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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Today, on "Republicans Reach Out to Gays," Texas GOP blocks Log Cabin Republicans from hosting booth at state convention   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 220
    More: Asinine, Log Cabin Republicans, texas gop, Texas, Republicans, political convention, reseller hosting, Texas Democratic Party, party platform  
•       •       •

1672 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 May 2014 at 7:48 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



220 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-30 09:09:30 AM  

namatad: soseussme: I think I'd better go see a doctor pretty soon. Some gays got married and now I am in a lot of pain, especially my back and shoulders.

It's so insensitive of them, to go around getting married when it's clear they are causing other people so much pain.

If I go punch a gay, I get arrested for assault, but they can get married and there's nothing I can do about it? How is that fair?

/Apologies, I know I am no skinnyhead.

And for that I am truly grateful.

doesnt EVERYONE have skinnyhead on ignore by now?


Ignore is for cowards. I want to know exactly who the arseholes and idiots are.

/oddly they almost always seem to be right-wingers for some reason
 
2014-05-30 09:17:19 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: namatad: soseussme: I think I'd better go see a doctor pretty soon. Some gays got married and now I am in a lot of pain, especially my back and shoulders.

It's so insensitive of them, to go around getting married when it's clear they are causing other people so much pain.

If I go punch a gay, I get arrested for assault, but they can get married and there's nothing I can do about it? How is that fair?

/Apologies, I know I am no skinnyhead.

And for that I am truly grateful.

doesnt EVERYONE have skinnyhead on ignore by now?

Ignore is for cowards. I want to know exactly who the arseholes and idiots are.

/oddly they almost always seem to be right-wingers for some reason


Which is exactly what Ignore is for. Life is too short for some brands of stoopid
 
2014-05-30 09:37:01 AM  
It turns out when you throw in with a group that has hard-wired hatred of you into the core of their ideology, they don't play nice with you.  Go commiserate with the African American chapter of the KKK, you idiots.

What does the Republican Party have to offer you?  Their actual conservative policies have been adopted by Democrats.  The corporate whoring is spread out over both parties.  The only thing that's left is the Evangelical hate-mongering that is leveled against you to begin with.
 
2014-05-30 09:38:56 AM  

hubiestubert: Which is exactly what Ignore is for. Life is too short for some brands of stoopid


THIS.  "Ignore is for cowards" is a slogan by trolls, for trolls.  It's like saying "earplugs are for cowards" and then operating a jackhammer with no ear protection.  All you earn for your "bravery" is noise.
 
2014-05-30 09:59:47 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: namatad: soseussme: I think I'd better go see a doctor pretty soon. Some gays got married and now I am in a lot of pain, especially my back and shoulders.

It's so insensitive of them, to go around getting married when it's clear they are causing other people so much pain.

If I go punch a gay, I get arrested for assault, but they can get married and there's nothing I can do about it? How is that fair?

/Apologies, I know I am no skinnyhead.

And for that I am truly grateful.

doesnt EVERYONE have skinnyhead on ignore by now?

Ignore is for cowards. I want to know exactly who the arseholes and idiots are.

/oddly they almost always seem to be right-wingers for some reason


Ignore is to be used on Farkers who never contribute anything of value to a thread.  If all such Farkers happen to be die-hard Republicans, so be it.
 
2014-05-30 10:06:21 AM  
i116.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-30 10:42:01 AM  

RedPhoenix122: nmrsnr: RedPhoenix122: You mean bigots?

I'm sure that you are probably correct more than you are incorrect, but it is possible for someone to say "listen, if I created the universe, I'd want people to be happy in any way they can, but I fully, truly, and honestly believe that the Bible is the true and immutable word of God, and He says it's not cool. I didn't make the rule, and I don't like the rule, but who am I to countermand God?"

If you truly believe in God, this would not be a hypocritical position, just a sad one.

If they honestly truly believe that the Bible is the true and immutable word of God, then they should be fighting equally as hard against divorce.


That and eating pork.
And shellfish.
And wearing clothes that are torn.
And wearing mixed fiber garments.
And tattoos.
And working on the sabbath.
There's tons more, but my folks taught me not to kick someone once they're down.
 
2014-05-30 11:45:44 AM  

namatad: soseussme: I think I'd better go see a doctor pretty soon. Some gays got married and now I am in a lot of pain, especially my back and shoulders.

It's so insensitive of them, to go around getting married when it's clear they are causing other people so much pain.

If I go punch a gay, I get arrested for assault, but they can get married and there's nothing I can do about it? How is that fair?

/Apologies, I know I am no skinnyhead.

And for that I am truly grateful.

doesnt EVERYONE have skinnyhead on ignore by now?


nope. blocking out stupidity doesn't make it go away...  i make use of the color-coding though, so his (and others) comments are definitely all piss-yellow... :) the usual suspects are all color-coded and it DEFINITELY makes reading threads easier.
 
2014-05-30 12:28:41 PM  

SkinnyHead: unless you just happen to be the wrong religion.


Which religion do democrats exclude by writ of party platform?
 
2014-05-30 12:31:59 PM  

SkinnyHead: kronicfeld: SkinnyHead: unless you just happen to be the wrong religion

Funny, I know quite a lot of pro-gay Christians. Actually, I'm not sure I know a single anti-gay Christian. Someone should tell them that they're apparently the wrong religion.

Some Christians, some Jews, and some Moslems oppose gay marriage for religious reasons.  I'm told that the Democrat Party -- "the party of inclusion, the party of all people" -- would exclude people with those religious views because they are "bigots."   A party that disparages and excludes people on account of their religious views doesn't sound like the party of inclusion, the party of all people.


But how are they excluding them?  No on is saying that a man and a woman can't get married.
 
2014-05-30 12:43:33 PM  
God damn the trolls are out today.
 
2014-05-30 12:47:40 PM  

SkinnyHead: serpent_sky: Actually, most Democrats say churches should have the right to marry who they want and maintain their own rules (as it is, churches can refuse to marry a man and woman. I was married in a Catholic church (ex's choice) and I had to go through interviews with the priest. He could have (and probably should have) said no.

We just think the state should recognize legal marriages. Separation of church and state. Nobody wants to force the churches to do anything they want, and in turn, we don't want the churches to have a hand in the rule of law for those of us who don't share their faith/beliefs.

Is that really so hard to understand?

I understand your position.  The question is, who gets to decide what is a "legal marriage" that the state is supposed to recognize.  For ages, a legal marriage is one man and one woman.  Marriage unites a man and a woman as one flesh.   As a voter, if I am asked to vote on whether the state should change that time-honored traditional meaning of marriage, I vote no.  I'm not a church.  My vote does not violate the separation of church and state.  But he Democrat party thinks that my vote should not count and that I should get no say in the matter.  That's not very democratic.


Doesn't work that way.  Just ask Alabama voters.....

www.bubblews.com

States don't get to legislate away what their voters perceive to be their boogey men..
 
2014-05-30 01:10:54 PM  

SkinnyHead: Karac: The Democratic party does not care about your choice of religious. Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist - they don't care. What they do get worked up about is when you try to take your religious views and write them into secular law.

We kind of have a thing about that whole 'separation of church and state' bit in the First Amendment.

I understand.  That's why the Democrat party is not a "the party of inclusion, the party of all people," as they claim.  They believe that religious people should not be entitled to have a voice in deciding such things as the definition of marriage.  They don't believe that the issue should be determined democratically, by the vote of the people of each state.  Instead, they think that the issue should be determined undemocratically.  That's why they're called the Democrat party, not the "Democratic" Party.


I hereby bequeath unto you your new handle:  PotatoHead. Go forth and Potato!
 
2014-05-30 02:33:48 PM  

anfrind: Tyrone Slothrop: namatad: soseussme: I think I'd better go see a doctor pretty soon. Some gays got married and now I am in a lot of pain, especially my back and shoulders.

It's so insensitive of them, to go around getting married when it's clear they are causing other people so much pain.

If I go punch a gay, I get arrested for assault, but they can get married and there's nothing I can do about it? How is that fair?

/Apologies, I know I am no skinnyhead.

And for that I am truly grateful.

doesnt EVERYONE have skinnyhead on ignore by now?

Ignore is for cowards. I want to know exactly who the arseholes and idiots are.

/oddly they almost always seem to be right-wingers for some reason

Ignore is to be used on Farkers who never contribute anything of value to a thread.  If all such Farkers happen to be die-hard Republicans, so be it.


Before I put someone on ignore, I favorite them, color them black, and put a comment on WHY they are on the soon to be ignored list. If the next couple of times they are COMPLETELY worthless, buh bye.
 
2014-05-30 02:52:10 PM  

PickleBarrel: SkinnyHead: Karac: The Democratic party does not care about your choice of religious. Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist - they don't care. What they do get worked up about is when you try to take your religious views and write them into secular law.

We kind of have a thing about that whole 'separation of church and state' bit in the First Amendment.

I understand.  That's why the Democrat party is not a "the party of inclusion, the party of all people," as they claim.  They believe that religious people should not be entitled to have a voice in deciding such things as the definition of marriage.  They don't believe that the issue should be determined democratically, by the vote of the people of each state.  Instead, they think that the issue should be determined undemocratically.  That's why they're called the Democrat party, not the "Democratic" Party.

I hereby bequeath unto you your new handle:  PotatoHead. Go forth and Potato!


In fairness, even though I changed my registration after the last Primary, I ain't joining the Democrats. Y'all choose your candidates, and if they are better than the rest of the slate, or at least the lesser of two evils, or there are folks on the other tickets that are just plain stupid and dangerous, the Democrat will get my vote. The better man or woman should be who we choose, no matter the appellation at the end of their name. But at this point the party system just has left a bad taste in general.
 
2014-05-30 03:47:04 PM  

nmrsnr: RedPhoenix122: You mean bigots?

I'm sure that you are probably correct more than you are incorrect, but it is possible for someone to say "listen, if I created the universe, I'd want people to be happy in any way they can, but I fully, truly, and honestly believe that the Bible is the true and immutable word of God, and He says it's not cool. I didn't make the rule, and I don't like the rule, but who am I to countermand God?"

If you truly believe in God, this would not be a hypocritical position, just a sad one.


We have a concept called 'separation of Church and State'. If you believe it, fine. If you want it as part of your political platform? You'd better have more than 'Bible says' to back it up.
 
2014-05-30 03:57:39 PM  

NateAsbestos: God damn the trolls are out today.


Meh, just the one.

He is tenacious, though.
 
2014-05-30 04:52:28 PM  

PickleBarrel: SkinnyHead: Karac: The Democratic party does not care about your choice of religious. Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist - they don't care. What they do get worked up about is when you try to take your religious views and write them into secular law.

We kind of have a thing about that whole 'separation of church and state' bit in the First Amendment.

I understand.  That's why the Democrat party is not a "the party of inclusion, the party of all people," as they claim.  They believe that religious people should not be entitled to have a voice in deciding such things as the definition of marriage.  They don't believe that the issue should be determined democratically, by the vote of the people of each state.  Instead, they think that the issue should be determined undemocratically.  That's why they're called the Democrat party, not the "Democratic" Party.

I hereby bequeath unto you your new handle:  PotatoHead. Go forth and Potato!


I think you mean Mr. PotatoHead.
 
2014-05-31 01:52:40 AM  

SkinnyHead: I just don't know why same sex couples think they got to imitate a traditional marriage by pretending that they're husband and wife.


You see, this is your problem.  Things being traditional in no way makes them meaningful, for many hundreds of years the United States had a tradition of institutionalized segregation and racism, those exclusionary 'traditions' are no more valid than the exclusionary 'tradition' of saying marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.

Why is it between a man and a woman?

Because the bible said so?  If that's your reason, I've got to say, I'm not Christian, why are you legislating your religious sacraments into law and forcing people like me who don't share your faith to live by them?

Because it is tradition?  Why is removing that tradition harmful?  Changing a tradition or changing the meaning of a word is not harmful in and of itself unless you have a valid reason that it is harmful.  Anti-gay activists put forth debunked study, after flawed research paper, after discredited dissertation asserting that they have proof that homosexuality is harmful to society at large.  However the actual science behind the topic is settled almost beyond debate.  Find me a serious and respected professional in the field of sociology who honestly believes that gay people are hurting society at large by virtue of existing and I'll be very impressed.

The fact is, the people who think gay marriage is wrong are by-in-large bigots, they have no valid reasons for excluding gay people from the definition of marriage.  Their only real reason is anti-gay animus, they just outright don't like gay people and find their lifestyle repellent - and sure they can think this all they want, but it's not a valid reason for a law.  This has been argued on every level of court in our country and every time it goes to court, the anti-gay parties lose.  They have absolutely NO ground to stand on.  Saying two gay people who are in love can't get married and be afforded the literally THOUSANDS of legal protections and privileges that their heterosexual counterparts take advantage of is outright discriminatory, if you can't see why 'tradition' isn't good enough of a reason to deny people equal rights then I'm truly sorry.

One thing I saw you mention before was that the Supreme Court did not rule on constitutionality of gay marriage.  However, if you review the decision, you actually will see that they set the stage for its ultimate victory.  In the ruling, the majority opinion was that the marriage statute (DOMA) was in violation of the fifth amendment, because it, "[...] for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others."  This ruling made the marriage issue an equal protection issue, you cannot on one hand acknowledge that the Federal government has no legitimate reason to deny gay people the dignity of marriage, and then turn around and rule that states do.  If gay people have an equal protection argument at ALL, the house of cards holding up the anti-gay marriage movement falls.  Which is exactly why you've seen, just in the last month or so, no less than 3-4 different states lose their cases against gay marriage.  There just simply isn't a valid argument against it.
 
2014-05-31 02:02:26 AM  
They don't believe that the issue should be determined democratically, by the vote of the people of each state. Instead, they think that the issue should be determined undemocratically.

Spoken by a Red Party comrade who wants to deny people-not-in-his-party the vote by shutting down DMVs and polling locations.
 
Displayed 20 of 220 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report