Throwing glitter rather than debating gay marriage
While I appreciate Michelle Bachmann’s charisma and her ability to articulate the unifying message of the Tea Party, I have some concerns about her past statements on state recognition of same-sex relationships. That said, if you’re going to take issue with her arguments, do so in the same manner she offers them.
Why do some gay lefties feel the need to throw stuff on their ideological adversaries:
Why are they so reluctant to engage them?
Via Instapundit.
RELATED: Note the words I wrote in a blog post two years ago that Michelle Malkin chose to feature in a post on civility and tolerance. Why does the woman in the video above prefer political theater to serious argument?
UPDATE: Over at RedState, Caleb Howe comments on this video:
“She can run, but she can’t hide.” Yeah, nothing says “I’m in hiding” like running for President, plainly stating your views repeatedly on national television, and speaking at a major conference. . . .
“The left: we throw stuff and stuff.” Powerful message.
Yeah, well, throwing stuff is a lot easier than acknowledging your adversary’s points and countering them with well-thought out arguments.
UP-UPDATE: Even Bachmann’s sensible critics castigate the glitterer. At Dump Bachmann, Eva Young writes:
I personally condemn this move. Here at Dump Bachmann we’ve been exposing Michele Bachmann’s words and record. This glitter bombing of candidates doesn’t accomplish anything.
67 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
What exactly is there to debate? These people are basing their arguments off of faith and holy text, to them their arguments are absolute and they refuse to listen to reason.
Comment by Dooms — June 18, 2011 @ 5:45 pm - June 18, 2011
Why does the woman in the video above prefer political theater to serious argument?
Debate is difficult. Temper tantrums are easy.
Comment by V the K — June 18, 2011 @ 5:59 pm - June 18, 2011
Yeah I was gonna say the same: Because it’s easier.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 18, 2011 @ 6:11 pm - June 18, 2011
Glitter is better than pies; just ask Anita Bryant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS91gT3XT_A
Comment by Sebastian Shaw — June 18, 2011 @ 6:21 pm - June 18, 2011
You mean like declaring the debate over, calling anybody who disagrees with you a denier or a racist? Or how about pissing and moaning because nobody cares that you grew up black in America?
If I threw a dog turd on you, calling it “good natured” and “light- hearted”, would you laugh it off?
Comment by TGC — June 18, 2011 @ 6:25 pm - June 18, 2011
What exactly is there to debate? These people are basing their arguments off of faith and holy text, to them their arguments are absolute and they refuse to listen to reason.
You just described the gay left, unintentionally but correctly.
Comment by NYAlly — June 18, 2011 @ 6:25 pm - June 18, 2011
You just described the gay left, unintentionally but correctly.
Unfortunately, the gay left are too dim and far to self-absorbed to realize this applies to them.
Comment by V the K — June 18, 2011 @ 6:28 pm - June 18, 2011
Well, Dooms, thanks for helping making my point!
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 18, 2011 @ 7:40 pm - June 18, 2011
Dooms also proves the thesis of Ann Coulter’s new book, Demonic. Thank you, Dooms. Do you want glitter with that?
Comment by Sebastian Shaw — June 18, 2011 @ 7:57 pm - June 18, 2011
Dan, why do some of Ms. Bachmann’s statements on state recognition of same-sex relationships trouble you when the absence of such recognition hasn’t/doesn’t prevent gays from living open, free, succesful, happy, and fulfilling lives with a partner (or without one)? You yourself have admitted this, so why do you want official recognition of your sexual lifestyle so badly? What’s the REAL reason?
It’s not because such recognition is vital to gays’ well-being. It’s not because the legal benefits of marriage can’t be secured by gays through other means, such as wills. So what is the reason? I think it’s what someone wrote on this blog over a year ago, namely, that legalizing gay marriage is about defeating Christianity and (social) conservatism. That’s the real goal of getting official recognition for homosexuality. And I think you won’t admit that because doing so would expose you as much more socially left and hostile to traditionalists and orthodox faith than you’ve let on. What say you?
Comment by Seana-Anna — June 18, 2011 @ 8:08 pm - June 18, 2011
SA has a boner for calling Dan a hypocrite again. Can AE be far behind?
Comment by TGC — June 18, 2011 @ 9:22 pm - June 18, 2011
“It’s not because the legal benefits of marriage can’t be secured by gays through other means, such as wills.”
Actually, Seanna-Anna, that’s simply not true, even though I hear people say it over and over. You ought to check out the story of Mark Goldberg and Ron Hanby: http://wakingupnow.com/blog/kafka-and-nom
Or perhaps the story of Shirley Tan: http://wakingupnow.com/blog/noms-assault-on-the-family
Marriage has many benefits crucial to committed partners that simply cannot be secured except through marriage recognized reciprocally between states and at the federal level.
Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 18, 2011 @ 9:49 pm - June 18, 2011
The legal issues Rob Tsinai references can easily be addressed through relatively minor adjustments to contract law. However, as gay activists has made clear, that is not the objective of gay marriage activists. In the words of one New York politician, the goal is to “redefine what the American family.” Which is exactly what we opponents oppose.
Comment by V the K — June 18, 2011 @ 9:57 pm - June 18, 2011
The legal issues Rob Tsinai references can easily be addressed through relatively minor adjustments to contract law. However, as gay activists has made clear, that is not the objective of gay marriage activists. In the words of one New York politician, the goal is to “redefine what the American family is.” Which is exactly what we opponents oppose.
Comment by V the K — June 18, 2011 @ 9:58 pm - June 18, 2011
“What exactly is there to debate? These people are basing their arguments off of faith and holy text, to them their arguments are absolute and they refuse to listen to reason.”
I am not surprised that some religious people have such negative views of secularists given how some secularists derogate religion and its adherents so maliciously. Who are you to say that religious beliefs are not a valid argument? Do you have no respect for something so many people believe in so strongly? Why must some secularists be so malicious to these people and their beliefs when they are not harming anyone?
If they are concerned that legalizing gay marriage, or other things that the bible speaks against, will lead to a less moral society in which they can raise their families, then those are legitimate concerns. Stating that their beliefs are not worth debating is, in my opinion, hurting your own cause. Like many other people have said, it would be vastly more productive to engage in a rational discussion, or at least attempt to. I’m sure there are a few religious zealots that do not listen to reason, but your statement makes a pretty broad generalization.
Comment by Naamloos — June 18, 2011 @ 11:14 pm - June 18, 2011
I would have preferred a pie for Michelle. The glitter would be more suitable for her husband, Marcus, and I bet he would think so, too.
I can just imagine what a Bachmann administration would look like: While Michelle is running the country into the ground, her not-gay husband, Marcus, will be running a Christian ex-gay counseling clinic in the White House. The Minnesota Independent reports:
Oh, well, I guess it’s traditional for every first lady to take up a cause.
* As Marcus seems to demonstrate, ex-gay doesn’t mean straight.
Comment by Richard R — June 18, 2011 @ 11:15 pm - June 18, 2011
Exactly, V the K. And you redefine the American family by defeating Christianity and conservatism.
And I find it revealing that Cuomo urged senators to “vote their conscience, not their fears”. Translation: vote the way that will make or keep you popular with the social left and don’t think about the possible long term consequences. I pray that short-sighted self-interest and anti-Christian bigotry will not win out over reasoned consideration of future effects and unwavering and intrepid commitment to Christian principles.
Comment by Seana-Anna — June 18, 2011 @ 11:16 pm - June 18, 2011
Exactly, V the K. And you redefine the American family by defeating Christianity and conservatism.
And I find it revealing that Cuomo urged senators to “vote their conscience, not their fears”. Translation: vote the way that will make or keep you popular with the social left and don’t think about the possible long term consequences. I pray that short-sighted self-interest and anti-Christian bigotry will not win out over reasoned consideration of future effects and unwavering and intrepid commitment to Christian principles.
Comment by Seana-Anna — June 18, 2011 @ 11:16 pm - June 18, 2011
Sorry for the double post at #17 and #18.
Comment by Seana-Anna — June 18, 2011 @ 11:23 pm - June 18, 2011
I still don’t understand the refusal of the Gay Left (and even of some in the gay Right) to compromise and say to the Social Conservatives, “…Fine, I understand your objections even if I don’t agree with them. Give us Federal civil unions-equal-to-civil marriages so that we have all the protections and obligations granted to all citizens by the Constitution. We have more important problems that have to be solved to preserve the Republic.”
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — June 18, 2011 @ 11:36 pm - June 18, 2011
First you say her not-gay husband, Marcus, will be running a Christian ex-gay counseling clinic in the White House.
And you back it up with:
Which is it?
Comment by TGC — June 18, 2011 @ 11:53 pm - June 18, 2011
And I’d be curious to know how you think she’d increase the debt over the current $14 trillion and a $1.4 trillion deficit, raise unemployment higher, destroy the dollar further, raise costs further etc.
The country has already been run into the ground by dumbass liberal fucktards hellbent on a Socialist Utopia whilst keeping the people crushed under their heel.
Comment by TGC — June 19, 2011 @ 12:00 am - June 19, 2011
What’s the point of arguing with someone who thinks that you’re less of a citizen than they are, undeserving of the same privileges afforded to those born into a group that happens to be a majority? I honestly don’t even see why I need to debate with people who think I deserve less than them because of who I am.
By throwing glitter, we don’t have to give any respect to anti-gay bigotry that serves to demean us as a minority group. Why even waste the effort of trying to justify the way you live your life? Straights don’t have to do it – neither should I.
It doesn’t matter anyway – just wait until my generation wakes up and realizes the importance of voting. We’ll still debate economics – because that’s a worthwhile topic with serious and real ramifications on the living standards of all – but social issues? Good luck, because we’ll be so far to the left that most of you will find this country unrecognizable. And that’s a good thing, because my America is constantly and continuously progressing toward a future where all people are treated equally under the law.
Comment by svelte — June 19, 2011 @ 12:12 am - June 19, 2011
Ted B., “civil-unions-equal-to-civil-marriages” is redundant because marriage IS a civil union. You can take all the vows you want in church, but if you don’t have a civil marriage license your union is not legally binding in the eyes of the state. That’s why I oppose civil unions. I understand that “civil unions” is Orwellian doublespeak for marriage. It’s an attempt to con traditionalists into supporting gay marriage by changing the “symbolism”, i.e., the wording of the argument but not the substance, i.e., the same benefits under the law as marriage. If you have all the legal rights, benefits, and obligations of marriage then you’re married, no matter what the law actually calls your relationship. I’m not falling for that Orwellian trickery, so thumbs down on civil unions for me. And also for “domestic partnerships”, for the same reason.
Comment by Seana-Anna — June 19, 2011 @ 12:36 am - June 19, 2011
5.We live in a nation that is one client, one attorney and one judge away from overturning anything the majority of Americans want. That ought to cause us to tremble but it’s great if you don’t want to bother to vote in any election but throw little pieces of glitter at people. How many of the glitter-flingers have bothered to vote in the past decade?
Comment by Dottie Laird — June 19, 2011 @ 1:25 am - June 19, 2011
Yes, because clearly, everyone on the left has chosen to voice their opposition by throwing glitter at people they don’t like. I have chosen to blindly follow this anonymous young woman. Just the other day, the New York Times told me this and thank God they gave info on where I can buy glitter wholesale.
PS – Nice touch with the guy laughing when the woman at the end said “integrity of Michele Bachman” LOL
Comment by Kevin — June 19, 2011 @ 1:53 am - June 19, 2011
I was married for 48 years. I was 36 when I got married. In all of that time I did not find any difference in being married than being single. We could file joint income tax but that may not have been an advantage because I know many couple that are filing separately for fianancially reason. I know many guys that married girls in Europe, Asia and Aust. and brought them home. But I understand that has come to an end. If you have a boy or girl that you want to bring to America, its better just get them come as a student.
Many gays think as the foreigners did of America. If they only could get here they could pick the gold off the streets. When they got here, they were surprised to find things were different from what they thought.
There are people picking the gold off the streets. They are the devorce lawyers.
Don’t get me wrong. Marrage can be very good, but you have to make it that way AFTER you are married. You will have no more advantages than you have right now. I read all of your comments but I think you are just looking for that gold
Comment by John W — June 19, 2011 @ 3:23 am - June 19, 2011
Hi, I think even if they tried to respectfully engage her she would run away with her ears plugged even if the congresswoman and the get equal crowd agreed to disagree.
Yes, assaulting people with glitter is not cool. If they did that to President Obama the Secret Service would basically arrest them and they would get harder charges than when they chained themselves to the White House fence.
The better idea is to change the narrative peacefully with viral videos that would be positively responsive like the Its Get Better video series.
Comment by Matt Munson — June 19, 2011 @ 3:27 am - June 19, 2011
Daniel, If you want to throw glitter on me, the invitation is open.
Comment by Vinci S. — June 19, 2011 @ 3:49 am - June 19, 2011
Dude, you’re pitting glitter against serious debate?
Newsflash.
With the glitter, you got a bunch of sheep.
FYI.
Comment by Vinci S. — June 19, 2011 @ 3:51 am - June 19, 2011
Without the glitter, you got a bunch of sheep.
FYI.
Comment by Vinci S. — June 19, 2011 @ 3:52 am - June 19, 2011
Again …
girl who throws glitter (or supports those who do on camera)
vs.
guy who criticizes her
Comment by Vinci S. — June 19, 2011 @ 4:38 am - June 19, 2011
So gay people and their friends who oppose redefining marriage are against rights? Okay. And throwing glitter proves what? Someone tell this lady that she isn’t a black. At least Oscar Wilde was funny.
Comment by Ben — June 19, 2011 @ 5:09 am - June 19, 2011
Action vs. Words.
Comment by Vinci S. — June 19, 2011 @ 5:25 am - June 19, 2011
It seems, Dan, that you’ve ignored what Sebastian Shaw (at 9) has not: Ann Coulter’s latest book.
Coulter’s thesis: the Left runs on a mob mentality, so symbolism (or supposed symbolism, as in the glitter equals the rainbow equals diversity crap) counts far more than substance. Mobs cannot reason with anyone for they don’t run on reason in the first place.
Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — June 19, 2011 @ 7:06 am - June 19, 2011
The glitter is fairy dust. What else does it symbolize? If gays prance around throwing fairy dust hither and yon, how, pray tell, does that help “close the gap” between gays and straights?
What child wouldn’t be charmed with the gay uncle who comes to visit and always throws glitter all over the dinner guests as grace is said? He might even shout: “I’m G-A-Y and I’m in your face!!!”
Nothing to debate, just equal rights for the faeries.
Comment by Heliotrope — June 19, 2011 @ 8:34 am - June 19, 2011
Senator Ma’am needs some fairy dust right about now; the plastic surgery ain’t working.
Comment by Sebastian Shaw — June 19, 2011 @ 9:10 am - June 19, 2011
[...] Gay Patriot wonders why liberal discourse always involves throwing stuff like glitter [...]
Pingback by Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup – Father’s Day Edition » Pirate's Cove — June 19, 2011 @ 10:53 am - June 19, 2011
TGC said (#21):
“First you say her not-gay husband, Marcus, will be running a Christian ex-gay counseling clinic in the White House.
And you back it up with:
‘Dr. Bachmann told the paper that he does not encourage gays to become straight’
Which is it?”
——
You haven’t been paying attention. Overwhelming evidence indicates that ex-gay does not mean attraction has changed from homosexual to heterosexual. Many self-identified ex-gays admit that. It means pretending and/or deluding one’s self and others that they are straight.
If you had read the block-guote from the news article, you would know that Marcus is most definitely promoting ex-gayism.
And it should be noted that the mindset of gayness being unacceptable has historically often resulted in innocent people being deceived into dysfunctional marriages. But people like Marcus would tell you that is somehow more beneficial to society than acceptance of gay people.
Wouldn’t it be better for society if all gays felt comfortable seeking suitable partners rather than faking their way through life as the only path to social acceptance? If you had a daughter, would you want her to marry an ex-gay man?
Comment by Richard R — June 19, 2011 @ 11:40 am - June 19, 2011
Given that Dooms supports supressing the right to bear arms because of what people *might* do. I’d guess our resident racist supports keeping government recognition of same sex partnership away from ‘teh gheys’ because of how they might abuse it.
Good to know Dooms’ logic thus opposes recognition of same sex partnerships.
Re: Glitter throwing. From a legal POV, isn’t that assault?
Comment by The_Livewire — June 19, 2011 @ 12:40 pm - June 19, 2011
Oh this is good, not only was race never brought up, but now you people can’t help but continue to make things up. This website is sad, none of you have the moxie to stand up to these people, you rather gain cheap political points (and the approval of daddy who never loved you anyway) by tearing down your fellow gays.
Listen up, why is it us who needs to make a compelling argument FOR equality? These people are using outright illogical (and frankly outdated) ideas to push their bible thumping on the rest of us. The burden of proof rest squarely on THEIR shoulders
Comment by Dooms — June 19, 2011 @ 12:48 pm - June 19, 2011
I agree with #20 Rhinos right on.
What can we conservatives throw at leftist liberal Democrats when we get the chance to get into their speeches or events?
Glitter= bag of condoms (weinner)
glitter= shredded old bills (Obamas debt)
glitter=
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — June 19, 2011 @ 12:56 pm - June 19, 2011
Let me see if I can get this right, you want a ceremony that’s Christian(manandwoman) but you want to totally change it? I know for a fact that everyone knows someone that is gay, whether in their own family or friends and their family and they want everything in the world for them that’s why most Americans are for civil unions. Most Christians are not anti-gay, in fact they are so generous to a fault and that’s what the glitter throwers are counting on. The country is waking up to how many times they have had to compromise their standards and beliefs and look where it has gotten us. Enough with the Jerry Falwells of the right, they weren’t Christian anyway, I think it was just a political ploy to rob us and their congregations. For so long the money flowed and it was all theater, but that is at it’s end, we’re broke. We all want LESS government to live our lives the way we want and that means keeping more of your hard earned money so you can fly to where ever you want and have the life/ceremony of your dreams, less government means more freedom to earn and live, without hurting those around you, the way our hearts desire, doesn’t everyone want to be able to do that? Well, this Christian will defend your rights with civil unions, please don’t ask me to change my traditions/promises to God when you don’t believe or can’t make that promise/marriage in God’s traditions/words.
Comment by jann — June 19, 2011 @ 1:18 pm - June 19, 2011
One more thing, there are several reasons why I don’t like Bachmann, I don’t trust her and I think she’s in there to divide the TParty for Romney. I’m a Palin girl who is for civil unions for gays and has governed that way.
Comment by jann — June 19, 2011 @ 1:24 pm - June 19, 2011
And that’s a good thing, because my America is constantly and continuously progressing toward a future where all people are treated equally under the law.
Actually, your America is already visible in places like Detroit and Chicago that have been socially liberal for decades — a balkanized, race-obsessed cesspool of functional illiterates with children by five different partners who can’t hold a job without byzantine hiring quotas, preferential treatment, and the like that completely remove performance and productivity from the equation.
In short, in the process of “equality”, you have dragged everyone down to the lowest common denominator. In an attempt to make sure no one feels bad for promiscuity and irresponsibility, you have so demeaned family and marriage that you’ve created entire generations of illegitimacy — which then perpetuates itself in an endless cycle of despair, poverty, and hopelessness.
Economics don’t matter at that stage. You’ve so destroyed the fundamental unit that perpetuates health, welfare, and education that nothing can grow and develop. You’ve created an entire permanent unskilled underclass — and all because you didn’t have the balls to draw a distinction between right and wrong, valued and unvalued.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 19, 2011 @ 1:56 pm - June 19, 2011
Wouldn’t it be better for society if all gays felt comfortable seeking suitable partners rather than faking their way through life as the only path to social acceptance? If you had a daughter, would you want her to marry an ex-gay man?
The fact that gays like yourself are pathological liars who would deliberately deceive a daughter for your own selfish interests is the problem there, Richard R. Furthermore, given how the AIDS epidemic showed that “out” gays will continue to lie and deceive their sex partners for selfish reasons, even when it makes them sick in the process, it is quite obvious that marriage will not stop you from pathologically lying.
Gays like yourself who scream that you’re never responsible for your own behavior and that society makes you have bareback sex and be promiscuous idiots are an argument AGAINST marriage, not for it. No wonder the only people who support your gay-sex marriage idiocy are ones like Anthony Weiner, who are also pathological liars who will say and do anything for promiscuous purposes.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 19, 2011 @ 2:02 pm - June 19, 2011
If you had a daughter, would you want her to marry an ex-gay man?
Problem with that assumption: Richard R assumes all people are promiscuous and irresponsible liars because gays and lesbians like Richard R are promiscuous and irresponsible liars. Just look at the behavior of Richard R’s hero Andrew Sullivan, a so-called “committed” gay-sex marriage advocate who is running around advertising on bareback sex sites.
Gays and lesbians like Richard R who scream that everyone else is a liar and everyone else is promiscuous are projecting and making excuses for their own failures. It says a lot about them and what their idea of commitment and fidelity is; since they cannot imagine actually meaning what they say and making a commitment, they assume everyone else who is and does is lying. Since they are incapable of forming meaningful relationships, they insist everyone else cannot as well.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 19, 2011 @ 2:05 pm - June 19, 2011
Isn’t it cute how our resident racist gets his knickers in a bunch when he’s called out?
I think what bothers Dooms the most? We judge him by the content of his character, not the colour of his skin. something he can’t do himself.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 19, 2011 @ 2:54 pm - June 19, 2011
Gotta love the continued racism of this blog. A black man states his opinion based on his experience and the experience of those like him and he is branded a racist. Further proof that American conservatives fear honest talks about race and racism, all they can do is claim that blacks are racist in an attempt to discredit their argument.
Comment by Dooms — June 19, 2011 @ 2:58 pm - June 19, 2011
Actually, Dooms, you are demonstrably racist, given how you repeatedly judge people solely by their skin color.
Your problem is simply hilarious Sharpton-Jacson-Obama conceit that black people, by virtue of skin color alone, are incapable of being racist. Hence, you can make all sorts of derogatory racial statements about white people and conservative black people while still believing you’re not a racist.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 19, 2011 @ 3:31 pm - June 19, 2011
Furthermore, Dooms, your idea of an “honest conversation” is the Duke lacrosse team trials — white people get attacked and blamed for things they didn’t do, while the black people who slander and libel them, like Jackson and Sharpton, are not held accountable for their dishonesty.
It’s all about your own racism, Dooms.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 19, 2011 @ 3:39 pm - June 19, 2011
Yes, because Dooms assumes that I’m a lighter shade of pale that I automatically have it better than a racist like him. Then he walked into it by calling me a bigot.
Of course knowing that if you give a racist enough rope he’ll hang himself, I pointed out. my own ‘minority’ status. One I embrace, not one I hide behind, and blame any anguish in my life on.
Having his racism exposed, Dooms then again fled from the thread.
Dooms prefers to judge people by the colour of their skin. Calling Dooms a racist is calling a spade a spade.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 19, 2011 @ 4:10 pm - June 19, 2011
Glitter is a pretty good metaphor for gay marriage, actually. It seems shiny and pretty at first, but in the end, it’s pretty much useless, and makes a huge mess that you can never quite clean up.
Comment by V the K — June 19, 2011 @ 4:52 pm - June 19, 2011
“The thing about glitter is, if you get it on you, be prepared to have it on you forever ’cause glitter is the herpes of craft supplies.” – Dmetri Martin
Comment by V the K — June 19, 2011 @ 4:55 pm - June 19, 2011
Legal Insurrection talks about it being a matter of time before a ‘glitterbomber’ gets themselves shot.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 19, 2011 @ 5:04 pm - June 19, 2011
B. Daniel, please ask ND30 to provide documentation to support his/her assertions in this thread. Thanks!
Comment by Richard R — June 19, 2011 @ 6:37 pm - June 19, 2011
Oh, you mean this, Richard?
Just look at the behavior of Richard R’s hero Andrew Sullivan, a so-called “committed” gay-sex marriage advocate who is running around advertising on bareback sex sites.
Well, that’s easy.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 19, 2011 @ 6:57 pm - June 19, 2011
Not too long ago, a deranged man approached a public figure and put a bullet in her head at point blank range. We were horrified, and were lectured on how we needed to respect one another more.
A woman approached a public figure yesterday and unsuccessfully tries to throw glitter on her, and the proglodytes seem almost giddy about it.
I’ve said it before, and bears repeating: there is nothing to be gained by reasoning with any of these people. They have absolutely no respect for anything they disagree with, and can’t even distinguish when their own actions violate the tenets they profess to believe in.
Someday maybe, one of these passionate “activists” will attempt to gain close access to a public figure who happens to be accompanied by an armed escort, and will be rendered unable to make a fool out of herself on a YouTube video afterwards.
Congratulations are in order to the American left: after being told for over a decade that my opinion is bullsh*t, after being told I’m an intolerant, racist, self-hating thug, I’ve finally come full circle.
There is absolutely nothing you have to offer my life, my family, or this country except a constant barrage of negation, insult, theft and rank hypocrisy.
Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 19, 2011 @ 7:36 pm - June 19, 2011
You know, as more and more Republicans get hit with glitter attacks, I wonder when these activists will go after homophobic black ministers or Islamic clerics.
But then I realize: these people are advocating for gay marriage, not assisted suicide.
Comment by Armando — June 19, 2011 @ 8:05 pm - June 19, 2011
Michelle Bachmann has also fostered 23 kids. That makes her a heroine to me. (The left would prefer someone who performed 23,000 abortions)
Comment by V the K — June 19, 2011 @ 9:14 pm - June 19, 2011
Dooms @ #49 is interesting in a number of ways:
1.) It is a settled conclusion (so far as Dooms is concerned) that there is “continued racism on this blog.”
2.) Dooms (“a black man) states his opinion based on experience and the experience of those like him and is branded a racist.
3.) All American conservatives can do to combat “honest talks about race and racism is to claim that Dooms’ opinion which is based on his experience and the experience of those like him is racist.
So, let us recap this profoundly wanting argument, shall we?
1.) The the head of the KKK comes here and finds continued racism on this blog because people accept blacks, Catholics and Jews.
2.) Redneck Hickey (a KKK lifer) states his opinion based on his experience and the experience of those like him and he is branded a bigot and racist.
3.) All American conservatives can do to combat “honest talks about race and racism is to claim that KKK Redneck Hickey’s opinion which is based on his experience and the experience of those like him is a racist.
Does anyone find a flaw in the parallel reasoning? Sincerely! Why is Dooms right and KKK Redneck Hickey barred from the exact same “logic”?
Dooms @ #41 lays this on us for consideration:
1.) The Fourteenth Amendment is your sword and your shield. Name the inequality or inequalities. Why are you not rattling the cages of the NAACP, the ACLU and the myriad government agencies that spring into action over inequity and civil rights to come to your rescue? A flea bitten, cast off Native American tribe with meagre substance to a claim gets plenty of such attention and results.
2.) The Bible thumping folks can’t get squat past the Supreme Court, yet Dooms implies their “illogical (and frankly outdated) ideas” are pushed “on the rest of us.” Is there no bloodthirsty pack of lawyers available to crush the Bible thumpers in your beset upon behalf?
3.) The burden of proof that “inequities” should exist rests squarely on the shoulders of the Bible thumpers. Wow. Let’s start by enumerating the inequities. Dooms, old buddy, you can marry. You can marry a white woman, a black woman, a half-breed or even an unknown Heinz 57 varieties woman. I, too, can marry such women. However, I can not marry a man. Nor can I marry two or more women. Nor can I marry a child. Nor can I marry a close relative. And your inequality with me is…..?
Let’s cut the bull about Bible thumpers and race and all the trouble and sorrow that nobody knows that you have seen along with your buddies and let’s talk about what is eating at you.
Guess what!?! Nobody shives a git about your skin color. However, there is an honest and open debate about marrying the object or objects of your affection if the sex matches yours. You represent a tiny fraction of humanity. You want to overturn a very long-standing rule for your particular satisfaction. Sorry, pal, you have to make the case. Otherwise, you are just another anomaly, if not a whacko.
Here is a clearly depressing fact. People commit suicide as punishment to others. They succeed in breaking hearts and stopping their own. When a person comes dragging race and homosexuality into their guiding view points, they are merely admitting their inability to adjust to the societal norms.
Throwing glitter at Michelle Bachmann is far more about the clown tossing the glitter than the recipient. And those who gather around the glitter tosser mistakenly believe there is power among a gaggle of eunuchs.
Two tons of glitter is not worth five minutes of honest dialogue based on common sense and logic.
But saying all of this to a liberal is like telling him that “hope and change” won’t fill your gas tank.
Comment by Heliotrope — June 19, 2011 @ 10:11 pm - June 19, 2011
Two tons of glitter is not worth five minutes of honest dialogue based on common sense and logic.
Have you seen their “honest dialogue”?
One paragraph:
Too often, marriage is discussed as if it’s some sort of public policy dispute or a set of “rights” or “benefits” that are being “demanded.” Americans don’t think about marriage this way. Talk about marriage as people understand and experience it. Help people connect their desire to make a lifelong commitment to someone they love with gay couples who want the same thing
The next paragraph:
Denying committed couples the security and legal protections of marriage hurts them; it’s wrong to make it harder for committed couples to take care of and be responsible for each other.
Note the contradiction, and note the victimization inherent inside it.
Focus on telling detailed, emotionally involving and compelling stories that connect straight Americans to the routine injustices faced by gay couples.
Again, this is just wallowing in victimization rather than rising above it. There’s no “civil unions” option or “amend the powers of attorney law”, or anything else to provide services without full marriage.
BTW, note this hypocrisy:
Things to avoid:
2) DON’T talk about marriage using abstract numbers
Instead of talking about the 1,138 federal benefits of marriage, focus on language that reflects how people think about their own marriages.
Now, on NGTLF’s website under “The issues: Marriage/Partner recognition”
Same-sex couples, even those legally recognized by their states, are denied the 1,138 federal benefits available to or required of married opposite-sex couples. The denial of those benefits hurts our families.
I rest my case.
Comment by NYAlly — June 20, 2011 @ 1:07 am - June 20, 2011
And not a moment too soon! Yet ANOTHER NYT piece on how Obama’s views on gay marriage are STILL EVOLVING:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/politics/19marriage.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all
At this rate, Obama’s views will most certainly still be “evolving” in November 2012 when Dooms casts a second vote for him.
But that’s different.
Comment by Sean A — June 20, 2011 @ 7:47 am - June 20, 2011
Perhaps Dooms has a setting on his computer that allows him to see the race/ethnicity of the people posting here, but I doubt that. Was there a post somewhere were we were supposed to state our heritage, or is Dooms just assuming that he’s the only ethnic/racial minority here?
Also, does Dooms realize by saying that there’s no sense in arguing he’s pretty much saying that whatever he things is right isn’t important enough to actually put thought into defending?
Comment by Khepri — June 20, 2011 @ 10:40 am - June 20, 2011
Khepri,
Well like most racists, Dooms is intellectually lazy. Besides isn’t his “You shred my arguments like tissue paper because I’m black” is just a verbal version of the glitter bombing.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 20, 2011 @ 11:09 am - June 20, 2011
There is a stereotype of Blacks that they reflexively vote Democrat even though the party has done nothing for them, and instead of taking responsibility for themselves they play the victim card and blame all their problems on other people’s racism.
In what way do Dooms’s comments refute either of these stereotypes.
Comment by V the K — June 20, 2011 @ 11:13 am - June 20, 2011
These people?
The funny, yet sad thing is that we don’t have to. “Our fellow gays” do a good enough job on their own. Or is it that you’re just pissed when we point out how they tear down themselves?
Comment by TGC — June 20, 2011 @ 3:36 pm - June 20, 2011