The Washington Post put the first White House celebration of Gay Pride Month on the front page Tuesday, but reporter Michael Shear left out some of the president’s most liberal and most supportive lines from the transcript. Obama pledged to be "an ally and a champion" of the gay left’s agenda and hailed gay activists "who have refused to accept anything less than full and equal citizenship."
He implied there was still work to do with all those fuddy-duddies who still followed the "worn arguments and old attitudes" from old sources like the Bible:
There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop. And though we've made progress, there are still fellow citizens -- perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones -- who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes, who fail to see your families like their families and who would deny you the rights that most Americans take for granted. And I know this is painful. And I know it can be heartbreaking.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓And yet all of you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make, but also by the power of the example that you set in your own lives, as parents and friends, as PTA members and leaders in the community, and that's important. And I'm glad that so many LGBT families could join us today for... (APPLAUSE) ... for we know that progress depends not only on changing laws, but also changing hearts and that real, transformative change never begins in Washington.
Shear's account in the Post didn't note this was the first-ever White House Gay Pride Month event, but suggested it was an event "marking the 40th anniversary of the riots surrounding New York's Stonewall Inn." (But Shear did acknowledge that on the Post's Obama blog, 44.)
It might seem amazing -- and yet amazingly ordinary -- that Shear and the Post never found terms like "liberal" or "left-wing" worth using in the entire piece, even for radical activists and bloggers who didn't get invited to the White House because they've been too fierce.
Shear even let Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs claim that the even was "not designed as a way to mollify the gay community or reward its support during the campaign." Gibbs said: "We didn't play a lot of interest-group-based politics in the presidential race." You might even believe Obama didn't show up at interest-group events like the 2007 Democrat candidates forum on the gay cable channel Logo.
When a Republican president or primary candidates court the religious right, the media constantly suggest that they're courting the extreme at the expense of the mainstream. But reporters like Shear obviously avoid the notion that there's political danger for Obama in "mollifying" his ideological base on the libertine left.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So no doubt Obama will lead
July 1, 2009 - 07:48 ET by moderncommentaries83So no doubt Obama will lead the charge to make those "worn arguments and old attitudes" - which prior to today, were protected as something called free speech and free religious expression - hate crimes.
When will Obama propose legislation to shut down all churches who hold to those "old attitudes" - hitherto known as FAITH?
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Now
July 1, 2009 - 07:51 ET by ApodicticLet the tribunals begin!
With the new Czar in charge being the Rev. Wright!!!!
July 3, 2009 - 09:42 ET by Cape ConservativeHe certainly ought to be a great overseer of keeping America-loving people in line!!!
Political correctness will be the death of us yet! I am SO SICK & TIRED of the president giving away our country, our businesses, our values...all to appease those who supported him in the election. I guess I'd like to know just why it is that our Congress is sitting idly by as this man assumes more power than any other president before him. He has NO RIGHT to appoint all of these czars who are not reviewed by Congress and answer only to him.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE will someone in Congress find their backbones and whatever other body parts they have buried and stand up to this man who has chosen the role of dictator rather than as an elected president OF THE PEOPLE.
Speaking of loving America, I just finished reading the June Townhall article on Che. If you want to have your eyes opened to all the gory details of this 'wonderful' man of the people...the fellow whose Si Se Puede became Obama's Yes We Can motto - find a copy! I confess that as a young woman living in Miami at the time, I was too busy raising a family to really understand the horrors of the situation. My folks had even gone to glamorous Havana for a second honeymoon before it closed down. This article gives you lots of inside scoop and explains how all those who are now such great supporters of him would have been the first in line to be SHOT and thrown in the moat - with no questions asked! And it says he even received applause at the UN for stating exactly that...no trials were needed for his executions!!!
Yet, our current president seems to have no problems identifying himself with this monster! They both have/had the belief that there is no room for any other opinion than their own. Those in opposition, in Che's case, were simply executed. Those in opposition, in Obama's case, are slandered and exposed unmercifully such as a guy who just happened to ask a question that brought forth an honest (AS IS BEING PROVEN DAILY) answer about 'redistributing the wealth' from the presidential candidate.
May God Help Americans to stand strong in these bad times. As we march in the 4th of July parades tomorrow, or just watch and HONOR the flag as it passes by, let us all keep the faith that somehow we WILL PREVAIL! Americans have endured worse and come through it and so shall we.
Long Live Freedom & Liberty For All!
This comment comes from a proud Tea Party attendee, otherwise known as a RWRE!! It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue ~ Sam Adams
Obama on Gays - could he be on to something here? ACA
July 1, 2009 - 08:07 ET by acaiguanaHere's the quote that struck me.
"for we know that progress depends not only on changing laws, but also changing hearts and that real, transformative change never begins in Washington."
Do ya think?
So he admits he is failing?
Or is he confused on policy again? Does he have a policy? On anything other than pandering.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
Typical 'progressive'
July 1, 2009 - 08:12 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsTypical 'progressive' behavior. Force the majority to conform to the minority position. No way does 'majority rule' enter into the equation for this crowd. Did you know that white males are now a minority in the American work force? Think we'll see any 'affirmative action' to level the playing field for them? Ha!
D
Write Congress and say vote NO on cap and trade!
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Majority rule? Yes, they know about it.
July 1, 2009 - 08:47 ET by moderncommentaries83"Majority rule" enters into the equation for liberals, most certainly. When they win.
The election of Obama - as professed by the Obama administration - is "proof" that his policies have majority favor and, therefore, cannot be opposed.
Likewise, at the same time traditional marriage amendments passed in several states (including blue states like CA or WI), a few referendi on abortion restrictions didn't. I was told - by liberals who claim to be much more enlightened than me - that since people voted down those restrictions, the majority has spoken and approves of abortion.
So yeah, they know about majority rule, but it only matters when it bolsters the left.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
So is Obama lamenting his
July 1, 2009 - 10:11 ET by Mitchell BlattSo is Obama lamenting his own worn out attitude against gay marriage?
If Edison were to invent the light bulb today, the head- lines would read, '200,000 candle makers lose their jobs.'
This is one of liberals'
July 1, 2009 - 08:15 ET by motherbeltThis is one of liberals' time-honored (I'd say time-worn, but taht would make it invalid) arguments.... that when a certain idea has been around long enough, it automatically becomes worn out and outdated.
This is much like the Clintons' retort when things were brought up after a certain time; that it was "old news" and therefore irrelevant.
It's as if ideas have an expiration date, or a statute of limitations, and after a certain time, they can't be used, and it's time they were discarded.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Be with the cool kids
July 1, 2009 - 08:57 ET by KC MulvilleIt's an adult version of peer pressure. They don't promote the ideas using reason, rather they promote the ideas by associating them with "approved" people. Those who oppose them are considered "uncool" and unacceptable.
It's staggering how much public conversation is conducted by personality, and how little by reason.
yes the old back-handed
July 1, 2009 - 11:55 ET by TruthMongeryes the old back-handed guilt trip/supposedly-more-enlightened intellectual snobbery - very old and time-worn - about a decade ago
Palin/Prejean 2012
Once BHO comes out of the closet-
July 1, 2009 - 08:34 ET by JIMMY1660and shows us all he is a Muslim, he initiates Sharia Law will take care of the Gay movement-they will all be stoned
BHO- THE PROGRESSIVE PIRATE
My thoughts exactly
July 1, 2009 - 10:53 ET by FranksamThe Quran (is that the current PC spelling?) is modern when compared to the Bible, so the treatment of gays, adulterers, thieves, etc as suggested by Muslims must be correct. Everything newer is better, isn't it? Oh gosh, it's almost ten o'clock, so I gotta face east and get on my knees. Buh-bye.
You know, that's
July 1, 2009 - 11:38 ET by moderncommentaries83You know, that's increasingly becoming my attitude.
Not necessarily toward Barack Obama specifically. I don't think he's of any particular religious persuasion because committing to Christianity or Islam would restrict him from doing/saying/promising things to certain groups and possibly hamper his poll ratings (currently -1 according to Rasmussen). I call him a "convenientist" because his religion is saying or doing whatever is convienient given the day, the weather, and the listening audience.
But Obama embraces a lot of policies - multicultural, PC pandering being one of them - that is dangerous. So do a lot of the liberals who adore him.
Fine.
Islam is equal to or better than Christianity and/or Western Culture?
Great. Feel that way. Come back and talk to me when shari'a law is imposed.
Because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that liberals and their ideologies will suffer the most under Islam, which is decidedly anti-progress, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-abortion, and anti-liberal in general.
You reap what you sew, as the saying goes.
I don't want harm to befall anyone, but there's a time when you have to knock the dust from your shoes and carry on. I'm tired of telling people that the path our culture is taking - be it on abortion, gay "marriage", PC multiculturalism, Obama's socialism - will render nothing but difficulty.
They choose not to listen.
I'm knocking the dust from my shoes, doing what I need to survive, and moving on.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
That sounds just like
July 1, 2009 - 11:43 ET by Cryos33"Because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that liberals and their ideologies will suffer the most under Islam, which is decidedly anti-progress, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-abortion, and anti-liberal in general. "
Sounds like Repubs and Islam have alot in common. lol
Sounds like Repubs and
July 1, 2009 - 12:41 ET by moderncommentaries83Yeah. I can see how they're anti-progress, but I must have totally missed the Republican ruling that anything not around in Jesus' time couldn't be used today. (Whereas Islam has).
I can see how they're anti-women, but I must have missed where Republicans advocated the stoning/lashing of female rape victims. (Whereas Islam does). I also must have missed that it was Republicans, and not Democrats, who actually put a legitimate female VP candidate on the ballot in 2008.
I can see how they're anti-gay, but I must have missed where Republicans denied gays exist in America or advocate for and defend the practice of their execution.
I can see how decrying the murder of millions of unborn children (who would, among other things, grow into taxpaying productive citizens) is a bad thing. Most Republicans I know simply want the bad law of Roe overturned and abortion rights delegated to the states. I don't think you'd get that concession from Islam.
And, well, anti-liberal - yeah. But I'm betting liberals had it a whole lot better under Bush (despite protests to the opposite) than they would in Tehran.
But, then, I'm able to discern the difference between Republicans and Islam. Others are, clearly, not as fortunate or capable.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
My guess is
July 1, 2009 - 12:49 ET by Cryos33That you have never heard of sarcasim???
Another Troll
July 1, 2009 - 14:18 ET by stratmanModerncommentaries83 understood you perfectly.
Sheesh, strat
July 1, 2009 - 14:23 ET by BlondeWe need a better class of troll, here. ©
I hope he fails, too.
Blonde: Just another red
July 2, 2009 - 03:53 ET by stratmanBlonde:
Just another red diaper doper baby.
Sheesh is right.
NICE
July 1, 2009 - 14:29 ET by Cryos33Wow look at that you found something I said at some point. Wow great job Sherlock.
Hey Sherlock
July 1, 2009 - 18:45 ET by BlondeIf you can't handle being hoist upon your own petard, STFU.
Like that.
I hope he fails, too.
I've heard of
July 1, 2009 - 19:51 ET by moderncommentaries83I've heard of sarcasm.
It's just terribly hard to spot when so horribly presented.
What gets me is that liberals who claim to be the intellectual and moral superiors of conservatives are pretty much incapable of discerning the difference between Republicans and the Islamic fundamentalist extremists who carry out terror attacks around the globe on a daily basis.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
"Worn arguments and old
July 1, 2009 - 08:40 ET by mattm"Worn arguments and old attitudes" reflects the flawed thinking of those who believe that the passage of time somehow changes what's right and wrong, or that morality or justice is determined by whatever current opinion happens to be. Only stupid people fall for this.
Indeed
July 1, 2009 - 08:48 ET by moderncommentaries83Since, by and large, marriage has been recognized as between one man and one woman in most cultures around the world for most of human history, he's really casting a large net over the people who are intolerant and bigoted toward a small set of people.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Homos
July 1, 2009 - 08:58 ET by trhugWlcome to progressive - educated territory. Christians are hated in the US. Our system has decided "We are above Christian ethics". Having been approached by a homo in a time when I knew nothing about such, I can tell you that there is nothing harmless about sexual perversion. It has the same effect as physical assault! If I had acted as instinct had required, one less person would be on the face of this earth. Militants of any sort will be met by brute force in my world. I have no discussion with murderers,theives,politicians, or lesbians or sexually deviated individuals. Animals of every breed DO NOT engage in such activities. The only thing separating humans from animals is a soul. "Give me two generations of your children to educate and I will change your society" . Allowing that we teach our lids with no Biblical reference, what would one expect for future citizens? People seem to have become treacherous devoid of morality. Relativism is taught,i.e.-there are no evils or good, only accepted and unacceptable. Unfortunately, most people see God as a great benevolent daddy. He also is a God of judgement and wrath. Choose poorly and reap judgement and wrath. His kingdom is not a democratic republic. It is absolutely NOT a matter of public vote what is right or wrong. The laws of God are never changed by any government or poll.
All God says is "Choose this day whom you will serve-God or Mammon." . He does allow choice, but results will be because of choice. Herein most lose understanding of our system. No one wants responsibility for choices. If one really wants wisdom,he should start with understanding the Bible. All proper education begins with Bible wisdom. All else is superfluous.
Since the bible states that
July 1, 2009 - 11:33 ET by 24enakSince the bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman and thus gay marriage should be illegal. I think that we should also make divorce illegal because the bible clearly states the "showever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" Matthrew 5:31-32 and "So they are no longer two but one flesh. There fore what God has joined let no one separate." Mark 10:2-12
The same tired argument that gay marriage undermines the sanctity of your marriage, doesn't divorce undermine the sanctity of your marriage. So if you support keeping gay marriage illegal I hope you also support making divorce illegal.
How are Christians hated in this country? And saying that if you would have acted as instinct required one less person would be on the face of the earth. Is that the proper education you recieved from Bible wisdom. You must have skipped the 'Thou shall not kill' part of the Bible.
The laws of God don't apply because of separation of church and state adopted from Locke by our founding fathers. The laws of God can apply to your personal beliefs and your own moral judgement, but not to the citizens of the United States.
A therocracy is a horrible form of government.
Nice post 24
July 1, 2009 - 11:40 ET by Cryos33Divorce is the #1 thing that is detroying the sanctity of marriage, those who cheat on their wife or husband are the ones who are ruining marriage, not a couple of men or women who would like the right to get married.
How many people on this thread are divorced?
i am - not by choice - MN
July 1, 2009 - 12:38 ET by TruthMongeri am - not by choice - MN is a "no-fault" state
and imho (as a Christian fundie) banishment of homosexuality is simply a community health concern - not religious - thus no church and state issues - same deal with the peds, prostitutes, incest, beastiality, etc etc etc
these are mental and physical disorders - legalizing them is not just bizarre - its hugely uncivilized and irresponsible of us to these particular citizens in need of treatment
Palin/Prejean 2012
There are a lot of
July 1, 2009 - 12:52 ET by moderncommentaries83There are a lot of conservatives who don't like and work against divorce. I wouldn't mind seeing much tighter rules allowing it.
But this argument hinges on the assumption that gays would, somehow, not get divorced. Since the first lesbian couple in MA is splitting up I guess that's not going to happen.
Many will also acknowledge how divorce has hurt our culture. It has, and it shouldn't happen. And the Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce. You get a civil divorce and not an annulment (which has a set of parameters), and you risk living in a state of sin if you get remarried. Marriage is a sacrament that cannot be dissolved by the state.
But this is, of course, going back to the tired liberal argument that because standards are hard to live up to, there shouldn't be any. We can't say that gay marriage isn't a good thing because heterosexuals get divorced!
Execpt that America, and Christianity, are not the only two cultures who have recognized marriage as between a man and a woman. That recognition spans eras, cultures, politics, and religions.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
The Bible says that a man
July 1, 2009 - 12:02 ET by Dan The Man 2The Bible says that a man shall give his wife a certificate of divorce. God knowing man is sinful and will commit sin made rules for the particular sin of divorce. God does not want divorce to happen but makes rules for it so there is not as much chaos.
He does not make any allowances for homosexuality and condemns it as an abomination. Pretty strong words back then.
“You must have skipped the 'Thou shall not kill' part of the Bible.” No you skipped the part that actually says you shall not commit murder, much different than kill.
The laws of God apply to all equally. There is no separation of church and state only that the Federal Government shall make no laws respecting religion. It says nothing about the locals making laws concerning religion.
But you are not going to change your wrong head thoughts.
Wow !
July 1, 2009 - 16:38 ET by ACWThank you for clearing all those lingering questions and grey areas. From God's lips to your ear.
He was deadly accurate in his quotes. If you are here to mock
July 1, 2009 - 23:32 ET by pahuberplease move to another site that readily allows foolish posts like the one you have above.
Not my intention
July 1, 2009 - 23:52 ET by ACWto mock anyone. I am just asking about the for clarification of the poster's implied connection to God.
24ek Thou shall not MURDER... dude..
July 1, 2009 - 12:07 ET by upcountrywaterThe sixth of the ten commandments reads, “Thou shall not kill.” The New
International Version translates it, “Thou shall not murder.” This is
more accurate because the Hebrew word so translated does not refer to
killing in general but to malicious and unlawful killing.
The human slaughter that occurred in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia
illustrates what happens when a society disregards God’s word about the
inherent value of humanity. Remove the foundation for the preservation
of human life and you remove the restraint against murder. As
Dostoevsky put it, “If there is no God, all things are permitted.” Or
in the words of T. S. Eliot, “If you would not have God, then you
should pay your respects to Hitler and Stalin.”
Yup 24ek I agree
A therocracy is a horrible form of government.
Iran is a therocracy and they have no gay folk there, so sez inadinnerjacket...
Reagan VS Liberalism
enak ~ We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are
July 1, 2009 - 23:29 ET by pahuberWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...
enak: "The laws of God can apply to your personal beliefs and your own moral judgement, but not to the citizens of the United States."
Oh, really now... lol perhaps studying the constitution more may help you find out where our laws came from...
It says creator not God for
July 2, 2009 - 09:59 ET by 24enakIt says creator not God for a reason. This is open to interpretation it could mean the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and any other religions god(s). This means that the laws in the Bible (and any other religious books) like marriage is between a man and a woman doesn't apply for our laws.
Not everybody in America is Christian so the laws in the bible wouldn't apply for all. The bible is NOT our constitution. Freedom of religion, separation of church and state.
Since you clearly study the constitution tell me is it before or after the Bill of Rights that any part of the bible is mentioned, quoted.
Perhaps studying history more may help you find out where our laws came from, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was a variation of John Locke's writing.
Locke wrote that in a natural state everyone had a natural right to protect their "life, health, liberty, or possessions.” Locke also believed in separation of powers, sound familar?
WOW
July 1, 2009 - 11:34 ET by Cryos33You should run for political office, your world sounds like a place we should all live.
cryso33, These folks have a job for you if you operate heavy
July 1, 2009 - 15:16 ET by upcountrywatermachinery.
Reagan VS Liberalism
Thanks But No Thanks
July 1, 2009 - 18:44 ET by Cryos33I have a great job already but thanks for looking out for me, that is really sweet!
That's one of your favorite countries Iran, No gays ALIVE there
July 1, 2009 - 19:12 ET by upcountrywaterAre you a democrat FYI
It was the Democrat Party that gave Blacks the poll taxes and literacy tests to keep them from voting… Republican. It
was the Democrat Party that created the Ku Klux Klan as an enforcement
arm to terrorize Black and White Republicans. It was the Democrat Party
that repealed anti-lynching legislation, yet today their very liberals
are hypersensitive any time a noose appears in public.
Reagan VS Liberalism
Your right
July 1, 2009 - 20:03 ET by Cryos33When they were the political party of the south they did, good point, but I have to ask... Who is now the political party of the south? Let me ask you this, do the Rebublicans of today believe what the Rebublicans believed then? Is that the same Democratic party that exist today?
→ Yes Cryos
July 1, 2009 - 20:33 ET by Cool ArrowThat "War on Poverty" LBJ declared has done more to enslave African Americans than any klansman like Robert Byrd could have imagined.
As a result of "free money" people are actually poorer today than yesteryear.
It's your plantation, not mine.
You should really read about more recent history
July 1, 2009 - 20:27 ET by Cryos33Maybe after 1950's or so then tell me which party is more like your Democrat, Dixiecrat, party you are talking about. You know that good Demorat like Strom Thurmond, who I believe died as a... What was it agian, that's right he must have been a Democrat.
c33, Deal with it you are a DEMOCRAT...
July 1, 2009 - 23:10 ET by upcountrywaterIf anything, Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy will
spotlight just who’s been the premiere racists in America today, just
as their self-revised history proves it’s always been: the Democrat
Party.
The only people who have floated the idea of a possible
President Obama assassination have been liberal Democrats. Note: John
Wilkes Booth, a Democrat, assassinated Republican President Abraham
Lincoln for his freeing of slaves, so this kind of has precedent.
Reagan VS Liberalism
It looks like
July 1, 2009 - 18:47 ET by Cryos33Was that your last vacation?
You are a hyper kinetic little thing
July 1, 2009 - 18:50 ET by BlondeWhazzup w/that?
I hope he fails, too.
Cool?
July 1, 2009 - 09:07 ET by trhugSatan was cool, until he crossed God. Got him tossed -along with all of his angels- out of Heaven. Guess where he was tossed . He was sent here to tempt and destroy by lies and deceit all of God's creation on earth!
Is Obama Satan personified? Satan must have been a democrat.
Liberation from what?
July 1, 2009 - 09:22 ET by CobraManWhat do the gays in America need liberation from? Are they being oppressed, disparaged, denied, detained, humiliated, condemned, persecuted, and/or punished by our society due to their sexual orientation? No? I didn't think so. So what, exactly, do they need liberation from here in America?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Gays don't want to be
July 1, 2009 - 09:34 ET by HockeyKidGays don't want to be liberated. They want to be celebrated. They want to be told by everyone they meet that their "lifestyle" is good and wholesome and acceptable in every way. It is the mind of the guilty hoping for absolution but unwilling to repent.
Liberals engage in this thought process constantly. The thief is innocent because he steals to eat (never mind the booze and drugs); the adulterer is innocent because he's trying to "find himself"; the murderer is innocent because he lives on the mean streets; the child molester is innocent because his parents mistreated him, etc., etc., etc. They cannot and will not take responsibility for their own actions.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
That's it exactly
July 1, 2009 - 09:44 ET by CobraMan"Gays don't want to be liberated. They want to be celebrated."
That's it exactly. They want to be treated as a special class, one that needs to be protected, and pampered, and even congratulate for their "special" demographic, like the elitists of old. But the gays forget one thing: This is America and there are no protected classes. That's an Old World belief, one that has no place in America. I'm surprised the "Progressives" don't realize this.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Celebrated
July 1, 2009 - 11:06 ET by BlondeExactly. And the radical-militant gay rights activists (think Perez Hilton) have co-opted the message.
Zombietime, as always, does a great job of covering protests, and all of the bizarro attendees and their lunatic slogans. This one was at an anti-Prop 8 ruling rally. Some of them are pretty funny.
I hope he fails, too.
Come on, CobraMan, you know
July 1, 2009 - 09:42 ET by moderncommentaries83Come on, CobraMan, you know as well as I do that - with liberals - it's always about feelings and intentions. Never actually liberty or results.
As in, they intend for the stimulus (or cap and trade, or universal health care) to work. If it doesn't work, well, too bad...their intentions were good.
The other part of that is feelings. As in, they want no one (at least not a member of their hand-picked, politically correct constituents) to feel bad, or inconvenienced, or otherwise uncomfortable in anything. In other words, the rights of Americans are contingent on the feelings of the most sensitive, thin-skinned person out there. If my free speech, or my free expression of religion, makes a liberal/a gay man/an abortion advocate feel bad then I have to forfeit my rights.
You see this in the attacks on talk radio, in the wake of the shooting of George Tiller, and in the rhetoric used against people who are socially conservative and oppose gay marriage. And the thing is, there's no way marriage amendments in states like CA or WI passed solely on the votes of gray-haired octegenarians. None. Old, young, black, white, liberal, conservative, religious and atheist had to vote to pass such measures in the numbers they always do. It's illogical and irrational to think otherwise.
This has nothing to do with being liberated from any form of oppression (you know, like those non-existent gays in Iran that are executed), or about equality under the law (which could be met with "civil unions")...it's about making something a majority of people object to into something that's approved of and accepted...especially by people who have a genuine ideological opposition to it. So that gays feel good about their lifestyle and get the approval they want (which they believe is a "right").
They need liberation from feeling bad, from us mean old Christians who think marriage his between one man and one woman, who believe that sex should be both life-giving and sacred (hence its being a part of a marriage), they need liberation from the knowledge that some people don't approve of what they do (and, most often, this is directed at the very outrageous fringe who attend "gay pride" parades and things like the Folsom Street Fair).
And this has to come at the expense of the rights of others.
By the way, did you see that researchers are blaming children's films for "perpetuating heteronormativity"? So you can add parental rights into the mix of rights that need to be abolished in order to force our culture to accept a minority position.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Thier own feeling.
July 1, 2009 - 09:48 ET by CobraMan"So that gays feel good about their lifestyle and get the approval they want (which they believe is a "right")."
So, they feel guilty about their own personal activities and they need liberation from their own guilt. That pretty well sums it up, doesn't it?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Perhaps part of it is guilt
July 1, 2009 - 10:01 ET by moderncommentaries83But part of it is just pure narcissism. I don't have to like you, but you have to like me without question.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Their narcissism adds to their guilt
July 1, 2009 - 10:08 ET by CobraManNarcissism is part of it as well, but that very narcissism adds to their feelings of personal guilt, thus compounding it, which is why they have feelings of persecution even thought they're not being persecuted.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
My theory is that there is
July 1, 2009 - 09:47 ET by mattmMy theory is that there is a deep-seated guilt which drives them to seek societal sanction for relief of that guilt, and if they don't get that acceptance, they lash out.
Great Minds Think Alike
July 1, 2009 - 09:54 ET by CobraManThat's my theory as well. It's a common reaction to personal guilt. It's far easier to allay personal guilt when you can convince others that you really aren't guilty than to accept your own guilt and change your behavior accordingly.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
I haven't mentioned this in
July 1, 2009 - 09:24 ET by nolotrippenI haven't mentioned this in a while, but O is most assuredly an anti-Christ.
Lot's son in laws
July 1, 2009 - 10:00 ET by sevenAnd King Asa did that which was good in the sight of the Lord. He drove the sodomites out of the land.
More idiocy from Obama, a man who desires worship.
July 1, 2009 - 09:36 ET by Mike BrattonHow precious for Obama to position himself as the healer of heartbreak, the comforter of pain, and the granter of rights. Those are all things that are solely the function of Almighty God, but our new dictator would have people believe he's the point man for those issues.
Never forget, people, that our new dictator isn't just in it for the political power; he's in it for the adoration.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
there are still fellow
July 1, 2009 - 11:17 ET by Kevroythere are still fellow citizens -- perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones -- who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes, who fail to see that two men having anal sex is something that they and their children should embrace and promote as healthy and natural.
using tools without a clue
July 1, 2009 - 14:59 ET by konoTo borrow computer terminology, the rectal sphincter is an output-only device. Putting something into it is as improper as plugging headphones into your computer's mouse jack.
All this from a punk president that never wore a uniform ...
July 1, 2009 - 11:54 ET by CT...save maybe a Commie Organizer ACORN T-shirt. Only some one that has NO respect for our troops would force them to live with homosexuals. This lefty homo social experiment has no upside except to make disease spreading perverts feel good about themselves.
I think the Gay Rights Movement is actually hurting more
July 1, 2009 - 13:31 ET by UndercoverConservativethan helping.
Either it's my social circle or the class of folks I hang out with, but of the few openly gay folk I associate with, most could give a flying you-know-what about their orientation or society's "acceptance" of it. They're doctors, or blue collar workers, bikers or teachers. They have friends and hobbies.
They are *not* defined by their desires nor do they wish to be. The Gay Rights Movement is full of people with no life, no goals, no identity, other than "teh Ghey!". They're boring to talk to (everything is about gay, sex, politics and sex, gay sex and movies, etc) and there's too much stage-flaming and personal drama in among their "community"members. Always looking for something to be offended about.
I'm tempted to believe that these flamboyant, @ssless chaps in public protest types are a loud obnoxious minority even among those who lean that way. But since they don't make a big deal about it, and don't buy into the "identity politics" scene, no one asks and they don't tell.
When's the last time since high school you know a bunch of straight women and men sat around bragging about how many men or women they'd shagged? or spend time bragging about sex at all? But the gay movement is like some guy bragging about losing his virginity for decades. Special events for gays for everything. Who cares about the sex when going on a picnic? Do straight folk spend all their time sneaking off (or openly) buggering each other? And why the hell does one need a "gay friendly" FAMILY event?!
Then all the drama of women hating other women because "she's just experimenting", or posturing. Or young people deciding they're "gay" to piss off their parents. Then deciding later that the "scene" isn't for them and being accused and called hateful names.
That sort of thing doesn't sound like "getting along" in a community. It sounds like creating more drama and more division. Neither of which are things people want more of added to their lives as they try to exist and raise families in today's world. More drama might be fun for students and dependent people to fill the void that unemployment leaves, but most people just want to get by, possibly raise a family to be proud of, and maybe, have some happiness before they expire.
WWW.GS2AC.COM. 2nd Amendment Grass Roots Action in the Bay Area, CA. We're not all "Breakfast Cereal" folks here! :)
Hold on there...
July 2, 2009 - 10:25 ET by jquamYou really don't know anything about gay people do you? Those people are the minority...but you know what...we support each others' rights to be whoever we want. You don't have to like/accept/endorse it...we just want our rights.
Think Well.
No, you don't want the same rights as everyone else.
July 2, 2009 - 22:01 ET by Mike BrattonYou want extra, added, bonus, special rights that the majority of the population wouldn't dream of requesting, much less demanding. You've made a choice of a sexual persuasion, yet you can't deal with the consequences of such an unfortunate choice--so, instead, you and yours lobby to remove any and all negative results of your immature choice.
Yes, I said "immature." There's a world's worth of difference between being "whoever we want" to be, and whoever we ought to be. Who do you want to be tomorrow? A bank robber? A drug pusher? Liza Minelli? Most Americans don't have the right to be "whoever we want." We choose to live responsibly, and enjoy the benefits that come from making mature decisions. But you and yours want the so-called "right" to live irresponsibly, and to have your collective immaturity forced upon the culture at large and labeled "just another lifestyle choice" when it isn't.
Children want what they want when they want it; adults want what's best, both for ourselves, and for those around us. When will you move from childhood to adulthood?
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Dumb
July 3, 2009 - 00:07 ET by 24enakDumb
Troll
July 3, 2009 - 07:55 ET by general companyMy Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
GREAT response there 24
July 3, 2009 - 09:20 ET by Cape ConservativeMaybe you should just use it as your signature line to save you a little finger work ;-)
This comment comes from a proud Tea Party attendee, otherwise known as a RWRE!! It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue ~ Sam Adams
Scintillating.
July 3, 2009 - 09:46 ET by Mike BrattonIs that the extent of your analysis, or do you have something--anything--substantive to say?
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Here you go
July 2, 2009 - 22:07 ET by general companywe just want our rights.
Are some of them missing? Favortisim is what you want.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
dumber
July 3, 2009 - 00:08 ET by 24enakdumber
Still a Troll
July 3, 2009 - 07:56 ET by general companyMy Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Good morning 24enak
July 3, 2009 - 08:28 ET by cocodrieIf I insulted you and jquam, that's just me - no respect for the perverted.
Why do most of you trolls have numbers in your name? Do you report back according to your number?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good morning cocodrie
July 3, 2009 - 08:46 ET by shawn228Yeesh, what kind of troll would have numbers in their name? ;-)
He had my vote
Good morning Shawn
July 3, 2009 - 08:56 ET by cocodriePlease accept my apologies. I forgot you have numbers in your name.
I know you are not in the troll brigade nor will you be reporting back to headquqrters.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Ahh come on Cocodrie
July 3, 2009 - 09:01 ET by shawn228I was just kidding ,no need to apologize. I promise I'm not in this thread to defend what you refer to as "perverted behavior either" just a mere spectator today :-)
He had my vote
Shawn
July 3, 2009 - 09:19 ET by cocodrieJust having a little fun. I didn't figure you took offense. Have a blessed day.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good evening jquam
July 2, 2009 - 22:10 ET by cocodrieYou already have the same rights as me. If I want to marry again I have to marry a woman. They won't let me marry a man either.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
dumbest
July 3, 2009 - 00:08 ET by 24enakdumbest
Troll for life
July 3, 2009 - 07:57 ET by general companyMy Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
~Fallacy
July 3, 2009 - 09:04 ET by choselife3x"We" don't have a "right" to be "whoever we want". Do people have the "right" to be murderers? Do people have the "right" to be child molesters? Do people have the "right" to be thieves?
Society has boundaries for a reason.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
'equality' of rights
July 1, 2009 - 15:00 ET by kono" . . . there are still fellow citizens -- perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones -- who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes, who fail to see your families like their families and who would deny you the rights that most Americans take for granted"
Nobody's being denied equal rights to marry. Any man has the right to marry any woman, as long as they're both single, old enough, and not blood-kin.
Besides, this isn't about the right to form life-long exclusive commitments that are recognized by the state and accorded spousal privileges of common property, inheritence, hospital visitation, etc. This is about holding up a fundamentally different relationship and calling it the same as traditional marriage.
This is beyond politics -- it's metaphysical. The same lobbying groups are working to allow people to have their birth certificate and driver's license changed to reflect whichever sex they consider themselves to be. They are making themselves above God, by saying their will trumps the reality of what God has made.
It's madness, catered-to and enabled-by political correctness.
Come on Now
July 2, 2009 - 02:31 ET by ChattychitoGay are more liberal now than they ever were. they now want to redefine everything so they wont feel guilty. things like Marriage, family and equality.
"Give them and inch and they want a mile, give them a mile and they want the world."
"A man who doesn't borrow from the brains of others proves he has no brains of his own." CH Spurgeon