Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
Your host, PM 'Papa' Carpenter
Biden

***

  • ***

********


« The week that was: a bonfire of sanities | Main | Of Posner, Bartlett et al: a truly conservative uprising »

June 28, 2015

Comments

I agree. When it comes to asinine frothing ( his kink appears to be frothetage, he likes to rub up against like minded fools) streif is my Redstate favorite. If you see a missing comment it may even be one of mine from one of my very short lived anonymised personas. I felt it neccessary to observe that the Supreme Court did not overturn 6000 years of morality. And that I had heard that other countries inhabited by humans had beat them to the punch without much consequence and by quite a lot of time. Had he heard of Canada I asked? Or any of the other countries that allow gay marriage on the map I provided. Guess what happened?

For being anti-gay, they sure are a bunch of drama queens. What is going on in their own minds that they think churches will be shut down, and people who work for them will go bankrupt, or be imprisoned or worse, just because they don't want to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. I have said it before, and I will say it again: These people wouldn't last two seconds under the persecution that the gay community has had to endure, at the hands of people like them I might add. Last week I asked for a word to describe people that are so upset, so butt-hurt that other people will not die due to lack of access to health care. Now I am asking for a word to describe people that are so upset, and clutching their pearls over the right of two consenting adults who love each other wanting to enter into a legal contract based on that love. Here in red state California I am surrounded by this kind of thinking, and after all these years, I still struggle to make sense of it.

Let go Anne. Do not try to make sense of the irrational. Your point about choice is key. They imagine that gays chose the lifestyle that resulted in endless oppression, beatings and even murder, discrimination in every aspect of public life. Their choice to be oppressors? Perfectly natural. The fact that there is not the slightest hint of Christianity in their position troubles them not at all.

I would also like to ask: What does it say about a political party that they must pander to this kind of bigotry to win primary, if not an election? They can't still be stupid enough to think they could win a general election with this kind of naked bigotry can they? Do they actually think the same as the people they pander to or is this the worst kind of political prostitution? Or are they just stuck in 2004 mode?

Your point is well taken, Peter. I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around such cruelty, just to win an election.

But they won't win. Parenthetically I hope you won't mind if I use your drama queen line. It is spectacular.

They won't win because they sing only to their own ever shrinking choirs. Not all churches advocate for intolerance and even the ones that do are shrinking. It took me but a few minutes of reading to determine the game plan as laid out by Erick Erickson and others. They are going to make this about religious freedom. That is the memo our friend David got that he is being so dramatic about. But unfortunately they have already rejected religious tolerance with regard to Muslims. And the only people who will let them get away with that is them. I certainly won't. I'll be right there pointing out what hypocritical blowhards they are at every opportunity. As will quite a lot of other people.

I can't help but wonder why they don't oppose divorces. Doesn't the Marriage Vow say "until death we do part"? Or something along those lines?

Ok. What is "streiffing"? Cannot find a def anywhere.

Ok. Never mind. I see the reference.

It's some of both stupidity and prostitution, Anne. I agree with Peter you shouldn't dwell on it. Sorry about the cliches, but an old saying is "politics ain't beanbag," which means about the same as "all is fair in love and war."

I agree with you and the commenters above. Apologies in advance but the wringing of crying towels, rending of garments, gnashing of teeth and scribblings of the desperate and incoherent have already bored me, so I'll take a tangent with a promise to make a related point.

I've tried to explain here that conservatives have a legitimate view of the Bible and that their chosen view is important in explaining their other beliefs and actions. My attempts have been clumsy or misinterpreted. Some liberal friends have said things like "I'm not religious either, but I'm spiritual." At a point I realized spiritualism is provoked by ideas or visual cues that ring true emotionally. They might not actually be true, but that's irrelevant. This morning I watched a talk featuring David Korten, who is a writer with a PhD in business. He's way ahead of me on this line of thinking and has come up with an interesting counter to conservative spirituality. It's too complex to explain in a comment, but his web page is here: http://www.davidkorten.org/ and the talk I watched is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aad6E9TgqS0&feature=youtu.be

I have my own theories on this. Where once they used dog whistles to send messages they are now forced to use megaphones. Their shrinking bases demand it. If you look at how astoundingly divisive the flag issue was and remains you can see their problem. How exactly do you keep your racist base happy when you desperately need black and Hispanic votes to win national offices? The only way I can see that they can telegraph the contradictory messages is to have different Republicans preach to different choirs but refuse to criticize each other for it. This liberates them somewhat for it allows obnoxious assholes like Trump to scream racism while it makes guys like Bush look sane. And all the "saner" candidates have to do is refuse to criticize fellow Republicans as they normally would refuse to do anyway. The silent endorsement of the Republican Id is what they are hoping to achieve without getting caught doing it. The great new Republican message? You don't have to be a racist homophobe but, by golly, we don't mind if are.

Xtians used to jail gays. Now they're afraid their former victims will return the favor?

Could be. Bush is trying to stay above the fray, but I wonder if they're really that coordinated. I wouldn't doubt Trump is playing the role of appealing to the worst of the worst, but most of the others have already taken a few pot shots, mostly at Paul. It's been fairly subdued so far, but it won't be surprising if there's a free-for-all once some get desperate to stand out. What seems a little worrying is that Haley actually got credit for her flag speech from people like Eugene Robinson. There's a dynamic there I can't make sense of yet.

It's not hard to imagine Scalia writing an opinion to make divorce punishable by death.

I think it's a bit of alll of the above. But what's really hurting them, and will only hurt more, is that the country is moving on. More than anything else, America is a country that embraces change. Reagan and Reaganism was, to many Americans, a welcome change from what they saw as an ossified and out of touch Democratic Party. But now it's the Republican platform that's ossified and out of touch, and their responses come across as those of small-mineded reactionaries.

And, the Democrats are finally getting better at framing. Look at Hilary Clinton's recent positions. When you set the bar at automatically registering every 18 year old to vote, and make voting easier for all Americans, the Right's already specious arguments for tighter control are both more naked and indefensible in practice. Ditto calling for a Constitutional amendment that clearly states that corporations are not people, and that Congress has the right to make, and the exective has the right to enforce laws limiting the amount and type of campaign contributions. Will either pass? Probably not, but that's not the point, no more than it was for the Right to get a balanced budget or prayer in school amendment pass. The point is to use these positions to shift the terms of the debate. By comparison, they sure sound more appealing than Sen. Cruz's desire for the election of judges.

"The same-sentiment marriage of theological certainty and political dogmatism is a common feature of the American right."

Or Left, depending on where you are standing!

Well, if it's dogmatic theology that gays have the right to be married, however they see fit, that's a pretty weird kind of theology. I though you conservative or libertarian types were all about the right to freedom as long as it doesn't limit anybody else's as well. It's hard to see how gay marriage is such a threat. If you don't like gay marriage in this country, then don't get gay-married in Amerca.

Hope that clears that up for you, Dave, and thanks for channelling Monty
Python's argument clinic .

The greatest minds the Republicans have to offer are working on this conundrum at this moment. How can we make religious liberty a central belief of our party while denying religious liberty to every religion we don't like? The same people are working on the Republican health care plan. In the meantime the memo has gone out ( Joe Scarborough got it this morning ) all fifteen Republican candidates oppose gay marriage just like Obama and Clinton used to do. So there.

Peter,
"How can we make religious liberty a central belief of our party while denying religious liberty to every religion we don't like?" EXACTLY. I hope I can stop seeing red over the hypocrisy in time to enjoy the spectacle they'll all make of themselves this election season.

The comments to this entry are closed.