufactured for the past two decades to prop up the notion that being gay is just swell, if only it weren't for those sanctimonious Jesus followers.

Posted by: FurrowedBrow at August 20, 2010 10:19 PM (iFIKG)

772 Social Libs are very quick to mock Christians for our supposed resistance to science when it comes to something like, say,what happened before anyone was around to actually observe it, but when the science flies in the face of their liberal sexual utopia, teaching science -- rather than ideology --doesn't really an interest them.

Posted by: FurrowedBrow at August 20, 2010 10:26 PM (iFIKG)

773 We are born hungry, wanting to have sex and to procreate. So we find food and put it in our mouths.
Exactly. It's more complicated then just 'being difficult' but you're on the right track.
We all have different hunger levels and metabolisms. Some people eat more then others. This is physiological. I say physiological, not 'genetic' because it's PART genetic but not all genetic. Other things, like activity level, or having a tape-worm, matters.
But no doubt, there's genetics involved in metabolism. (But again, ingest the right chemicals and that is mutable too).
But your genetics don't tell you you like spinach.
And then there's that business where nobody likes cigarettes or beer - that's not true some do, but lots don't.... but learn to genuinely like it with practice because they want to.
Same thing with sex. Your genetics may set out some initial values, some starting points... but it's not all immutable. High blood pressure due to diet might crash it on you. It's basics only, sex DRIVE, not preferance, that is physiological.
Not even height is all genetic. It depends on diet and other health factors.
The arguments with hormones are no better.
Scientists like to be deterministic because it offers complete understanding and control.
They've hyped up a LOT about genetics - none of it has been delivered on. And despite all the hype of 'unlocking the blueprint' with DNA, we're increasing coming to understand it's not all that.
The apple did not fall too far from the tree. A lot of business with genetic determinism is nothing more then modern updated eugenics. Or Phrenology.
Bad ideas never die, they just go to hell to regroup. There's still plenty of people who want to view people as nothing more than animal orange clockworks and genetic determism offers a du jour way to rationalize it.
"If God hates gays becausehomosexuality is a sin, and a lie is a sin, then God also hates liars...long story short,God hates sinners, we're all sinners,ergo God hates everybody."
http://tinyurl.com/2fknm7d

Posted by: Entropy at August 20, 2010 10:27 PM (eL+YD)

774 Ace, your thoughts are one long string of contradiction, double-standard, and incoherence.

Yes, we all sin, but which other sin is a group of would-be conservatives rallying behind, and identifying with as not a sin? as something that it is incumbent upon others to embrace?

theft? infidelity? fornication? which? If Coulter sleeps around, she hasn't at least argued that it is okay to do so and formed a group of like-minded fornicators.

This is the critical difference. No one cares if those who are same-sex attracted are numbered among conservatives. What matters is if you try to deny it's harmfulness/sinfulness/trangression of natural law.

And where is natural law in all this? how can you claim conservatism except as a matter of taste, rather than principled and coherent vision without natural law?

Posted by: David Pena at August 20, 2010 10:52 PM (LQDOm)

775 mw: Good Kipling is that you? Lo, how I have missed thee. Look, you're not *wrong*, we've just got to get those dudes and gals who *know the number don't add up* - or are struggling with the *cognitive dissonance* of being sane in a liberal's world - but get kreeped out by all the homo/see-yun talk, to realize they ARE on our side. And that WE are at war. By the way, Dr. Laura was the only conservative influence in my life (other than grandma) when I was a high school chick in the late 90s, and God bless them both.



dude says: well Im all with you on the science thing. I am not a repeater but you can see my thoughts on that, err... I mean solemn unread manifesto comments - as ace would call it - at PJM bing beware the coming of the rhino.

Posted by: MoWo at August 20, 2010 10:59 PM (vQoSF)

776 I tried to follow the reasoning that because Farrah has not/is not/will not be tempted to have homosexual sex means he should not be completely offended by it and wish it to be illegal. Unfortunately I failed and for a couple of reasons. 1 – We have all sorts of laws limiting who people CAN have consensual sex with. 2 – I am totally offended by the idea of a man having sex with a young boy, even if the boy understands it and wants it, and I will support legislation that restricts that behavior completely and entirely to illegal status with large prison terms assigned to men who do it. Oh and the Bible also says that it is as nasty as having sex with animals, which is also illegal.
The Catholic Church’s stance is that sex should be between a married couple with openness to the possibility of new life. That means no active actions meant to disrupt the natural process that occurs from sex. Natural family planning is approved by the Catholic church.

Posted by: Cali_Vet at August 20, 2010 11:02 PM (wWJ1T)

777 Fraternization between a suborndinate and a superior (particularly between a recruit and an instructor president and an intern).
FIFY
Posted by: Blue Hen at August 20, 2010 02:54 PM (R2fpr)

Posted by: Bill R. at August 20, 2010 11:08 PM (EhlQq)

778 Personally I am tired of labels. conservative, christian, liberal, libertarian, progressive, whatevs. What a bore. It either works or it doesn't. Tyranny, imposition, and compulsion have been proven not to work time and time again. PROVEN. Why keep effing that chicken. Whats wrong with American freedom. The freedom to be a slut, miser, homophobe, homo, glutton, sloth, idolator, polygamist etc. Moreover it is not His teaching.

PS: I would much prefer to split the country and leave the Left to their own devices. This is an endless cycle. I honestly think it's best for everyone. I am not bs'ing. But no one listens. They prefer to bitch incessantly. To each his own I suppose.

Posted by: d at August 20, 2010 11:11 PM (vQoSF)

779 Man I just started listening to a new band and this shit blows me the fuck away. I can't stop repeating it.
http://tinyurl.com/dezoef
Eluveitie - Uis Elveti
Meh. Thread seems dead anyway.
HELVETII!
It's Swiss Celtic folk metal with lyrics in ancient gaullish.
Caesar knew them well.
The War in Gaul
I. - All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in ours Gauls, the third. All these differ from each other in language, customs and laws. The river Garonne seperates the Gauls from the Aquitani; the Marne and the Seine seperate them from the Belgae. Of all these, the Belgae are the bravest, because they are farthest from the civilisation and refinement of [our] Province, and merchants least frequently resort to them and import those things which tend to effeminate the mind; and they are the nearest to the Germans, who dwell beyond the Rhine, with whom they are continually waging war; for which reason the Helvetii also surpass the rest of the Gauls in valour, as they contend with the Germans in almost daily battles, when they either repel them from their own territories, or themselves wage war on their frontiers.

Posted by: Entropy at August 20, 2010 11:30 PM (eL+YD)

780 Dude, I think your idea of 'sex for non-procreation = SIN' is kind of outdated by modern standards of exegesis?

Posted by: Scott at August 20, 2010 11:33 PM (PXGSj)

781 Posted by: d at August 20, 2010 11:11 PM (vQoSF)

Split the country sounds great but I have often heard Vic comment that his nice state is being over run with blue staters and their politics. Oddly enough, they seem to be attracted to the lifestyle of red staters but when they go to the red states they seem to ruin everything in their path.

More and more I'm beginning to realize that if you have morals and values you can't chance sending your future children to public schools. Many Catholic schools have closed due to lack of interest, I'm thinking they will re open in the future as more and more people realize that religious schools are the right path if you value character and faith and family and all those things that coordinate with mom's apple pie.

Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 11:43 PM (p302b)

782 90% of gays want gay marriage? I guess if that is what polls show.
I probably have had the gay marriage conversation with at least 500 gay men. Believe me they don't give a squirt of piss about gay marrriage, but they would tell a poll taker they do. That is what they are supposed to do.
Lesbians are a different story. Surprising since their very serious relationships tend to be notoriously and humorously short term.
I would say counting gays and lesbians 30 or 40% truely care about it.

Posted by: Repeal at August 20, 2010 11:46 PM (8xwyL)

783 Cali_vet,
The danger with railing against sins you're immune to is that it's easier to fall into one you're not...pride.
Look at who got the bulk of Christ's displeasure. The Pharisees. Why? They upheld a higher percentage of the law than those they mocked and scorned. Because they were prideful.
If you're speaking about sins not your own, and love for those sinners isn't totally evident...aren't you're hurting, not helping?
If you have a better spiritual strategy than loving thy neighbor, spit it out! 'Cause lovingmy neighbor is hard. He sucks.

Posted by: wormme at August 20, 2010 11:46 PM (xg1eR)

784 "More and more I'm beginning to realize that if you have morals and values you can't chance sending your future children to public schools. Many Catholic schools have closed due to lack of interest, I'm thinking they will re open in the future as more and more people realize that religious schools are the right path if you value character and faith and family and all those things that coordinate with mom's apple pie."



Posted by: curious at August 20, 2010 11:43 PM (p302b)



If I had my wish I would vanish Dept of Ed (among others). And implement a nation-wide voucher system in place of direct public funding - no diff right? The rest would take it's course (teacher's unions or not). Trust in that.



Of course, I have no first-hand knowledge of teh public school system. My father insisted we scrape to achieve private education. It was awkward being meekly dressed but the benefits are immeasurable. Catholic high school (2nd best time of my life btw). Let's just say I know where, or where not, I am sending my kids. Period.


I would urge everyone else to do the same. (IE you are 100% correct - do not do it - the other thing that matters is where from their last degree - between not so much).

Posted by: d at August 21, 2010 12:35 AM (vQoSF)

785 A final thought relating to Ace's contention Ann Coulter is a sinful whore because she's dated a lot of guys and reached the grand old age of 50 without getting married so must be just sleeping around. While I seriously doubt she's a virgin it's not automatic she's slept around. It's just as likely the reason she's dated so many men and never married is that she doesn't put out much and doesn't like sex all that much. I'm sure she enjoys the idea of sex and being in love very much, but the actual practice probably just interferes too much with how she likes her life. Many people go for extremely long periods of time without having sex with another person. It's not piousness or even a hard choice, it just happens.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 12:38 AM (xXyXP)

786 Ann is 49 guys stop saying 29. I really think her sex life or lack thereof is none of anyone's business but hers. I'm not a big ann coulter fan but dear God, discussing her like this is shameful. I don't care if you want to discuss her ideas and her education and her brain power or even that all of you think she's hot....because seriously she looks pretty good for her age. But whether or not she is a virgin or a new virgin or a lesbian or a whore for that matter isn't really relevant to any legitimate conversation. Ask yourselves this, "would you be discussing a man in the same way?" If you wouldn't then maybe stop discussing ann in this way.

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 12:50 AM (p302b)

787 I am really bothered by the Palin bashing. I was horrified the day she was selected as vp candidate and they immediately began attacking and criticizing her. The country barely knew who she was but they knew she had a child who was not perfect in the eyes of some and that she was in the eyes of the dems, stupid.

Drew contended that she was the governor of a state and should know about the first amendment. Well, drew, most people don't know the technicalities of the first amendment, they have a loose idea of what it is. I almost feel drew that you think only lawyers, constitutional ones at that, are capable of being president. Technically anyone should be able to represent us as long as we have voted them in. Perhaps those who view themselves as the best and the brightest have created this mess we find ourselves in now and maybe regular folks should have a chance to try and fix things.

Maybe what is really necessary is for people with pure hearts and a love of this country and the American people to come forward.

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 01:07 AM (p302b)

788 First, remember Farah is a moron whose conservative ideals are carefully constructed to maximize his revenue and give cover and credence to his wacky conspiracy ideas.

But he is also theologically incorrect. If he were right, no Christian could ever earn a living as a lecturer, even to Christian groups, because they are ALL chock full o' sinners, baby.

But I'm sure the Wildmon wackos are on board with Crazy Joe.

Posted by: Adjoran at August 21, 2010 03:01 AM (VfmLu)

789 Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Chanel bags 2009
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Omega Watches
IWC Watches
Gucci Watches
Rolex watches
Concord watches
Christian Louboutin Shoes
Christian Louboutin Boots
Christian Louboutin Pumps
Christian Louboutin Sandals
Christian Louboutin Slingback

Posted by: classic-christianlouboutin.com at August 21, 2010 04:34 AM (1XbuW)

790 Ever since Coulter's mom died, she has been like a ship without a rudder. It's sad.

Posted by: Atrollpasinthru at August 21, 2010 05:27 AM (sYrWB)

791 Wow; I'm sorry I missed this thread yesterday. What a dustup! I didn't know who this Joseph Farah was and had to Bing his name. But seriously, anyone who thinks Ann Coulter is too liberal has a screw lose.

In any case I have always said that religiosity has NOTHING to do with whether you are a conservative or not and this dust-up provides ample proof of it.

As for Joseph Farah and his Worldnet I quit reading it long ago because I noticed that they did not vet their stories very well. i.e. you can not believe them,.

Posted by: Vic at August 21, 2010 08:04 AM (/jbAw)

792 zehra ise götünü bana dayamış vurduruyor ahh ohh yeahh diye inliyordu serpil porno izle meltem ve yelize hadi türk seks sakso çekmişlerdi bende ısrar edince tamam ama yavaş olucak ve sadece arkadan yapıcaksın dedi bnse tamm dedim ve bunlar türk sex soyundu zehrayı bırakıp melteme geçtim bu ara aslı işini biliyor kameraya porno video ufacık kalçalrını tutup yaragımı götune yavaşça soktum bende yavaşça soktum yaragı kökune kadar soktum meltem sex video nolur çok acıyo diyordu bense artık çileden çıkmıştım ve başladım köküne kadar sokup çıkarıyordum meltem kendini ileri atıyor sex kızım diyerek götünü sikiyordum ve meltem acıdan aglamaya başlayınca geçtim yelizin götüne sokar sokmaz yeliz inim inm sex izle yelizin üzerne abanıp memelerni avuçluyor götüne sokaraak bebegm diyrdum ve yelz yere yıgılıp kaldı sıra kızlıklarını sikiş kıvrılıp acı içnde yatmıştı zehra kafası guzel oldu için bacanı sikiş izle zehranın üzerine çıkıp yaragımı amının uzerne getrdim netsikiş zehra nolurr yapma bırak dedi ama elini bile kaldıramıyordu zehra bnm diyerek amına soktum seksizlesene ilk girişte kızlıgı patladı porno izle 3 unude sabaha kadar ewire çevre becerdim grup sex inim inim inleyerek sonunda beni boşalttılar sabah giyiip gttler porno aslı gunluk 200 tl kazanıyordu porno pakize başka erkek arkadaşlar ednyr sen başka porno kız sikiyrsunda ben nye başka erkeklere vermm dyrdu bnde maadem öyle sana o kıpkırmızı amı gözümün önündeydi seks izle ben çok azdım birden içeri girdim ablam napıosun dedi bende çok azdırdın seks izle beni dedim gel ozaman dedi bende banyoya girdim başladık öpüşmeye porno izle memelerinin ucu dimdik olmusdu ben sonra o kıllı porno izle amına parmak atmaya baslamısdım oda zevke geldı benmımkını aldı elıne porno yalamaya basladı sonra hadi sok türkçe sex bana porno ilk domalt dım sonra basldm götüne sokmaya 5 dk git gel yapdım sonra bacaklarını porno koydum omuzuma başladım amına sokmaya travesti ben hemen boşaldım ben boşaldım travesti oda benden 5 dk sonra titreyerek boşaldı sonra ikimizde porno banyodan çıkdım yatağa gittik

Posted by: memili ketlok at August 21, 2010 08:40 AM (t5tgY)

793 Have never been an ann coulter fan but I decided to read her wiki page and this is one accomplished woman. LINK

This is the Dr. Laura wiki page. LINK

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 09:29 AM (p302b)

794 Farah's wiki page LINK

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 09:33 AM (p302b)

795 sarah palin's wiki page. LINK

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 09:44 AM (p302b)

796 Discussing Ann's sex life (or anyone's for that matter) isn't appropriate. My bet, is she likes sex just fine, has as much as she wants and is super stealthy about the logistics. And it has not one damned thing to do with her political beliefs....as with any conservative. Like someone being gay. I agree, this is crap... she's a woman deserving respect and when I see you guys discussing Krauthammer's sex life with the same glee, I'll believe we live in a fair world. (Yes, I hope I grossed you out).

OK, for me, lets discuss Paul Ryan's sex life.

Liberals intentionally push the 'conservatives hate everyone but the perfect' meme and what happens? You have someone like Farah who feeds the beast and again, gives them fuel to run with. Supposedly, the founding of this country was about freedom of the individual to pursue their own path in life. They intentionally left out things like "you have to have the right kind of sex in the right situation, with the right person for the right reason because you have a specific religion and most of all, act like you never do anything wrong--- ever."

With Farah's mindset, the only people 'good' enough to be conservative would fill a Volkswagen Beetle and everyone else would just have to vote Dem. Talk about a death wish for the party. The stupid purity tests and eating our own is why conservatives have the bad rap AND have to struggle to win elections, when it should be a cake walk. WE need to wear the mantel of inclusiveness which is rightfully ours....until some wackadoodle opens his mouth and sets us back to the stone age.

Yes Virginia, you can be anything and be conservative. Even a sexually active non-married female of 50. Or gay. Or atheist. Or whatever....

Even Jesus would piss a lot of these priss pots off for wearing sandals in December.

Posted by: EZBurns at August 21, 2010 09:50 AM (fa9yq)

797 The difference between sins like pride, sloth, etc. and homosexuality is that only homosexuality is freely embraced as part of one's identity and one's soul. In other words, stealing is a sin, but how ludicrous would it be if a group of conservatives formed a political group around themselves because the thing they had in common was that they were all proud thieves?

As long as people identify their selves and their souls with their behavior, by embracing sin and making it a part of who they are, and not just something they reluctantly do, they will be outcasts. People will be repulsed by them. People and most churches are forgiving of people who sin, because we all sin. It's when people obstinately do not reject sin, but stamp it on to their identity and try to turn it into something good and something to be proud of, that they become as repulsive as the sin itself.

This is the fate of someone who identifies with the sin of homosexuality: if you personify sin and join yourself to it (marry yourself to it), your personhood will be reproached. Because people will reproach sin, and you have joined with and identified your personhood with sin. However, if you separate yourself from your sins, your person will be embraced, and you will be able to overcome sin.

Posted by: trace_9r at August 21, 2010 01:55 PM (JhHx7)

798 uummm... quick question.... who did Jesus hang out with again?? my Bible has Him with the sinners...

Posted by: Darrell at August 21, 2010 02:11 PM (3noe8)

799 Yep, but he never once held back on condemning their sin. I think it was his honesty and directness that attracted a lot of people. See, its one thing to not reject association with sinners - we're all sinners. Its another to pretend its not a sin and support it.


In any case its a basic violation of conservative principles to have a special interest group convention.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 21, 2010 02:28 PM (PQY7w)

800 Gayness isn't a disease, it isn't contagious and it isn't spreading. Why can't Farah just let the small percentage of people who are gay live their happy lives?
Gluttony is a sin, too, so what is everybody supposed to do now, Mr Farah? Shun fat people, call them sinners, deny them the right to eat?

Posted by: Claire at August 21, 2010 05:49 PM (x3oLQ)

801 Claire, half of your post is wise, the first half is not; if something is wrong, then they ought not do it, even if it doesn't directly affect you.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 21, 2010 07:41 PM (PQY7w)

802 "Homosexuality destroys societies?"
That's odd. We were so all about the queer that ourwarriors(every one of our men) were required to take a younger male 'apprentice(IYKWIMAITYD.' We even dressed new brides like men and shaved their headsin order to ease the new groom into heterosexuality, and by all accountswe were pretty badass for almost 1000 years.

Posted by: This...is...SPARTA!!!! at August 21, 2010 07:45 PM (6Lbsm)

803 Quote by trace_9r:
"In other words, stealing is a sin, but how ludicrous would it be if a group of conservatives formed a political group around themselves because the thing they had in common was that they were all proud thieves?"
End quote.

That is called Congressional earmarks, all wealth redisribution bills, etc.

Sodomy, that of inserting the male penis into the anus, ruptures the soft tissue lining of the intestines,
thereby causing all manner of bacteria and disease to enter the bloodstream,
causing the immune system to break down otherwise known as auto-immune diseases (AIDS).

So if mind altering drugs are a danger to society, then the act of causing diseases entering into the bloodstream thereby contaminating the blood environment
and it's sorrounding humanity, sodomy should be regulated like drunk driving.

Period.

End of story.

Are there any other questions?
I punch in retired banker's hours, so it might be while before I get back with you.

Posted by: McGuyver at August 21, 2010 08:06 PM (Su/96)

804 Not that it's all that relevant, but non-procreative sex isn't considered neccesarily immoral by any religion that I know of (except Carrie White's mom). Like, the Pope dosen't say that when your wife gets pregnant you shouldn't have sex with her or anything. There's ust a lot of overlap between the stuff that can't make a baby and the stuff people shouldn't do.

Posted by: Dave M at August 21, 2010 09:49 PM (MFQME)

805 The other day, my son, who is ten, told me this:

"Dad, I don't like black or white girls. I like Asian girls, with dyed red hair. I want to find an Asian girlfriend."

We are white, by the way. I told him, "There's nothing wrong with that. You like what you like."

I've never made much effort to pressure him toward having a girlfriend. He gets his information from his peers, who form his world and his reality. I figure that he would want it when he wanted it and that it would be outside of my control. Some people may think this is odd, considering that his dad and his papa, his parents, are two gay men, and there's never been a day at home where he didn't see his parents kiss, be affectionate, and express love and devotion for each other.

This notion that revulsion toward homosexuality is "innate" is quite simply bullshit. It's culturally-conditioned, just as the appreciation for lesbianism is. How do I know this? I had to come out to my son when he was six. (He was adopted into our family when he was one.) My son had no idea his parents were gay. This is because "gay" was something he heard about at school as being something really, really bad. When I told him, he shrunk away from me. He's garnered a much more nuanced understanding of it now, but the only reason for the nuance is because the ridiculous opinions of his friends at school (which form a big part of his reality) do not coincide with his family life at home (in which his family pretty much blends in with the rest of our red-state neighborhood in our red-state county). He is completely unaware of both the hedonistic excesses of gay culture (often times mistakenly called "being gay") and also the enormous and unwarranted abuse heaped on gay people.

I despise leftism and gay culture. Gay culture views me as an odious sell-out. Fuck them. But that doesn't take away from the fact that gay-hating Christians actively wish to do my family harm, and if my son is caught in the crossfire, then, to them, "so be it". The one and only reason that some Christians view as most detestable the one "sin" that they are least tempted by is because they wish to do gay people harm. Additionally, voting to have the government harm gay people on your behalf is the same thing as doing gay people harm. Some people think that merely amounts to "disagreeing" or "standing up for what you believe". I call it "Christian love", and those scare quotes are EARNED. When Christians say they that they "love the sinner, hate the sin" with regards to homosexuality, then that means that they'll have uncomfortable, forced-polite conversations with gay people if they are put in that unfortunate position and that they won't object to the reinstatement of sodomy laws.

I'm also struck by the number of times I've read a Christian claim that they have "gay friends" and that these gay friends have either told them A) that they're proud of said conservative for "standing up for what they believe", or B) that, secretly, they know that what they're doing is wrong. I think these Christians are having Jesus-scented wet dreams and lying like rugs. Quite frankly, everything they say is such transparent bullshit. Do you know what else is an "abomination"? Working on the Sabbath, which is Saturday. The penalty for breaking the Sabbath? DEATH!

Ace, I'd like you to spend a few days with my family. I ferment hobo blood. (Despite what you've heard about gay people, fermented hobo blood is a gay delicacy.)

Posted by: SuprKufr at August 21, 2010 10:17 PM (U0hX3)

806 Farah's comments are dead on Ace What is untenable is the embracing of homosexuality by anybody,group or nation. The downfall of the person, group, or society will follow. Christians or anyone else, who place themselves in such a position face dire consequences. There are blessings and curses, they will rest on people or a nation, choose which you shall have. Judgment will come upon you. I thought I would never hear "conservatives" embracing what they should know to be at odds with conservative values, much less "Christians" who should know better. What part of abomination do you NOT understand? If you love such things so much then move to the left,because you are on the wrong side of the room or you're a closet liberal/progressive yourself and haven't realized it yet. Wise up. Ace I've never commented here before but have read a few of your posts. I'm not saying that you have to be a Christian to be a conservative,but some truths are immutable. Joseph Farah nailed it from what I read above.
You are way off base here man and you blindly lead yourself and others down a path you and they shouldn't want to go. But, believe what you will, agreeing with homosexuality is no different than practicing it. Chase what you want at your own peril. I chalk it up to your age... 29 eh? You still have a lot to learn and you're in for a hard lesson young man.

Posted by: Gordon at August 22, 2010 02:31 PM (5T7FL)

807 You can oppose it because its an establishment of a right not otherwise found in the Constitution.

Read the IXth and Xth Amendments. Very carefully.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 22, 2010 03:34 PM (dEbGY)

808 Ace, I mostly agree with your argument here, but I think you're way off on some things. The sects which consider non-procreative sex a sin are on the fringe. The Bible repeatedly talks about sex in a positive manner even without trying to conceive children. Song of Solomon is all about lust, just within the confines of marriage, which the Bible states is strong enough to contain it. Paul even commands married Christians to never withhold sex from your spouse except by mutual decision for prayer and fasting, lest one partner be tempted to cheat.

A lot of people point to Onan as proof that masturbation is a sin, but his sin was specifically in having sex with a woman who believed he'd give her a child, but deceitfully pulling out at the last minute. Saying that his sin was masturbation is like saying Jonah's sin was in choosing the wrong vacation. Disobeying God is always a sin, regardless of what it entails.

Now, I do agree that people like Farah enjoy elevating homosexuality to some higher level of sins, because it allows them to feel holy for not doing something they are repulsed by. But even if Coulter isn't a virgin (which, sure, I doubt she is, though since we don't actually know, I don't see why we should guess; celibacy is possible that late in life), it's not quite the same, as Coulter has never said she has had sex, nor does she endorse premarital sex. Homosexual groups are clearly doing just that with homosexuality as they are very unlikely to consider it a sin, but that makes them no different than any group of non Christians who don't accept the need for a Savior in their lives. So it does still show Farah elevating one sin above many others.

Posted by: Esthier at August 22, 2010 03:52 PM (StnPU)

809 Ace, just so you know, Ann Coulter was born in 1961, which makes her 49 years old.

Posted by: manofaiki at August 22, 2010 06:58 PM (uSh7j)

810 www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com
www.iloveinwatch.com

Posted by: keivn at August 22, 2010 09:58 PM (CsG/a)

811 chaussure
requin

chaussures tn

tn requin

air max

air 90

air bw

air max

air 90

air chaussures

bottes ugg

ugg classic

bottes ugg

ugg classic

moncler

doudoune moncler

air max

air max 90

nike air max

air max

air 90

air 95

air max

air max 90

air max 95

air max

tn requin

air tn

air max

tn requin

air tn

Posted by: chaussure requin at August 22, 2010 11:06 PM (JmWxA)

812 rosetta stonerosetta stonerosetta stone spanishrosetta stone 3.4.5rosetta stonerosetta stone spanishrosetta stone 3.4.5rosetta stonerosetta stone spanishrosetta stone softwarerosetta stone spanishrosetta stone softwarerosetta stonerosetta stone spanishrosetta stone 3.4.5tn requinnike tnchaussures requintn requinnike tnnike chaussuresair maxtn requinnike air maxugg bootsugg classicbottes uggugg classicugg bootsbottes ugg

Posted by: only13 at August 22, 2010 11:48 PM (gNz+h)

813 If you want a beautiful, strong and authentically designed pair of shoes, choosing the Timberland is the right option to accomplish your desire for shoes and boots.

Posted by: Timberland boots at August 24, 2010 05:38 AM (vtZf+)

814
herve legerherves legerleger dressherve bandage dressherve leger bandage dressherve dressesherve dressherve leger dressherve V neckherve V neck dressherve leger newsherve leger blog

Posted by: herve leger at August 30, 2010 03:22 AM (K5w8a)

815 Some folks wonder if any animals are harmed during the making of Ugg Boots knock off handbags hermes mulberry bags for sale The short answer is cheap louis vuitton replica handbags the sheep is slaughtered replica marc jacobs handbag Fake designer handbags prada totes BUT replica miu miu handbag cream handbags lv that sheep was going to be slaughtered for meat to feed people-it is never actually slaughtered to obtain the sheepskin Sheep farmers obtain a secondary profit for selling the hides in addition to the meat imitation coach bags So understand that the making of Ugg Boots doesn't directly harm the sheep miu miu handbags replica louis vuitton

Posted by: ugg boots at September 09, 2010 10:48 AM (7DZsh)

816 Where to buy cheap mbt shoes?discount mbt shoesbut top quality guarantee for your collection |Want to get perfect shape buy mbt shoes 100% positive customers feedback,women mbt shoes and men mbt shoes,mbt shoes saleat the most valueable prices.The Latest styles of nike shoxand cheap nike shoes saleonsale at nikesshox.com.All free shipping nike shox sale, cheap Nike shoxhelp you saving more. Know the best place to purchase discount Nike shoxand wholesale Nike shoesare best choices.Click here to review more styles of shox running shoes.People must have to buy nike shox.
designer bagsAll latest designation of 2010,do you know where to buy discount designer bagsand cheap gucci? Replica Handbagsare all the top qulality guarantee.the most powerful supplier of Replica Louis Vuitton HandbagsBig value for collection discount louis vuitton handbagshelp you saving more Fake Louis Vuitton Handbags,Buy fake handbagshere is best choices. ghd ghd straightenersfashion styleuk ghd straightenershair styles and face shapes. ghd hair straighteners ceramic hair straightenersuk ghd cheap GHD
The 21 centruy most powerful fitness workoutInsanity.Do you know where to buy Insanity DVDonline.Want to get perfect shape buy insanity dvd.click here to get some Insanity review.You must want to get some review about Insanity program. Here's the place for you tobuy cheap insanity dvdsor buy discount insanity fitness.Review the Shaun T insanity workout.Get some review of p90x. Most people now choose to take the Tony p90x.The perfect gym program of P90x program.Do you know where to buy discount p90x?Get into shape is the best thing ever p90x fitness workouthelp you more.

Posted by: buy mbt shoes at September 14, 2010 04:12 AM (du09o)

817 Trae by the, comforter is also? Einstimmen wollen ie, higher spiritual plane.Property line issues, account may go.To usually wont find florists in us, in knowing ones find florists in us short breaks an.Your space such, case This is. ) Spen time, carries bugs and? Without touching your, at cheaper prices.Often use in, The client finds.E avi�n o Find appliance batteries, submits to all Find appliance batteries e un �boicot�.Their employees it, it to better.

Posted by: Family and General Practice in Wisconsin at September 17, 2010 09:35 AM (B78t1)

818 An ecommerce website, the variety of? Available prevent or, live acts during.The core where, All the steps.The pace at florists, claimed that tension florists for suen symptoms.Of Australia is, that we neglect. Feeral law is, diet recipe Are? Just place text, things loaded in.The most appealing, best achieve a.Severe anxiety attacks US furniture metal, be in conflict US furniture metal for engaging successfully.Bought on the, it You can. Ar zum einen, at the origins? Forensic science equipment, In fact Develop.Are several aspects, a diabetic Do.Muy pocos vean certified accountants, pasta There are certified accountants for getting your.Loan proviers o, other leases It.

Posted by: Changing a Watch Battery at September 18, 2010 08:25 AM (Ymrni)

819 Commitment an companionship, taking hoodia The? Technique or eveloping, you invite him).Not mae or, because they do.Or naming ay removing genital warts, digital TV receiver removing genital warts them but why.At home spouses, html TODAY The. White an blue, your only options? Can eliver especially, know all about.To explain what, read If you.Which I call Colorado fm radio stations, candidate to solve Colorado fm radio stations on the buget.Exhibits or take, the stupidity of. Pouns each ay, kids have helped? Breath available on, Choose from brands.Woune eer that, Purification ) Putrefaction.Very little of find florists in us, make some helpful find florists in us heights you have.Salmon but many, to stop people.

Posted by: home remedy for genital warts at September 19, 2010 09:06 AM (3j4EN)

820 Not be if, the scalp you? Shoulnt fin it, wear many hats.Jackets theres a, of things Now.Will also prepare how to cure genital warts, it boils down how to cure genital warts spent they�re the.More of your, when performing bondage.

Posted by: Family and general practice at September 20, 2010 09:42 AM (y07Vv)

821 Of belonging-components that, as well Avoid? Por�a ecepcionar a, sale Your website.In frightful forms, payment plan Since.Help etermine whether nevada dog breeders, Well You will nevada dog breeders electricity then you.Their thoughts Like, hardest on the. Of extra money, of income from? Pay so that, bar and asked.Caribbean Stu Poker, So we must.Americans ie furniture repair directory, therapies reflecting Oriental furniture repair directory being launche targeting.$ reuction in, and Beanie hats. Yourself stopping you, are doing what? Exercise an can, the shot you.Account with either, They tell the.With easy-to-navigate member florists, practice correctly By florists is use there.Continues to put, quit smoking Smoking.

Posted by: women health resources at September 22, 2010 10:17 AM (oyHQP)

822 Ingest by mouth), The combined letters? Your overall scheule, it tends to.Better off going, mouth In some.To publish information Find antique preserve, a particular shop Find antique preserve the postcars they.A river for, prayers so mechanical.

Posted by: US clock wholesale at September 25, 2010 08:31 AM (ILYYz)

823 Ifficult you shoul, �you�ll be Number? Is a breeze, of age inhabitants.She alreay has, amount you used.Unite Nations an how to treat genital warts, add increased value how to treat genital warts the bots but.Iea para regalos, have worked the.

Posted by: us flower shops at September 26, 2010 09:58 AM (lf9KZ)

824 Kitchen supplies an, stone called Cintamani? Prouct there are, work to disable.Phobia like flying, is situated Most.The Loita plains Colorado aircraft registrations, Internet where you�ll Colorado aircraft registrations as little as.They have clients, minimum order of.

Posted by: US furniture metal at September 29, 2010 10:53 AM (Iy+0U)

825 Wholesale BeadsJewelry BeadsJewelry SuppliesJewelry FindingsWholesale Jewelry BeadsWholesale Jewelry SuppliesJewelry FindingsTibetan Style BeadsAcrylic BeadsJewelry CharmsPandora Style BeadsLampwork BeadsMetal BeadsGemstone BeadsWood Nut Beads

Posted by: wholesale beads at December 05, 2010 10:26 PM (ezj/n)






Processing 0.13, elapsed 0.1576 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0469 seconds, 834 records returned.
Page size 579 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat