If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Dr. Ben Carson will no longer be speaking at Johns Hopkins after comparing gays to NAMBLA and people who want to have sex with turtles   (tv.msnbc.com) divider line 180
    More: Dumbass, NAMBLA, Dr. Ben Carson, Johns Hopkins, National Prayer Breakfasts, andrea mitchell, gay marriage ban, Presidential Medal of Freedom, gays  
•       •       •

13227 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 9:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-30 12:05:09 AM
10 votes:
One Cuil = One level of abstraction away from the reality of a situation.
Example: You ask me for a Hamburger.
1 Cuil: if you asked me for a hamburger, and I gave you a raccoon.
2 Cuils: If you asked me for a hamburger, but it turns out I don't really exist. Where I was originally standing, a picture of a hamburger rests on the ground.
3 Cuils: You awake as a hamburger. You start screaming only to have special sauce fly from your lips. The world is in sepia.
4 Cuils: Why are we speaking German? A mime cries softly as he cradles a young cow. Your grandfather stares at you as the cow falls apart into patties. You look down only to see me with pickles for eyes, I am singing the song that gives birth to the universe.
5 Cuils: You ask for a hamburger, I give you a hamburger. You raise it to your lips and take a bite. Your eye twitches involuntarily. Across the street a father of three falls down the stairs. You swallow and look down at the hamburger in your hands. I give you a hamburger. You swallow and look down at the hamburger in your hands. You cannot swallow. There are children at the top of the stairs. A pickle shifts uneasily under the bun. I give you a hamburger. You look at my face, and I am pleading with you. The children are crying now. You raise the hamburger to your lips, tears stream down your face as you take a bite. I give you a hamburger. You are on your knees. You plead with me to go across the street. I hear only children's laughter. I give you a hamburger. You are screaming as you fall down the stairs. I am your child. You cannot see anything. You take a bite of the hamburger. The concrete rushes up to meet you. You awake with a start in your own bed. Your eye twitches involuntarily. I give you a hamburger. As you kill me, I do not make a sound. I give you a hamburger.
6 Cuils: You ask me for a hamburger. My attempt to reciprocate is cut brutally short as my body experiences a sudden lack of electrons. Across a variety of hidden dimensions you are dismayed. John Lennon hands me an apple, but it slips through my fingers. I am reborn as an ocelot. You disapprove. A crack echoes through the universe in defiance of conventional physics as cosmological background noise shifts from randomness to a perfect A Flat. Children everywhere stop what they are doing and hum along in perfect pitch with the background radiation. Birds fall from the sky as the sun engulfs the earth. You hesitate momentarily before allowing yourself to assume the locus of all knowledge. Entropy crumbles as you peruse the information contained within the universe. A small library in Phoenix ceases to exist. You stumble under the weight of everythingness, Your mouth opens up to cry out, and collapses around your body before blinking you out of the spatial plane. You exist only within the fourth dimension. The fountainhead of all knowledge rolls along the ground and collides with a small dog. My head tastes sideways as spacetime is reestablished, you blink back into the corporeal world disoriented, only for me to hand you a hamburger as my body collapses under the strain of reconstitution. The universe has reasserted itself. A particular small dog is fed steak for the rest of its natural life. You die in a freak accident moments later, and you soul works at the returns desk for the Phoenix library. You disapprove. Your disapproval sends ripples through the inter-dimensional void between life and death. A small child begins to cry as he walks toward the stairway where his father stands.
7 Cuils: I give you a hamburger. The universe is engulfed within itself. A bus advertising hotdogs drives by a papillon. It disapproves. An unnatural force reverses Earth's gravity. You ask for a hamburger. I reciprocate with a mildly convulsing potato. You disapprove. Your disapproval releases a cosmic shift in the void between birth and life. You ask for a hamburger. A certain small dog feasts on hamburger patties for the rest of its unnatural, eternal endurance. Your constant disapproval sends silence through everything. A contrived beast becomes omnipotent. You ask for a hamburger. I give you a hamburger your body becomes an unsettled blob of nothingness, then divides by three. The papillon barks. The universe realigns itself. You, the papillon, and the hamburger disapprove. This condemnation stops the realignment. Hades freezes over. A pig is launched is launched into the unoccupied existence between space and time with a specific hamburger. You ask for a hamburger. I give you a hamburger. It screams as you lift it to your face. You laugh maniacally as I plead with you. You devour the hamburger as it pleads for mercy. I disapprove and condemn you to an eternity in a certain void where a certain pig and its specific hamburger are located. The Universal Space-time Continuum Committee disapproves of my irrational decision. You are locked away and are fed hamburgers for the rest of your natural existence. A pickle refuses to break down during the process of digestion. You die in a freak accident. A certain pickle lives the rest of its life in a comatose state. Your soul disapproves. Down the street a child cries as a hamburger gets stuck in, and climbs back up, her esophagus. You ask again for a hamburger. I refuse to reciprocate. You demand a lawyer. I remind you harshly that this is the new world order. Lawyers no longer exist. Only papillons. Your name is written on a list of sins. Blasphemy. You ask for a hamburger. The comatose pickle vanquishes your soul from this universe. Realignment occurs. You beg for a hamburger. A certain papillon's name is written on an obelisk in Egypt. Mumble. Peasants worship the obelisk. Your soulless corpse partakes in the festivity. Hamburgers are banned universally. The sun implodes. All planets cease to have ever existed. Mercury. Venus. Earth. Mars. Jupiter. Saturn. Uranus. Neptune. Pluto is the only mass in existence. Conveniently, you are on vacation here. Your need for hamburgers re-establishes space-time. Earth is recreated under your intergalactic rule. Hamburgers are your army. You wake up. Clowns. Clowns everywhere. Your dream rushes to meet you. You are kidnapped. You ask for a hamburger. They hand you a hotdog.
2013-03-29 09:55:01 PM
10 votes:

Speaker2Animals: If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange. And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either. Or a peach, that's not an apple, either. It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way I'm not equating those things."

And this is what passes for intelligence in the GOP.


Thing is, the dude is a pediatric neurosurgeon - not a job they just hand out to retards. My father was also a highly educated, menacingly intelligent man who for some reason let the derp break free when the conversation steered to politics or social norms. I'm sure plenty of you work with some highly pedigreed guy in the office down the hall who thinks Todd Akin makes sense and just got a raw deal from the liberal media. Then he goes back to designing a farking skyscraper or jet engine.

I've never understood how otherwise smart people can fall for politics that thrive on the lowest common denominator. I have a worthless BA from an equally worthless state drinking university that I don't recall attending, but even I know bullsh*t when I see it. Others can be educated in strict logic for 8 post-secondary years plus a residency and still can't count past potato. And I don't mean to say this because I disagree; I'm talking about actual stupidity, like the aforementioned Akin.

Meh, such is life.
2013-03-29 08:37:42 PM
7 votes:

kxs401: I love that republicans also fail to recognize that the definition of marriage has changed quite a bit over the last couple of millennia.


It's changed over the last hundred years or so.  120 years ago I could've had my bipolar wife committed for life to a mental institution because she was considered a piece of property.  Judaic, Muslim, and Hindu laws regard women as male property.  The world would be a much better place without a trace of religion.  It makes intelligent people think stupid things.
2013-03-29 06:49:38 PM
7 votes:

Relatively Obscure: Carson's comparison of gay relationships to pedophilia (NAMBLA stands for the North American Man/Boy Love Association) and bestiality has caused the pediatric neurosurgeon to fall from his perch as a Republican rising a star in recent days.

As many people as have occupied that position recently, it's like they coated that perch with axle grease.


To be fair, the type of person who would fit the Republican Rising Star category has a pretty high correlation with the type of person who would say something crazy and offensive.
2013-03-29 10:16:41 PM
6 votes:
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net

"But enough about George W. Bush."
2013-03-29 06:44:05 PM
6 votes:
Carson's comparison of gay relationships to pedophilia (NAMBLA stands for the North American Man/Boy Love Association) and bestiality has caused the pediatric neurosurgeon to fall from his perch as a Republican rising a star in recent days.

As many people as have occupied that position recently, it's like they coated that perch with axle grease.
2013-03-29 09:50:36 PM
5 votes:

sweet jeez: LETS NOT LISTEN TO HIM HES PROBABLY THE MOST GIFTED BLACK MAN ON THE PLANET RIGHT NOW OOO I FORGOT YOU CANT BE A GIFTED BLACK MAN IF YOU NOT A DEM KIND OF LIKE MLK YOU KNOW HE WAS ON THE RIGHT TO BUT THOSE PISKY MORALS AND THE WHOLE GOD THING ........STUPID ME


The fark are you going on about?

And what's with the all CAPS? This is Fark, not some mid-nineties AOL chat room.
2013-03-29 09:40:10 PM
5 votes:

Silly Jesus: Person A:  I like ice cream, Legos and boobies.

Lib:  OMG ice cream is nothing like Legos, HOW CAN YOU BE EQUATING THE TWO!?!?!?!


Yet another example of conservatives (and therefore trolls posing as conservatives) lacking the ability to understand or make analogies.
2013-03-29 09:33:13 PM
5 votes:

willfullyobscure: this man is also a Creationist. Your move, PZ MHuuurrryers


How can a brain surgeon be this stupid?
2013-03-29 08:47:52 PM
5 votes:

syrynxx: kxs401: I love that republicans also fail to recognize that the definition of marriage has changed quite a bit over the last couple of millennia.

It's changed over the last hundred years or so.  120 years ago I could've had my bipolar wife committed for life to a mental institution because she was considered a piece of property.  Judaic, Muslim, and Hindu laws regard women as male property.  The world would be a much better place without a trace of religion.  It makes intelligent people think stupid things.


Worse, it makes stupid people think they're intelligent.
And intelligently designed.
2013-03-30 12:16:54 AM
4 votes:

KrispyKritter: Dr clearly stated his opinion and was not making comparisons as butt hurt folks interpret in their deluded minds. Too farking bad his opinion is not your own. Everybody gets to speak their mind in america until the government makes that illegal.


No one here is or want to deny him the right to speak his "mind".
We just reserve the right to laugh and call him a f*cking moron homophobe when he does so.
That's my opinion.

Here's a little tidbit you should have learned earlier in life: All opinions are not equally valid.

What, you actually think that opinions should never be questioned?

When you put an opinion out in the public sphere, it will be read, poked, tested as to it's veracity, logic and relativity, examined, debated and judged. If you can't handle that, keep your howling screamer shut.
2013-03-29 10:26:27 PM
4 votes:
If I wanted to lessen the political prospects of a certain race, I would promote among that race people I know to be unprepared for public office, those who have opinions that are in direct opposition to the wildly accepted beliefs and principles of the vast majority of the scientific community, have a tendency of overestimation of their competency outside their main field of expertise, and an inability to keep their mouth shut about things outside those areas of expertize.  It is even better if this particular specimen is highly accomplished, as it makes it appear as even the most highly skilled of that race are unsuited to public office.  That this appears to be what the Republicans are doing is just a coincidence.
2013-03-29 09:53:29 PM
4 votes:

Benjimin_Dover: A person of color that thinks for him or herself is the scariest thing to a Dem


Which is why we didn't elect Obama twice.
2013-03-29 09:42:45 PM
4 votes:
JohnTuttle:

(Yes, I haven't sat down and thought all of this through, but this seems to be a good point of argument for me from here on out.)

Marriage wasn't instituted by "God" so it isn't a valid argument.  Societies that have never heard of Judeochristianity still farking get married.
2013-03-30 09:16:29 AM
3 votes:

Mrtraveler01: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Homosexuality is no more or less deviant than the others, it's just not illegal because it's an act that can be engaged with the consent of two adult humans.

You know what else is equally as deviant, adultery and sex outside of marriage.

When we start people those people's head on a pike, then there can be a moral high ground.


Mrtraveler01: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Of course you people need to silence anyone mentioning this or any other valid comparison on the national stage, because you can't have anyone get in the way of your efforts to conflate 'legal' with 'moral'.   If you were in the right, you wouldn't need such organized efforts to silence your opponents anyone who isn't in lockstep agreement with you.

You poor delicate flower you.

People though interracial marriages were just as deviant back in the day, deviance is a matter of opinion and not actually based on anything concrete.


Deviance is NOT an entirely invalid description. At least, in the sociological sense of normative behaviors in large population groups. Of course, within many cultures, this deviance, as in behavior that differs from the majority, doesn't always carry the same hostility towards it that it does in some cultures. That we see vehemence against it in some sub-cultures, and acceptance in others, that is likewise about those populations norms.

In Provincetown, gay and lesbians are not quite in the same minority status. Numbers-wise, they are in the minority, but represented with far greater numbers and as a higher percentage of the populace, their behavior is not seen in the same light. Deviant, in that is not the hetronormative that is pervasive, but socially accepted deviance. Deviance in the sociological standpoint of being different from the norm, but carrying no proscription. Other sub-cultures and communities, it is not only deviant, but proscripted by the larger populace.

Deviance, in the sociological sense, happens in all populations. It is, in fact, natural. Deviance from norms occurs, and has a role in our social behavior. Some behaviors are frowned upon. Some are simply different from the norm, and accepted as just folks being folks. Some are considered minor hiccups, and their disruption is seen as merely being gauche--say, wearing white after Labor Day, or having a fondness for ripping farts in public and calling attention to them--and some are seen as disrupting normal social give and take. Merely being deviant from the norm doesn't necessarily mean, in the sociological sense, that these are bad things. Helping strangers in a park after a mugging, is often deviant behavior. It flies in the face of normal behaviors, and is rewarded, as this form of deviance reinforces the mores of society. Charity and extreme compassion are likewise deviant from the norms, but as they reinforce mores, they are seen as good forms of deviance. Deviance, alone, is not a bad thing. We have behaviors that often fall between the accepted, the unacceptable, and those that reinforce ideals. The deviance from these norms is natural, and deviance in a society is a function of society working.

Mind you, our Beamish Boy wasn't using this descriptor for his definition of deviance, but it is, I think, important to put things in context. Because mores do change. What is acceptable and what is not changes as societies progress, they mix with other cultures, as they mature, as needs impact the population. Morality changes as time goes on. What we are seeing, are those who hold a form of morality witnessing the mores of the larger society shifting, and as they have had a lock on what these mores should be, they see this shifting as an attack upon themselves. This is a natural outgrowth of societies with populations with differing forces working upon them.

What is fun here, is that folks who profess to hold certain mores to be in higher esteem than others, are latching onto an issue as being indicative of the "permissiveness" of society. That the old values don't matter as much. And in a way, they ARE entirely correct. What is interesting is that the very values that they claim to hold dear--family, faith, charity, fidelity--often fall to the wayside when it comes to one of their own sub-culture, and those that they see as other. It is a way of attacking a perceived threat to their values, without having to actually look at their own too closely, because that might reveal some startling truths. That they themselves have not "kept the faith" as it were, in keeping their own houses clean, so to speak. Instead, it's easier and safer to point to the outside forces, that are "tearing society apart" because a deeper look, is a bit too close for comfort. It might reveal that they themselves have deviated from the very mores that they tend to hold in higher esteem, as well as those that they tend to vilify. So long as it is others, who are the threat to norms, then they can safely rage, and pat themselves on the back for being stolid watchdogs. It is likewise normal. All societies have these features built in. We social apes LOVE to keep our troop mates in line, while those closest to us get a bit of a pass. Up until a point. The issue within the issue of marriage equality, is that this smaller grouping would like to impose its mores upon the whole, including populations far outside their own scope. They are looking to use whatever means and justification to acquire and keep power, the outward behaviors seemingly far more important than the deeper and core values. This is normal, but not entirely in keeping with spirit of the documents that they tend to invoke. In part, because they are merely looking to distract and acquire and keep power, as opposed to truly being concerned. It is less about morality, than it is about face.

And that is part of it right there. We are shifting more and more into face based culture. Outward appearance and reputation are important. Even bankable in social context. Value is determined by reputation. So long as you can keep face, then you can act in private all sorts of a'fool, and yet, still carry that reputation. Mind you, we are shifting from a responsibility based culture to more of a face based culture, because of the mechanics of communication, and a mixing of cultures. The monoculture is increasingly pressing upon us. Many would like to be in control of that monoculture, and crush any and all competition, and thus we are seeing some of the issues we have as late. Less and less about duty and responsibility, than what reputation has been secured by actions. Even actions that fly in the face of many folks' values, so long as they serve the monoculture, are seen as enhancing reputation. Yes, being a "Maverick" is deviance, but in many of the sub-cultures, that is not a bad thing. If that deviance serves the greater mores. What is odd, is that we are not quite to a face based culture yet, and folks are still trying to play to both these reputation based systems, as well as hearken back to a more responsibility based culture to give themselves a feeling of rootedness in society. And it is a sometimes rocky transition, as we have seen in the last fifty years or so.

So, yes, we can point and laugh when folks make asses of themselves, because they are negotiating these somewhat tricky waters, because what we are in fact doing, is establishing what is normative, and feeling out as a society what we will and will not accept, and those who are seeking to establish more face, must decide if they want to increase their reputation with the larger culture, or sub-cultures. What we are in fact doing when we point and laugh at the ridiculous is establishing the very norms that folks will then have to decide if they will then deviate from themselves, and for what reasons that they will do so. We saw in the last election, folks seeking to establish face within subcultures, and the election proved to them that less folks found that pandering to be seen as less effective for leadership. We will continue to see how this plays out. It's not a "culture war" but we ARE in the midst of cultural shift, and some folks REALLY don't like it, because it may force them out of the firmly entrenched holes that they've dug in, and cross lines in the sand that they've boldly drawn, in order to establish their reputations...
2013-03-30 07:13:16 AM
3 votes:

quatchi: DrPainMD: Nowhere does he say that NAMBLA wants to get married, nor does he compare NAMBLA members to gays. It's not there.

You said that, dumbshiat, in the post you just quoted.

Gawd, yer thicker than the proverbial brick aren't you?

You are either a troll or incapable of intellectual honesty or simple reading comprehension.


I most certainly didn't. What Dr. Carson said, and I was merely pointing out, is that he believes that those groups shouldn't get to decide the definition of marriage. Which is what he said. In plain, simple, English. And that's ALL he said. Nothing more.
2013-03-29 11:28:42 PM
3 votes:

Silly Jesus: A flat tax would give a tax break to those over 200,000? Huh?

Also, I didn't accept your nifty challenge because it was asinine. The standard for the tax being mathematically plausible in the U.S. isn't whether or not I want to live in Jamaica. There are a couple of other variables that might make the U.S. different from Eastern Europe that aren't flat tax related.


You aren't really good at this at all.  But, on the plus side, I'm going to bed soon, so you will get the last word.

Yes, as has been pointed out, a 10% flat tax, as espoused by the latest Black friend of the Republicans, would not, under any circumstances work in the U.S., and anyone who can't figure that out, well, they ain't ready to be made the latest face of Republican Black outreach, that's fer sure.
2013-03-29 11:16:04 PM
3 votes:

Silly Jesus: RyogaM: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: I liked his 10% flat tax idea.

Ah, so he can't do math either huh?

Unless this is an additional tax, which in that case is heresy in the GOP.

Flat taxes aren't math?  Potato?

That's the kind of thinking one has to have to think that a 10% flat tax is sustainable.

These 41 countries with a flat tax might be interested in your expertise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_s ys tems

Holy shiat dude, did you even read that list?  Name five countries on that list with a 10% flat tax rate that you'd want to live in rather than the U.S.A.

What about these states?  Could you even live in any of them?  Or Alberta?!?  OMG!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#At_the_state_or_provincial_lev el


I live in Ohio.  The highest state income tax bracket in my state is 5.9% for couples over $200000.  My bracket right now is less than every flat tax you listed except Col.  And no, I would not want to live in Col.  So, thanks, I would not like to raise my tax rate to give a break to those making over $200,000.

Way to ignore my challenge to name 5 countries, btw.  You're a bold debater, you are.
2013-03-29 10:44:58 PM
3 votes:

agb1953: Dr. Carson did not compare the 3 groups.  He listed the three groups as being those who fall in love but are not man/woman combinations.  In 2006 a Sudanese man married a goat, so there is precedent for his remark.


When it's a Republican, one should refer to him using his full title, such as DOCTOR Carson and DOCTOR Paul, but when it's someone from the "Democrat Party," someone with a title is a liberal elite who should be shunned and told that he/she is not a Real 'merrican.
2013-03-29 10:35:52 PM
3 votes:

Benjimin_Dover: Mrtraveler01: Relatively Obscure: Carson's comparison of gay relationships to pedophilia (NAMBLA stands for the North American Man/Boy Love Association) and bestiality has caused the pediatric neurosurgeon to fall from his perch as a Republican rising a star in recent days.

As many people as have occupied that position recently, it's like they coated that perch with axle grease.

Wait, he was a rising star for the GOP? I haven't even heard of him until earlier this week.

No, he isn't a rising star except in the minds of the libs who apparently dropped a collective load in their pants when he dared open his mouth and utter anything other than what they think he should have said at the prayer breakfast.  A person of color that thinks for him or herself is the scariest thing to a Dem and they must always be targetted for destruction usually with Uncle Tom type terminology.


You sound...concerned.

And like a racist.
2013-03-29 10:31:29 PM
3 votes:

agb1953: Dr. Carson did not compare the 3 groups.  He listed the three groups as being those who fall in love but are not man/woman combinations.  In 2006 a Sudanese man married a goat, so there is precedent for his remark.


And when I say that Republicans, Nazis and braindead Extremist Muslims and Christian fundamentalists all have an irrational hatred of gays and wish to use governmental means to impose their asinine prejudices, I'm not comparing them,  I'm just making it clear that there is a similarity between the three groups that everyone can see.  No need for anyone to get offended by that statement at all.
2013-03-29 10:27:44 PM
3 votes:
Just once, once I would like to go through a day and not think "WTF is wrong with people?"
2013-03-29 10:19:28 PM
3 votes:

Kittypie070: KrispyKritter: Dr clearly stated his opinion and was not making comparisons


Carson told FOX News host Sean Hannity Tuesday,

"My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman.

It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group,

be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality-

it doesn't matter what they are-they don't get to change the definition."

What I was basically saying and if anyone was offended, I apologize to you.

What I was basically saying is there is no group.

I wasn't equating those things, I don't think they're equal.

If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange.

And I say, that's a banana.

And that's not an apple either.

Or a peach, that's not an apple, either.

It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach.

In the same way I'm not equating those things.


He's throwing an entire friggin basket of fruit at us and he's speaking clearly??

Would you mind relating to us hippie nosepickers just what clarity was in here?

I'm all slathered with fruit pulp here and am entertaining deep thoughts concerning yogurt.


Well, that's the thing:  He got busted lumping gay people in with pedophiles and bestiality lovers and his reaction was to make a hasty apology and verbally shiat his pants in front of the world in the process.

I'm sure it started out sounding logical and rational in his head 'oh, I was just naming off groups, yeah, I wasn't actually comparing them to each other, ho ho ho' and his mouth opened up and fruit fell out and he started babbling and whoops, I crapped my pants.

Somewhere, the rich white leaders of the GOP are crying bitterly.
2013-03-29 09:38:08 PM
3 votes:
Six weeks ago, hardly anyone knew who he was. But people who knew him placed him near the top of their "people I respect"

Now everyone knows who he is, and he is the laughingstock of the nation.

This is what happens when you listen to talk radio, believe that it is true, and then open your mouth.
2013-03-29 09:37:43 PM
3 votes:
I figured it was only a matter of time before he opened his mouth and reinforced the stereotype of a talented doctor who is a moron when he ventures into areas other than his own area of expertise.
2013-03-29 09:16:28 PM
3 votes:
gregcookland.com
2013-03-29 08:25:29 PM
3 votes:
I love that republicans also fail to recognize that the definition of marriage has changed quite a bit over the last couple of millennia.
2013-03-29 07:52:13 PM
3 votes:
 If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange. And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either. Or a peach, that's not an apple, either. It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way I'm not equating those things."

And this is what passes for intelligence in the GOP.
2013-03-29 07:21:04 PM
3 votes:

The_Sponge: I like turtles.


Well pretty soon you'll be able to marry one. Congrats. I am sure you'll be very happy together.
2013-03-29 06:59:03 PM
3 votes:

Relatively Obscure: "What I was basically saying and if anyone was offended, I apologize to you. What I was basically saying is there is no group. I wasn't equating those things, I don't think they're equal. If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange. And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either. Or a peach, that's not an apple, either. It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way I'm not equating those things."

[www.reactiongifs.com image 193x135]


img.photobucket.com
2013-03-29 06:49:52 PM
3 votes:
"What I was basically saying and if anyone was offended, I apologize to you. What I was basically saying is there is no group. I wasn't equating those things, I don't think they're equal. If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange. And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either. Or a peach, that's not an apple, either. It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way I'm not equating those things."

www.reactiongifs.com
2013-03-30 04:40:42 PM
2 votes:
BraveNewCheneyWorld: Keizer_Ghidorah: Is it seriously that difficult for you to let gays marry each other? Do you honestly think that consenting adults being allowed to marry will lead straight to legal pedophilia and bestiality? Show us on the doll where the gay people touched you. Rational people would not continue the crusade of idiocy that the two of you are hell-bent to ride until your dying breath.

I think there's a good argument to be made for the idea that an effort to normalize one form of deviancy will tend to normalize others as well.


No, there isn't, really. The fact you keep trying to compare two consenting adult humans able to enter into contracts with children unable to fully understand consent or able to enter contracts and with animals who are not human and have no concept of contracts or consent shows how dishonest and retarded you are. And you do it every single time, like the steady beat of a drum. And every time you're completely and consistently shown how false your "evidence" is and how flawed your way of thinking is, and you simply keep repeating it.

There is no legal or moral reason to deny gays the same rights and freedoms others have. Religious and personal reasons are not valid, and neither are dipshiat slippery slope fallacies.
2013-03-30 12:44:17 PM
2 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Why can't sister marry sister or brother marry brother?  And why should bi-sexual people be denied a plural marriage?  Wouldn't it be unconstitutional to deny a bi-sexual person a three-way marriage?

Because marriage as it currently exists denies equal treatment to gay couples. It does not deny equal treatment to bigamists, it's impossible for 3 people to be 2 people.


Who says marriage can only be between two people?  You are relying on the traditional definition of marriage. Gay marriage activists say that the traditional definition of marriage must be discarded.  If so, why shouldn't the part where marriage is limited to 2 people be discarded as well.  Why should a bi-sexual person be forced to marry only a man or woman?  Why not a three-way marriage?
2013-03-30 10:28:28 AM
2 votes:

Silly Jesus: Good. We can raise a hell of a lot of people's taxes from 0%.


I don't know why you are still on about this.  Go, fly to the side of your representatives, Republicans or Democrat, and demand that they raise taxes on all those people not paying taxes!  Make it the first plank of your preferred party: We desire a flat tax of 30% for all people, no matter what!  Demand that they raise taxes on the free loaders and moochers!  Write letters, op eds and spread the word that whatever your party is, it wishes to raise taxes on all those moochers, like my disabled and retired Tea party Republican father and his wife!  God, how I wish they would have paid a dime during the years they demanded we invade Iraq.

Please, proceed.
2013-03-30 08:36:44 AM
2 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Zeno-25: Pointing and laughing at people with views on sexuality from the Middle Ages is not silencing them. Such people have been getting quite a bit of attention lately, actually. It's just that people aren't afraid to tell people like you to fark off when they judge what other adults do in the bedroom.

So naturally the rest of us can point and laugh at people who think farking an orifice that expels babies is no less valid as farking an orifice that expels feces.  Fair enough.


Which has what exclusively to do with homosexuality, exactly? Plenty of hetero people like to take the Hershey highway route too. At least the ones without views on sexuality from a few centuries ago.
2013-03-30 08:13:24 AM
2 votes:

garron: Liberal McCarthyism is in full effect.


Yup. McCarthyism was nothing but pointing and laughing when someone made word salad after making an ass out of themselves with statements. Truly, he is being hounded neigh unto death, his very living threatened by standing up to powers beyond his ken, for simply speaking "the truth."1

1 Of course, when I say "truth" that translates to "Previous word salad that I now would like to equivocate upon because I realize that I am no longer surrounded by dopes who I have to pander to, yet am unable to back away from the precipice of because for too long I have stared into the yawning Abyss of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty, that I have made petition of them, and that Abyss has scarred my soul, deeply cut into the cordage of my moral fiber, and now must bow to the mighty tide of ignorance and rage that has touched me, and made all my hopes and dreams seem petty in comparison."
2013-03-30 07:02:02 AM
2 votes:

DrPainMD: Nowhere does he say that NAMBLA wants to get married, nor does he compare NAMBLA members to gays. It's not there.


You said that, dumbshiat, in the post you just quoted.

Gawd, yer thicker than the proverbial brick aren't you?

You are either a troll or incapable of intellectual honesty or simple reading comprehension.
2013-03-30 06:53:04 AM
2 votes:

quatchi: DrPainMD: I culled the quote FTFA where he compared gays wanting the right to get legally married to NAMBLA [wanting the right to legally marry] so I'm pretty sure you're full of shiat.

NAMBLA want the right to marry kids now?


He didn't say that, either. The sentence wasn't that complicated; no big words or anything. How is it that you don't understand it? Here, I'll repeat it in total:

"My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality-it doesn't matter what they are-they don't get to change the definition."

Nowhere does he say that NAMBLA wants to get married, nor does he compare NAMBLA members to gays. It's not there.

Comparing two groups who want to have sex with (ie. not marry) others who legally can not consent with consenting adult gays wanting to marry as all being equally worthy of scorn isn't an insulting and ignorant comparison all of a sudden?

Where in the above quote does he compare them, or even make the slightest hint of claiming any similarity between the two groups? It's not there.

Wow, you're full of shiat today.

No, you're still the one who's full of it.
2013-03-30 06:43:03 AM
2 votes:

Fluorescent Testicle: quatchi: Have you considered Metamucil? Ex-lax? Prune juice, perhaps?

I'm not going to quote him, but I think we've found Dr Carson's Fark handle.


Where did I say I agree with him? I was just pointing out that he didn't say what subby, the article, and almost every post in this thread say he said. Anybody who says otherwise doesn't understand the English language on a 3rd grade level. It's not a matter of opinion. Feel free to criticize him for what he did say, but don't criticize him for what he didn't say.
2013-03-30 02:49:15 AM
2 votes:

Gawdzila: armoredbulldozer: .......and Obama the Imbecile is your hero?

I'd never hold any politician up as my personal hero.  But why exactly is Obama an imbecile?


Not just any imbecile.  He's the imbecile that made the GOP look REALLY STUPID in the last election finale.
2013-03-30 02:28:03 AM
2 votes:
Somewhere there's a neurosurgeon strapped to an operating table wondering how his identity got mixed up with his patient.
2013-03-30 02:19:18 AM
2 votes:

randomjsa: So we're now up to "two days running"...

I said it would take a week for you to get around to whining about how hateful Republicans were after one of your own went on a bigoted little tirade to the cheer and adoration of more than a few.

It took you two days, and now we're on day three and you're doing it again. I should really learn to stop underestimating you people.

Incidentally that feeling of validation you have for catching this guy saying something unpopular in no way changes the fact that he's been handing you your rears on a silver platter on most of what you believe in.

Or really, I could just behave like you do when somebody is critical of Obama... You're obviously just a bunch of racists trying to keep a well spoken and intelligent black man down.

Oh and we haven't forgotten how "nicely" you treated the black actress for supporting Romney as the good and open minded liberals spewed racist hate speech at her.

But Carson said something bad, you go on, feel good about yourselves.


Ladies and gentlemen this what a dumb person sounds like when they try to be smug.
2013-03-30 12:53:38 AM
2 votes:
Why must we always destroy anyone who has an unpopular position? Let the guy speak. How could it hurt?
2013-03-30 12:12:40 AM
2 votes:

gilgigamesh: The_Sponge: I like turtles.

Well pretty soon you'll be able to marry one. Congrats. I am sure you'll be very happy together.

>

No matter how they tossed the dice, it had to be. Turtles.
2013-03-29 11:17:19 PM
2 votes:
Silly Jesus:

These 41 countries with a flat tax might be interested in your expertise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_s ys tems


God I love that list. Offshore bankers like the Seychelles and Anguilla, and economic powerhouses like Serbia and Nagorno-Karabakh.

FTL:
Greenland 37 to 46% (depending on the municipality)

Greenland's got municipalities? How would you like to work for Greenland's equivalent of the IRS?

Saudi Arabia 2.5% zakat (citizens of GCC countries) 20% income tax (foreigners)

Suuuure.  Betcha that doesn't include jizyah.
2013-03-29 11:06:01 PM
2 votes:

Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: I liked his 10% flat tax idea.

Ah, so he can't do math either huh?

Unless this is an additional tax, which in that case is heresy in the GOP.

Flat taxes aren't math?  Potato?

That's the kind of thinking one has to have to think that a 10% flat tax is sustainable.

These 41 countries with a flat tax might be interested in your expertise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_s ys tems


Holy shiat dude, did you even read that list?  Name five countries on that list with a 10% flat tax rate that you'd want to live in rather than the U.S.A.
2013-03-29 10:56:05 PM
2 votes:

Silly Jesus: There were three of them there, Fark's new posting thingy just split them up. Anyway, those are just the first three I could think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.


Two of whom are nowhere neat the embarrassment of Dr. Carson.  And, again, out of the hundreds of Blacks in the Democratic party, of course you are going to get duds.

As for the Republicans, you have Carson, Cain (remember, the farking Pizza guy the Republicans wanted to make President),  Alan Keyes, Michael Steele (nice guy, certainly not an embarrassment, but in no way ready to head the RNC),  and Clarence Thomas.  Off the top of my head.  None of the above would have amounted to a fart in a hurricane and been promoted by the Republicans if they had been White.

I'm going to give a pass to Condy Rice because it's impossible to determine how much incompetence she actually brought to the office when she was surrounded by an incompetent administration, and Colin Powell, because, also surrounded by incompetents, and, when he came out for Obama, was called a racist by the Republicans for doing so.  They've both had enough problems.
2013-03-29 10:53:46 PM
2 votes:
img692.imageshack.us

"What I was basically saying and if anyone was offended, I apologize to you. What I was basically saying is there is no group. I wasn't equating those things, I don't think they're equal. If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange. And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either. Or a peach, that's not an apple, either. It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way I'm not equating those things."
2013-03-29 10:42:31 PM
2 votes:

agb1953: Dr. Carson did not compare the 3 groups.  He listed the three groups as being those who fall in love but are not man/woman combinations.  In 2006 a Sudanese man married a goat, so there is precedent for his remark.


Look, I just want to say that there are people bin this country that are bad for us. These groups are bad because they are fundamentally at odds with the American way of life. Child rapists, republicans, and serial killers all want to change our society for the worse.

Oh? Nah brah, I wasn't comparing those groups. I just put them down in the same sentence while trying to make a political point. Why you mad brah?

Nice try guy, but we know you really don't believe your claim.
2013-03-29 10:41:40 PM
2 votes:
Sadly, as the Republicans continue the downward spiral to the wacky fringe, it gives a stage for idiots like this to spout their poison. Even sadder still is 1/2 of the voting population agrees.

I'm actually starting to wonder if this is some kind of undiagnosed mental illness caused by some environmental condition which causes people to think like this. After all, wasn't it lead plumbing that was a major contributing factor to the fall of the Romans?
2013-03-29 10:34:29 PM
2 votes:

agb1953: Dr. Carson did not compare the 3 groups.  He listed the three groups as being those who fall in love but are not man/woman combinations.  In 2006 a Sudanese man married a goat, so there is precedent for his remark.




He was forced to marry the goat or be killed after he was caught having sex with it.

So I am not sure if that is the precedent you really want.

Link
2013-03-29 10:32:41 PM
2 votes:
Carson is right, even though he may have been a bit ineloquent.
2013-03-29 10:30:41 PM
2 votes:

Mrtraveler01: willfullyobscure: this man is also a Creationist. Your move, PZ MHuuurrryers

How can a brain surgeon be this stupid?


Yep. Seems Dr. Carson is a follower of the Crocoduck School of Evolutionary Derp.

http://afarensis99.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/stupid-creationist-quote -o f-the-week-ben-carson-on-evolution/
2013-03-29 10:17:34 PM
2 votes:

Fart_Machine: You don't have to be dumb to be a bigot.

/but it helps


It's not just that, though. There's the whole "ZOMG SOCIALISM" type who happens to be an astrophysicist, etc. If your brain can be trained to retain all of that data, cause and effect, and about 4.5 millions words worth of jargon, why the fark can't you see that Barack Obama was indeed born in Hawaii and has to be the most incompetent socialist and Muslim usurper in the history of both? Bill ORLY is a prime example of this, though I'm pretty sure he just does it for the money. That doesn't explain your teabagging neighbor, though.

Like I said, I'm retarded and I even I can detect bullsh*t from 3 miles away.
2013-03-29 10:15:13 PM
2 votes:
media-cache-lt0.pinterest.com
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-03-29 09:57:11 PM
2 votes:
THIS is the conservative savior who is going to save the Republican Party?  Forget about the fact that he is an absolute tool.  farking Herman Cain could string a sentence together better than this guy.
2013-03-29 09:49:00 PM
2 votes:
images.zap2it.com
Should read Sorry pamphlette
2013-03-29 09:46:25 PM
2 votes:

Mrtraveler01: willfullyobscure: this man is also a Creationist. Your move, PZ MHuuurrryers

How can a brain surgeon be this stupid?


A brain surgeon is just an auto mechanic who works with the engine running.
2013-03-29 09:44:26 PM
2 votes:
"My impression is what's being asked for is the convenience of the title marriage, which is an institution that was established by God," Carson said.

ORLY? And when did this happen? Not to be a douchebag, but I'm pretty sure his ancestors might not agree with him considering that it was not okay for black people and white people to get married at one point.

I am not trying to turn this into a racial debate, so don't take it that way. My point is that I don't know where God said anything about marriage? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong (based on when/where that came from, not based on one's religious beliefs).
2013-03-29 09:44:07 PM
2 votes:
Just because I have a sign that says "Dogs and Blacks Not Allowed," it doesn't mean I'm equating blacks and dogs. Heavans no! Those are just two unrelated things that happen to not be allowed. Totally different.
2013-03-29 09:44:02 PM
2 votes:

Mrtraveler01: willfullyobscure: this man is also a Creationist. Your move, PZ MHuuurrryers

How can a brain surgeon be this stupid?


he's an artist with a blade with the capacity to memorize and apply vast swaths of medical knowledge.  None of that necessitates an understanding of radiometeic dating, evolution, or astrophysics.  Or maybe Jesus helped him through his totally shiatty childhood and he's bought off on the whole thing on the way to getting mad paper.
2013-03-29 09:39:05 PM
2 votes:
I really don't get who much gayness causes certain people to loses their minds.  I mean, really.  Whether it's the Republicans, the Nazis, or brain-dead Muslim and Christian Fundamentalists, it's amazing how gayness just causes them to lose all perspective and make them want to turn to governmental "solutions" to a "problem" only they can identify.  Whether Republican, Nazi or Fundy, you are not allowed to use the government to enshrine your prejudice into law.
2013-03-29 09:24:50 PM
2 votes:
Farking brain surgeon needs a farking brain.
2013-03-29 09:22:17 PM
2 votes:

gilgigamesh: The_Sponge: I like turtles.

Well pretty soon you'll be able to marry one. Congrats. I am sure you'll be very happy together.


What you did there, Flo & Eddie & I see it.
2013-03-29 09:19:26 PM
2 votes:
"What I was basically saying and if anyone was offended, I apologize to you. What I was basically saying is there is no group. I wasn't equating those things, I don't think they're equal. If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange. And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either. Or a peach, that's not an apple, either. It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way I'm not equating those things."

TLDR translation: "Potato..."
2013-03-29 08:22:34 PM
2 votes:
My belief is that marriage is between a white man and a white woman.  He doesn't get to change the definition.  Unless you're Abraham, in which case you can have sex with your slave Harah.  Or Solomon, in which case you can have 900 wives and a thousand concubines.  Wait, this is getting confusing.
2013-03-29 07:01:53 PM
2 votes:
I like turtles.
2013-03-29 06:55:48 PM
2 votes:
These f*ckwits get knocked off faster than an Al Qaeda #2 man
2013-03-29 06:53:01 PM
2 votes:

Relatively Obscure: Carson's comparison of gay relationships to pedophilia (NAMBLA stands for the North American Man/Boy Love Association) and bestiality has caused the pediatric neurosurgeon to fall from his perch as a Republican rising a star in recent days.

As many people as have occupied that position recently, it's like they coated that perch with axle grease.


They pretty much greased it with their own shiat.
2013-03-31 01:21:44 AM
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: You are a far left liberal. This is news that you support Obama?


Yes, it is. Because Obama is about as far left as you are an underage Indian boy selling me chickens. Smack yourself with a brick to shake that sand out of your head. Obama is as liberal as I am Kei$ha.
2013-03-30 09:54:30 PM
1 votes:

Silly Jesus: HighOnCraic: Silly Jesus: nocturnal001: Silly Jesus: nocturnal001: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: I liked his 10% flat tax idea.

Ah, so he can't do math either huh?

Unless this is an additional tax, which in that case is heresy in the GOP.

Flat taxes aren't math?  Potato?

That's the kind of thinking one has to have to think that a 10% flat tax is sustainable.

These 41 countries with a flat tax might be interested in your expertise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_s ys tems

It's not that flat taxes can't work, but rather that the plans we usually see claim to be our solution yet never bother to actually do the math. It seems like these guys just pick a percent that sounds good and run with it.

In the absence of spending cuts, lowering one person's taxes means you have to raise somebody else's.

Good.  We can raise a hell of a lot of people's taxes from 0%.

Not that many pay zero. Most of those are elderly on SS and the disabled.

Nobody in the projects pays.  Nobody in trailer parks pays.  Earned income tax credit etc.

[greenobles.com image 300x300]

...wants his idea back.

/'Cause it sold so well when he pitched it in '96.
//Maybe we'll buy it from a poor, humble neurosurgeon who just wants to make the poor pay their share. . .

No, you're right, the top 1% pays the same as the bottom 95% (with half of the bottom 95% paying 0) and that's totally fair.  You are, after all, the party of faaaaaaiiiirrrrrnesss.


Hey, if you think trying to push a flat tax is a good idea, I won't try to talk you out of it.  I'm just pointing out that the last guy who tried crashed and burned in the Republican primaries, since even Republicans didn't think it was a good idea, especially with a rich guy who refused to release his tax returns (and show how much he'd save personally under a flat tax) as the spokesman for it.

Proceed!
2013-03-30 07:39:51 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: If Virginia's anti-miscegenation law changed the definition of marriage to mean that marriage is defined as the union of two white people or two black people, then Mildred and Richard Loving could say that their interracial marriage was not in violation of the law, because it was not a "marriage" within the definition of the law.

That makes zero sense. Marriage is a legal construct. If your marriage falls outside of the legal construct then it is not defined as a marriage. If you change the marriage law, the construct is changed. The definition is changed.

I don't know how you're not getting this.

It makes perfect sense.  The Virginia law made it a crime for a white person to intermarry with a black person.  As with every criminal law, you have to ask, what is the definition of the prohibited act (i.e, to marry)?  If the legal definition of "to marry" was to unite in matrimony with someone of the same race (as you claim), then they could not have been convicted because they did not do what the law prohibits.  They were convicted because what the did was defined as marriage. That means that race was not part of the actual definition of marriage.


"It's against the law to marry someone not of your race, therefore race has nothing to do with the definition of marriage."

At this point you've gone over into parody. There's no way you can actually be this stupid.
2013-03-30 07:33:59 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: If the legal definition of "to marry" was to unite in matrimony with someone of the same race (as you claim), then they could not have been convicted because they did not do what the law prohibits.  They were convicted because what the did was defined as marriage. That means that race was not part of the actual definition of marriage.


You seem to think that marriage, which exists as a legal entity, does not exist as a legal entity.
2013-03-30 06:38:54 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: State laws that say that minors cannot drink alcohol do not change the definition of drinking alcohol. State laws that say that felons cannot possess firearms do not change the definition of possessing firearms.

Yes they do. They change the definition of the legality of those actions, just as defining what marriage is defines what marriage is.

Think about what you're saying.  If "drinking alcohol" is defined as "someone over 21 drinking alcohol," then the minor charged with drinking alcohol could defend by saying that he wasn't drinking alcohol, as defined by law, because he was under 21.

If Virginia's anti-miscegenation law changed the definition of marriage to mean that marriage is defined as the union of two white people or two black people, then Mildred and Richard Loving could say that their interracial marriage was not in violation of the law, because it was not a "marriage" within the definition of the law.


"Defining what something is doesn't define what some thing is, unless it's something I'm talking about."

Dude, give it a rest already. There has NEVER been a "traditional idea of marriage" that's stayed constant since the dawn of time. And what about non-Christian concepts of "traditional" marriage? Atheist concepts of "traditional" marriage? They all existed before Christianity was invented, exist alongside it, and have all changed as well. Stop trying to argue that "one man + one woman+ has always been the way the entire world has thought for the last 400,000 years and because of that it's fine to treat gays as sub-human second-hand citizens.
2013-03-30 06:37:55 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: If Virginia's anti-miscegenation law changed the definition of marriage to mean that marriage is defined as the union of two white people or two black people, then Mildred and Richard Loving could say that their interracial marriage was not in violation of the law, because it was not a "marriage" within the definition of the law.


That makes zero sense. Marriage is a legal construct. If your marriage falls outside of the legal construct then it is not defined as a marriage. If you change the marriage law, the construct is changed. The definition is changed.

I don't know how you're not getting this.
2013-03-30 05:53:37 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: State laws that restrict who can marry (i.e., no marriage under a certain age, no marriage within certain degrees of consanguinity, no marriage by someone who is already married, no marriage between certain races) do not define marriage.


This is hilarious. State laws that define the boundaries of marriage do not define the boundaries of marriage.

BRILLIANT TROLL
2013-03-30 05:52:59 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: No, I am saying that laws against interracial marriage did not change the definition of marriage.  The definition of marriage -- the union of one man and one woman -- has remained constant.


No, it hasn't. As I have shown you.
2013-03-30 05:50:18 PM
1 votes:

HighOnCraic: The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile stated:


The trial judge did not write the law.  Go back to wiki and follow the link for the Racial Integrity Act of 1924.  The law was passed as part of the eugenics movement.

Man On Pink Corner: SkinnyHead: Instead Democrat Darwinists in states like Virgina (as in Loving v. Virginia) enacted those laws for the purpose of eugenics. That was part of the progressive movement, by the way.

True, those people have a lot to answer for.  It was a sad time to be alive if you weren't a white male, or married to one.

But look what eventually happened: those people didn't get their way in the end.  They lost.  There were <i>logical</i> reasons why they were wrong, including but not limited to their misunderstanding of what you're calling "Darwinism."  We didn't need to wave a Bible at those particular bigots to make them back down.

Similarly, Biblical morality will not help us resolve our current cultural dilemmas.  It only muddies the water.


But Progressives in the eugenics movement in their day insisted that they had science on their side and that they were on the right side of history.  People who did not agree with them were considered anti-science and on the wrong side of history.

cameroncrazy1984: So what you're saying is that there is no real traditional definition of marriage and that it changes over time?


No, I am saying that laws against interracial marriage did not change the definition of marriage.  The definition of marriage -- the union of one man and one woman -- has remained constant.  State laws that restrict who can marry (i.e., no marriage under a certain age, no marriage within certain degrees of consanguinity, no marriage by someone who is already married, no marriage between certain races) do not define marriage.
2013-03-30 05:43:06 PM
1 votes:

RyogaM: Virginia (1691) was the first English colony in North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry, followed by Maryland in 1692.

In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, which were often defended by invoking racist interpretations of the Bible, particularly of the stories of Phinehas and of the "Curse of Ham". In 1776, seven out of the Thirteen Colonies that declared their independence enforced laws against interracial marriage.

Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, South Carolina and Alabama legalized interracial marriage for some years during the Reconstruction period. Anti-miscegenation laws rested unenforced, were overturned by courts or repealed by the state government (in Arkansas[16] and Louisiana[17]). However, after conservative white Democrats took power in the South during Redemption, anti-miscegenation laws were once more enforced....

Between 1913 and 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation laws.[19] Only Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii, and the federal District of Columbia never enacted them.

All from wiki.


In fairness, I don't think that anything that the Skinny One posts is actually meant to taken as factual or seriously...
2013-03-30 04:59:55 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: The traditional definition of marriage in America is the union of one man and one woman.

Again, that is incorrect. That definition has only been around since 1964.

What was the traditional definition of marriage in America before 1964?

One white man and one white woman, or one black man and one black woman. Surely you remember that interracial marriage was not legal right?

Certain states enacted law prohibiting interracial marriage, but those were not definitional.  They did not prohibit interracial marriage to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.  Instead Democrat Darwinists in states like Virgina (as in Loving v. Virginia) enacted those laws for the purpose of eugenics.  That was part of the progressive movement, by the way.


So what you're saying is that there is no real traditional definition of marriage and that it changes over time?
2013-03-30 04:56:32 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: Instead Democrat Darwinists in states like Virgina (as in Loving v. Virginia) enacted those laws for the purpose of eugenics. That was part of the progressive movement, by the way.


True, those people have a lot to answer for.  It was a sad time to be alive if you weren't a white male, or married to one.

But look what eventually happened: those people didn't get their way in the end.  They lost.  There were <i>logical</i> reasons why they were wrong, including but not limited to their misunderstanding of what you're calling "Darwinism."  We didn't need to wave a Bible at those particular bigots to make them back down.

Similarly, Biblical morality will not help us resolve our current cultural dilemmas.  It only muddies the water.
2013-03-30 04:49:38 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: The traditional definition of marriage in America is the union of one man and one woman.

Again, that is incorrect. That definition has only been around since 1964.

What was the traditional definition of marriage in America before 1964?

One white man and one white woman, or one black man and one black woman. Surely you remember that interracial marriage was not legal right?


Certain states enacted law prohibiting interracial marriage, but those were not definitional.  They did not prohibit interracial marriage to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.  Instead Democrat Darwinists in states like Virgina (as in Loving v. Virginia) enacted those laws for the purpose of eugenics.  That was part of the progressive movement, by the way.
2013-03-30 04:37:50 PM
1 votes:
BraveNewCheneyWorld:

The article referred to a study.  Like I said, try reading the article.

No, the article did not refer to a study.  The opinion piece you provided quoted two psychologist's opinions about what might happen.   But there has been an actual study done.  It's even been linked to here.   If you weren't a complete moron, and were actually interested in facts, rather than your bigotry,  you could compare the objective data gathered in that study with the subjective opinions presented by the two psychologists quoted in your opinion piece, and see how they fared.

Did you not read the underlined sentence?  I already addressed that "point".

You haven't addressed it.  You provided a failed analogy.    You either believe in equal protection, or you don't.  If the state interest is "bearing children" then anyone not able to bear children should be barred from marriage.   That would be what "equal protection means."
2013-03-30 04:13:47 PM
1 votes:

Biological Ali: This guy comes into threads about LGBT rights to do two things:


This is not the first time I will have pointed out that you have an unhealthy obsession with me.

Biological Ali: 1 - "Argue" about gay rights using, word-for-word, the same arguments that were made against interracial marriage(I suspect that he words his post so as to elicit that specific rebuttal).


Really? My argument about reproduction pretty much proves yet again, you're a liar.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Is it seriously that difficult for you to let gays marry each other? Do you honestly think that consenting adults being allowed to marry will lead straight to legal pedophilia and bestiality? Show us on the doll where the gay people touched you. Rational people would not continue the crusade of idiocy that the two of you are hell-bent to ride until your dying breath.


I think there's a good argument to be made for the idea that an effort to normalize one form of deviancy will tend to normalize others as well.

Rent Party: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Rent Party: Is it your contention that gay parents have a higher probability of harming their children than straight parents?  Do you have a citation for that there assertion?

Why don't you try reading the article I linked?

Because you linked to an opinion piece, not a citation.   I am as uninterested in that guys opinion on the matter as I am in yours.   I am interested in scientific study and whatever facts may be relevant to forming an opinion on the matter, but you haven't provided any of that.   What has been provided would indicate that you are pretty much full of shiat.


The article referred to a study.  Like I said, try reading the article.

Not only that, but hetero couples are infinitely more likely to have children without medical intervention on the average.   As for the typical rebuttal that not all hetero couples are capable of having children, it makes as much sense as a farmer arguing not to plant crops because the germination rate isn't perfect.

Under equal protection if you are asserting that gays shouldn't be married because they can't have kids, then you must (unless you are a complete retard) assert the same for hetro people that can't have kids as well.  If "having kids" is the state interest, then that has to be applied equally.

Right?


Did you not read the underlined sentence?  I already addressed that "point".
2013-03-30 03:56:52 PM
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Rent Party: Is it your contention that gay parents have a higher probability of harming their children than straight parents?  Do you have a citation for that there assertion?

Why don't you try reading the article I linked?


Because you linked to an opinion piece, not a citation.   I am as uninterested in that guys opinion on the matter as I am in yours.   I am interested in scientific study and whatever facts may be relevant to forming an opinion on the matter, but you haven't provided any of that.   What has been provided would indicate that you are pretty much full of shiat.

Not only that, but hetero couples are infinitely more likely to have children without medical intervention on the average.   As for the typical rebuttal that not all hetero couples are capable of having children, it makes as much sense as a farmer arguing not to plant crops because the germination rate isn't perfect.

Under equal protection if you are asserting that gays shouldn't be married because they can't have kids, then you must (unless you are a complete retard) assert the same for hetro people that can't have kids as well.  If "having kids" is the state interest, then that has to be applied equally.

Right?
2013-03-30 03:37:06 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: If the traditional definition of marriage is thrown out

The "traditional definition" of marriage is the exchange of women for property. Again, where is the equal protection issue when the government recognizes marriage between 2 consenting adults? As I said, you cannot make 3 people fit into 2.


That's sophistry.  The traditional definition of marriage in America is the union of one man and one woman.

In Lawrence v. Texas, dissenters warned that if the court invents a constitutional right to sodomy, it will set a precedent that will lead to the claim that there is a constitutional right to a gay marriage.  Justice O'Connor scoffed at that:  "Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations -- the asserted state interest in this case -- other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group."

Gay marriage advocates are now making the argument that O'Connor said couldn't be made.  They are saying that a government's interest in preserving the traditional institution of marriage does not justify denying gay marriage.  If it does not justify denying a gay marriage, it does not justify denying a group marriage

cameroncrazy1984: Here's the point: If the government recognizes marriage between any 2 consenting unrelated adults, that provides equal protection for everyone. Someone who wants to marry more than one person, or a related person is asking for a special right and thus does not fall under equal protection.


One can just as easily say that if the government recognizes marriage between any 2 consenting unrelated adults of the opposite sex, that provides equal protection for everyone, and that someone who wants to marry a person of the same sex is asking for a special right and thus does not fall under equal protection. I'm told that reasoning is wrongheaded when it comes to equal protection for gay marriage.  If it is wrongheaded to use that reasoning to deny equal protection for gay marriage, why wouldn't it be considered wrongheaded to use that same reasoning to deny equal protection for group marriage.
2013-03-30 03:31:12 PM
1 votes:

Felgraf: Okay, so how were gay people treated under, say, the soviet union?


Well, I can tell you that the number of people who were executed (or lynched with the tacit or explicit approval of the government) during the entire history of the USSR is maybe comparable to number of gay people lynched in Africa every year right now.

Felgraf: platonic ideal of religion


I'm not arguing about, nor do I particularly care about, the "platonic ideal of religion". All I'm doing is making the very obvious observation that if a situation were to arise wherein humanity collectively and instantly abandoned its belief in all religions, there are entire classes of violence (and various smaller evils) that would vanish outright because they are currently propped up by literally nothing other than various religious beliefs.

.
2013-03-30 02:27:20 PM
1 votes:

Benjimin_Dover: Mrtraveler01: Relatively Obscure: Carson's comparison of gay relationships to pedophilia (NAMBLA stands for the North American Man/Boy Love Association) and bestiality has caused the pediatric neurosurgeon to fall from his perch as a Republican rising a star in recent days.

As many people as have occupied that position recently, it's like they coated that perch with axle grease.

Wait, he was a rising star for the GOP? I haven't even heard of him until earlier this week.

No, he isn't a rising star except in the minds of the libs who apparently dropped a collective load in their pants when he dared open his mouth and utter anything other than what they think he should have said at the prayer breakfast.  A person of color that thinks for him or herself is the scariest thing to a Dem and they must always be targetted for destruction usually with Uncle Tom type terminology.


Actually, there was some bipartisan condemnation of that speech:

Dr. Ben Carson should apologize to President ObamaBy Cal Thomas


Our politics have become so polarized and corrupted that a president of the United States cannot even attend an event devoted to drawing people closer to God and bridge partisan and cultural divides without being lectured about his policies.


Last Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., Dr. Ben Carson, director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and a 2008 recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, broke with a 61-year-old tradition and publicly disagreed with some of the president's policies, such as "ObamaCare," taxation and the national debt.


Carson should publicly apologize and stop going on TV doing "victory laps" and proclaiming that reaction to his speech was overwhelmingly positive. That's not the point. While many might agree with his positions (and many others don't as shown by the November election results), voicing them at the National Prayer Breakfast in front of the president was the wrong venue.


Organizers for this event tell speakers ahead of time to steer clear of politics, but Carson apparently "went rogue" on them. I'm told organizers were astonished and disapproving of the critical parts of Carson's keynote address. The breakfast is supposed to bring together people from different political viewpoints and cultures. It is supposed to bridge divides, not widen them.

Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/12/dr-ben-carson-should-apolog i ze-to-president-obama/#ixzz2P3471sHW

/Cal Thomas is a panelist on Fox News Watch, a Fox Newsprogram criticizing the media, and until September 2005 hosted After Hours with Cal Thomas on the same network; he wasvice president of the Moral Majority from 1980 to 1985.
2013-03-30 02:17:38 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: and that become precedent, then other groups (bisexuals, polygamists, NAMBLA, people who want incestuous marriage or marriage with animals) can claim the same right.

Only if the government recognizes group marriage. Which it does not. The unequal treatment is in regards to two consenting adults. Currently, the equal-rights issue is that two consenting adults cannot marry each other.


If the traditional definition of marriage is thrown out to achieve marriage equality for all, then governments will be forced to recognize group marriage. You cannot say that the traditional definition of marriage must give way to permit marriage equality for same sex marriages, and then cite the traditional definition of marriage as a reason to deny marriage equality for group marriages or other non-traditional forms of marriage.
2013-03-30 02:10:21 PM
1 votes:

RyogaM: SkinnyHead: The question is not whether two people of the same sex opposite races should be allowed to marry. It is whether there is a constitutional right to a gay marriage between people of different races. If the Supreme Court adopts the argument that there is a fundamental constitutional right to marriage between people of different races equality, and that traditional concepts of marriage must be discarded to achieve marriage between people of different races equality, and that become precedent, then other groups (gays, bisexuals, polygamists, NAMBLA, people who want incestuous marriage or marriage with animals) can claim the same right even though polygamy requires the government to treat people within the poly marriage unequally before the law, child and animal marriage is impossible because of inability to consent, and incest marriages are not even being proposed by anyone.

Man, it's awesome who ridiculous the anti-gay people make themselves look on a daily basis.


You think that's funny, check this out:

i48.photobucket.com
img194.imageshack.us
2013-03-30 01:50:02 PM
1 votes:

mpirooz: SkinnyHead: Who says marriage can only be between two people? You are relying on the traditional definition of marriage. Gay marriage activists say that the traditional definition of marriage must be discarded. If so, why shouldn't the part where marriage is limited to 2 people be discarded as well. Why should a bi-sexual person be forced to marry only a man or woman? Why not a three-way marriage?

Completely hypothetical. Nobody is arguing for that. There's logic in the argument, and some day somebody might make that argument (no doubt why you chose to attempt to equate them). But it's invalid here. The argument is for two people of the same sex to be married. Try to stick to it, otherwise you're not even taking part in the debate at hand.


The question is not whether two people of the same sex should be allowed to marry.  It is whether there is a constitutional right to a gay marriage.  If the Supreme Court adopts the argument that there is a fundamental constitutional right to marriage equality, and that traditional concepts of marriage must be discarded to achieve marriage equality, and that become precedent, then other groups (bisexuals, polygamists, NAMBLA, people who want incestuous marriage or marriage with animals) can claim the same right.
2013-03-30 11:43:24 AM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: Biological Ali: SkinnyHead: MSNBC fails to mention that before Dr. Carson made that comment, Hannity was discussing Justice Sotomayor's concern that finding a constitutional right to a gay marriage could establish a principle that could also apply to incestuous marriages and polygamy.  Carson was simply restating Sotomayor's concern, using different examples.  That's the context of it.

I thank everybody one in this thread in advance for not responding to this troll.

I can see how you wouldn't want this discussion derailed by the truth.

You mean something that was thoroughly debunked on Wednesday?

You need new material dude.

I watched the entire show so I know it's true.  Hannity played the audio of Sotomayor's question about incest and polygamy.  Go ahead and say "troll" and "debunked" all you want, I'm just giving you the truth.


I'll let this post from an earlier thread sum up my point:

http://www.fark.com/comments/7669148/Top-conservative-says-that-marr ia ge-equality-will-lead-to-shakes-magic-8-ball-immigrant-polygamists&new =1#c83279299
2013-03-30 11:41:05 AM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: I watched the entire show so I know it's true.  Hannity played the audio of Sotomayor's question about incest and polygamy.  Go ahead and say "troll" and "debunked" all you want, I'm just giving you the truth.


You're not giving factual evidence, which is what people generally mean when they use the word "truth."
2013-03-30 11:38:24 AM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: Biological Ali: SkinnyHead: MSNBC fails to mention that before Dr. Carson made that comment, Hannity was discussing Justice Sotomayor's concern that finding a constitutional right to a gay marriage could establish a principle that could also apply to incestuous marriages and polygamy.  Carson was simply restating Sotomayor's concern, using different examples.  That's the context of it.

I thank everybody one in this thread in advance for not responding to this troll.

I can see how you wouldn't want this discussion derailed by the truth.

You mean something that was thoroughly debunked on Wednesday?

You need new material dude.


I watched the entire show so I know it's true.  Hannity played the audio of Sotomayor's question about incest and polygamy.  Go ahead and say "troll" and "debunked" all you want, I'm just giving you the truth.
2013-03-30 11:33:39 AM
1 votes:

Britney Spear's Speculum: Conservatives don't seem to understand that you need a balance of credentials and character to win presidential elections in this day and age.


Which Obama had in spades, so to speak, His academic prowess combined with his charm is what elected him, not the welfare queens the right wants us to believe ushered him into office. I'm as white as they come (seriously, I'm almost embarrassingly WASP) and I found the man convincing starting with the '04 DNC speech. And I typically decry speeches as huckster BS.

Years into his presidency, I take issue with many of his decisions. But I still like the man, Next week he'll do something that pisses me off, and I'll gripe about it in this tab - but I still admire the man for being self-made and smarter than the average bear.

Obama is far from perfect. But he's what we have in the face of the TeaPublicans of the world. His charm and turn of phrases endear him to the public where the GOP seems hell-bent on alienating huge segments of it. Sure, he's just another politician, but compared to his GOP rivals he's a farking saint.
2013-03-30 11:28:16 AM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: Biological Ali: SkinnyHead: MSNBC fails to mention that before Dr. Carson made that comment, Hannity was discussing Justice Sotomayor's concern that finding a constitutional right to a gay marriage could establish a principle that could also apply to incestuous marriages and polygamy.  Carson was simply restating Sotomayor's concern, using different examples.  That's the context of it.

I thank everybody one in this thread in advance for not responding to this troll.

I can see how you wouldn't want this discussion derailed by the truth.


You mean something that was thoroughly debunked on Wednesday?

You need new material dude.
2013-03-30 11:25:38 AM
1 votes:

Biological Ali: SkinnyHead: MSNBC fails to mention that before Dr. Carson made that comment, Hannity was discussing Justice Sotomayor's concern that finding a constitutional right to a gay marriage could establish a principle that could also apply to incestuous marriages and polygamy.  Carson was simply restating Sotomayor's concern, using different examples.  That's the context of it.

I thank everybody one in this thread in advance for not responding to this troll.


I can see how you wouldn't want this discussion derailed by the truth.
2013-03-30 11:11:21 AM
1 votes:
MSNBC fails to mention that before Dr. Carson made that comment, Hannity was discussing Justice Sotomayor's concern that finding a constitutional right to a gay marriage could establish a principle that could also apply to incestuous marriages and polygamy.  Carson was simply restating Sotomayor's concern, using different examples.  That's the context of it.
2013-03-30 09:20:22 AM
1 votes:

ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: Mrtraveler01: DrPainMD: Mrtraveler01: So why mention NAMBLA and bestiality at all if his central message was that gays shouldn't get married?

You'd have to ask him that one.

Don't you think that if he was a smart guy, then mentioning NAMBLA and bestiality at all in this gay marriage debate would've elicited a negative reaction and probably not worth bringing up?

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was just being a dumbass and not trying to compare gays to NAMBLA/bestiality.


"The are a lot of people who were upset with Barack Obama being re-elected.  The Aryan Brotherhood, Neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Republican Party.  If you infer that I was implying the GOP has a similar motive to the other three, you're just reading way too much into it."


Good job.

"There are a lot of people who want to use the government to curtail the rights of gays.  Nazis, small-minded Muslim and Christian fundamentalists like the Westboro Baptists and the Republican party.  If you think I am implying that the Republicans have the same irrational hatred of gays as Nazis and Muslim terrorists, you're just reading too much into it."
2013-03-30 08:37:57 AM
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: So naturally the rest of us can point and laugh at people who think farking an orifice that expels babies is no less valid as farking an orifice that expels feces.  Fair enough.


Most straight guys love taking the occasional dirt road. If I like doing to a woman (beg for it, in fact), I don't see how a gay man thinks any differently. It's a hole. It's tight. Sometimes it's a mess but, c'mon, so is a vagina. You ever taken a good look at that thing? It's an hatchet wound that bleeds 25% of the time.
2013-03-30 08:27:07 AM
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mrtraveler01: When we start people those people's head on a pike, then there can be a moral high ground.

Because getting heads put on pikes is a reality of being gay, right?

Mrtraveler01: People though interracial marriages were just as deviant back in the day, deviance is a matter of opinion and not actually based on anything concrete.

2 posts to the same thing in a row? Did you forget to change your alt?  Btw, black is a race, homosexuality is an act, they're not remotely the same thing.


They were both viewed as deviant practices during their respective time.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mrtraveler01: When we start people those people's head on a pike, then there can be a moral high ground.

Because getting heads put on pikes is a reality of being gay, right?

Mrtraveler01: People though interracial marriages were just as deviant back in the day, deviance is a matter of opinion and not actually based on anything concrete.

2 posts to the same thing in a row? Did you forget to change your alt?  Btw, black is a race, homosexuality is an act, they're not remotely the same thing.


So how come people who have sex outside of marriage don't get treated with the same scorn that gay people do?
2013-03-30 08:24:57 AM
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Homosexuality is no more or less deviant than the others, it's just not illegal because it's an act that can be engaged with the consent of two adult humans.   Of course you people need to silence anyone mentioning this or any other valid comparison on the national stage, because you can't have anyone get in the way of your efforts to conflate 'legal' with 'moral'.   If you were in the right, you wouldn't need such organized efforts to silence your opponents anyone who isn't in lockstep agreement with you.


Pointing and laughing at people with views on sexuality from the Middle Ages is not silencing them. Such people have been getting quite a bit of attention lately, actually. It's just that people aren't afraid to tell people like you to fark off when they judge what other adults do in the bedroom.

Sir, go fark yourself.
2013-03-30 08:14:37 AM
1 votes:

Silly Jesus: RyogaM: Silly Jesus: Oh, I didn't get that that was your point. I'm not locked in to the 10%...I just liked the flat tax idea. I was just throwing a number out there.

Everyone was arguing that The Math Did Not Add Up.  That's an argument against a 10% flat tax, not the tax itself.

Being for a Flat Tax without mentioning a rate that is actually mathematically realistic is like being for Free hookers and Blow for everyone, without saying how you pay for it.  It's asinine.  Like Doc. Carson.

Usually libs argue against the flat tax on the basis of "the poors will have to pay as much (percentage wise) as the wealthy, and that's not faaaaaaiiiiiiiirrrrrr."  I was caught off guard.


As a guy in the 28% bracket now, call me when we decide to put people like Romney pay that same flat tax rate. Color me suspicious but I am sure the Cayman islands crowd will continue to avoid paying their share.
2013-03-30 07:38:01 AM
1 votes:

DrPainMD: Mrtraveler01: So why mention NAMBLA and bestiality at all if his central message was that gays shouldn't get married?

You'd have to ask him that one.


Don't you think that if he was a smart guy, then mentioning NAMBLA and bestiality at all in this gay marriage debate would've elicited a negative reaction and probably not worth bringing up?

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was just being a dumbass and not trying to compare gays to NAMBLA/bestiality.
2013-03-30 07:32:40 AM
1 votes:

DrPainMD: Mrtraveler01: DrPainMD: Mrtraveler01: DrPainMD: quatchi: DrPainMD: Nowhere does he say that NAMBLA wants to get married, nor does he compare NAMBLA members to gays. It's not there.

You said that, dumbshiat, in the post you just quoted.

Gawd, yer thicker than the proverbial brick aren't you?

You are either a troll or incapable of intellectual honesty or simple reading comprehension.

I most certainly didn't. What Dr. Carson said, and I was merely pointing out, is that he believes that those groups shouldn't get to decide the definition of marriage. Which is what he said. In plain, simple, English. And that's ALL he said. Nothing more.

So why does he compare gays wanting to get married to bestiality and NAMBLA?

Read the quote again. He's not comparing them, he's saying that he thinks that they shouldn't get to decide the definition of marriage. That's ALL he said. Read it.

I did, he said it all under the same breath which usually implies that they're all in one group. Why does he compare gays wanting to get married to people like NAMBLA wanting to marry young boys or beastiality people wanting to marry their animals?

Now it is possible that Dr. Carson just sucks at communicating, in that case, you would probably be correct.

He said it in plain, simple English, and he implied nothing. You inferred something that wasn't there. That's not a failure on his part; it's a failure on your part.


So why mention NAMBLA and bestiality at all if his central message was that gays shouldn't get married?
2013-03-30 07:29:44 AM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: DrPainMD: Mrtraveler01: DrPainMD: quatchi: DrPainMD: Nowhere does he say that NAMBLA wants to get married, nor does he compare NAMBLA members to gays. It's not there.

You said that, dumbshiat, in the post you just quoted.

Gawd, yer thicker than the proverbial brick aren't you?

You are either a troll or incapable of intellectual honesty or simple reading comprehension.

I most certainly didn't. What Dr. Carson said, and I was merely pointing out, is that he believes that those groups shouldn't get to decide the definition of marriage. Which is what he said. In plain, simple, English. And that's ALL he said. Nothing more.

So why does he compare gays wanting to get married to bestiality and NAMBLA?

Read the quote again. He's not comparing them, he's saying that he thinks that they shouldn't get to decide the definition of marriage. That's ALL he said. Read it.

I did, he said it all under the same breath which usually implies that they're all in one group. Why does he compare gays wanting to get married to people like NAMBLA wanting to marry young boys or beastiality people wanting to marry their animals?

Now it is possible that Dr. Carson just sucks at communicating, in that case, you would probably be correct.


He said it in plain, simple English, and he implied nothing. You inferred something that wasn't there. That's not a failure on his part; it's a failure on your part.
2013-03-30 07:23:16 AM
1 votes:

DrPainMD: Mrtraveler01: DrPainMD: quatchi: DrPainMD: Nowhere does he say that NAMBLA wants to get married, nor does he compare NAMBLA members to gays. It's not there.

You said that, dumbshiat, in the post you just quoted.

Gawd, yer thicker than the proverbial brick aren't you?

You are either a troll or incapable of intellectual honesty or simple reading comprehension.

I most certainly didn't. What Dr. Carson said, and I was merely pointing out, is that he believes that those groups shouldn't get to decide the definition of marriage. Which is what he said. In plain, simple, English. And that's ALL he said. Nothing more.

So why does he compare gays wanting to get married to bestiality and NAMBLA?

Read the quote again. He's not comparing them, he's saying that he thinks that they shouldn't get to decide the definition of marriage. That's ALL he said. Read it.


I did, he said it all under the same breath which usually implies that they're all in one group. Why does he compare gays wanting to get married to people like NAMBLA wanting to marry young boys or beastiality people wanting to marry their animals?

Now it is possible that Dr. Carson just sucks at communicating, in that case, you would probably be correct.
2013-03-30 07:21:12 AM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: DrPainMD: quatchi: DrPainMD: Nowhere does he say that NAMBLA wants to get married, nor does he compare NAMBLA members to gays. It's not there.

You said that, dumbshiat, in the post you just quoted.

Gawd, yer thicker than the proverbial brick aren't you?

You are either a troll or incapable of intellectual honesty or simple reading comprehension.

I most certainly didn't. What Dr. Carson said, and I was merely pointing out, is that he believes that those groups shouldn't get to decide the definition of marriage. Which is what he said. In plain, simple, English. And that's ALL he said. Nothing more.

So why does he compare gays wanting to get married to bestiality and NAMBLA?


Read the quote again. He's not comparing them, he's saying that he thinks that they shouldn't get to decide the definition of marriage. That's ALL he said. Read it.
2013-03-30 06:54:58 AM
1 votes:

quatchi: DrPainMD: I was just pointing out that he didn't say what subby, the article, and almost every post in this thread say he said. Anybody who says otherwise doesn't I don't understand the English language on a 3rd grade level.

Fixed.


quatchi: DrPainMD: I was just pointing out that he didn't say what subby, the article, and almost every post in this thread say he said. Anybody who says otherwise doesn't I don't understand the English language on a 3rd grade level.

Fixed.


OK, specifically where does he compare gays to NAMBLA members or say that NAMBLA members want the right to marry?
2013-03-30 05:28:55 AM
1 votes:

TheJoe03: /You really gotta question the thought process of people like this


i47.tinypic.com
2013-03-30 03:15:34 AM
1 votes:

DrPainMD: I culled the quote FTFA where he compared gays wanting the right to get legally married to NAMBLA [wanting the right to legally marry] so I'm pretty sure you're full of shiat.


NAMBLA want the right to marry kids now?

Comparing two groups who want to have sex with (ie. not marry) others who legally can not consent with consenting adult gays wanting to marry as all being equally worthy of scorn isn't an insulting and ignorant comparison all of a sudden?

Wow, you're full of shiat today.

Have you considered Metamucil? Ex-lax? Prune juice, perhaps?
2013-03-30 03:04:52 AM
1 votes:

quatchi: Kittypie070: ...vichyssoise.

I love it when you speak French!

DrPainMD: "Carson's comparison of gay relationships to pedophilia..."

I haven't read this whole thread, but did anybody else notice that he didn't compare gay relationships to pedophilia?

I culled the quote FTFA where he compared gays wanting the right to get legally married to NAMBLA

[wanting the right to legally marry] so I'm pretty sure you're full of shiat.

/5 posts above yours.


Nope. Looks like you're the one who's full of shiat. You don't seem to understand what's being compared.
2013-03-30 03:02:35 AM
1 votes:

Notabunny: CorporatePerson: Notabunny: I don't know about you, but I live in a basement and have no friends. Anonymously attacking internet strangers is as close to success as I'll ever get.

No joke, I have you Farkied as "makes detailed lists"

I don't recall revealing my superpower. I'll have to be more cautious. Thanks for the heads-up, citizen!


FWIW I have you Farkied "Tom Waits fan".

/Also a fan of Mr Waits work.
2013-03-30 02:04:05 AM
1 votes:
"Carson's comparison of gay relationships to pedophilia..."

I haven't read this whole thread, but did anybody else notice that he didn't compare gay relationships to pedophilia?
2013-03-30 01:34:32 AM
1 votes:
I knew this guy was going to crash and burn after watching the prayer breakfast speech.  All the right winger got wet panties about the speech, but clearly didn't watch it.  They just thought it was neat he was "sticking it" to Obama (which he wasn't).  His entire speech was extreme right wing talking points.  Nothing new, nothing helpful.  The speech wasn't even particularly well delivered.

For the last time, it's not the messaging, it's the message.  Hating gays, punishing poor people/minorities and corporatism are not where the majority of american's sit ideologically at the moment.
2013-03-30 01:22:59 AM
1 votes:
"My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality-it doesn't matter what they are-they don't get to change the definition."

Yeah, that's equating.

Good on the Johns Hopkins students and faculty for raising a stink about his invite to speak at commencement.

randomjsa: ...Carson said something bad...

Indeed.
2013-03-30 01:03:57 AM
1 votes:
i think randumbjsa is a furry
2013-03-30 01:00:45 AM
1 votes:

randomjsa: I said it would take a week for you to get around to whining about how hateful Republicans were after one of your own went on a bigoted little tirade to the cheer and adoration of more than a few.


Wait, I'm lost here.

randomjsa: Incidentally that feeling of validation you have for catching this guy saying something unpopular in no way changes the fact that he's been handing you your rears on a silver platter on most of what you believe in.


Wait, he has?

randomjsa: Oh and we haven't forgotten how "nicely" you treated the black actress for supporting Romney as the good and open minded liberals spewed racist hate speech at her.


The one I didn't care who she supported?

Eh whatever, go back to feeling persecuted. God knows what you'd do to yourself without that persecution complex of yours.
2013-03-30 12:48:35 AM
1 votes:

garron: I might as well toss in the buzzwords "Uncle Tom" and "Democrat plantation" too while I'm obeying my programming.


Oh, so John Birchers are granola snorting hippies now, huh?

What did I just f*ckin say about the TWILIGHT ZONE, boy!!??
2013-03-30 12:36:47 AM
1 votes:
"What I was basically saying and if anyone was offended, I apologize to you. What I was basically saying is there is no group. I wasn't equating those things, I don't think they're equal. If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange. And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either. Or a peach, that's not an apple, either. It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way I'm not equating those things."

www.trilobite.org
2013-03-30 12:09:26 AM
1 votes:
victorycabal: Why is it that no one in politics can just say something like "I really farked up, I was wrong, I'm really sorry"?
=================================================

Because they weren't sorry and they really meant what they said.
2013-03-30 12:07:40 AM
1 votes:
"When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me! Now, the passion fruit. When your assailant lunges at you with a passion fruit, thus..."
2013-03-29 11:42:31 PM
1 votes:

Kittypie070: Void_Beavis: Kittypie070: Deep thoughts concerning yogurt

D'aww.

Are kittens crunchy when you eat them despite their soft, furry shell?

These are the questions the bastard part of my brain demand answers to every day.

Uh, they're tender all the way through, it's only the little bones that are crunchy.

/these are the kinda questions that kept me outta Harvard -- George Carlin


Which leads to my next question.

And how do you know this?

/hugs kittypie just because her crazy kitty ass is one of my favorited posters here and I love it so blargh.
2013-03-29 11:34:46 PM
1 votes:

Silly Jesus: Oh, I didn't get that that was your point. I'm not locked in to the 10%...I just liked the flat tax idea. I was just throwing a number out there.


Everyone was arguing that The Math Did Not Add Up.  That's an argument against a 10% flat tax, not the tax itself.

Being for a Flat Tax without mentioning a rate that is actually mathematically realistic is like being for Free hookers and Blow for everyone, without saying how you pay for it.  It's asinine.  Like Doc. Carson.
2013-03-29 11:33:54 PM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: Wait, he was a rising star for the GOP? I haven't even heard of him until earlier this week.


If you're black and agree with the GOP, you are a rising star.

i5.photobucket.com
2013-03-29 11:31:25 PM
1 votes:
So about the whole flat tax thing. Point is, there are no real world examples for how this would go down for a major economy like the United States who set a very global economic market presence. Therefore it's highly unlikely that the United States will be willing to jeopardize that position with such a radical change to a major component that affects market economics like taxation. The risk is too high.
2013-03-29 11:24:30 PM
1 votes:
Can the the last person who supports the GOP just shut the lights off on their way out.  Thanks.
2013-03-29 11:21:52 PM
1 votes:

bill4935: [images.cryhavok.org image 515x634]


Cowabunga, dude!
2013-03-29 11:18:57 PM
1 votes:

RyogaM: Silly Jesus: RyogaM: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: I liked his 10% flat tax idea.

Ah, so he can't do math either huh?

Unless this is an additional tax, which in that case is heresy in the GOP.

Flat taxes aren't math?  Potato?

That's the kind of thinking one has to have to think that a 10% flat tax is sustainable.

These 41 countries with a flat tax might be interested in your expertise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_s ys tems

Holy shiat dude, did you even read that list?  Name five countries on that list with a 10% flat tax rate that you'd want to live in rather than the U.S.A.

What about these states?  Could you even live in any of them?  Or Alberta?!?  OMG!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#At_the_state_or_provincial_lev el

I live in Ohio.  The highest state income tax bracket in my state is 5.9% for couples over $200000.  My bracket right now is less than every flat tax you listed except Col.  And no, I would not want to live in Col.  So, thanks, I would not like to raise my tax rate to give a break to those making over $200,000.

Way to ignore my challenge to name 5 countries, btw.  You're a bold debater, you are.


I guess the point I was trying to make that he keeps ignoring that a flat tax could work in theory, but 10% is so low that it's borderline retarded.
2013-03-29 11:18:24 PM
1 votes:

Infernalist: ghare: EmmaLou: cptjeff: EmmaLou: Just once, once I would like to go through a day and not think "WTF is wrong with people?"

Try going camping. A nice backpacking or canoe trip in a remote wilderness is a good way to get away from the derp. And everything else, really.

I've been seriously considering that.  I think being disconnected for a few days with definitely help.

Get a good tent. I mean really.

Rustics.

Seriously, if you need to get away, go get a hotel room for a week on the beach.   The woods are full of dirt, trees and animals.


And campfires, and waking up right next to a beautiful stream, and no TV to distract, lots of birdsong, air that smells nice, no cars, no stupid electronic noises and beeping...

You can bring a fly rod along and add fresh fish to the deal if you like, cooked right on that campfire even.

Seriously, if you have access to a car, internet, TV, and your smartphone, you aren't really getting away.
2013-03-29 11:14:32 PM
1 votes:
A good article summing up the pros and cons of the Flat Tax.

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/pros-cons-flat-tax-4210.html
2013-03-29 11:12:34 PM
1 votes:

Silly Jesus: I liked his 10% flat tax idea.


There's a lot to like about a flat tax. Sadly, no one with sane social policy supports it. Probably due to the fact that the income gap right now is at an all-time high.

Nobody wants to talk about how a flat tax is going to affect funds held in the Cayman Islands.

The Russians just dealt with embezzled mafia funds held in Cyprus banks and you see how that turned out. Criminals will do anything to hold on to their stolen money, including collapsing the world economy.
2013-03-29 11:07:53 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-03-29 10:59:06 PM
1 votes:
RIP BILL CARSON
www.wearysloth.com
DIED OF THIRST 1862
2013-03-29 10:58:13 PM
1 votes:

Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: I liked his 10% flat tax idea.

Ah, so he can't do math either huh?

Unless this is an additional tax, which in that case is heresy in the GOP.

Flat taxes aren't math?  Potato?


Yes, flat taxes are potato.
2013-03-29 10:55:55 PM
1 votes:

Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: I liked his 10% flat tax idea.

Ah, so he can't do math either huh?

Unless this is an additional tax, which in that case is heresy in the GOP.

Flat taxes aren't math?  Potato?


That's the kind of thinking one has to have to think that a 10% flat tax is sustainable.
2013-03-29 10:52:29 PM
1 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org

ballinyourcourt.files.wordpress.com
2013-03-29 10:50:37 PM
1 votes:
I had absolutely no idea that you could be a complete idiot and become a neurosurgeon.  Dammit, I so missed out on an easy career path!

"If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange."

I wouldn't want this guy anywhere near my brain.  He already hurts it over the internet!
2013-03-29 10:49:02 PM
1 votes:

Silly Jesus: I liked his 10% flat tax idea.


Ah, so he can't do math either huh?

Unless this is an additional tax, which in that case is heresy in the GOP.
2013-03-29 10:42:23 PM
1 votes:

LoneWolf343: xen0blue: [i.imgur.com image 850x566]

...What is that last one supposed to be?


Since troll posters post and run, I will chime in and say it's prolly blood relatives
2013-03-29 10:40:04 PM
1 votes:

xen0blue: [i.imgur.com image 850x566]


...What is that last one supposed to be?
2013-03-29 10:37:47 PM
1 votes:

Silly Jesus: RyogaM: If I wanted to lessen the political prospects of a certain race, I would promote among that race people I know to be unprepared for public office, those who have opinions that are in direct opposition to the wildly accepted beliefs and principles of the vast majority of the scientific community, have a tendency of overestimation of their competency outside their main field of expertise, and an inability to keep their mouth shut about things outside those areas of expertize.  It is even better if this particular specimen is highly accomplished, as it makes it appear as even the most highly skilled of that race are unsuited to public office.  That this appears to be what the Republicans are doing is just a coincidence.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x210]

You were saying?


When you promote a hundred people who happen to be certain race, an one turns out to be a dud, you are not going to foster an animus against that race. That is expected.

When you are the Republicans, and you promote 10 members who happen to be a certain race, and nine of them turn out to be duds, well, I'm just applying the same powers of observation Doc. Carson has in regards to Obama.  Clearly, one can assume the Republicans are trying to ruin Black Republicans by exposing them to scrutiny that are not prepared for.
2013-03-29 10:35:06 PM
1 votes:
Duh guys. When Jesus wrote the bible he wrote it in English (not Spanish lol) for a reason. He used the word marriage because that is a man and a woman being married. Before Jesus came there was no marriage. Christians invented it!

Now the gays want to change the definition? I don't think so.
2013-03-29 10:34:07 PM
1 votes:
Oh, just another RepublicoFascist.
2013-03-29 10:33:51 PM
1 votes:

Silly Jesus: RyogaM: If I wanted to lessen the political prospects of a certain race, I would promote among that race people I know to be unprepared for public office, those who have opinions that are in direct opposition to the wildly accepted beliefs and principles of the vast majority of the scientific community, have a tendency of overestimation of their competency outside their main field of expertise, and an inability to keep their mouth shut about things outside those areas of expertize.  It is even better if this particular specimen is highly accomplished, as it makes it appear as even the most highly skilled of that race are unsuited to public office.  That this appears to be what the Republicans are doing is just a coincidence.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x210]

You were saying?



a.abcnews.com

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
2013-03-29 10:33:39 PM
1 votes:

agb1953: Dr. Carson did not compare the 3 groups.  He listed the three groups as being those who fall in love but are not man/woman combinations.  In 2006 a Sudanese man married a goat, so there is precedent for his remark.


It is true he did not actually compare them, but he did lumb them into the same bucket thereby equating all three groups. That really isn't any better.
2013-03-29 10:30:31 PM
1 votes:

EmmaLou: Just once, once I would like to go through a day and not think "WTF is wrong with people?"


Try going camping. A nice backpacking or canoe trip in a remote wilderness is a good way to get away from the derp. And everything else, really.
2013-03-29 10:29:49 PM
1 votes:

dickfreckle: Speaker2Animals: If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange. And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either. Or a peach, that's not an apple, either. It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way I'm not equating those things."

And this is what passes for intelligence in the GOP.

Thing is, the dude is a pediatric neurosurgeon - not a job they just hand out to retards. My father was also a highly educated, menacingly intelligent man who for some reason let the derp break free when the conversation steered to politics or social norms. I'm sure plenty of you work with some highly pedigreed guy in the office down the hall who thinks Todd Akin makes sense and just got a raw deal from the liberal media. Then he goes back to designing a farking skyscraper or jet engine.

I've never understood how otherwise smart people can fall for politics that thrive on the lowest common denominator. I have a worthless BA from an equally worthless state drinking university that I don't recall attending, but even I know bullsh*t when I see it. Others can be educated in strict logic for 8 post-secondary years plus a residency and still can't count past potato. And I don't mean to say this because I disagree; I'm talking about actual stupidity, like the aforementioned Akin.

Meh, such is life.


This is because you can be both intelligent and have some severe mental issues. Our society has created a situation where pathological hate of gays is common. Add to that some cult brainwashing from a young age and you can find a guy who is technically brilliant believe and say some stupid shiat. If a kidnapped person can fall in love with their captors imagine what 18 years of people teaching you about invisible sky man can do.

There are many ways to measure intelligence. People like this have their marbles stacked in too few baskets.
2013-03-29 10:24:35 PM
1 votes:
Dr. Carson did not compare the 3 groups.  He listed the three groups as being those who fall in love but are not man/woman combinations.  In 2006 a Sudanese man married a goat, so there is precedent for his remark.
2013-03-29 10:10:49 PM
1 votes:
I find it ironic that one of the reasons this guy is a "rising star" of conservativism is that Hannity has been promoting him relentlessly and repeatedly inviting him on his program, and it's stuff that Carson said on Hannity that got him into hot water.
2013-03-29 10:09:55 PM
1 votes:
KrispyKritter: Dr clearly stated his opinion and was not making comparisons


Carson told FOX News host Sean Hannity Tuesday,

"My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman.

It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group,

be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality-

it doesn't matter what they are-they don't get to change the definition."


What I was basically saying and if anyone was offended, I apologize to you.

What I was basically saying is there is no group.

I wasn't equating those things, I don't think they're equal.

If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange.

And I say, that's a banana.

And that's not an apple either.

Or a peach, that's not an apple, either.

It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach.

In the same way I'm not equating those things.



He's throwing an entire friggin basket of fruit at us and he's speaking clearly??

Would you mind relating to us hippie nosepickers just what clarity was in here?

I'm all slathered with fruit pulp here and am entertaining deep thoughts concerning yogurt.
2013-03-29 10:07:53 PM
1 votes:
Powell doesn't have the stomach for a presidential race after he carried water for Shrub.
2013-03-29 10:03:26 PM
1 votes:
"What I was basically saying and if anyone was offended, I apologize to you. What I was basically saying is there is no group. I wasn't equating those things, I don't think they're equal. If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange. And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either.


i44.photobucket.com
2013-03-29 10:00:25 PM
1 votes:

dickfreckle: Speaker2Animals: If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange. And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either. Or a peach, that's not an apple, either. It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way I'm not equating those things."

And this is what passes for intelligence in the GOP.

Thing is, the dude is a pediatric neurosurgeon - not a job they just hand out to retards. My father was also a highly educated, menacingly intelligent man who for some reason let the derp break free when the conversation steered to politics or social norms. I'm sure plenty of you work with some highly pedigreed guy in the office down the hall who thinks Todd Akin makes sense and just got a raw deal from the liberal media. Then he goes back to designing a farking skyscraper or jet engine.

I've never understood how otherwise smart people can fall for politics that thrive on the lowest common denominator. I have a worthless BA from an equally worthless state drinking university that I don't recall attending, but even I know bullsh*t when I see it. Others can be educated in strict logic for 8 post-secondary years plus a residency and still can't count past potato. And I don't mean to say this because I disagree; I'm talking about actual stupidity, like the aforementioned Akin.

Meh, such is life.


You don't have to be dumb to be a bigot.

/but it helps
2013-03-29 09:59:45 PM
1 votes:
This guy is a Seventh day Adventist right, I would have loved to see him being asked does your church really think going to church on Sunday instead of Saturday is the mark of the Beast? But no one would ask him that if he ran as a Republican.
2013-03-29 09:55:01 PM
1 votes:

LucklessWonder: Colon Powell/Condoleeza Rice '16

/Can't be worse than the last joers


Yeah, at least Powell and Rice both have functioning brains, unlike many other Republicans.
2013-03-29 09:54:38 PM
1 votes:
What does the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes have to do with gay marriage or turtle farking?
2013-03-29 09:53:07 PM
1 votes:

JohnTuttle: "My impression is what's being asked for is the convenience of the title marriage, which is an institution that was established by God," Carson said.

And there's the rub. When I stepped before the priest on our wedding day, we didn't agree to enter into the bonds of marriage, we agreed to enter into holy matrimony as sanctioned by the church. When we signed the state license afterwards, THEN we entered into a marriage, as authorized and sanctioned by the state.

(Yes, I haven't sat down and thought all of this through, but this seems to be a good point of argument for me from here on out.)


Cut out the middle man. People who get married at the courthouse sign some papers and appear before a judge. No one asks about anyone's religious beliefs. It's not relevant.
2013-03-29 09:52:16 PM
1 votes:

Relatively Obscure: Carson's comparison of gay relationships to pedophilia (NAMBLA stands for the North American Man/Boy Love Association) and bestiality has caused the pediatric neurosurgeon to fall from his perch as a Republican rising a star in recent days.

As many people as have occupied that position recently, it's like they coated that perch with axle grease.


Weird, it kinda reminds me of all the Number Twos in Al Qaeda.

Flip smash there goes still another one and that's three for this month alone.

So much for The Great Blah Hope of the GOP.
2013-03-29 09:49:25 PM
1 votes:

Minerva8918: "My impression is what's being asked for is the convenience of the title marriage, which is an institution that was established by God," Carson said.

ORLY? And when did this happen? Not to be a douchebag, but I'm pretty sure his ancestors might not agree with him considering that it was not okay for black people and white people to get married at one point.

I am not trying to turn this into a racial debate, so don't take it that way. My point is thaet I don't know where God said anything about marriage? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong (based on when/where that came from, not based on one's religious beliefs).


It wasn't allowed for Blacks to marry other Blacks without permission of a White man at one point in our history, either, and even when married, no White had to recognize the marriage in any way, shape or form.  Guess those marriages weren't godly.
2013-03-29 09:49:20 PM
1 votes:
"What I was basically saying and if anyone was offended, I apologize to you. What I was basically saying is there is no group. I wasn't equating those things, I don't think they're equal. If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange. And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either. Or a peach, that's not an apple, either. It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way I'm not equating those things."

Neurosurgeon, heal thyself.
2013-03-29 09:45:41 PM
1 votes:
If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange.

I am still trying to decipher this profound yet complex axiom.

Why would you say an orange that I just gave you is not an orange even if you asked for an apple? and how would a non orange orange become a peach afterward even though it may have been originally an apple all along? this is deep folks deep!!
2013-03-29 09:45:32 PM
1 votes:
LETS NOT LISTEN TO HIM HES PROBABLY THE MOST GIFTED BLACK MAN ON THE PLANET RIGHT NOW OOO I FORGOT YOU CANT BE A GIFTED BLACK MAN IF YOU NOT A DEM KIND OF LIKE MLK YOU KNOW HE WAS ON THE RIGHT TO BUT THOSE PISKY MORALS AND THE WHOLE GOD THING ........STUPID ME
2013-03-29 09:44:20 PM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The GOP's Great Black Hope Dope goes down!


And he was doing so well there for a while......

Then he opened his mouth.
2013-03-29 09:39:53 PM
1 votes:
"My impression is what's being asked for is the convenience of the title marriage, which is an institution that was established by God," Carson said.

And there's the rub. When I stepped before the priest on our wedding day, we didn't agree to enter into the bonds of marriage, we agreed to enter into holy matrimony as sanctioned by the church. When we signed the state license afterwards, THEN we entered into a marriage, as authorized and sanctioned by the state.

(Yes, I haven't sat down and thought all of this through, but this seems to be a good point of argument for me from here on out.)
2013-03-29 09:35:25 PM
1 votes:
You know, when I Google a phrase that starts "sex with ..." I expect to see some sick pron on the first page of hits at least. Google is a site have I come to trust to do its job and find weird shiat.

But apparently sex with turtles is so rare that even the web has a hard time coughing up examples. Maybe it has something to do with such hits as "turles have terrifying penises" or "how to tell if a turtle is male or female" or "Dr. Ben Carson has sex with turtles", which at least gets hits about Dr. Ben.
2013-03-29 09:34:10 PM
1 votes:
I had to read Gifted Hands in my 10th grade English class. All I got from it was how unbelievable it was that Ben Carson had a fat AND ugly wife while being 1)a doctor, and 2)"Gifted" with his hands.

But now I get it, who else would want to fark this tool.
2013-03-29 09:33:57 PM
1 votes:

Great Janitor: Who here hasn't seen a sexy turtle and said "I wanna hit that?"  My wife won't let me keep a turtle in the house anymore after what I did to that last turtle.

/and it was consensual.


farm6.staticflickr.com
2013-03-29 09:33:42 PM
1 votes:

gilgigamesh: The_Sponge: I like turtles.

Well pretty soon you'll be able to marry one. Congrats. I am sure you'll be very happy together.


4.bp.blogspot.com

Back off boys, he's spoken for.
2013-03-29 09:33:38 PM
1 votes:
Person A:  I like ice cream, Legos and boobies.

Lib:  OMG ice cream is nothing like Legos, HOW CAN YOU BE EQUATING THE TWO!?!?!?!
2013-03-29 09:32:24 PM
1 votes:

Sgt Otter: Mrtraveler01: Relatively Obscure: Carson's comparison of gay relationships to pedophilia (NAMBLA stands for the North American Man/Boy Love Association) and bestiality has caused the pediatric neurosurgeon to fall from his perch as a Republican rising a star in recent days.

As many people as have occupied that position recently, it's like they coated that perch with axle grease.

Wait, he was a rising star for the GOP? I haven't even heard of him until earlier this week.
Limbaugh: Ben Carson Has Democrats Scared To Death


I'm as afraid of that as I am afraid that North Korea is going to nuke Austin.
2013-03-29 09:30:49 PM
1 votes:

Relatively Obscure: "What I was basically saying and if anyone was offended, I apologize to you. What I was basically saying is there is no group. I wasn't equating those things, I don't think they're equal. If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange. And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either. Or a peach, that's not an apple, either. It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way I'm not equating those things."

[www.reactiongifs.com image 193x135]


I sincerely hope that Dr. Carson was treated for the stroke from which he was obviously suffering while he issued that statement.
2013-03-29 09:30:42 PM
1 votes:
The moment Worldnetdaily endorsed this guy I knew it was only a matter of time before he shoved his foot down his throat.
2013-03-29 09:29:34 PM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: Relatively Obscure: Carson's comparison of gay relationships to pedophilia (NAMBLA stands for the North American Man/Boy Love Association) and bestiality has caused the pediatric neurosurgeon to fall from his perch as a Republican rising a star in recent days.

As many people as have occupied that position recently, it's like they coated that perch with axle grease.

Wait, he was a rising star for the GOP? I haven't even heard of him until earlier this week.

Limbaugh: Ben Carson Has Democrats Scared To Death
2013-03-29 09:22:27 PM
1 votes:

syrynxx: My belief is that marriage is between a white man and a white woman.  He doesn't get to change the definition.  Unless you're Abraham, in which case you can have sex with your slave Harah.  Or Solomon, in which case you can have 900 wives and a thousand concubines.  Wait, this is getting confusing.


Sarah's handmaiden was Hagar.

/dept of corrections
2013-03-29 09:19:37 PM
1 votes:
www.wepsite.de
2013-03-29 09:16:21 PM
1 votes:
That's funny, because this guy looks like the end product of a NAMBLA adherent and a turtle having sex.
2013-03-29 08:17:38 PM
1 votes:

gilgigamesh: The_Sponge: I like turtles.

Well pretty soon you'll be able to marry one. Congrats. I am sure you'll be very happy together.


4.bp.blogspot.com
Combine NAMBLA and Turtle Farking and see what kind of sick deviance you get!
2013-03-29 08:06:31 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: I'm surprised conservatives have a problem with what he said.


The problem isn't with the content of what he said, it was that he said it when the GOP is trying to rebrand itself.
2013-03-29 07:37:29 PM
1 votes:

Relatively Obscure: "What I was basically saying and if anyone was offended, I apologize to you. What I was basically saying is there is no group. I wasn't equating those things, I don't think they're equal. If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange. And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either. Or a peach, that's not an apple, either. It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way I'm not equating those things."

[www.reactiongifs.com image 193x135]


Truly, this brilliant man is the Terror of the Left.
 
Displayed 180 of 180 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report