(via soupsoup)
Suck on that, far right!
Rush Limbaugh should see if he can get a bulk rate on tickets to Costa Rica now. Or not. No one’s gonna miss his fat ass anyway.
~George
(via soupsoup)
Suck on that, far right!
Rush Limbaugh should see if he can get a bulk rate on tickets to Costa Rica now. Or not. No one’s gonna miss his fat ass anyway.
~George
Alright, let me start out by saying that I am by no stretch of the word a Palin supporter. I can’t stand the lady. Everything she says is either a lie or an opinion I am completely opposed to. But, this is a little ridiculous. Mostly I’m talking about the comments under the article, but the article itself had a negative tone to me. Calling her out for sneaking over the border to receive Canadian health care last week would be one thing, but at the age of five or six I sincerely doubt she was dictating to her parents where she wanted to receive care. That, folks, is not hypocrisy in my mind. I don’t have a problem with it. I think everything she has said about the Canadian system is wrong or exaggerated beyond recognition, but I don’t think her receiving care there when she was a child is hypocritical. Do I think she should know better because she’s actually received care there? You bet your ass I do. And it’s another reason to wonder if even she believes the words that come out of her mouth. But I don’t think it deserves the title of hypocrite. Maybe that’s just me though.
~George
Because of his rambling incoherence I’m not completely sure I followed this, but I’m pretty sure this is a summary of what I just heard Glenn Beck say while doodling on a whiteboard.
Universal health care would be a bad idea because if we actually gave people care they didn’t have they would want more things they didn’t have. So we’d have to give little Suzy (he then drew a sketch of a little girl) health care for her horse (insert horse sketch here). Then she’s going to want universal high-speed internet. And because mortgages are skyrocketing (after struggling with a way to explain how it’s going up he just said “it looks like this” and drew what was clearly an exponential curve. But that’s one of them fancy book learning words that elitists use so he can’t offer that up as an explanation) Suzy is going to lose her home and then she’ll want a universal house. After more pointless ranting he eventually decided his picture was missing food, so Suzy would obviously want a universal sippy cup.
I’m not even going to touch the confusing and disjointed path he took in his progressing fantasy (universal health care = universal horse care = universal high-speed internet = universal housing = universal food supply?). And I know Glenn has wide ranging and unfounded reasons for not wanting health care reform to pass, but the way he was talking about it here it came off as him being completely against any form of universal health care. Can I just ask what the problem is with everyone having access to medical care? Or, if we follow his later examples, housing and food for everyone? Does he really want to leave people homeless and starving without even trying to help? I really do try to stay away from singling out specific commentators, but Glenn Beck is so completely ridiculous that I just couldn’t stop myself this time. I’m not sure if I think it would be worse if he actually believed this stuff or if he’s just passing it off on people for ratings. Either way, he’s no good for anyone.
~George
With the death of Howard Zinn yesterday I felt like I should post at least a little something for a man who did so much to try and make the world better. I can’t recommend A People’s History of the United States enough.
I can’t decide if I’m proud of this lady for coming so close to telling this jackass that he’s an idiot, or if I’m disappointed in her for not screaming it at him. Also, the whole point might be made moot by the fact that Fox News booked this guy probably knowing full well what he was going to say. So having her tell him that strip searching every Muslim man that walks through an airport is maybe not the best idea seems like it may just be a thinly veiled attempt to get the idea out there and at the same time save face by not actually proposing it themselves. Or maybe not.
Regardless, can we talk about this for a second? Near the end he says he doesn’t want racial profiling. Then he proceeds to describe what he does want. Which is exactly racial profiling or I suppose religious profiling if we’re getting technical, just without using those words. And even he seems to be struggling through his explanation without using the word race or religion. Also, about a minute in he says that if 18 to 28 year old Muslim men don’t like being profiled “what are they doing to stop this jihad against the West?” Are you kidding me? They’re not violating the rights of other people, for a start. If just because some crazy Christian attacked an abortion clinic we started strip searching every one of them that walked within a block of any clinic they would go batshit insane. And rightfully so. A few crazy people do not define a group. But just think for a minute on the backlash that decision would cause. I already have to hear every December about the “War on Christmas” just because people would rather be wished a “Happy Holidays” rather than a “Merry Christmas” because they could care less about a holiday they don’t celebrate. So if their actual rights were being violated and the explanation was that they aren’t doing enough to stop the crazies themselves the fallout would be immense. So why is it okay for this guy to suggest the same thing? Come on America, think before you let stupidity erupt from your mouths.
~George
Weighing In is a new series we’d like to start where we both share our ideas on the same topic. If this works well then expect more of them in the future.
___________________________________________________________________________
What Really Is The Issue Here?
In light of the recent vote against gay marriage in the state of Maine, many questions have popped into my head. Just six months ago they were the second state to permit same sex marriage, now due to the “people’s veto” they are no longer that. I am very much surprised at this outcome due to Maine’s reputation as a forward thinking state, now Iowa on the other hand I would not have thought would be for gay marriage but they did pass that revolutionary law. I have even visited Iowa and did not get the impression some of the locals were for same sex marriage. One man even said not to talk about it in front of him because it angered him so. It just goes to show we cannot judge who will or will not be for this issue.
Now on to my questions, these questions are posed to anyone, I feel these are things we should ask others and ourselves. We need to start logically thinking about this topic and stop letting our own fundamentals and morals get in the way. This is a bias issue due to the fact that it is not your life you are affecting. So here I go.
Who are we to try and control other people’s actions? Who are we to tell others how to live their life? What makes one happy is not what will make another happy, but it does not matter what makes you happy. For it is not your life to control. So why are people trying to stop gay marriage? They are human, are they not? Sadly in some people’s eyes they are not, but they are corrupted by man’s religion and have no mind of their own. How can someone think it’s right to deny a basic human right to another? Being with the person you’re in love with for a lifetime legally is not something others should control. For it’s not their lives it’s affecting, neither friend nor foe. I find people who regard gay marriage as morally wrong and say it’s diminishing the sanctity of marriage should take a good look around them. The amount of divorce in this country is absurd and the amount of infidelity is worse. So who in fact is diminishing it, the people who aren’t allowed legally or the ones who are?
Marriage is not only a religious rite anymore. More and more people are getting married by a justice of the peace or an ordained minister, which by the way you only have to take an online test of some sort to become or pay for it, where is the religion in that? The answer none, so be off with your crazy antics about religion and stop getting in the way of others happiness because you think it’s wrong. It does not matter what you think it’s not your life, so take a step to the left and get out of the way.
Heart,
Natalie
___________________________________________________________________________
With Liberty And Justice For Some
Natalie already covered most of my objections to opponents of gay marriage in the moral sense. We both have the same ideas on that matter. So instead of repeating the same things over again I’d like to hit it from a different angle. Something that angered me just as much as anything else when I heard about the vote in Maine.
Plainly stated: Human rights are not up for vote!
It’s simple. I don’t even see how arguments can be made against that basic idea. What if people started to try and pass laws forbidding Christians to get married? The shitstorm would be Biblical! (Haha, get it?) All the time people make the argument that gay people can be denied equality because they choose that lifestyle. Bullshit. At no point in my life did I make a conscious decision to be attracted to females. So why would it be different for anyone else? And even if we accept that argument, then that just makes an argument for denying rights to any religious group of my choice all that much stronger. They chose to worship that god in that way. So they could just stop. And no more denial of rights. Easy right?
The other argument I hear all the time by opponents of gay marriage is that Christian values should govern this country because it was founded as a “Christian Nation”. My ass it was. The people who founded this country were deists, yes. But most sure weren’t Christian. For example, we all remember that Thomas Jefferson guy, right? He drafted the Declaration of Independence. What would he have to say on the subject? Oh, here we go! Here’s a quote from a letter he wrote.
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
Pretty clear, no? How about Benjamin Franklin? He wrote something that seems to make his position pretty clear.
“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.”
I’m not saying the country was founded as an un-Christian nation or without Christians. But by no means was it the core belief system behind the nation’s founding.
It seems like it’s the same people who hold the Constitution up in front of them to justify much of what they do, clinging especially to the First and Second Amendments like driftwood in an ocean, that at the same time might as well be wiping their asses with the Declaration of Independence. I know they tend not to be big on reading, but you only have to get to the second sentence to reach the part where ALL people are created equal. So let’s start treating them that way. Marriage for one means marriage for all.
~George
The absurdity, overwhelming hypocrisy, and nauseating ignorance have, for once, left me completely speechless. This article is so utterly and completely wrong that I just want to shout my objections at the author and everyone who believes this shit. But I can’t even pick a fallacy, lie, or bigoted opinion to start disputing. My mind is just a jumble of frustration. Even worse than the article (I didn’t think that such a statement would be possible at first) are the assenting comments. I tried to read them and got through about 30 before I just couldn’t take it any more. I don’t even know what to do with myself after reading this mess. Ugh, I’m not even going to try. Anyone who needs convincing that everything in that article is total bullshit cannot be reasoned with anyway. I hope you’re not one of them.
~George
The lengths these people will go to in order to protect the people/companies/organizations that bankroll their campaigns is hilarious (read:disgusting). I mean isn’t this something we should all be able to agree upon? There’s no abortion issue involved, they’re not asking for people to pay for anything new and special, they just want to punish rapists and those that enable them. Am I missing something? On top of all that, isn’t one of the tenants of conservatism and the Republican party in general punishing criminals? Sometimes a bit more than seems reasonable? I guess that all goes out the window when money is on the line. Isn’t our government great!