Survey: Obama’s Switch on Same-Sex Marriage Mostly Political
It’s not just an on-line poll on Yahoo! A New York Times survey finds that Obama’s Switch on Same-Sex Marriage Stirs Skepticism:
Sixty-seven percent of those surveyed by The New York Times and CBS News since the announcement said they thought that Mr. Obama had made it “mostly for political reasons,” while 24 percent said it was “mostly because he thinks it is right.” Independents were more likely to attribute it to politics, with nearly half of Democrats agreeing.
This may help the president with his fund-raising, but don’t think it will convince wavering independents that the president is a decisive leader. ”Turns out,” Hugh Hewitt quips, “voters have mistaken ‘evolution’ for transparent ‘manipulation.’”
Law professor William A. Jacobson sees “the makings of a major political disaster not because people disagree with Obama’s position on gay marriage (although many do), but because it revealed once again the cynical money-hungry permanent campaigner and self-absorved politician he is.” Indeed.
FROM THE COMMENTS: TnnsNE1 is “tired of being a political football. Let’s please concentrate on things that really matter to most Americans.” Yes, let’s.
134 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Thanks for including the comments fom William Jacobson. The Legal Insurrection blog is excellent, imo.
Comment by nomobama — May 15, 2012 @ 8:01 am - May 15, 2012
I am tired of being a political football. Let’s please concentrate on things that really matter to most Americans.
Comment by TnnsNE1 — May 15, 2012 @ 9:09 am - May 15, 2012
I hear you.
The problem with being cast as a “victim” and beating the drum for court enforced “respect” is that it focuses way too much attention on the merits of the claims.
Obama is using gays as a distraction and pandering to the gay checkbook while do nothing but giving little air kisses and assuring gays that he feels their pain and then pirouetting away to another staged assembly or the golf course or getting a food fix behind Michelle’s back.
Being the mole in a game of whack-a-mole is diverting for the guy with the sledge hammer, but it sure is tiring and demeaning for the mole.
Comment by heliotrope — May 15, 2012 @ 11:30 am - May 15, 2012
Hear! Hear!
What is even more… more… Angering? Frustrating? Or better yet, cynical, is the fact that Obama is in bed with the sharia-lovin’ Muslim Thughood [Remember last month's “low level” meeting at the White House?].
Those knuckle-dragging troglodytes who string up gays in the public square simply for being gay! Hmmm… Wonder how Obama reconciles that one.
And not a word from a prominate Obama supporter, gay or straight. No that would take guts. And calling out the ChicagoJesus on it would be raaaacist!
Comment by MVH — May 15, 2012 @ 11:58 am - May 15, 2012
A question, heliotrope: what is it that you think Obama can do, I mean in terms of changing the law, other than voicing his support? I’m asking because as we all know, marriage has always been defined as a state issue. Even the repeal of DOMA, which you know as well as I will not happen as long as Republicans control even one house of Congress, is a non-starter; even if it was repealed, it would not magically confer equal marital rights upon same-sex couples in all of the states. Given that the courts will entertain cases only where the plaintiff has standing, Obama can’t bring suit to correct the inequality, either.
So, seriously, what would you have him do? Can you name an action that’s within his power as president which would bring about marriage equality? He’s already had DoJ stand down on defending DOMA. What else should he be doing, that he isn’t doing, to make equal marriage rights a reality?
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 12:49 pm - May 15, 2012
Remember when using same-sex marriage as a wedge issue in a Presidential campaign was an evil & divisive tactic when the evil & sinister Karl Rove supposedly did it? When you’re dealing with irrational, shameless hypocrites, what’s ‘right’ & ‘wrong’ always has an expiration date.
Comment by Sean A — May 15, 2012 @ 1:35 pm - May 15, 2012
With a narcissistic political leftie hack in the White House, what else would you expect?
Comment by davinci — May 15, 2012 @ 1:36 pm - May 15, 2012
“What could Obama do?” He could let Iran and other Arab countries know that we do not aprove of the hanging of young gays even if it is part of the Moslin religion. To me that is much more important than SSM I have not heard one word from him about that.
Comment by John R — May 15, 2012 @ 1:37 pm - May 15, 2012
Forget it fellas, you’re talking to JennofArk, a delusional bigot who is currently in the middle of swooning over the fact that her god-king Barack is rewriting history to insert himself into the middle of everything.
Again, can you imagine the caterwauling of the bigot JennofArk and her fellow Obama Party activists over at Sadly, No! had Bush gone back and rewritten presidential biographies to insert himself in each of them?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2012 @ 2:10 pm - May 15, 2012
John R, I asked what he could do with regards to legalizing same-sex marriage.
While it might be possible to score some moral high ground points w/r/t the issue of how gay men in Arab/Middle Eastern countries are treated, it’s not likely that anything he said would change the way they’re treating gay men; if anything such a statement would be even more an empty symbol than voicing support for SSM here in the US, as most of those here have charged. That’s why I asked the question I asked instead of the one you asked in response. Obama isn’t a political leader in the Middle East; he’s a political leader here so naturally, he’s got more power to affect change here. I’ll ask again – what is he not doing w/r/t legalizing SSM here in the US that he has the power to do?
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 2:26 pm - May 15, 2012
JennOfArk : The fact that he missed the boat on DOMA, (a more significant “gesture”) says volumes about his true intent. I see the DOJ “standing down” on DOMA as a dereliction of duties. How convenient that he can now “support” SSM without the means to do anything about it. Therefore, like all SSM at the state level, his words are simply “feel good, do nothing” tactics to raise money.
Why wasn’t DOMA challenged while Pelosi and Reid ruled the roosts? Wouldn’t that have been a more significant “gesture” than simply going on TV and saying, “I confer upon all gay people the equality they seek but my hands are tied to do anything about it. Please send a check.”
Andrew Sullivan made a fool of himself. Is this guy still in junior high? I got over looking to straight people for approval way, way back when. I came out at 14 in 1974. By 20, I was secure in my own skin without having to have approval from the “straight” world. Oprah wasn’t on TV yet. Why do you (and it seems like 98.5% of the gay community) need approval from a guy who can’t do anything to make your life better?
I am a simple man with a simple way of looking at life. Obama’s “gesture” did not give me a tingle running up my thigh.
P.S. Romney’s “gesture” of an amendment is just as hollow; supporting something that will never happen.
Comment by TnnsNE1 — May 15, 2012 @ 3:14 pm - May 15, 2012
LOL.
Let us see, Jenn and her fellow bigots want any and all government funding taken away from any group that does not endorse and promote gay-sex marriage in order to punish them and bring them into line.
But then what did Barack Obama do elsewhere?
So Barack Obama and his fellow bigots like JennofArk support and endorse funding Hamas, which executes gays.
Even more hilariously, Barack Obama and his fellow bigots like JennofArk support and endorse funding Hamas, which is REALLY carrying out a “war on women”.
Bigot JennofArk does not care about women or gays. Bigot JennofArk and her Barack Obama only care about power for Barack Obama, and will support, endorse, and fund people who murder women and gays.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2012 @ 3:24 pm - May 15, 2012
I’m not aware that the US provides any foreign aid to Hamas, or Iran. Since you claim that Obama does, it’s a sure bet that they don’t get any US aid.
Also, please elaborate on all the groups who do not endorse SSM who have had their government funding pulled as a result.
Again, I won’t hold my breath waiting for evidence.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 4:07 pm - May 15, 2012
JennOfArk @ #5:
He can take to his “Bully Pulpit” and fundamentally change America’s mind on gay marriage using his magical skills at “hope” and “change” and forcing the issue on “an idea whose time has come.” He can go on a bully tour and call out ACORN, SEIU, the Occupiers, the 99%, Van Jones, The NYT, the MSM, Frances Fox Piven, Bill Ayers, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Father Pflager, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Elena Kagan, Kevin Jennings, Markos Moulitsas, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, George Soros, John Podesta, Rahm Emmanuel, James Carville, Harry Reid, William Trumka, Bill Maher, David Letterman, Jon Stewart, Brad Pitt, Caroline Kennedy, Oprah Winfrey, Joy Behar, Barbara Streisand, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Piers Morgan, Wolf Blitzer, Charlene Hunter Gault, Bill Moyers, Dan Rather, and many others to raise the banner high.
He can push this through Congress like Obamacare and go on a muslim nation tour apologizing for the United States not recognizing same sex marriage at the same time the United States outlawed slavery. While in those countries, he can talk them into investing in solar energy. (After all, they do seem to have a heck of a lot of solar energy in those places.)
Instead, he acts just like a candy-ass pansy.
Comment by heliotrope — May 15, 2012 @ 4:11 pm - May 15, 2012
He can push this through Congress like Obamacare…
Really? And you guys will all lobby the teabaggers in the House to vote for it, right? Because you know it won’t go anywhere as long as they have the majority, and you’re going to vote for them again and then sit around whining about how Obama “won’t do anything” to legalize SSM. As for your world tour idea, it merely reveals your lack of seriousness. I’m sure you already know that Van Jones, SEIU, etc. aren’t the reason gay marriage isn’t legal in all the states, or the reason DOMA is still on the books, but you have to pretend that’s the problem rather than, you know, the guys you intend to continue to vote into office. And then you’ll continue complaining that the president isn’t waving a magic wand to fix the problems you’ve created for yourself by voting for people who don’t want to treat you as equal.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 4:19 pm - May 15, 2012
Think what you like, bigot.
Catholic Charities ring a bell?
Oh, and the funny part, Bigot Jenn: there are far more sources. I just chose those because the first response of bigots like yourself is to shriek about how the sources are biased rather than to deal with the information.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2012 @ 4:22 pm - May 15, 2012
Funny, they didn’t have the majority in 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010. Then it was the filibuster-proof Obama Party majority, led by Barack Obama.
Four whole years for them to put their money where their mouth was. Four whole years to do something.
And what happened? Nothing.
And what did Bigot Jenn do? Nothing.
Which just makes the last of that rant an epic degree of hypocrisy as Bigot Jenn screams and cries and demands that others do what she and her fellow homophobic bigots wouldn’t because it would have cost them even more political power.
Bigot Jenn is a homophobe who exploits gays for her own sick purposes. That’s all there is to it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2012 @ 4:28 pm - May 15, 2012
JennofArk,
Sorry. I am pretty sure you have no experience at reading my words.
Maybe this will help: I am straight. I oppose gay marriage. I am a TEA Party enthusiast. I am a social conservative. I vote Republican, because the Democrats whet ultra radical and are insistent on committing lemming suicide.
But he is your guy and a guy of your making and liking, so you get to defend him, statism, socialism, and all his fundamental transformation of America to suit your vision. Good luck. And bring your own life boat.
Obama can’t sell gay marriage. He is a flat-footed coward who tried to vote “present” on it in hopes of not ticking off the much, much, much more important blacks who deliver a block vote to him. He went all the way to the end of the pool where the diving board is located and made a swan dive gesture (like playing an air guitar) in order to goose some gay money.
I would be amazed if you have even a scintilla of concern over Obama’s demagoguery, flat-footed lying, thuggery, bullying and indifference to the Constitution, the rule of law and anyone who does not flutter around his flame while throwing him air kisses.
So, you probably don’t need to parse my words too closely. I look at what is false in Obama to determine what is true about him. You look at Obama as truth incarnate and go ballistic toward anyone who does not marvel at his very presence. You see unicorns and Utopia in him and I see a narcissist who is impetuous, not too awfully wise and would rather steal than win through honest effort.
Comment by heliotrope — May 15, 2012 @ 4:47 pm - May 15, 2012
And like all good Utopian deities, our Mocha Messiah (aka Captain Wonderfuck, aka the SCOAMF) pisses hot chocolate and shits cotton candy.
Boy, are we ever lucky to have such a great man in the Oval Office!
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 4:53 pm - May 15, 2012
Oh, yeah, Jenn, what about this:
I suspect that you were assuming I am gay. Nope. I am a homophobe to most leftists. I oppose gay marriage. However, every gay and lesbian who is of age, not mentally incompetent and not to closely related to the intended is fully able to marry in every state in the nation.
So, what inequality were you referencing?
Oh, of course, gays and lesbians can’t marry who they “want” to marry. Anyone else got that form of “inequality” that you can think of?
Comment by heliotrope — May 15, 2012 @ 4:54 pm - May 15, 2012
@JennOfArk
Opps.. I guess you forgot about this. I didn’t.
http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/pelosi-doma-repeal-not-a-top-priority/
I can’t find a link but I remember reading an article that Pelosi polled her caucus regarding a DOMA repeal. She did not have enough votes in the House. She wanted to save the Democrats in the House the embarrassment of bringing a vote on DOMA to the floor and having it fail. She couldn’t let the check writing gay left know that Democrats were just using them for cash. At least the Democrats are consistent on that point.
Anyone else remember that? It was in 2009.
Comment by TnnsNE1 — May 15, 2012 @ 4:58 pm - May 15, 2012
As suspected, just more BS from the North Dallas turdburglar. Aid is going to the Palestinian Authority, which is not Hamas. Current leadership of the Palestinian Authority: Mamoud Abbas of the Fatah Party, and Independent Salam Fayyad, a former official at the International Monetary Fund.
But hey, if “bigot” means “anyone who disagrees with me,” then I suppose “Fatah Party” and “Independent” can mean “Hamas.”
As for Catholic Charities in DC, no one has told them they have to come out in support of SSM. In fact, no one has threatened to cut off their funding; to the contrary, they’ve been making threats about cutting off services if they aren’t allowed to continue to get government money while discriminating against gay employees, in violation of DC’s law. Not a peep about “Say you support gay marriage! SAY IT!!!;” rather it’s a case of “you’re free to continue discriminating against gay employees but you can’t have public money to do it.”
Lies, as we’ve all come to expect from you.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 5:39 pm - May 15, 2012
#18: “I would be amazed if you have even a scintilla of concern over Obama’s demagoguery, flat-footed lying, thuggery, bullying and indifference to the Constitution, the rule of law and anyone who does not flutter around his flame while throwing him air kisses.”
No, heliotrope, she doesn’t. Remember, this is a person who in attempting to manufacture feigned outrage over Romney’s supposed imminent plot to amend the U.S. Constitution described the document as “our nation’s most important guide to legal principles.”
Like all liberals, JennOfArks’ concern about fidelity to the Constitution could fit on the head of a pin, while her ignorance of the Constitution could fill the oceans.
Comment by Sean A — May 15, 2012 @ 5:42 pm - May 15, 2012
So, you probably don’t need to parse my words too closely.
Clearly not, since they don’t mean anything. You post a rant about how Obama won’t really do anything to make gay marriage legal, and then take a pass on explaining what, exactly, he could do. You just want an excuse to claim bad intentions; you’re not capable or interested in the fact that the president really can’t just wave a wand and make it so.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 5:49 pm - May 15, 2012
Aw, Jenn. I’m sorry. You and I know the same thing. Obama could not do diddly squat about gay marriage. He knows that in spades. He could do something about gas prices through approving the pipeline he will approve in October as an election ploy. He could do something about the economy starting with demanding that his party in the Senate pass a budget for the first time in 1000 days. He could do something about the Fast and Furious scandal. He could do something about a lot of things.
But, he is all wrapped up in pushing the Catholics to pay for birth control and abortions and keeping an eye on Iran and ignoring the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and pretending that Libya was of immediate importance, but Syria, no so much. And then there was time to blow a kiss to gays on meaningless air.
He is a poseur. You said as much. You nailed it. He made a meaningless drive by wave to gays.
I absolutely did not take a pass on what he could do about gay marriage. He could use his position and charisma and political position to demand it. Of course, he would not do that, because he (a) doesn’t shiv a git and (b) he knows it is a loser.
So, he just uttered a news distraction to bury North Carolina and then ran around picking up as much gay money as he could get his mitts on.
And you come around saying he is an honorable man who only did what he was able to do. Man, does he own you. You are just another happy singing and swinging pixie dust picker on his plantation.
Comment by heliotrope — May 15, 2012 @ 6:03 pm - May 15, 2012
@#22 JennOfArk (D-Bag) wrote (referring to NDT):
“Lies, as we’ve all come to expect from you.”
If this isn’t the quintessential example of leftist projection, then what is?
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 6:06 pm - May 15, 2012
If this isn’t the quintessential example of leftist projection, then what is?
Your comment is. Outlined are two of NDT’s lies and why they’re lies. And you’re such a lazy lickspittle that you’ll pretend that calling them what they are constitutes “projection.” Maybe you need a copy of a dictionary, too, so you’ll be able to understand the words you’re using.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 6:10 pm - May 15, 2012
My comment couldn’t be; I’m not of the left, shithead.
The comment was your use of the royal ‘we’, douchebag. Or do have problems understanding CONTEXT?
Look, whore, why don’t you get that magic wand you keep referring to when writing about your idol, the CFIC (closet fag in chief) and wave yourself over to Europe, where WE are very sure you will be happier.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 6:17 pm - May 15, 2012
Previous should read “Or do YOU….”
Before JennOfAsshole starts correcting other people’s posts again.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 6:19 pm - May 15, 2012
Silly bigot. Do you think I didn’t anticipate you reacting this way?
And from a leftwing newspaper, no less, so you have no room to dodge and spin by criticizing the source.
Game over, bigot. You lose. You’re so easy to manipulate, since everyone here knows you won’t research or think for yourself.
Meanwhile:
So their funding is getting cut off.
That works on no level in support of you. Indeed, since you and your screaming Sandra Fluke insist that people not paying for your abortions is denying you abortions, then you admit that you are denying Catholics their rights by denying them funding.
Nope. Facts. And you’ve just been humiliated again, Bigot Jenn.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2012 @ 6:31 pm - May 15, 2012
shithead.
douchebag
whore
Oh, see, now this really proves your point.
The one on top of your head, anyway.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 6:37 pm - May 15, 2012
“Indeed, since you and your screaming Sandra Fluke insist that people not paying for your abortions is denying you abortions, then you admit that you are denying Catholics their rights by denying them funding.”
Bravo, NDT. That was beautiful!
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 6:39 pm - May 15, 2012
@31:
That’s your best response to being schooled, Ms. Grammar?
You’re one pathetic little scumbag.
BTW, try answering NDT @30, or is this where you feign indignance and protest for all to read that you won’t respond to someone who (in your words) “we’ve all come to expect lies from”?
Go ahead, tough monkey, show everyone here just what you’re made of.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 6:43 pm - May 15, 2012
It should be noted that JennOfArk came to this blog today with a specific question for heliotrope:
“what is it that you think Obama can do, I mean in terms of changing the law, other than voicing his support? … So, seriously, what would you have him do? Can you name an action that’s within his power as president which would bring about marriage equality? He’s already had DoJ stand down on defending DOMA. What else should he be doing, that he isn’t doing, to make equal marriage rights a reality?”
What this reveals about JennOfArk is that if a politician simply ‘voices their support’ for the gay rights issue of the moment (same-sex marriage), that is sufficient to win her enthusiastic, unwavering, and unconditional support (as well as her vote). And clearly the fact that the same politician may have had unprecedented power in the recent past to TAKE ACTION and fundamentally CHANGE the issue legislatively is totally irrelevant. What politicians SAY and claim to FEEL is MORE IMPORTANT to JennOfArk than what they DO or ACCOMPLISH.
The fact that gay conservatives categorically reject that kind of worldview (and along with it, Obama) is why Jenn’s been on this blog for two days slinging insults and condemnation at all of us. She simply can’t comprehend why Obama ‘voicing his support’ for us poor little homos hasn’t transformed us from ungrateful ‘SELF-HATERS’ into shiny, happy O-bot statists overnight.
Here’s why she doesn’t understand: WE DON’T GIVE A FU*K WHAT OBAMA THINKS ABOUT HOW WE LIVE OUR LIVES OR WHO WE SLEEP WITH. We’re fine with who we are and we don’t need Obama’s approval or validation to get through the day. Conservatives would sooner gouge our own eyes out with rusty spoons than concern ourselves with whether some moronic bureaucrat in DC thinks we’re super-fabulous or not. In short, I don’t need or want a ‘YOU GO GIRL!’ from that incompetent, arrogant fool.
This is why JennOfArk’s tired, pedestrian insults about gay conservatives being ‘self-hating’ is so ironic. SHE NEEDS Obama’s approval. SHE NEEDS his validation of her lifestyle. SHE NEEDS his soothing, kind words to get through life, and as she’s acknowledged, that is AAALLLLLLL it takes to get her unwavering support and her vote (apparently, her going on conservative blogs to defend him is also included in the package). Jenn HATES HERSELF SO MUCH that she needs an idiot politician to tell her that how she lives her life is okay and that she’s not worthless.
Why Jenn? Why do you hate yourself so much that you need Obama to tell you that you’re super-awesome? It’s pretty pathetic. And embarrassing. For us, I mean. We’re embarrassed for you. It’s becoming awkward.
Comment by Sean A — May 15, 2012 @ 6:43 pm - May 15, 2012
Jman – you seem to hold liars in high regard.
Please post for us anything Sandra Fluke said in regards to abortion. Anything at all.
In fact, please post anything Sandra Fluke said about her own sex life or contraceptive use, or other people paying for anything for her or other women.
Feel free to use words like “shithead” “douchebag” and “whore,” since those apparently act as stand-ins in your rants for facts or anything else of substance.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 6:45 pm - May 15, 2012
Now you’re really getting tipsy, Jenn-O.
I didn’t write that; NDT wrote it. I was merely citing it in my post responding to him. Is that something you can understand?
Why are you having such a tough time following the thread, dear?
And please answer NDT, if you can. He tool you apart at #30.
Go ahead. Answer him.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 6:51 pm - May 15, 2012
Sean – save your embarrassment for yourself.
I’m not gay. I’m not deceived that Obama’s statement changes anything at all, legally. But then again, I don’t pretend that he has the power to make those changes by himself, like your brethren here do. At least he’s willing to say publicly that he favors equality for gay people. Meanwhile, you continue to support people who use homophobia as a method of turning out bigots to vote for them. I think “quisling” is the right word to describe what you are.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 6:53 pm - May 15, 2012
“….TOOK you apart”.
Also, when you stop slinging your shit on this blog, I’ll stop carpet bombing you, little girl.
I have no problem with disagreements; I do have a problem with fact free rants from simple-minded, perpetual victim leftists like you.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 6:54 pm - May 15, 2012
And “Obama Whore” is the right term to describe what YOU are, Jenn-O.
You’re catching on to how this works, aren’t you?
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 6:55 pm - May 15, 2012
Up yours. Responding to NDT is like trying to teach a pig to sing; except pigs are smarter, more honest, and have better personalities. In either case, it’s a waste of time, and since you’re lauding his comment as if it’s some great revealed truth, endorsing it even (might as well work on your vocabulary skills!) with “Bravo, that was beautiful!,” it either means that 1) you’re a big fan of big lies or 2) you have no idea what the facts are so you can’t respond.
In any case, if you were following the thread, you would have seen that even without directly responding to the fool, his latest pathetic lies were disassembled in my response to you.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 6:57 pm - May 15, 2012
Oh, I’m sorry, JennofArk, do you expect us to take your whining about namecalling seriously, especially when your Obama Party supports and endorses it as legitimate dialogue?
And you do know Fluke is an abortion pusher, right?
Aside from her being a crying, screaming little brat who needs others to pay her bills for her while she and her trust-fund boyfriend go jetting around Europe, of course.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2012 @ 6:59 pm - May 15, 2012
Oh, this is what you call “carpet-bombing?” Fact-free rants buttressed with four-letter words, coupled with a failure to successfully rebut a single point?
I’m sure it makes you look big in the eyes of stupid people. Then again, when you’re stupid, that’s about the only people you CAN impress.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 7:00 pm - May 15, 2012
I save those overtures for very special people (?) like you, Jenn-O.
Now doesn’t that make you feel special, the way that Barry McClosetFag
does when he blows those sweet nothings in your wax encrusted ears?
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 7:03 pm - May 15, 2012
I couldn’t be bothered to rebut anything you say, because it can’t be done, NOT because you’re logic is unassailable and impenetrable, but because once anyone here lays waste to your feeble and idiotic posturing (which occurs frequently), you’ll:
1. Change the topic
2. LIE about the rebuttal
3. Engage in a name calling tirade
4. Disappear from the thread (then reappear in a different thread to spread more of your emotion based, leftist bullshit around).
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 7:10 pm - May 15, 2012
And something else, Jenn-O. I compose these posts all by myself. No ghostwriter here, unlike your hero in the White House.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 7:12 pm - May 15, 2012
If you’re not a dyke, JOA, then why are you so feverishly invested in this subject (from the ‘FOR gay marriage side)?
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 7:13 pm - May 15, 2012
Really? There are people at GayPatriot who think that Obama can change marriage laws all by his lonesome? I would like a citation on that.
You asked me what he could do and I told you. He could get all of the carefully crafted Democrat factions and special interest groups scattered all over the Pander Plantation and unite them in one sweeping gay marriage stampede for the enactment or amendment or whatever finish line.
But, dear Jenn, that is not how the Great Divider, Not Uniter works in his “voting present” and never accept responsibly world. So, obviously, my “suggestion” was purely sarcastic and ironic and immutably impossible for the Great Impostor.
But you asked and I delivered.
You might not have the skills necessary to troll here. When the below average liberal drops in to toss a brick or two, he/she/it had best be prepared to be taken literally, figuratively and seriously. That means you at least should be able to sort out what your “mind” is actually “thinking.”
Comment by heliotrope — May 15, 2012 @ 7:16 pm - May 15, 2012
One more thing. Perpetually Addle-Brained Jenn:
You did @#40 EXACTLY what I predicted you’d do at #33. Again, thanks for not disappointing anyone here by going ‘off script’.
It’s not that you WON’T answer NDT, it’s that you CAN’T. He handed you your warped head on a silver platter, and stuck an apple in your porcine pie-hole, to boot.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 7:20 pm - May 15, 2012
Liberal paid mourners of victims just out defending the weak and downtrodden at the back of the plantation. (One representative from each group can get an ornament of the Obama White House Winter Season Tree.)
Comment by heliotrope — May 15, 2012 @ 7:22 pm - May 15, 2012
Damn you, Heliotrope! I almost lost a mouthful of shepherd’s pie laughing at that one!
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 7:25 pm - May 15, 2012
I must admit…
The fact that Mizzzz OfArk seems hellbent on trolling a gay blog when the young lady is obviously not a Crack Snacker has me a bit befuddled, as well.
But then again, she’s a statist, so we probably shouldn’t expect her to be straightforward about anything pertaining to politics, short of her desire to “save us from ourselves.”
Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 15, 2012 @ 7:48 pm - May 15, 2012
And it looks like she’s chosen option 4 from #44.
She’s easier to read than a ‘Dick and Jane’ book (am I dating myself with that reference?).
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 7:58 pm - May 15, 2012
All these ad hominems do not an argument make.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 8:08 pm - May 15, 2012
And neither do any of the horseshit comments that you’ve ever posted.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 8:14 pm - May 15, 2012
So, to sum up:
No serious responses to the original question.
Numerous lies and bogus links from NDT.
Numerous attempts to stray into other topics.
Numerous ad hominems.
A full-scale pile-on that still fails to make a cogent point.
You folks are batting a thousand.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 8:16 pm - May 15, 2012
Beats your batting average: .000
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 8:18 pm - May 15, 2012
Your turn, Esmerelda.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 8:19 pm - May 15, 2012
People who can’t call plays because they’re wearing blinders are in no position to score my average.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 8:36 pm - May 15, 2012
#37: JennOfArk, so you agree with everything I said. Obama has earned your unwavering and unconditional support for his reelection despite the fact that:
“I’m not deceived that Obama’s statement changes anything at all, legally.”
“I don’t pretend that he has the power to make those changes by himself…” AND
“At least he’s willing to say publicly that he favors equality for gay people.”
You admit that what Obama SAYS is more important to you than what he has DONE.
Yet somehow this makes ME the ‘quisling’? There you go again, labeling others with insults like ‘self-hating’ and ‘quisling’ when clearly these terms apply only to YOU.
This must be so embarrassing for you.
Comment by Sean A — May 15, 2012 @ 8:40 pm - May 15, 2012
The best part of Mizzzz OfArk’s Excellent Adventure is the thoroughly adorable arrogance she displays by assuming every single nonsensical argument she raises here wasn’t already addressed while she was in grade school.
Typical of the young
stupidity she displaysscamps, she harbors some odd belief that the nationonly yesterday stole the land from the peace-loving Indianwas only founded during her adolescence.Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 15, 2012 @ 8:45 pm - May 15, 2012
Took 17 minutes to come up with that gem, huh? Or did you take a break from carpet munching?
I gave a theory: you’re way too aggresive to be a straight female. I’ll bet you’re either a dyke posing as a straight woman, or a gay guy posing as same.
Not that you’d confirm if my theory is correct, because you’d “lie, as we’ve all come to expect from you.”
Where have I read that one before?
Your serve, Billie Jean.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 8:47 pm - May 15, 2012
My previous was for the “Wonder from Down Under” at #59.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 8:48 pm - May 15, 2012
Here’s the original question, since I’m sure you’ve all lost sight of it while chasing the latest shiny object tossed out by your brethren:
So, seriously, what would you have him do? Can you name an action that’s within his power as president which would bring about marriage equality? He’s already had DoJ stand down on defending DOMA. What else should he be doing, that he isn’t doing, to make equal marriage rights a reality?
Still no serious response to that, unless you want to count heliotrope’s most “serious” which was:
“You asked me what he could do and I told you. He could get all of the carefully crafted Democrat factions and special interest groups scattered all over the Pander Plantation and unite them in one sweeping gay marriage stampede for the enactment or amendment or whatever finish line.”
Again pretending that we don’t live in a world where teabaggers control the House.
Here’s the original comment that started it all from heliotrope:
“Obama is using gays as a distraction and pandering to the gay checkbook while do nothing but giving little air kisses and assuring gays that he feels their pain and then pirouetting away to another staged assembly or the golf course or getting a food fix behind Michelle’s back.”
Blow away the chaff, and his complaint is that it was wrong for Obama to say “I personally support same-sex marriage.” Somehow, in the twisted alternate reality you folks have created for yourselves, that’s a bad thing. Much better to support someone that not only says he opposes equal marriage rights, but that he also supports amending the constitution to make sure gays can’t have equal marriage rights.
So the position is: since Obama can’t by himself legalize same-sex marriage, he should either not say anything about it or come out against it, and probably support amending the constitution to make sure gays can’t marry. Because he instead voiced personal support while being unable to, on his own, make law, that’s a worse position than open opposition.
Sorry dude, that ain’t rational, and neither is any of the crap your pals have flung around to try to distract from that fact.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 8:50 pm - May 15, 2012
I like the “lickspittle” charge in particular. It would almost make me think she bunks with Serenity and Cas. Of course, I don’t know for certain that the term is not tearing up the lyrics of hip-hop in the suburbs of Mecca.
Comment by heliotrope — May 15, 2012 @ 8:53 pm - May 15, 2012
Ah, but you see, Bigot Jenn, your attempt to blame “teabaggers” explodes when you look at the period 2007-2010, when Obama and the Obama Party were in full control of Congress.
And in particular, the period 2009-2010, when Barack Obama was in full control of everything.
What then?
Nothing.
Guess your homophobic bigotry is blatantly obvious then, bigot.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2012 @ 8:55 pm - May 15, 2012
Or to put it in better perspective, Bigot Jenn and the Barack Obama party were all about the fierce urgency of freeing the slaves — except when they actually had the power to do it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2012 @ 8:57 pm - May 15, 2012
Sean, I’m sorry your reading comprehension is as limited as your view of reality, but “You admit that what Obama SAYS is more important to you than what he has DONE” is just so much BS. First of all, as you know I never “admitted” any such thing. Secondly, given that Obama has done more to advance gay rights than ANY PRESIDENT in over 225 years, it’s a bit foolish to pretend that he hasn’t DONE anything on gay rights.
Let’s just sum it up, shall we?
1. Repeal of DADT
2. Refusal to defend DOMA in court
3. Executive order requiring all hospitals receiving federal funds via Medicare/Medicaid to allow gay partners visitation rights for partners in the hospital.
4. End of HIV travel ban.
5. First national strategy for fighting HIV/AIDS – 25 years after Reagan refused to even say the word “AIDS.”
6. Protections for gays under federal hate crimes law.
That’s MILES beyond what any president has ever done for gay rights. Compared to Obama, Clinton was Tony Perkins. There’s more to do, of course, but pretending that all of the above are just the equivalent of “blowing air kisses,” especially coming from someone who votes for people who want to add to the constitution, for the first time ever, something spelling out that certain people don’t get certain rights, is just lunacy. You folks’ take on this just isn’t rational.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 9:00 pm - May 15, 2012
We now pause for these messages from our sponsors, and to give Jenn-0 a break to a) resume her under-the-covers lesbian sex romp and b) so she can call as many of her leftist friends as possible in 15-20 minutes time and get some really cool, neato big words to use when she returns to fire off another of her world famous torrid rejoinders.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 9:01 pm - May 15, 2012
Heh. I love how on a gay blog, the terms “fag” and “carpet muncher” are thrown around as insults. But of course there’s no self-hating going on.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 9:03 pm - May 15, 2012
This, coming from an idiot who frequents that shitstain “tintin’s” little slice of hell.
Yeah. I’ll go ahead and take a pass on being insulted by anything this obsessive/compulsive teenager spews from her festering sewer.
Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 15, 2012 @ 9:05 pm - May 15, 2012
No, there is self-hating going on, its just that you’re doing all of it.
The terms are only used as insults to YOU AND YOUR ILK.
When are you going to come out of that lonely closet you’ve been hiding in?
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 9:06 pm - May 15, 2012
Geez.. I am getting that football feeling again. It ain’t good. This type of “discourse” is not what I come here for. Although, I did learn some new neat words.
Comment by tnnsne1 — May 15, 2012 @ 9:13 pm - May 15, 2012
When are YOU going to ever respond to factual information? I’m waiting to hear why the president who’s done the most for gay rights in the country’s entire history is continually slagged on a gay blog. I don’t really care why you don’t like him, but attacking him for doing things to advance gay rights is irrational.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 9:13 pm - May 15, 2012
Most of us don’t define the word ‘rights’ the way that you do.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 9:16 pm - May 15, 2012
Jenn, I will treat you with a little courtesy here.
1.) Obama and the Democrats have had all the time they needed to get on the gay marriage band wagon and they chose to ignore it. Obama had two years with control of the government and he did not take on DOMA or do so much as a “dialog on gay marriage.” He did not seize the moment.
2.) Gay marriage is on the agenda of a certain portion of the gay population. I don’t know how Gallup polls it among gays. Do you?
3.) People like me oppose gay marriage and fail to see how it qualifies as an “equality” issue under the 14th Amendment. You give civil rights to people, not what people want. Please make the case for giving gays what they want while not giving polygamists what they want and tie it all up in a nice, neat equality package that makes clear, logical sense.
4.) People like me vastly outnumber gays who want gay marriage and we can not be beaten (numerically) at the polls. So liberals depend on stacking the court with activists who will defy the tenets of representative democracy.
5.) Obama knows this. The Democrats know this. But, Obama decides to evolve and blab his “personal opinion” coincidentally with the North Carolina Amendment One vote. And, North Carolina is an important swing state in Obama’s must win line-up and the state where he chose for the national convention. Ergo, his announcement stinks to high heaven of political posturing and pandering.
6.) What could he have done? Kept his mouth shut and tended to important pending business.
7.) What record does Obama have to run on? Aside from Obamacare, screwing up our international relations, emptying the treasury, cranking out trillions in bogus currency, dividing the nation into groups, and running up the deficit with czars, regulations and no budget for over three years…. Obama has had some marvelous vacations, a lot of golf and no legislative accomplishments.
If you don’t see this, or won’t see this, or do not understand what I am talking about, then you have next to no hope of engaging in any discussion that verges on the edge of being salient.
The man tossed the gays a bone. And you want to ask what more he could have done. Well, considering his cold heart and narcissistic character, the answer is that you should probably be darned glad he tossed the bone. That is, if that is what it takes to make you go all wobbly.
For the rest of us, it was a cynical, low grade, predictable ploy to get a few quick bucks from the insecure drooling class.
Comment by heliotrope — May 15, 2012 @ 9:18 pm - May 15, 2012
I love how the Bigot Jenn contradicts herself so readily.
But then:
So Bigot Jenn tries to argue that Barack Obama has done so much while simultaneously screaming that those darn “teabaggers” keep Barack Obama from doing anything.
Once you realize that Bigot Jenn simply isn’t capable of stringing together a rational or coherent thought, you can see why she thinks Obama is a super-genius.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2012 @ 9:18 pm - May 15, 2012
heliotrope – perhaps you didn’t notice, but Obama had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for only a few months in this term. It’s unfortunate that the other party has adopted an all-obstruction, all-the-time strategy, but the fact that they have means that a lot of stuff that could have been done didn’t get done. Add to that that Obama did not, in fact, campaign on a position of supporting gay marriage or promises to try to legalize it. He has done the things he said he would do w/r/t gay rights; his statement of support for SSM moves him in fact beyond what he promised when he campaigned. So to adopt the “he didn’t do EVERYTHING including things he never said he’d do so he did NOTHING” line is both stupid and dishonest.
As for your opposition to gay marriage, and my support, it comes down to not singling people out with no reason. You equate polygamists with same sex couples, a common tactic around here, but the difference is that polygamy creates problems for the larger society – when young boys are run off from their homes, when young girls are married off and being sexually abused by adult men, and when the men involved fail to support their many children from their many marriages and so the state ends up supporting them via welfare. Those concerns aren’t an issue for gay marriage any more than traditional marriage – they are issues that arise out of polygamy, so it remains illegal, and should remain so. I asked a few days ago for anyone to point out to me any type of contract which the law prevents people from entering into on account of the gender of the parties involved. There isn’t one. To date, no one has advanced a credible argument as to how treating same sex couples equally would harm or damage the rights of other people. So it’s just a case of “you can’t do the same things we can because there’s more of us and we don’t want to treat you equally.” You say it explicitly – gays shouldn’t have the same rights I do because there’s more people who think like me than don’t. The same was true in the South of the 1960s. That’s just simply wrong, and it flies in the face of the founders’ intent. As a result of this inequality, gays get smacked with things like inheiritance taxes that straight married couples don’t have to face when one of the partners die. That’s not fair, and it’s not right.
You then make the absurd claim that Obama is pandering to North Carolina, which just a day before rejected same-sex marriage by a 3 – 2 margin, by voicing support for the thing they had just rejected. Do you even understand how politics works? That’s not the usual way of “pandering.”
As far as the rest of your rant about how Obama hasn’t done anything about anything, I’m not going to bother, because it’s not on topic.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 9:41 pm - May 15, 2012
Jenn,
You are, apparently, not interested in much other than your own opinions.
Fine. We get it.
Go vote for Obama and have a grand time doing it.
You favor gays, but not polygamists for reasons that are clear and immutable to you. Unfortunately for you, the world of logic does not begin by gathering your pronouncements first. You are incapable, it appears, to separate what polygamists want from what gays want. You can see changing the one man and one woman equation, but not the one man and many women equation. Somehow, that fundamental hypocrisy does not bother your made up mind. Fine. We all knew that.
You love Obama’s feminine side where he just has to reassure the gays and lesbians that he loves them and that’s all he can do about their plight. Fine, we knew that.
So, Obama jets off and collects tributes from the gays and lesbians who swooned, you see that as standard operating procedure and there is nothing cynical about it. Fine. We knew that.
Obama throws a quick distraction to his miserable defeat in North Carolina and you don’t get it. Fine. It is obvious you don’t get very much of anything.
You argue that if somebody wants something, it is the responsibility of society to show why they can’t have it. That is pure libertarianism. We live in a representative democracy. People who want heroin might try your same reasoning, but they don’t get to first base. Therefore, gays need to prove to society that their inclusion in marriage benefits society, not the other way around where the society has to jump through hoops. That is why we go vote on things and why the vote is cast in privacy.
Comment by heliotrope — May 15, 2012 @ 9:59 pm - May 15, 2012
LOL, sorry bigot; you claimed Obama had accomplishments, then insist that Obama couldn’t get anything done. The two are incompatible.
Actually, he campaigned on a position of OPPOSITION to it. So he lied. He’s a disgusting, bigoted liar.
Furthermore, bigot Jenn, you and yours screamed and pissed that anyone who opposed gay marriage was a homophobe. Obama did. Since you won’t call him a homophobe, all that proves is that he was lying or that you’re a hypocrite.
I vote for both.
There are plenty of reasons. You just don’t like them because they all involve responsibility and putting the priorities of society on raising children instead of paying for mooching adults like you.
Here’s how, for example, you rationalize your lies.
As a result of this inequality, gays get smacked with things like inheiritance taxes that straight married couples don’t have to face when one of the partners die. That’s not fair, and it’s not right.
Then why did you and your Barack Obama Party oppose removing inheritance taxes, bigot?
Look what a homophobic bigot you are, Jenn. You scream and whine and cry that inheritance taxes are “homophobic”, and then demand that they be kept in place.
Why do you hate gay people, bigot?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2012 @ 10:06 pm - May 15, 2012
Furthermore, when you consider that the bigot Jenn and the Obama Party DO endorse and support plural marriage in several forms, it’s clear that even she doesn’t believe her own arguments.
And when one considers how the screaming bigot Jenn and the Obama Party even endorsed and supported bans on gay-sex marriage, what you see is that this is nothing more than a pure power play on the part of an antireligious bigot and blind Obama partisan.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2012 @ 10:09 pm - May 15, 2012
I sure wish that pig would stop squealing; it sounds nothing like singing.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 10:10 pm - May 15, 2012
heliotrope – James Madison was very clear that rights should not be left to referendum. That’s why they didn’t hold a plebiscite to pass the Civil Rights Amendment.
How would you like it if we put on the ballot a proposal to hike rich people’s taxes way up? Polls show that more people favor raising taxes on wealthy folks than oppose gay marriage. So why shouldn’t we just let everyone vote on it? There’s nothing in the constitution that says they are entitled to perpetually low tax rates, right? So let’s just put it to a popular vote.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 10:14 pm - May 15, 2012
I wonder if James Madison (if we could resurrect him) could be persuaded that two men or two women marrying is a RIGHT.
I’m guessing he’d resist Jenn-O’s arguments.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 10:18 pm - May 15, 2012
We don’t have to wonder if he would have approved of apportioning equality under the law via referendum. He wrote reams about how he didn’t.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 10:22 pm - May 15, 2012
You are colossally dense! He would NEVER have agreed with you that gay marriage is a right! Are you so frigging delusional that you think that James Madison or ANY of the founders/framers/signers of the Constitution would have backed gay marriage?
If there’s even one cell in your brain that thinks ‘yes’, then you’re beyond ALL reason.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 10:27 pm - May 15, 2012
Works for me. Go for it.
This is where Bigot Jenn gets set back on her heels, because Bigot Jenn was thinking that we can’t think consistently. Bigot Jenn believes that everyone is like her, an unprincipled bigot who operates solely out of self-advantage.
Moreover, lying Bigot Jenn, we can even show your hypocrisy on this one. Bigot Jenn doesn’t think Obama staffers should pay taxes. Bigot Jenn screams about subsidies for corporate jets while handing them out. Bigot Jenn whines about her so-called “Buffett rule” to make the rich pay more when Obama’s Buffett himself is a tax cheat who doesn’t pay what he owes now.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2012 @ 10:28 pm - May 15, 2012
So, let’s put the Walton family’s tax rate to a vote. What could go wrong, amirite? Since we’re going to go with strict majority rule on people’s rights under the law, let’s propose a 90% tax rate on all income over $1 million per year and put it to a vote. Their “rights” to property are what the majority says they are. Who’s on board?
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 10:29 pm - May 15, 2012
Jman – if you plucked him direct from 1787 and dropped him into the debate today, probably not immediately. I’m pretty certain “the Bible says” would not be a compelling argument for him, though, and given time to absorb the modern era and the laws of today, he might support it. It’s impossible to say. It’s a sure thing he wouldn’t favor letting everyone vote on how many rights any minority group would be allowed to enjoy because he was clear in thinking that was a recipe for disaster. But that’s why he and his fellows put the constitution and government together the way they did – so it could change with changing times.
I guess you can take comfort in knowing that you’re on the same page people were on 225 years ago.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 10:35 pm - May 15, 2012
Go for it, like I said. Free country.
But let’s point out how the bigot Jenn supports tax cheats.
Let’s point out how Barack Obama and the bigot Jenn employ tax cheats.
Let’s point out how Barack Obama and the bigot Jenn support and endorse cheating on your taxes.
Want to play that game? You can’t win, bigot, because all the evidence shows that you’re a lying tax cheat.
Now, watch how the flip-flopping liar bigot has to spin out of this. She screams and cries and whines about “majority rule” being unfair, but then tries to argue that others should be forced to pay more.
And also, bigot, why won’t you explain why your homophobic Obama Party refused to abolish inheritance taxes? Do you have an answer, bigot?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2012 @ 10:36 pm - May 15, 2012
The basic problem here is that the bigot Jenn is finally being called out on her bigotry.
Bigot Jenn screams and cries and whines that the inheritance tax is “homophobic” — but then won’t explain why her Obama Party won’t abolish it.
The answer is very straightforward. Jenn is a homophobic bigot who doesn’t care about gay and lesbian people; she only wants to use them as an excuse for her own bigotry and hate.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2012 @ 10:40 pm - May 15, 2012
LOL. Miss Moron doesn’t already know that at one time the federal income tax rates on income over $1 million WAS 90% (or very close to it).
You’d be a hoot if you weren’t so f—ing pathetic.
Time for me to go; I’ve had the blog owners/editors working overtime.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 10:41 pm - May 15, 2012
“I guess you can take comfort in knowing that you’re on the same page people were on 225 years ago.”
The same page(s) that the founders themselves were on. That puts me in some august company.
Thanks for the compliment, and yes, I do take comfort in it!
You ensnared yourself again, Secret Squirrel.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 10:45 pm - May 15, 2012
And to the blog owners/editors:
Sorry for causing you the extra duty. Should we ever meet I’ll buy you dinner.
Goodnight.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 10:47 pm - May 15, 2012
LOL. Miss Moron doesn’t already know that at one time the federal income tax rates on income over $1 million WAS 90% (or very close to it).
Assumes facts not in evidence. Eisenhower era rates topped out at 91%. What that has to do with putting wealthy people’s tax rates to a popular vote, I don’t know.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 11:14 pm - May 15, 2012
I guess then you’re fine with jettisoning the germ theory of disease and all the other stuff that people didn’t know about 225 years ago. Also, I take this to mean that you think we should revive slavery.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 11:16 pm - May 15, 2012
Actually, Bigot Jenn, you’re the one quoting a slaveowner as an absolute authority on rights.
But we already know you support slavery. For example, you demand that people be forced to work for the government and keep only 10% of what they earn, with imprisonment if they refuse, so that you can profit off their labor without having to work yourself.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2012 @ 11:48 pm - May 15, 2012
@#94:
Now you think you’re a litigator. Stop parroting what you’ve seen on ‘The Practice’ or whatever cheap courtroom dramas you like to watch, as it doesn’t apply here. If you could ‘read between the lines’ (know what that means?) you’d get the gist: I’m with NDT-go ahead, let’s have the vote. Rates have been that high without the referendum.
@#95:
THIS assumes facts not in evidence. Your comment and my response was confined to government and political systems…although the idea of chaining you up has some appeal, I have to admit. It would keep you from hurting yourself, what with all the missteps and stumbling you’ve been doing on the comment sections of this blog.
I’m curious. Would you say its more or less likely that you’d speak to me (or others) in the same smarmy, wise-ass way that you write on this blog. I’d bet the farm that you wouldn’t dare do it.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 15, 2012 @ 11:51 pm - May 15, 2012
You’re the one who claimed that it’s “good company” to have the same frame of mind as people had over 200 years ago. Since that was a product of the times, well then, jettison everything we’ve learned in the past 225 years. Because unlike you, their thinking would certainly have evolved along with advances in understanding the world.
And don’t tell me to “stop” anything. You made a stupid statement, pretending that you’re a psychic or something. I called you on it. Grow the hell up.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 16, 2012 @ 12:17 am - May 16, 2012
Do you ever tire of your self-righteous routine, you shrieking harpy whore?
Keep this in mind, d-bag: there’s really no anonymity in cyberspace.
Something for you to think about.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 16, 2012 @ 12:36 am - May 16, 2012
Oooo, threats! Go ahead, big man, RESEARCH me! It won’t make you right or your pathetic arguments any less wrong, just like your stupid profane insults do nothing to help your case.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 16, 2012 @ 12:45 am - May 16, 2012
Nice company you’ve cultivated here, Dan. Must make you feel great to hear your fellow travellers throwing around anti-gay slurs and cyber-stalking threats whenever they can’t articulate a reasonable argument.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 16, 2012 @ 12:47 am - May 16, 2012
The only tack remaining is to hammer you, since you deserve no courtesy whatsoever, bull dyke.
And you do keep coming back for more, yes?
Comment by Jman1961 — May 16, 2012 @ 12:49 am - May 16, 2012
What’s the matter JennDyke? You can dish it out but you can’t take it. Oh, you poor. poor thing.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 16, 2012 @ 12:51 am - May 16, 2012
Hammer me? Well, you’re certainly dull enough to be a hammer. Sorry to be trampling on your precious straight white male privilege by not agreeing with your stupid ideas. It’s not my fault you aren’t bright enough to defend your moronic opinions. But go ahead and call me some more anti-gay slurs; it won’t make you any more right but it might make you feel better about your tiny tool.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 16, 2012 @ 12:53 am - May 16, 2012
How do you know I’m straight?
How do you know I’m gay?
How do you know anything?
Why do ‘anti-gay slurs’ get you so worked up? Didn’t you tell us you were straight?
Don’t you know what you are? Are you confused?
Comment by Jman1961 — May 16, 2012 @ 12:57 am - May 16, 2012
Do I care? No.
Sorry, dear, but I think some of the Real Housewives are coming on, and sad to say, they’re both more interesting and intelligent than you. And they set the bar really low on both counts.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 16, 2012 @ 1:03 am - May 16, 2012
How do you know I’m white?
How do you know I’m male?
You thought I was gay a couple of days ago; does this mean you were wrong then?
Are you wrong now?
What day is it, Jenn-O?
What country are you living in?
Who’s buried in Grant’s Tomb?
Who’s on first?
What’s on second?
Do you have the answers?
Comment by Jman1961 — May 16, 2012 @ 1:07 am - May 16, 2012
But you’re the one WATCHING IT.
So what does that say about you?
You stepped in it again! You’re hilarious!
G’nite, d**chebag!
Comment by Jman1961 — May 16, 2012 @ 1:09 am - May 16, 2012
Of course, when one looks at what the Bigot Jenn and her “fellow travellers” are saying:
what becomes obvious is that JennofArk is nothing more than a whining, screaming little hypocrite and lying bigot who is trying to apply standards to others that she and her fellow Obama Party puppets have no intention of following themselves.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 16, 2012 @ 1:25 am - May 16, 2012
Can we at least agree that this comment thread degraded past the point of being any use to any one for any any purpose around post #80?
Comment by Serenity — May 16, 2012 @ 2:36 am - May 16, 2012
FIFY, Amy.
Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 16, 2012 @ 7:09 am - May 16, 2012
I’ll take that as a no.
Comment by Serenity — May 16, 2012 @ 7:55 am - May 16, 2012
Take it any way you like, Amy. I’m pretty sure most here care not a whit about your indignation.
Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 16, 2012 @ 8:06 am - May 16, 2012
Wow! What a stretch of a shift in the argument the typical lib pulled out of her navel. All the way to James Madison and an effort to argue reams of talking points over minority “rights” and the tyranny of faction and blah, blah, blah.
Jenn can not answer the most simple of questions posed to her: On what basis is the “right” to permit one man and one man or one woman and one woman to marry different from permitting one man and several men or one woman and several women or one man and several women or one woman and several men from marrying? Explain it again without all the suppositions about the individual people involved unions.
James Madison need not be consulted in reaching the answer. (Although I believe he might have framed the same question.) But, then, Jenn can’t answer this because she is from the land of social engineering where elite sociologists determine social justice and how fundamental transformation of the existing order will be manipulated and guided to the ever greater good until the very doorstep of Utopia is reached.
Then, to do a shift within a shift, Jenn somehow likens gay marriage to collecting taxes. Why not compare it to slavery or access to fresh fruit or having your student loans cancelled or awarding reparations to people with black skin or giving Mt. Rushmore back to the Indians or whatever non sequitur you can pull out of the thin air?
Are Serenity and Jenn roomies or do they just live in that socialist commune of a house where they couldn’t afford to pay a tax increase?
Comment by heliotrope — May 16, 2012 @ 9:21 am - May 16, 2012
heliotrope, speaking of not answering questions, I’ll just ask you again: what other type of contract between individuals does the government prohibit on the basis of the parties’ genitalia? See if you can think of even one case where the law says “oh sorry, you two can’t enter into a contract because you both have penises,” or “the law says you can’t make this contract because you have two x chromosones.” I won’t hold my breath waiting.
It’s unfortunate that you’re unable to see the connection between what a bad idea it is to tell people that the majority will decide how equally they are to be treated under the law and where that could lead, which was the basis of my “let’s set the tax rates by popular vote” example. Because if one right should be determined by majority rule, there’s no reason that property rights shouldn’t be determined similarly. I’m pretty sure the wealthy masters of your party won’t be down with this idea, so you’ll continue to insist that only SOME rights should be put to a direct vote; otherwise the Waltons might find themselves worth more than only 5% of the rest of the nation, rather than the 30% share of wealth they now enjoy.
Again, I won’t be expecting any moral, rational, or logical consistency in your response.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 16, 2012 @ 10:00 am - May 16, 2012
I don’t think we even live in the same country, though I have been a reader of 3 weird sisters for quite a while now.
Comment by Serenity — May 16, 2012 @ 10:13 am - May 16, 2012
Lol, is the screaming Bigot Jenn trying that twist again?
Here’s one, Bigot Jenn; what other types of contracts does the government restrict on the basis of their being multiple individuals involved, or individuals being blood relatives?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 16, 2012 @ 10:26 am - May 16, 2012
Shifting the topic again. Now marriage is no longer a civil right, but merely a contract. OK. A man can not pimp out boy prostitutes. Oh, yeah! Age of consent all that. OK. A man can not pimp out consenting men prostitutes. Oh, yeah! That is because contracts do not apply, because the state is
What is all this balderdash? The state makes all manner of rules concerning contracts, restrictions on libertarian freedom and regulating the simple flow of traffic in an orderly manner. Whether two people with penises decide otherwise or not.
Make a salient argument when you go shifting.
You still can not answer the basic question. You are just a little fishy on a hook.
Comment by heliotrope — May 16, 2012 @ 10:31 am - May 16, 2012
That’s hardly surprising, given that leftist wouldn’t recognize “moral, rational or logical consistency” if it were tattooed on the asses they so proudly display while shitting on police cars and bank lobbies.
Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 16, 2012 @ 10:53 am - May 16, 2012
Serenity @#110:
More like post #15. And just to be clear, JennOfArk isn’t the only one responsible.
JennOfArk @#67:
You know, gay people aren’t one-dimensional and vote on things other than gay issues. Also, as JMan1961 accurately points out in in #74, many people, including gay people, don’t view what the left considers “gay rights” as rights.
Comment by Rattlesnake — May 16, 2012 @ 10:54 am - May 16, 2012
heliotrope – like I said, I wasn’t expecting a rational, moral, or logical response. Thanks for living down to expectations.
Your lame excuses and attempt to change the subject aside, I still note that you are unable to provide a single example of any other contract in which the law stipulates the genders of the parties involved.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 16, 2012 @ 11:11 am - May 16, 2012
Sorry, Jenn,
You can shift and wind this thread forever. You have not established even the semblance of a point.
Let us stipulate for the sake of argument that there is no “single example of any other contract in which the law stipulated the genders of the parties involved.”
So what? Your rational, moral and logical response will follow.
What won’t follow is your answer to the basic question I have posed to you several times. You can’t answer it and it, at least, is at the core of the argument, while your distractions go wandering over hill and dale.
I am about to head off for a several hour drive to another state to deliver a lecture. My response to your gaming may be delayed. That is to say, that I am not running away or conceding anything.
I love the part where you blame me of shifting the argument. Whatever happened to James Madison and the tyranny of faction?
Comment by heliotrope — May 16, 2012 @ 11:21 am - May 16, 2012
What won’t follow is your answer to the basic question I have posed to you several times. You can’t answer it and it, at least, is at the core of the argument, while your distractions go wandering over hill and dale.
And that question would be? Sorry, you ask a lot of really stupid, off-topic ones in your many attempts to change the subject. Would it be the one about rights for gay people to marry? I think we just covered that – the prohibition on same-sex marriage is the one and only case where the law intervenes in what is essentially a private contract between two individuals to dictate what gender the individuals must be. The law in its infinite wisdom sees no need to discriminate on the basis of gender in disallowing any other type of contract – only on this one. That’s why it’s unconstitutional.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 16, 2012 @ 11:38 am - May 16, 2012
A ‘mea culpa’ for a good portion of this thread’s ‘degradation’. Sorry to say that from a certain perspective I don’t agree.
One reason that our good fellow citizens on the (far) left are so strident nowadays is that for far too long the grown-ups (most of the regular commenters here, for instance) have ceded economic/political/and cultural ground to the children (think OWS and the lefty trolls at this blog) to the point that anything that they dream up as being a ‘right’ is then to be granted, indeed GIVEN to them, by the anyone and everyone who already has ‘it’ (whatever ‘it’ may be).
That is essentially what the declaration of a ‘right’ involves: entitlement. Thus if the ‘right’ can’t be attained (obtained?) in as easy and hassle free a manner as desired by those claiming it, then it MUST be provided by someone/something else.
I am sick and f***ing tired of having my property (MONEY is PROPERTY, as much as homes, cars, furniture and appliances are) confiscated by an out of control federal government (and most state governments as well) and handed over to the pissers, whiners, and assorted ne’er-do-wells (virtually always found on the left), who threaten any kind of anti-social, and in many cases criminal activity if we don’t give them exactly what they want, and exactly when they want it.
I believe we’ve reached a point where, because so much ground has been ceded in the last 40-50 (80?) years, that the only way to reclaim it is to smack the shit out of these bastards, both figuratively (in comment sections of blogs, for instance) and literally (use your individual imaginations on this one).
If any of you good people think that persuading others, or winning over ‘hearts and minds’ or ‘getting out the vote’ efforts will be suffiecient to stem the tide of the last several decades, then I’d respectfully suggest that you’re whistling past the economic/political/and cultural graveyards.
This is why I dump on the usual cast of leftist trash that trolls here. They’re some of the very people who proclaim their ‘right’ to have their hands in my pockets; hell, they have their hands in most everything that I do. And I’m saying “No more, you SOBs!”.
I’m going to fight these people; that’s the only way this is going to be resolved, ultimately.
Come to my neighborhood and shit on cars, or in lobbies, or destroy property and behave criminally and disrupt the lives of my family, friends, and neighbors and what I’ll send back your way will be a lot worse than a nasty blog comment.
That, sadly, is the likely culmination of the path we’ve been on for far too long.
Comment by Jman1961 — May 16, 2012 @ 11:44 am - May 16, 2012
Nope. The problem is that you’re a blind irrational bigot who, as she freely admits, ignores any information contrary to her predetermined conclusions, refuses to read any links but her own, and insists that anyone who disagrees with her is wrong.
Unfortunately, Bigot Jenn, you just ran into somewhere that people will return fire. That’s why you’re screaming and crying; you’re used to stamping your feet and out-tantruming everyone. Instead, your lies keep getting thrown back in your face, your spinning keeps being made obvious, and the fact that you’re a hypocritical bigot keeps getting pulled up and presented.
And the reason why is what Jman just brilliantly laid out: you are an indecent, hateful person who will commit assault, who will vandalize private property, and who will sh!t on cop cars to get what you want. Society has tolerated you before in the hopes that you would start to behave; what people have realized is that you truly will vandalize, steal, and kill to get what you want, just like your perverse friend Pomposity was doing in the UK last year.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 16, 2012 @ 11:57 am - May 16, 2012
There goes that pig squealing again.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 16, 2012 @ 12:07 pm - May 16, 2012
Your rant might have some bearing on the topic at hand if you could 1) explain why not allowing one specific group of people to enter into a contract that all others can legally enter into is right or legal (hint: it ain’t, and the reason is “equal treatment under the law”) and 2) if you could explain how it “costs” you anything, other than the warm-n-fuzzies you get from being able to use the law, unconstitutionally, to set yourself up as more equal under the law than others. All the rest of it is just the same old boilerplate rightwing whine about how you can’t get ahead because of all the people who have less than you. Certainly it has nothing to do with the fact that one family in this country is hoarding 30% of its wealth – no, the thing that’s holding you back is the guy living in a cardboard box under an overpass.
Comment by JennOfArk — May 16, 2012 @ 12:13 pm - May 16, 2012
Ah, but you see, Bigot Jenn, not “all others” can enter into a contract with whatever attracts them sexually.
Where your gyrations become funny is your screaming that it is always wrong, illegal, and a violation of “equal protection” to stop people from marrying whatever sexually attracts them by majority vote — and then trying to defend why this only applies to sexual attractions that you support, and not ones that you find icky.
That is because, silly bigot, you and your lesbian sex partners are theoretically adults and are able to care for yourselves, enter into contracts to protect yourselves, and make enforceable legal determinations.
In contrast, opposite-sex couples, by merely interacting with each other, produce complete dependents who are unable to care for themselves, unable to enter into contracts to protect themselves, and unable to make enforceable legal determinations — and who, as they grow, will make up our future workforce and fund any future needs and care for others as those others become dependent and unable to work themselves.
Why should society NOT treat them differently? Indeed, why should society give resources to you and your lesbian sex partners that could be better spent on those dependents? Your lesbian sex relationships add no value to society. Your lesbian sex relationships do not replenish or reproduce society. Your lesbian sex relationships produce no financial burdens for you. Yet you demand that you be subsidized and treated the same as those whose relationships DO add value to society and create financial burdens for themselves that benefit society as a whole?
And here’s the other problem, one that really illustrates the Bigot Jenn’s mindset:
Yep.
Because that family is not demanding I pay their welfare bills, while the guy living in a cardboard box under an overpass IS.
The Waltons have no power to force me to buy from their store, but the guy living in a cardboard box under an overpass is given the power to force me to pay his bills for him and have me imprisoned if I don’t.
This is where the sickness of your stupid bigotry and selfishness becomes most obvious, Bigot Jenn. You scream and piss and cry that anyone who works for a living and earns their wealth is “hoarding”, but then you demand, DEMAND that I pay your bills because you’re too lazy to work, but want a house and car and cable TV and a cellphone and all the benefits without earning them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 16, 2012 @ 1:08 pm - May 16, 2012
You know, I’m wondering why I should be more upset that JP Morgan lost $2 Billion of its own money than that Medicare/Medicaid loses $100 Billion to waste and fraud every year. (And to the progressive left, that isn’t enough!)
Comment by V the K — May 16, 2012 @ 4:44 pm - May 16, 2012
I asked at 114:
At #123 Jenn replies
That pretty well closes the deal.
Jenn has forfeited any right she had for treating her with respect toward her comments and queries. It is generally useful, I believe, to give trolls a chance to understand differing points of view. In this case, the troll has demonstrated amply that she is not interested in anything resembling an exchange of ideas.
As this juncture, Jenn has demonstrated that she has no intention of offering up anything worthy of consideration.
Comment by heliotrope — May 16, 2012 @ 8:02 pm - May 16, 2012
Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 16, 2012 @ 9:09 pm - May 16, 2012
Well, that’s what I get for trying to HTML on an iPhone while trying to smoke a Newport…
Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 16, 2012 @ 9:12 pm - May 16, 2012
This whole marriage issue often seems far more complicated/convoluted than it really needs to be.
Fact: marriage does not require procreation, and procreation does not require marriage.
Fact: Marriage provides tangible benefits to children, and many same-sex couples are raising children. Therefore, same-sex marriage benefits children.
Fact: If opposite-sex married couples without children benefit from marriage, then same-sex couples without children also benefit from marriage.
Quandary: If marriage provides tangible benefits for all the families involved, whether or not they have children, why is marriage right for opposite-sex couples, but wrong for same-sex couples? How does society benefit from one, but not the other? Aren’t the benefits to society calculated by adding up the number of families that are benefiting? If we add married same-sex couples to the mix, a larger percentage of society is receiving the benefits of marriage, so how is it possible that society is not benefiting?
Conclusion: I acknowledge that same-sex marriage may seem a radical change from what people have perceived as “the way it’s always been.” But people can and do adjust to change, but seem to have the most difficulty with change that benefits people that they don’t like. Nowadays, for the most part, I think we are dealing with anti-equality people who are certain we are inferior, and therefore we should be denied the good things in life that they are privileged to enjoy. They are, after all, the good righteous people who deserve special rewards and rights for being superior. All the noise they generate about children, moms, dads, “protecting” marriage, and the worry about man/goat marriage, etc. is designed to assure the common people that they really are superior, and they need to protect themselves from the threat posed by inferiors. If so-called conservatives were not blinded by their deep animus, they would (or should) be insisting on the availability of same-sex marriage.
Comment by Richard R — May 19, 2012 @ 8:31 pm - May 19, 2012
Basic problem, Richard R: since you argue that children are irrelevant to marriage, you cannot make the argument for marriage by using the welfare of children.
Marriage does indeed benefit children, which is why it exists. But since gay-sex individuals like yourself are presumably adults, not children, marriage is of no benefit; you simply are looking for a means to mooch off the welfare system, and steal funds from taxpayers that would be better spent on children.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 21, 2012 @ 2:02 am - May 21, 2012