GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/11/26/yay-arab-spring12-men-accused-of-being-gay-face-execution-in-libya/trackback/

  1. Obviously this is just a distraction from those *racists* who are upset about Romney losing. Obviously.

    Comment by Chicago Nick — November 26, 2012 @ 1:22 pm - November 26, 2012

  2. When you give up your freedoms, you have nothing.

    People have abnegated their rights one by one.

    Comment by Candy — November 26, 2012 @ 1:23 pm - November 26, 2012

  3. Now now, surely we’ll have some of our trolls come along and tell us how it’s wrong to impose our values on others around the world.

    That or Levi will be more than happy to inform us that ‘Arabians’ can’t understand consentual sex any more than they can Democracy.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 26, 2012 @ 1:27 pm - November 26, 2012

  4. There should be some contrast with other countries that have been the subject of American military action. The situation for gays in Iraq, for example, is described as ‘hell on earth’? Clearly, Roving gay-hating militias are not unique to libya.

    Bearing in mind your breathless desire to declare victory in Iraq in spite of the fact that it remains an absolute basket case, gay murders and all, I look forward to your impending declaration of victory in Libya.

    Comment by Lycheesundae — November 26, 2012 @ 1:52 pm - November 26, 2012

  5. Busted Link From Reuters on Iraqi gay death squads.

    Comment by Lycheesundae — November 26, 2012 @ 1:53 pm - November 26, 2012

  6. I believe Levi’s position is that he doesn’t really care what Muslims do to gays in Iran or Libya because there is no danger of that ever happening here. So, screw ‘em!

    But, just to be safe, he also thinks we should genocide all the Christians.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2012 @ 2:09 pm - November 26, 2012

  7. At least they aren’t Christians in Mississippi saying that homosexuality is a sin. That would be unacceptable.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 26, 2012 @ 2:33 pm - November 26, 2012

  8. If you had an honest press (which is like saying that you find virgins in brothels) it would be hilarious to hear the cheap excuse of a president say if he sides with the gheys or the believers in the prophet.

    What a dilemma. He could be stuttering for hours

    Comment by susan — November 26, 2012 @ 2:40 pm - November 26, 2012

  9. President Obama will address this issue tonight at a special news briefing:

    Oh, wait . . .

    The “police acted stupidly” in Mass., Folks in Penn “bitterly cling to their guns and religion,” Obama shares his NCAA bracket picks, Obama picks a fight with Fox News, Obama goes on The View to be “eye candy,” Arabs rioted because of a “stupid, insensitive video” – “we must not allow the prophet to be insulted,” “If I had a son he would look like Treyvon,” “the private sector is doing fine (with 8% unemployed)” . . .

    yada, yada, yada . . .

    Can’t you all see the President has more important things to deal with than if a few “people of Lot” are tortured and killed. Hey, he promised gay marriage didn’t he? That makes him cool.

    (/sarcasm)

    Comment by Charles — November 26, 2012 @ 3:19 pm - November 26, 2012

  10. This is one of the biggest disconnects in the gay community.

    They attack anyone who is a Christian and views homosexuality as a sin, but then vote for politicians who turn a mostly blind eye to the group that actually kills (or beats or imprisons) homosexuals.

    Somehow in our culture Christian=evil and to be untolerated but muslim=misunderstood and should be tolerated.

    I do hope that Western governments can bring some pressure to get this stopped, however I am often amazed at just how much the gay left ignores these kinds of things.

    Comment by Just Me — November 26, 2012 @ 4:37 pm - November 26, 2012

  11. So, the religion of peace kills homosexuals, riots when their Holy Books are burned, are accused of and then excused for rioting over a video (even though we know that wasn’t the case), blow up the WTC killing thousands of unarmed civilians, try to blow up Times Square, try to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day, are trying to build nuclear bombs, shoot rockets into Israel, blow up buses and nightclubs, and won’t allow women to drive. If this is peaceful, what is warlike?

    Comment by Paul — November 26, 2012 @ 4:51 pm - November 26, 2012

  12. If this is peaceful, what is warlike?

    Pouring water on terrorists’ faces and defending yourself against rockets launched at you from residential neighborhoods by terrorists.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 26, 2012 @ 5:23 pm - November 26, 2012

  13. In Germany a liberal judge gave a pass to a Muslim that used to beat up his wife ferociously stating that the man couldn’t help it since it was his culture.

    Considering the far majority of gay beatings is perpetrated by Muslims especially in liberal places like Sweden, Netherlands etc, can’t wait for the many liberal judges to short circuit on the matter.

    One thing is for sure, Christians will be blamed regardless, even if it’s very light Christians like Lutherans or anglicans.

    Comment by susan — November 26, 2012 @ 8:18 pm - November 26, 2012

  14. ???
    A newspaper tailored for the gay community reports this. Human Rights Watch condemns this and is working for their release.
    And gay conservatives post false comparisons saying “at least Christians in America don’t kill gay people”
    Its a strange reaction. Instead I suggest sending contributions to Human Rights Watch to keep pressure on the Libyan government so these type of issues get more attention and the word gets out that these barbarians need to be stopped.

    http://www.hrw.org/

    Nothing stops evil more than sunlight. Instead of playing the “woe is me” victim we need to get on the offensive and stop this madness.

    Comment by mike — November 26, 2012 @ 9:13 pm - November 26, 2012

  15. The case from Germany is appalling. The judge should have been sacked. It’s absolutely wrong to grant a public official the right to let religious law overrule secular law in carrying out their duties.

    Now if we can just get the National Organization for Marriage to agree.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 26, 2012 @ 9:16 pm - November 26, 2012

  16. mike: Show us some alleged or self-proclaimed “Christian” in America who kills gay people, and we will show you… a criminal; someone doing it with NO support whatever from Christian mobs, and as well, NO support from color of law.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2012 @ 9:24 pm - November 26, 2012

  17. (continued) Whereas in Iran, say, gays are executed by the State, and with support from Islamist mobs.

    Leave it to an Obama supporter to insert anti-Christian complete drivel into his comment.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2012 @ 9:27 pm - November 26, 2012

  18. Judge who cited the Quran in wife-beating case ousted

    German ruling denies Muslim’s plea for divorce

    Mark Landler, New York Times

    Friday, March 23, 2007

    (03-23) 04:00 PST Frankfurt, Germany — A German judge has stirred a storm of protest by citing the Quran in turning down a German Muslim’s request for a speedy divorce on the ground that her husband beat her.

    http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/1059175/1/

    Comment by rusty — November 26, 2012 @ 9:29 pm - November 26, 2012

  19. Same for MR’s anti-Christian crack: while as a gay marriage supporter I oppose NOM’s position on that matter, I can’t help noticing that NOM works within the democratic/legislative process to achieve their aims (NOT trying, as the Islamists do with Sharia, to set up religious law as an override to existing secular law).

    Interestingly, working within the democratic and legislative process to achieve one’s aims is something that Gay Left marriage advocates started to do only recently.. Perhaps, having just discovered the strategy, they now think they invented it?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2012 @ 9:40 pm - November 26, 2012

  20. “Leave it to an Obama supporter to insert anti-Christian complete drivel into his comment.”

    ILC – I realize its your M.O. but please stop building strawmans. I did no such thing. In fact I was expressing puzzlement to why folks were inserting Christianity into this story in comments #3,#4,#7 and #10.

    Comment by mike — November 26, 2012 @ 9:46 pm - November 26, 2012

  21. Really ILC? You surprise me. I understand why NOM was outraged when same-sex marriage was passed by legislatures — NOM, after all, is hardly rational on the topic. But the Gay Left starting working through legislatures years before the events you linked to. Surely you aren’t like NOM, believing that legislators overstep their authority by, you know, the mere act of legislating.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 26, 2012 @ 9:50 pm - November 26, 2012

  22. By the way, ILC, my comment was not an “anti-Christian” crack. It was an anti-NOM crack. I’ve worked with many, many Christians who support marriage equality, or who personally oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds but don’t think their religious views should be imposed on others through the law.

    You do Christians a great disservice when you treat an anti-NOM crack as if it were criticism of Christians in general. Definitely not the same thing.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 26, 2012 @ 10:00 pm - November 26, 2012

  23. MR: OK, you just reminded me that the first instance of gay marriage coming about democratically in the U.S. was not with the events I referenced in 2012, but rather 2009 in Vermont. Congratulations.

    But that’s a side point. If you would like to correct me on the main point, kindly furnish a link to the official NOM position in favor of setting up some form of Christian religious law (perhaps its historical example, canon law?) over and above secular law. Which is what the Islamists actually want to do and try to do, with Islamic law (Sharia). Oh wait, you can’t.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2012 @ 10:15 pm - November 26, 2012

  24. By the way, ILC, my comment was not an “anti-Christian” crack

    I call bullsh*t. NOM is one possible example of Christians participating in American public life. Again, NOM’s aim is NOT to set religious law over and above secular law, like Islamist countries do. Your crack suggested the contrary, and falsely. One of its implications would be that anyone agreeing with NOM or who feels represented by NOM – namely, other Christians who happen to oppose gay marriage – would deserve equally ill treatment.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2012 @ 10:27 pm - November 26, 2012

  25. (i.e., would deserve to be slandered as you slandered NOM)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2012 @ 10:28 pm - November 26, 2012

  26. From NOM’s About page:

    The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it.

    Founded in 2007 in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion. NOM seeks to fill that void, organizing as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, giving it the flexibility to lobby and support marriage initiatives across the nation.

    Consistent with its 501(c)(4) nonprofit status, NOM works to develop political messaging, build its national grassroots email database of voters, and provide political intelligence and donor infrastructure on the state level, with a focus on developing new strategies for increasing influence in the Northeast and West Coast, where marriage is most under threat.

    So no, they don’t seek to impose religious law as the Islamists seek to impose Sharia, that is, as a body of law supreme over secular law.

    Rather, NOM seeks to work within the democratic/legislative process. Which makes them, however much I may disagree with their position, legitimate participants in American public life. Although I disagree with them, I won’t have them slandered that way.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2012 @ 10:34 pm - November 26, 2012

  27. NOM thinks that taxpayer-supported Town Clerks in New York state should be allowed to refuse to sign legally-valid marriage licenses if it goes against their religious beliefs. In other words, these public officials should be allowed to impose the law of their religion on citizens who are not members of their religion.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 26, 2012 @ 10:37 pm - November 26, 2012

  28. In other words, NOM supports a personal conscience exception. NOM does not, repeat NOT, seek to impose a specific body of religious law as the Islamists do with Sharia. You were wrong to suggest otherwise. Man up and admit it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2012 @ 10:38 pm - November 26, 2012

  29. Not even the Westboro Baptists advocate murdering gays. The Westboro Baptists don’t get weapons or billions of dollars in foreign aid from the Obama State Department, either.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2012 @ 10:39 pm - November 26, 2012

  30. (NOM’s proposed personal conscience exception sounds religion-neutral; in other words, like it should work equally well for, say, Muslims who can’t bring themselves to sign gay marriage licenses, or Orthodox Jews. If that isn’t the case – if it is indeed religion-specific – Prove it now.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2012 @ 10:41 pm - November 26, 2012

  31. So, town clerks asking a different clerk to sign a marriage license is exactly as evil as Government’s hanging, torturing, and beheading of homosexuals as a matter of public policy.

    I am so glad leftists are able to explain these things to us.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2012 @ 10:42 pm - November 26, 2012

  32. ILC, I call bullsh*t back at you. Surely you can’t believe that any criticism of a group of Christians is a criticism of Christianity or Christians in general. Anti-NOM does not equal anti-Christian.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 26, 2012 @ 10:43 pm - November 26, 2012

  33. V: Yes, but – CHRISTIAN!!!!!!1!!!11!!!!!!

    /trying to imitate a gay leftie

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2012 @ 10:44 pm - November 26, 2012

  34. V the K, if you can point out anyone who has said such a thing on this thread, I’ll join you in denouncing them as idiots.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 26, 2012 @ 10:44 pm - November 26, 2012

  35. ILC, I call bullsh*t back at you

    Translation: You, Mike R, can’t man up and admit that you slandered NOM (i.e., represented them falsely).

    Duly noted.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2012 @ 10:45 pm - November 26, 2012

  36. What’s disgusting isn’t so much the invocation of NOM as the fact that lefties can’t bring themselves to condemn abominable Muslim behavior without saying, “but Christians…”

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2012 @ 10:46 pm - November 26, 2012

  37. So, town clerks asking a different clerk to sign a marriage license is exactly as evil as Government’s hanging, torturing, and beheading of homosexuals as a matter of public policy.

    V, exactly. False moral equivalences are the leftie’s stock-in-trade.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2012 @ 10:47 pm - November 26, 2012

  38. Mike and mike, if you weren’t asserting moral equivalence, why even bring it up?

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2012 @ 10:47 pm - November 26, 2012

  39. Actually, ILC, even if it IS religion-neutral, including the Muslim exemption you mentioned, it would still be a case of allowing public officials to hold the laws of their religion above civil law. Meanwhile, if you can find any instance of Maggie Gallagher saying that Catholic Town Clerks (to choose the religion I was raised in) should be able to deny marriage licenses to divorced people, I’d love to see it. Seriously, you’d be doing me a favor — I want to be honest and fair about the woman.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 26, 2012 @ 10:49 pm - November 26, 2012

  40. V the K, you don’t have to say two things are morally equivalent in order to say they’re both wrong. To answer your question, I brought it up because they ARE both wrong, and are both examples of wanting public officials to place religious law above civil law.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 26, 2012 @ 10:51 pm - November 26, 2012

  41. V – you were the first person to mention Christians here. (another example of false equivalence yet this time from someone on the rightist fringes)

    In fact I was puzzled why you brought it up in this thread.

    “False moral equivalences are the leftie’s stock-in-trade”

    ILC I think that and other logical fallacies like strawmen are the stock of trade of the extremists on both sides of the political spectrum.

    Comment by mike — November 26, 2012 @ 10:51 pm - November 26, 2012

  42. And I’ll toss it to you ILC — if you can point out where I claimed “moral equivalence,” be my guest. Otherwise, V’s introduction of this straw man is nothing but a distraction.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 26, 2012 @ 10:53 pm - November 26, 2012

  43. I brought up ‘Christians’ as a prediction that lefties would use this Islamic abomination as an excuse to attack Christians. Mike and mike proved my prediction true.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2012 @ 10:54 pm - November 26, 2012

  44. Actually, ILC, even if it IS religion-neutral, including the Muslim exemption you mentioned, it would still be a case of allowing public officials to hold the laws of their religion above civil law.

    I didn’t mention any “Muslim exemption” (implying an exemption written for Muslims). Rather, I mentioned that, if NOM’s proposal is written in a religion-neutral way (specifically NOT mentioning ANY religion), then it would equally help an Orthodox Jew, or Muslim, etc. who had a problem signing gay marriage licenses.

    Be that as it may: You’re still wrong. Because what NOM’s proposal would really be, is a case of allowing public officials to refrain from certain acts according to PERSONAL CONSCIENCE, and with a substitution of other public officials so that the acts in question WILL STILL be carried out.

    You just can’t stop slandering NOM, can you MR?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2012 @ 10:55 pm - November 26, 2012

  45. You guys asserted moral equivalence simply by bringing up NOM’s conscience-exception in the context of a discussion about an abomination committed by an Islamist Government that is politically, diplomatically, and financially support by the Obama Regime.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2012 @ 10:56 pm - November 26, 2012

  46. If there were a thread about abortion and I brought up the Holocaust as an example of “something else that was wrong,” the reasonable inference would be that I was making a moral equivalence that the Holocaust and abortions were equally bad.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2012 @ 10:58 pm - November 26, 2012

  47. V the K, I understand it’s easier to argue against a straw man than what’s actually being argued — that is after all why they call it “straw.” But until you can point out where I’ve actually asserted moral equivalence, then you’re just thrashing about in the gay.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 26, 2012 @ 11:00 pm - November 26, 2012

  48. Actually, ILC, even if it IS religion-neutral, including the Muslim EXAMPLE you mentioned, it would still be a case of allowing public officials to hold the laws of their religion above civil law. Meanwhile, if you can find any instance of Maggie Gallagher saying that Catholic Town Clerks (to choose the religion I was raised in) should be able to deny marriage licenses to divorced people, I’d love to see it. Seriously, you’d be doing me a favor — I want to be honest and fair about the woman.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 26, 2012 @ 11:01 pm - November 26, 2012

  49. ILC, perhaps you can provide us with an example of the sort of religious-exemption language NOM would find acceptable. I’ve never come across anything they’ve been willing to describe as adequate, or an example of what they advocate.

    If you have seen such a thing from them, that’d be great. In the meantime, I stand by comment 36.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 26, 2012 @ 11:04 pm - November 26, 2012

  50. if you can point out where I claimed “moral equivalence,” be my guest

    No problem, MR. I mean, I’m not sure what you’re up to with the scare quotes there, because I never claimed that you literally used the exact words “moral equivalence” in connecting the German judge (who made exemptions in his legal judgements for Sharia, basically) to NOM. But you did say this:

    The case from Germany is appalling. The judge should have been sacked. It’s absolutely wrong to grant a public official the right to let religious law overrule secular law in carrying out their duties. Now if we can just get the National Organization for Marriage to agree.

    And that implies a moral equivalence between Islamists and the judges who cave into them, on the one hand, and NOM. A false equivalence, since NOM in no way seeks to let ANY known body of religious law act as an override to secular law.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2012 @ 11:05 pm - November 26, 2012

  51. It’s been fun, but here’s where I signoff. It’s clear that Mike R is committed to slandering NOM. Enough said.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2012 @ 11:06 pm - November 26, 2012

  52. When you leftists can just denounce something horrific that Muslims are doing without bringing up something that Christians, or Republicans, or conservatives are doing that offends you, you will have made some progress toward developing morals and ethics.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2012 @ 11:07 pm - November 26, 2012

  53. V: They seem to really think that drawing false equivalences between gay-killing, wife-beating Islamists and U.S. Christian conservatives is clever, rather than simply boring.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2012 @ 11:16 pm - November 26, 2012

  54. V – Again…you brought up Christians. Not Mike R., but you.

    Why you can’t you just work to end the opposition of gays everywhere instead of being paranoid about what you project someone might say is beyond me.

    Comment by mike — November 26, 2012 @ 11:24 pm - November 26, 2012

  55. Which leads me back to my original statement.

    To quote myself:

    “Nothing stops evil more than sunlight. Instead of playing the “woe is me” victim we need to get on the offensive and stop this madness.”

    Donate to http://www.hrw.org/, an organization that is trying to do just that

    Comment by mike — November 26, 2012 @ 11:28 pm - November 26, 2012

  56. This is idiotic, even for this place. How does this news reflect poorly on the left? On gays? On Democrats? Are you trying to pretend that this wouldn’t be happening if Obama wasn’t in charge?

    Here’s what you’re doing, step by step.

    1. Conservatives oppose gay marriage.
    2. Conservatives have a really hard time presenting coherent and valid arguments to justify this opposition.
    3. Conservatives have a really hard time presenting coherent and valid counter-arguments when presented with reasons to allow gay marriage, including ones that compliment their limited government/personal freedom ideology.
    4. Conservatives, lacking any capacity to argue, search desperately for any means of escaping the debate.
    5. Conservatives point out an atrocity somewhere in the world and insist that gay marriage supporters don’t care about the atrocity.
    6. Conservatives sprint off in the opposite direction with their fingers in their ears before they can be corrected (called on their obvious bullshit).

    See how that works? You go from being questioned about an irrational set of beliefs you inexplicably hold to accusing your opponent of being indifferent to violence and murder. As if no one can have any credibility on any gay issue in America unless they expressly condemn Muslim violence towards gays in other parts of the world.

    It’s exploitative and it’s shameful, but that’s hardly surprising from this sort. You’re pretending to be concerned about people, but only because they make a handy distraction for when you’re taken to task for wanting to interfere in other people’s private lives. “No, homosexuals, you can’t get married. And don’t ask me why or make me explain myself until you do something about this massive global problem that’s existed for thousands of years!” It’s a stand-in for your own inability to articulate your opinion and in that sense it’s absolutely cowardly.

    Comment by Levi — November 26, 2012 @ 11:36 pm - November 26, 2012

  57. Notice the point: despite Levi making a multi-paragraph rant, nowhere in it does he condemn the execution of gays by Libya.

    Indeed, Levi explicitly blames and attacks conservatives. Nowhere in this does Levi say that Muslims should not kill gays. Nowhere in it does Levi condemn Muslims for their behavior. Instead, Levi screams and rants and cries about how awful conservatives and Christians are.

    This is what makes a liar out of concern-troll mike and Mike R. Their fellow liberals and Obama supporters absolutely are blaming Christians and conservatives and drawing moral equivalences. Their desperate Levi, the typical Obama supporter, can’t even say in his rant that Muslims murdering gays is wrong; all he cares about and all he talks about is bashing and blaming Christians and conservatives.

    And the reason why is simple. Levi doesn’t care if gays are murdered on principle; he only cares about bashing and attacking Christians and conservatives. Indeed, Levi and his fellow liberals openly state that gays who don’t do as Levi’s Obama Party commands should kill themselves or be killed. Their only — repeat ONLY — concern is pushing “progressivism” and protecting their Lord and Messiah Obama.

    This is what makes you a malicious liar, Levi. You treat gays like you do women — something for you to emotionally manipulate, use, and rape in pursuit of power. We’re not human beings to you; we’re tools for you to use to lie and abuse your way into power.

    And the reason you keep coming back here is because it sticks so badly in your craw that people who you consider worthless slaves consistently and regularly kick your ass with facts.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 27, 2012 @ 12:11 am - November 27, 2012

  58. Levi, where does the concept of marriage originate – secular or religious – and why? In that answer you will find why people oppose, not gay people, but the idea of you changing it’s meaning.

    Same with law – what is best for social order or something somebody pulls out his behind to manipulate more power for himself?
    Obama told the gay community what they wanted to hear in exchange for their money and votes, at the same time giving sharia states more of their tax dollars while telling them he won’t push our values on them. He is complicit and so are you in any gay deaths.
    But by all means, hate on the Christians or anyone who doesn’t believe marriage should be redefined.
    I’d love to see you protest in front of a mosque in one of those sharia states your pal Barry is funding. You should don a penis costume like those twit code pinkos wear vagina costumes.

    Comment by Annie — November 27, 2012 @ 12:11 am - November 27, 2012

  59. Why you can’t you just work to end the opposition of gays everywhere instead of being paranoid about what you project someone might say is beyond me.

    Comment by mike — November 26, 2012 @ 11:24 pm – November 26, 2012

    Because, mike, we know two things:

    1) Levi and his fellow bigots will come here screaming and blaming everything on Christians and conservatives

    2) You and your fellow liberals won’t say a word to the contrary.

    Furthermore:

    1) You and Mike R, as well as the rest of your Obama Party, openly support and endorse putting personal beliefs above civil law.

    2) You and Mike R, as well as the rest of your Obama Party, conveniently go blind when given the opportunity to actually confront organizations and people that call for the murder of gays.

    This is really what ruins both of you as concern trolls. You preach principles and whatnot, but when the opportunity comes to actually apply those principles in an objective fashion, you revert to cultism.

    Again, the point is made. You demand Christians and conservatives live up to standards that you conveniently ignore and refuse to respect when they do. The lesson that you are making clear is that the key to respect and freedom to practice your faith from the gay and lesbian community is to retaliate violently for any slur or statement made, since you certainly don’t respect those who do not.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 27, 2012 @ 12:18 am - November 27, 2012

  60. I’d love to see you protest in front of a mosque in one of those sharia states your pal Barry is funding. You should don a penis costume like those twit code pinkos wear vagina costumes.

    Comment by Annie — November 27, 2012 @ 12:11 am – November 27, 2012

    Don’t worry. Pansy boy Levi ran away screaming when I challenged him to go have one of his tantrums in a Nation of Islam restaurant.

    Again, the point Christians and conservatives should be taking home is this: the gay and lesbian community considers those who do not kill them to be weak and calls for them to be mocked and discriminated against — and grovels, snivels, and demands more taxpayer dollars for those who do and who endorse killing them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 27, 2012 @ 12:24 am - November 27, 2012

  61. Stopping back briefly and just noted this:

    As if no one can have any credibility on any gay issue in America unless they expressly condemn Muslim violence towards gays in other parts of the world.

    Correct. No one SHOULD be granted credibility on gay issues, who cannot bring themselves to condemn Muslim violence toward gays, here or wherever in the world. Exactly right. Part of credibility is demonstrating a perspective wherein you correctly distinguish right from wrong, friend from foe, good from evil. Levi doesn’t, of course.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2012 @ 12:43 am - November 27, 2012

  62. (continued) But I do. So, when I express my view (say) in favor of gay marriage, conservatives can disagree with me but they can’t (and they rarely wish to) accuse me of lacking a sensible basic perspective.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2012 @ 12:49 am - November 27, 2012

  63. Queerty found something to cover other than their balls to the wall coverage of Ru Paul’s Drag Race.

    Comment by TGC — November 27, 2012 @ 1:31 am - November 27, 2012

  64. ILC -

    “Levi doesn’t, of course”

    This is very poor. Did you even read what he wrote? He said “You go from being questioned about an irrational set of beliefs you inexplicably hold to accusing your opponent of being indifferent to violence and murder”

    Then you go and ridiculously accuse him of being indifferent to violence and murder.

    Too funny

    Comment by mike — November 27, 2012 @ 2:11 am - November 27, 2012

  65. NDT
    Re your #54 comment. I do not see that you explicitly condemn the murder of those folks in Libya either. So unfortunately, by following your twisted logic, that means you don’t “care” about their deaths. However, thankfully for you, your argument is flawed and full of logical fallacies and thus very incorrect.

    So we can say its ridiculous and offensive to say NDT would not care about these deaths, just as its ridiculous and offensive to accuse Levi such of a horrible thing.

    What’s shocking is that someone like ILC who often attempts to argue with intelligence would actually nod his head at your illogical post instead of seeing past his inflexible ideology.

    Comment by mike — November 27, 2012 @ 2:53 am - November 27, 2012

  66. Here is my point:

    The left is all about supporting politicians who believe in tolerance and all that jazz for Muslims.

    The left is convinced that US Christians want to kill them and lock them up in internment camps (I actually had a discussion on a different site with a man who was convinced if Romney won the election that there would be gay internment camps and defended his position when I told him it was a stupid comment and when I asked for proof of a legitimate politician who argued for internment camps couldn’t produce one).

    The false equivalence on the left compares US Christians who want to protect their definition of marriage or who view homosexuality as sin with Muslims in the Arab world who want to hang or beat or imprison homosexuals.

    Obama is all about his Arab spring but I bet he says very little to condemn this much less put strong pressure to stop it.

    Comment by Just Me — November 27, 2012 @ 6:37 am - November 27, 2012

  67. No one SHOULD be granted credibility on gay issues, who cannot bring themselves to condemn Muslim violence toward gays

    It’s striking to me that violence against teh gheys in Muslim lands will at best get a perfunctory “of course we condemn that,” but any perceived slight of Christians against teh gheys gets the full-on, frothing-at-the-mouth angry denunciation we are used to seeing from the American left; that’s the only time they really get energized, when there are Christians to bash.

    I stand by my observation that until the left can condemn horrific acts of Islamist violence without bringing up Christians or conservatives, they will remain morally retarded.

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2012 @ 6:38 am - November 27, 2012

  68. Obama is all about his Arab spring but I bet he says very little to condemn this much less put strong pressure to stop it.

    Good point. Maybe the reason the leftists have to drag Christians into this is so that they can deflect criticism of Glorious Leader.

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2012 @ 6:40 am - November 27, 2012

  69. Lesbian Tammy Baldwin running in Wisconsin received $$$ from Iranian sources (notoriously unfriendly to gays) so I guess if gays put their personal power over safety they do not deserve my support.

    Amnesty international and other yuman rites orgs are all frauds who always side with the strong and politically aligned. You will never hear a word from them to defend animists in Africa (from Muslims), Buddhists in Asia (from Muslims), Christians everywhere.

    Should I give my time and money to protect gays? Would gays return the favor when heterosexual women or Christians suffer bad fate? We all know the answer to this question.

    I am in favor of self determination. Some tribes in Papua still practice cannibalism. We shouldn’t interfere. We should not impose our values abroad. This is what the left told me during the bush years

    Comment by susan — November 27, 2012 @ 7:21 am - November 27, 2012

  70. How does this news reflect poorly on the left? On gays? On Democrats?

    In and of itself, it doesn’t. But the whole point of this post is to point out the variance on the Selective Outrage Meter between what happens in some parts of the world and what is perceived to happen in the USA.

    If a Libyan or Egyptian were to come to the US and see what counts as “persecution” among some groups, I would think they would be astounded at what some consider not only important, but a matter of basic treatment. Take for example, the oft-used word as it relates to same-gender marriage, “rights”. What the Libyan or Egyptian might consider as an issue of basic rights might have to do with being safe and secure in one’s home, or that of legal friends (along with the basic right of freedom of association); not to mention freedom from harm, particularly from agents of the government.

    But in the US, what amounts to a denial of rights is the inability for two men or two women to receive a state-sanctioned marriage issuance. In the grand scheme of things I think this is what is referred to as a First World Problem.

    Comment by RSG — November 27, 2012 @ 7:31 am - November 27, 2012

  71. “Conservatives oppose gay marriage.
    2. Conservatives have a really hard time presenting coherent and valid arguments to justify this opposition.”

    Here is an undisputed argument and by doing so I take VERBATIM the words of a brand new hero of the left Sandra fluke. She said a pregnancy for a woman is a career stop or severely delays career prospective. Anyone denying this is a deranged individuals with serious hate toward women.

    Marriage beside protecting children is a way to provide a safety net for all women who saw their careers stopped or diminished becaused of motherhood or family duties. What happens if after 20-30 years of marriage the husband decides to leave his wife for trivial reasons? Here is where the state steps in via marriage laws to guarantee the woman of a dignified life. Same goes for inheritance rights, social security inheritance etc.

    The same cannot be said of 2 gay men. None of the 2 sees his career dwarfed by pregnancy or child bearing or suffers from any post partum illness (this is undisputed) that might interrupt any job prospects. Gays do not need any marriage. None of the 2 entities needs protection. Anything else is devaluating the woman, motherhood and her role in the family structure.

    This is not a religious reason and whoever denies this fact-of-life clear evidence is a woman hater and has severe problems with the female gender.

    I refuse to be considered inferior and a second class human being by the 2% of the population, who narcissistically is hell bent on pursuing their sole interest at the expense of other categories.

    The war on women belongs to the Obama crowd as expressed well by gynophobic statements by liberals on this blog.

    Comment by susan — November 27, 2012 @ 7:53 am - November 27, 2012

  72. Gods I’m good…

    That or Levi will be more than happy to inform us that ‘Arabians’ can’t understand consentual sex any more than they can Democracy.

    Notice the point: despite Levi making a multi-paragraph rant, nowhere in it does he condemn the execution of gays by Libya.

    And note how Levi misses the point. We opposed Saddam torturing and gassing people. This is an act by the people we put in power.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 27, 2012 @ 8:02 am - November 27, 2012

  73. Nothing stops evil more than sunlight. Instead of playing the “woe is me” victim we need to get on the offensive and stop this madness.

    I know, after outing them to the public and destroying their lives, the government should just relocate them. mike’s on record supporting that.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 27, 2012 @ 8:04 am - November 27, 2012

  74. Its a strange reaction. Instead I suggest sending contributions to Human Rights Watch to keep pressure on the Libyan government so these type of issues get more attention and the word gets out that these barbarians need to be stopped.

    Amusingly I donate to the Iranian Human Rights council, and was made aware of its existance by it being the one thing Obama felt was worth defunding.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 27, 2012 @ 8:06 am - November 27, 2012

  75. Lesbian Tammy Baldwin, probably the most leftwing politician after Obama:

    U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin on Wednesday stood by her decision to vote “present” on a 2007 resolution condemning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for questioning the Holocaust and advocating the destruction of the state of Israel.

    U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin – who was against Iranian sanctions before she was for them – has received nearly $60,000 for her Senate bid from a group that says the American policy of imposing sanctions and trying to “publicly threaten and insult Iran” does little more than strengthen the country’s hard-liners

    Here is you lesbian leftist politician effectively siding with the people who hang gays. Any comment from the lgbrwtcyhufhgudef crowd? I guess you are ok. Powergrab trumps integrity.

    Any gay jew wants to comment?

    I should have known better. Low information gays that voted obama 77% do not care about honor, dignity, integrity, decency, logic or coherence, if they did, they would have voted for Romney. They just want their gay marriage toy and to be able to flip the finger at Christonazis.

    What an honorable conduct. I am impressed.

    Comment by susan — November 27, 2012 @ 8:46 am - November 27, 2012

  76. Although I do have some criticism’s of our treatment of the LGBT community under some of our laws, I always try to keep in mind how bad it is for people in other countries.

    The questions is, how do we change other cultures that encourage this kind of violence against people?

    Comment by Neptune — November 27, 2012 @ 9:21 am - November 27, 2012

  77. Conservatives have a really hard time presenting coherent and valid arguments to justify this opposition

    Not so much, no. The arguments in opposition are quite reasonable, from the perspective of a thinking adult.

    1. SSM represents a further radical redefinition of marriage. (Marriage was already radically redefined in the 1960′s, when the expectations of monogamy and lifelong commitment were dropped from the formula.) Once the precedent is set that marriage can be redefined to accommodate the whims and desires of any politically powerful group of people, it becomes difficult if not impossible to oppose further redefinition.

    2. Gays are focused exclusively on gaining the perceived social and financial benefits of marriage, but eschew the responsibilities of marriage; the commitment, monogamy, and stability that make marriages valuable to society.

    3. Heterosexual and Homosexual relationships have profoundly different psychosexual dynamics. It is impossible for both to share an institution without diluting the value of that institution, and what will necessary be diluted are the aspects of commitment, monogamy, and stability; the very things that make marriage valuable to society.

    4. Conservatives have offered a generous compromise in the form of civil unions, which offer same sex couples the same legal and financial benefits as marriage, but leave the institution of marriage intact for committed, stable, monogamous couples. But, like spoiled two-year-olds, gays have stamped their little feet and shrieked, “No, I don’t want *that* toy, I want *his* toy.”

    So, there you have it. Four reasonable, cogent arguments against same sex marriage. I note none of them involve religion.

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2012 @ 9:35 am - November 27, 2012

  78. how do we change other cultures that encourage this kind of violence against people?

    I don’t think we have any business changing other cultures in other countries. Our fight should be to preserve our own culture here; a very difficult task given the liberal fetish of mutliculturalism and opposition to moral standards.

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2012 @ 9:38 am - November 27, 2012

  79. In and of itself, it doesn’t. But the whole point of this post is to point out the variance on the Selective Outrage Meter between what happens in some parts of the world and what is perceived to happen in the USA.

    If a Libyan or Egyptian were to come to the US and see what counts as “persecution” among some groups, I would think they would be astounded at what some consider not only important, but a matter of basic treatment. Take for example, the oft-used word as it relates to same-gender marriage, “rights”. What the Libyan or Egyptian might consider as an issue of basic rights might have to do with being safe and secure in one’s home, or that of legal friends (along with the basic right of freedom of association); not to mention freedom from harm, particularly from agents of the government.

    But in the US, what amounts to a denial of rights is the inability for two men or two women to receive a state-sanctioned marriage issuance. In the grand scheme of things I think this is what is referred to as a First World Problem.

    So I see there’s a few of you who need remedial thinking lessons.

    You don’t win an argument or discredit your opponent by pointing to some completely unrelated thing on the other side of the world and pointing out how that’s so much worse. Wrong is wrong, and the wrongness of opposing gay marriage is in no way excused or disproved by making an obvious assertion about the wrongness of violence against gays. Everyone understands that threats of violence are much worse than being denied access to marriage, so there’s no reason to spell it out, unless you’re abandoning all pretense of an argument and walling yourself off from discourse.

    If you’re going to start accusing others of having the wrong priorities, well we can play that game all day. What’s your issue? Are you upset about abortion? China’s abortion policies are much worse, so why don’t you stop complaining about America until you criticize the Chinese? Are you upset about Obama’s economic policies? North Korea’s economic policies are much worse, so why don’t you stop complaining about America until you criticize the North Koreans? Are you upset about Obamacare? Western Europe’s healthcare systems are much worse, so why don’t you stop complaining about America until you criticize the Western Europeans?

    What’s more, legalizing gay marriage in this country almost certainly helps combat violence against gays in the rest of the world. The rest of the world takes their cues from us and we’ve done a lot of good around the world just by being a positive example, so if you’re honestly concerned about the violence against gays in other parts of the world, supporting gay marriage in this country is one of the better things you could do. However, I seriously doubt that there is any honest concern for these people. As I explained, this tendency for gay marriage opponents to quit arguing and point to distractions is really a defense mechanism you use to mask your terrible arguments and absolve you of responsibility. It’s just another example of conservatives shutting down the debate because they don’t know how to make valid points. As an extra propaganda bonus, it also affords you an opportunity to make blanket statements about how the left is indifferent to human suffering.

    Comment by Levi — November 27, 2012 @ 9:39 am - November 27, 2012

  80. So I see there’s a few of you who need remedial thinking lessons.

    Considering the source, this is priceless.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 27, 2012 @ 9:57 am - November 27, 2012

  81. Forgot to add…

    This is so cute…

    What’s more, legalizing gay marriage in this country almost certainly helps combat violence against gays in the rest of the world. The rest of the world takes their cues from us and we’ve done a lot of good around the world just by being a positive example, so if you’re honestly concerned about the violence against gays in other parts of the world, supporting gay marriage in this country is one of the better things you could do.

    So Levi believes that ‘the world’ has adopted the concepts of democracy, equality of women, freedom of religion, tolerance of other viewpoints, and if only we’d change the definition of marriage they’d stop killing their gays? What world does Levi live in, because I’m pretty sure it’s not Earth-Prime.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 27, 2012 @ 10:01 am - November 27, 2012

  82. The rest of the world takes their cues from us and we’ve done a lot of good around the world just by being a positive example

    Um, not so much. In fact, much of Muslim outrage against the West is a reaction to the contamination of their culture by American media and its celebration of hedonism.

    Also, note the person asserting this is a leftist multi-culturalist who supports the notion that there is nothing exceptional about the United States… except when he sees a personal and political benefit on one particular social issue.

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2012 @ 10:09 am - November 27, 2012

  83. Notice again, Livewire, how Levi states that conservatives and Christians in the United States are directly responsible for the execution of gays in Libya.

    After ranting and screaming that he can’t be held responsible for what happens on the other side of the world, so he contradicts himself.

    And after his fellow liberals/Obama supporters mike and Mike R insist that they aren’t trying to blame Christians or conservatives, so he contradicts them as well — and exposes their hypocrisy by their silence in the face of Levi’s mudslinging.

    Again, the point is proven. Levi doesn’t care about gays being murdered; he only cares about bashing Christians and conservatives, and is spinning excuses for his Obama-supported Islamists by saying it’s the fault of US Christians and conservatives instead.

    Liberals are pathological. There is no other explanation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 27, 2012 @ 10:12 am - November 27, 2012

  84. Meanwhile, as to the attempted smear by concern-troll mike:

    1) I explicitly condemn murder of anyone, period, including gays by Islamists.

    2) Concern-troll mike explicitly supports Levi’s smears that conservatives want to murder gays, so he is a liar and a hypocrite.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 27, 2012 @ 10:16 am - November 27, 2012

  85. The other funny thing about Levi’s ranting is that every conservative here has condemned China’s brutal abortions policy, North Korea’s hideous economic policies, Western Europe’s failed health system, et al…..and Levi and his fellow Obama liberals want to impose all those policies here.

    That’s what makes me thing Levi, mike, Mike R, and their fellow Obama supporters truly are malicious. They know these policies hurt regular people and only benefit government elite — and they demand they be implemented anyway.

    They truly are fascists who are willing to do and say anything to achieve power.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 27, 2012 @ 10:22 am - November 27, 2012

  86. Um, not so much. In fact, much of Muslim outrage against the West is a reaction to the contamination of their culture by American media and its celebration of hedonism.

    Also, note the person asserting this is a leftist multi-culturalist who supports the notion that there is nothing exceptional about the United States… except when he sees a personal and political benefit on one particular social issue.

    Just a quick question: Do you think that if the wealthiest, most powerful, most influential country in the world legalized gay marriage, things would be better or worse for gays?

    Comment by Levi — November 27, 2012 @ 10:24 am - November 27, 2012

  87. Thanks to the liberal left, the USA is so diminished in power, wealth, and influence that it doesn’t matter. Things are going to get worse for gays; things are going to get worse for everyone if/when the USA collapses under the weight of its social spending (just as the Soviet Union collapses under the weight of its military spending).

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2012 @ 10:48 am - November 27, 2012

  88. @LEvi (Note how he’s such a coward he won’t even reply to my)

    Why yes! Clearly sufferage has done wonders for women’s rights in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, China, North Korea….

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 27, 2012 @ 10:58 am - November 27, 2012

  89. Why yes! Clearly sufferage has done wonders for women’s rights in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, China, North Korea…

    Zing!!!!

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2012 @ 11:03 am - November 27, 2012

  90. The Left is quiet when revealed of these facts; it’s like a computer given something it doesn’t know the answer.

    Libya’s homophobia & misogyny is all tied to Sharia Law which is the root of the problem.

    My question is why do the Democrats support Sharia Law in the first place?

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — November 27, 2012 @ 11:23 am - November 27, 2012

  91. “Do you think that if the wealthiest, most powerful, most influential country in the world legalized gay marriage, things would be better or worse for gays?”

    I believe that legalizing polygamy and child marriage would improve US image in Muslim countries.

    So comrade, write to Obama your god, we have found the code to make us love by the religion of peace!!!

    Gay marriage instead would make us the great Satan.

    So to stroke the silly ego of libtards like yourself I say NO to gay marriage, yes to nambla and pesos

    I think you cannot be more stupid than this. You lack so much intelligence that you don’t even realize how much.

    Comment by susan — November 27, 2012 @ 11:25 am - November 27, 2012

  92. This is getting dumber and dumber………

    Comment by Levi — November 27, 2012 @ 11:26 am - November 27, 2012

  93. Of course you are Levi,

    But because we’re compassionate conservatives, we try to educate you anyway.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 27, 2012 @ 11:32 am - November 27, 2012

  94. @ VtheK

    I think it’s the same reason ‘intellectuals’ supported Mao, Castro, Robspierre etc. They’re sure that they are so much more intelligent than the masses, that they’ll be the ones at the front of the great revolt.

    And history shows they’re the ones goinng ‘huh?’ as they’re put in the firing lines they made.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 27, 2012 @ 11:34 am - November 27, 2012

  95. New day.

    “Do you think that if the wealthiest, most powerful, most influential country in the world legalized gay marriage, things would be better or worse for gays?”

    Since the U.S. thanks to Obama is in a serious decline, and soon NOT to be “the wealthiest, most powerful, most influential country in the world”, the question must be about China.

    In answer: I don’t know what would happen if China legalized gay marriage. But I doubt it would have any impact on Muslims, to speak of. No more than if the U.S. legalized gay marriage. Someone appears not to understand how Islam works. Godless China having gay marriage may, if anything, slightly harden Muslims’ resolve to kill gays.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2012 @ 11:41 am - November 27, 2012

  96. (continued) For instance, Muslims may feel the need at that point to be at war with China and its culture – as they have been, with us.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2012 @ 11:44 am - November 27, 2012

  97. My question is why do the Democrats support Sharia Law in the first place?

    Why do they support Marxist economics? Why do they support a massive, intrusive regulatory state? Why do they support a massive and unsustainable welfare state that is doomed to eventual collapse? Why do they support a political structure in which race, gender, and social status exempt individuals from being held accountable for their actions? Why do they support the corrupt, incompetent, and occasionally criminal entity known as the United Nations? Why do they consistently support regimes with savage human rights records (Iran, Cuba, the Palestinian Authority) over countries where human rights are of high concern (Israel, the USA)?

    Figure out what these things have in common and you will have our answer.

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2012 @ 11:45 am - November 27, 2012

  98. Levi if you were semi-intelligent and not the partisan hack and the Obama groupie you are you would know that huge portions of north Africa and Muslim Asia and the middle east are former French or British colonies. Both UK and France have civil unions for gays which is one of the reasons why those very countries call us corrupt and in need of their sharia way of life.

    That is logic to people with half a brain, which sadly excludes you.

    Gay marriage in the USA benefits only gay people in the USA while damaging the role of women and motherhood.

    There is also a sadistic twist to it: civil unions in the UK are ONLY For gays. Heterosexual couple are banned from entering that civil union. Here is your apartheid by sexual orientation. Equality for me but not for thee.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/nov/08/heterosexuals-attempt-civil-partnership

    Comment by susan — November 27, 2012 @ 11:46 am - November 27, 2012

  99. Any decent human being would oppose Libya’s treatment of homosexuals (and many other groups and individuals). However, I don’t feel a special affinity for those who suffer this kind of treatment on the basis of their sexuality any more than Libyan fascists feel a special antipathy toward them. In other words, there is an implied responsibility to be outraged anywhere and everywhere homosexuals face similar treatment (depending, of course, on your moral equivalence), a collectivism I simply don’t share.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 27, 2012 @ 11:48 am - November 27, 2012

  100. I just can’t keep up. Are you guys trying to one up each other?

    Comment by Levi — November 27, 2012 @ 11:49 am - November 27, 2012

  101. Arrgh. Change ‘…any more than…’ to ‘…similar to…’

    Comment by Ignatius — November 27, 2012 @ 11:50 am - November 27, 2012

  102. This is getting dumber and dumber………

    Says the guy who made the stupidest comment on the thread so far. (“Do you think that if the wealthiest, most powerful, most influential country in the world legalized gay marriage, things would be better or worse for gays?”)

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2012 @ 11:51 am - November 27, 2012

  103. I just can’t keep up.

    Been clear a loooooooooooong time.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2012 @ 11:52 am - November 27, 2012

  104. What’s next? Commie Levi praising bush for his efforts to civilize Afghanistan and Iraq?

    I am shocked.

    About you not keeping up, everyone is aware of how dense and slow you are.

    It is a typical trait of the obamatron.

    Comment by susan — November 27, 2012 @ 12:00 pm - November 27, 2012

  105. Any decent human being would oppose Libya’s treatment of homosexuals (and many other groups and individuals). However, I don’t feel a special affinity for those who suffer this kind of treatment on the basis of their sexuality

    Yes. One should (and I do) oppose murder because the act is wrong; not because of whom it’s being done to, or by. At the same time, and as RSG put it, the point of [Bruce's] post is “the variance on the Selective Outrage Meter between what happens in some parts of the world and what is perceived to happen in the USA.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2012 @ 12:01 pm - November 27, 2012

  106. I just can’t keep up.

    Let me bring you up to speed.

    1. You made a bunch of stupid hack partisan arguments.
    2. People who are much smarter than you ripped them to shreds.

    And now you are up to speed.

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2012 @ 12:01 pm - November 27, 2012

  107. Levi, are you including my comment? Let me explain. Atrocities against homosexuals occur with shocking frequency. Atrocities against women, children, religious minorities, racial minorities, and many others occur with shocking frequency. Often in specific cases of anti-homosexual bigotry, people will use the occasion to express indignation and moral outrage because they feel they must or they feel a connection to the victims based upon sexuality. Websites and news programs that don’t express a similar outrage are pointed to as inferior as if a personal measuring stick must browbeat those not vocally towing a particular moral line. I’m not a believer in gay rights; I believe in human rights and this is why I oppose these and many other atrocities.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 27, 2012 @ 12:02 pm - November 27, 2012

  108. “the variance on the Selective Outrage Meter between what happens in some parts of the world and what is perceived to happen in the USA.”

    You mean the way a comment from Carrie Prejean sparks days of outrage, protests, and calls for her head; but a report of the actual political persecution of gays by a Government empowered and supported by “Our Lord and Savior Barack Obama” warrants a pro-forma press release from the Human Rights Campaign?

    That kind of variance?

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2012 @ 12:05 pm - November 27, 2012

  109. Twelve alleged homosexuals arrested by one of Tripoli’s most powerful brigades will be handed over to the Ministry of Justice, a senior member of the group has told the Libya Herald.

    Members of the Nawasi Brigade’s so-called ‘Private Deterrent Force’ picked the men up at a party in Tripoli’s Ain Zara district on Thursday evening, after receiving complaints of loud music from neighbours in the area.

    Fears had been raised for the men’s safety after a picture of the group appeared on the brigade’s Facebook page, accompanied by text describing them as “the third sex” and threats to mutilate and execute them.

    “Execution will never happen”, said a senior member of the Nawasi brigade today, who requested to remain anonymous. “We are handing them over to the Ministry of Justice”.

    The brigadesman said that the primary reason for the men’s arrest was the loud noise they were making that evening, not because they were believed to be homosexual.

    “These guys are not straight, but that’s not the main reason we arrested them”, he continued. “The main thing was the big noise they were making to the neighbours, as well as the large amounts of alcohol and hashish we found”.

    http://www.libyaherald.com/2012/11/27/nawasi-brigade-pledges-to-hand-arrested-homosexuals-over-to-ministry-of-justice/

    Comment by rusty — November 27, 2012 @ 12:14 pm - November 27, 2012

  110. The main thing was the big noise they were making to the neighbours, as well as the large amounts of alcohol and hashish we found

    LOL case closed

    Retire your fake outrage. Lybia is intolerant of neighborhood excessive noise. Let’s see if the ghey rites orgs will take another chance to be the village idiot

    Comment by susan — November 27, 2012 @ 12:25 pm - November 27, 2012

  111. Sorry susan, I’m not going to settle for just the word of an Islamist brigade’s media spokesman. The case is worth keeping an eye on.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2012 @ 12:31 pm - November 27, 2012

  112. Levi, are you including my comment? Let me explain. Atrocities against homosexuals occur with shocking frequency. Atrocities against women, children, religious minorities, racial minorities, and many others occur with shocking frequency. Often in specific cases of anti-homosexual bigotry, people will use the occasion to express indignation and moral outrage because they feel they must or they feel a connection to the victims based upon sexuality. Websites and news programs that don’t express a similar outrage are pointed to as inferior as if a personal measuring stick must browbeat those not vocally towing a particular moral line. I’m not a believer in gay rights; I believe in human rights and this is why I oppose these and many other atrocities

    No, you’re fine. It’s the others. I’ve seen no genuine concern for the gays in the Middle East in this thread. It’s just an excuse for everyone to take their latest Obama-loves-the-terrorists conspiracies out for a spin. These are supposed to be grown-ups with functioning brains and they’re dismissing all of the arguments in favor of gay marriage because something worse happens to gays on the other side of the world that’s beyond anybody’s control.

    What’s really funny is that when you try to point to someone in the room that’s more horrible than you as your first resort, you’re implicitly agreeing that yeah, you’re kind of horrible, too. Gay marriage opponents really don’t have an argument aside from “Because I said so!”, so they resort to these desperation tactics where they accuse gays in America of not caring about gays on the other side of the world. The implication is, “Yeah, you think I’m horrible? Well at least I’m not cutting your heads off!” See how that works? They’re not denying that they’re horrible, they aren’t denying that their position is wrong, they’re just hoping to be left alone because they suck at making their case.

    Comment by Levi — November 27, 2012 @ 12:31 pm - November 27, 2012

  113. “Gay marriage opponents really don’t have an argument aside from “Because I said so!”

    False, you have been exposed to several argument. Your total inability to deny the truth to those argument brings you to write stupid things such as having gay marriage here would instantly change the rest of the world.

    This is by far the stupidest thing I have ever read.

    On the contrary Muslims everywhere seek to establish portions of sharia law. When they will become a relevant number they will overthrow any silly gay marriage law and whatever constitution is in place. After all the obamatards tell us that it is a living document

    Comment by susan — November 27, 2012 @ 12:45 pm - November 27, 2012

  114. THE HAGUE, 13/09/06 – Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner considers the Netherlands should give Muslims more freedoms to behave according to their traditions. Muslims refusing to shake hands is fine with him. And Sharia law could be introduced in the Netherlands democratically, in the minister’s view.

    Muslims have the right to experience their religion in ways that diverge from Dutch social codes, accordign to the Christian democrat (CDA) minister. He thinks Queen Beatrix was very wise not to insist on a Muslim leader shaking hands with her when she visited his mosque in The Hague earlier this year.
    ——————

    This is your future Levi, enjoy it. At that point you won’t need to display you fake outrage for gay Muslims in lybia, because there will be dead gays in USA.

    oh and do not call Christian people to save you, you know after being called Nazis for decades they might not be that willing to listen

    Comment by susan — November 27, 2012 @ 12:52 pm - November 27, 2012

  115. No, you’re fine. It’s the others. I’ve seen no genuine concern for the gays in the Middle East in this thread. It’s just an excuse for everyone to take their latest Obama-loves-the-terrorists conspiracies out for a spin.

    So apparently Levi really can’t read. Since he clearly can’t cite any reference to the delusions he posts.

    Put down the doobie Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 27, 2012 @ 1:19 pm - November 27, 2012

  116. I’m not going to settle for just the word of an Islamist brigade’s media spokesman.

    Speaking of which, has anyone seen Christiane Amanpour lately?

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2012 @ 2:48 pm - November 27, 2012

  117. The reason I “inserted Christianity” into this is that the left never seems to care about this sort of thing unless it is Christians (or other people who aren’t Muslims) who are responsible (and what the Christians do is never as bad, and they are always nutjobs who are condemned by most other Christians, but whatever). I condemn it either way, but some consistency would be nice. And you still have some gays who support Palestine, which is just insane.

    I can’t help noticing that NOM works within the democratic/legislative process to achieve their aims

    Well, something isn’t made legitimate just by being worked within the democratic/legislative process. Just saying…

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 27, 2012 @ 3:08 pm - November 27, 2012

  118. And Levi misses the point again. Gay marriage has nothing to do with any of this. This post was about Obama’s failure in foreign policy (allowing these radical Islamists to take control in some countries), and by implication the failure of the left to be consistent with its mantra of “human rights” (I mean, where is the outrage from them? It was inescapable when Bush was president, but Obama goes into Libya to help radicals overthrow Gaddafi (if they were being consistent, that would be “meddling in the affairs of other countries” and therefore off limits) and there isn’t much outrage from them (and look at the results of the meddling! Libya’s dictator was replaced by something just as bad or worse)).

    Levi, where does the concept of marriage originate – secular or religious – and why?

    If the state is given power over a religious institution, it has the power to define it as it wishes. There is no reason for the government to have control over a religious institution.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 27, 2012 @ 3:12 pm - November 27, 2012

  119. Some tribes in Papua still practice cannibalism. We shouldn’t interfere. We should not impose our values abroad.

    I disagree, because the victims of cannibalism in Papua have the same rights as people in the US or elsewhere. That doesn’t mean the US and its allies should go into Papua New Guinea and forcefully stop this practice, because it isn’t the only place where people’s natural rights are not respected, and would be simply infeasible to go into all of those places and do that. But it should be the ideal.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 27, 2012 @ 3:20 pm - November 27, 2012

  120. @Rattlesnake,

    As I’ve pointed out in the past, because something is ‘legal’ it doesn’t mean it’s ‘moral’. To my moral code NOM’s acts are legal and moral, in defending marriage. To deny any form of recognition would be legal, and immoral. As an example.

    Becasue we live in a Republic and not a autocratic society, legality is determined by the majority. Morality is determined by the person.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 27, 2012 @ 3:23 pm - November 27, 2012

  121. But in the US, what amounts to a denial of rights is the inability for two men or two women to receive a state-sanctioned marriage issuance. In the grand scheme of things I think this is what is referred to as a First World Problem.

    Not to mention something that is utterly irrelevant compared to the other violations of rights that the US government and other western governments commit, such as limits on free speech (such as “hate speech” laws), limits on religious expression, limits on the freedom to do business (regulations, forcing workers to join unions, employment laws (such as those mandating that people not be fired due to skin colour, for example)), and limits on property rights (such as excessive taxation).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 27, 2012 @ 3:26 pm - November 27, 2012

  122. they’re dismissing all of the arguments in favor of gay marriage because something worse happens to gays on the other side of the world

    Please cite a specific example of this.

    that’s beyond anybody’s control.

    This not beyond anyone’s control. This sort of thing happens when you have an incompetent foreign policy.

    Gay marriage opponents really don’t have an argument aside from “Because I said so!”

    They’ve given several, but whatever.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 27, 2012 @ 3:55 pm - November 27, 2012

  123. As I’ve pointed out in the past, because something is ‘legal’ it doesn’t mean it’s ‘moral’.

    I have no idea how you could get the idea that I suggested otherwise. The idea that something being legal makes it moral is completely opposite to my philosophy. In fact, I said as much in one of my comments in this thread:

    Well, something isn’t made legitimate just by being worked within the democratic/legislative process. Just saying…

    To my moral code NOM’s acts are legal and moral, in defending marriage. To deny any form of recognition would be legal, and immoral.

    To your moral code, perhaps. Please explain what makes your moral code (as opposed to other people’s) objective and how it would give the government legitimate power over marriage, and then why the government shouldn’t be able to redefine marriage if it wanted to or if that is what the majority wanted.

    Becasue we live in a Republic and not a autocratic society, legality is determined by the majority. Morality is determined by the person.

    I was under the impression that United States was a constitutional republic rather than a democracy, meaning that there are limits to what laws the government can establish regardless of what the majority wants.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 27, 2012 @ 4:09 pm - November 27, 2012

  124. V the K I think your example of how gay groups and the media reacted to the Prejean comments compared to a country through its legal system choosing to murder 12 people because they are homosexuals.

    Which really should garner tons of wailing and gnashing of teeth? I can tell you gay groups and the media get this one wrong all the time.

    If a Libyan or Egyptian were to come to the US and see what counts as “persecution” among some groups, I would think they would be astounded at what some consider not only important, but a matter of basic treatment.

    My husband went to college with a young man from Egypt who moved here and changed his name because after he converted to Christianity his family (not some strangers) wanted to kill him. He basically wasn’t just disowned, but had his life threatened and he can’t return to Egypt.

    That is the kind of discrimination that should offend and get media attention and article after article from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

    Instead groups like the FRC get labelled as hate groups and tons of media coverage.

    I can tell you I bet it would be far safer to be an out of the closet, flaming gay man living next door to the president of the FRC than living next door than living in pretty much any current Muslim country.

    Somebody way earlier asked what we should do to get these countries to change-not sure we can get them to change in attitude at the moment, but our president and the various human rights organizations and gay organizations can and should scream about the government and religious sanctioned murder of homosexuals in the Muslim world.

    Embarrass them and expose them.

    Comment by Just Me — November 27, 2012 @ 4:45 pm - November 27, 2012

  125. @Rattlesnake

    My morality doesn’t have to do more than guide my life. What it means is, if enough people agree with me on a topic, it ‘gets shit done’.

    And the Republic we live in (if we can keep it) is of limited and enumerated powers, but no one cares anymore. Keep in mind if they did, then Baker v Nelson would have been ruled differently as there is no limited or enumerated power saying the Federal government can disallow (or allow) bedmates. We, the people, have chosen to give marriage a special status and recognition.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 27, 2012 @ 5:02 pm - November 27, 2012

  126. Where’s Act Up?

    Comment by Richard Bell — November 27, 2012 @ 6:05 pm - November 27, 2012

  127. Well, I agree that you (that is, Americans in general) haven’t been able to keep your republic, unfortunately.

    But I don’t really care what US law says (whether it is the Constitution or the Supreme Court or whatever), because it is irrelevent to the universality of natural law. It is sad that the US has been corrupted, but that changes nothing about what I believe. Written law has no inherent moral authority, ever. Nor does it matter how many people agree with something or how that is able to “get shit done.” If it is illegitimate, it is illegitimate (and that the majority has so much influence is further evidence that you’ve lost your republic).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 27, 2012 @ 6:10 pm - November 27, 2012

  128. The_Livewire, I just want to clarify something about what you are saying. When you say

    Becasue we live in a Republic and not a autocratic society, legality is determined by the majority. Morality is determined by the person.

    are you saying that morality is subjective and that that subjective morality (as determined by the the majority) is what should form the basis for the law? That is how I read that.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 27, 2012 @ 6:15 pm - November 27, 2012

  129. Actually it’s the opposite.

    Morality is something Government can’t destroy. Sure they can punish you for following it, but they can’t stop you from following it.

    Government however can pass laws that offend/counter your morality. To use some classic laws, abolitionists knew slavery was wrong, they fought against it being willing to defy the law to follow their moral imperative. Prohibition was an example of the government trying to legislate away ‘bad choices’.

    Historically the Soviets tried to destroy the Eastern Orthadox church. The Chinese try to destroy ‘unapproved faiths’. Those faiths have survived, because of the people’s morals, not because of the government.

    Now if enough people wanted to re institute (non-consentual) slavery, there’s nothing stopping them, except everyone who would stand against them. (Me, and I hope you as well).

    I hope that makes it clearer.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 27, 2012 @ 7:32 pm - November 27, 2012

  130. To use some classic laws, abolitionists knew slavery was wrong, they fought against it being willing to defy the law to follow their moral imperative.

    This is a good example.

    I would also say people in Nazi Germany who hid Jewish people or helped them get out of the country into a safe zone.

    Government doesn’t always choose to create moral laws and in some cases creates immoral laws.

    Comment by Just Me — November 27, 2012 @ 7:42 pm - November 27, 2012

  131. Gosh, are you creating moral equivalence between people who resisted the edicts of N-a-z-i Germany and those who oppose the Democrats’ immoral abortion laws and plantation-like treatment of minorities?

    Because that is actually rather apt.

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2012 @ 7:47 pm - November 27, 2012

  132. abolitionists knew slavery was wrong

    …and by and large, justified their opposition to slavery on religious grounds.

    Gee, I wonder if Mike R will falsely represent the abolitionists, too, as people who tried in their day to impose religious law? (when actually, just as NOM does, the abolitionists were working within a democratic, secular framework to bring about a position that they happened to believe in very much)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2012 @ 8:22 pm - November 27, 2012

  133. (continued) Of course he won’t do that. Because he (quite rightly) approves of the abolitionist position. But NOM happens to believe in a position that Mike R disapproves of; therefore they ‘deserve’ (it appears) maltreatment, such as having stuff suggested or implied about them that is actually untrue.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2012 @ 8:33 pm - November 27, 2012

  134. The_Livewire, I’m having trouble following. All of the stuff you said in comment #129 is self-evident to me.

    Are you saying in comment #125 that you disagree with allowing the majority or “the people” to decide what the laws are, or that you agree with allowing that regardless of what the outcome is? Or are you saying something else?

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 27, 2012 @ 9:36 pm - November 27, 2012

  135. And Levi misses the point again. Gay marriage has nothing to do with any of this.

    Somebody else brought up gay marriage. The argument is being made that the gays/the left/Democrats/Obama hate Christians and love Muslims. This a very popular conservative myth, and in this particular instance, two pieces of evidence are being presented in support of its terribly flawed premise:

    1. To prove that the left hates Christians, conservatives cite gay marriage. They say that liberals aren’t legitimately interested in equality or fairness or basic human decency, they just want to stick it to the Christians!

    2. To prove that the left loves Islam, conservative cite stories like this one. They say that Obama is allowing this to happen and is responsible because he makes us look so weak. They say that gays shouldn’t be arguing with Christians about gay marriage if they’re not arguing with Muslims about killing gays.

    What this means is that to a conservative media consumer such as yourself, a story ostensibly about gays being persecuted in the Middle East is re-processed into a story about gay liberals hating Christianity and embracing radical Islam. It’s funny how conservatives can frame every problem in the world in terms of how Christians are getting screwed.

    And to this point about gays in America not caring about gays in the Middle East, that’s bullshit. Gays have come a long way in this country but it wasn’t so long ago that they were a heavily persecuted minority. Too many gays continue to be ostracized and singled out and made to feel intimidated. If anything, gays in America are uniquely suited to empathize with gays in the Middle East. So for conservatives to say that this group of people doesn’t care, it just goes to show you how unbelievable all this stuff is.

    When you have a number of problems, you solve the local problems first. What else can you expect from groups of human beings? You solve the easy problems first. Gay marriage is a local, easy problem. It’s about getting our own house in order so we have the credibility and the moral authority to effect that change in the rest of the world. (For some reason, convincing people not to be intransigent assholes is a difficult task.)

    This post was about Obama’s failure in foreign policy (allowing these radical Islamists to take control in some countries),

    Idiotic.

    and by implication the failure of the left to be consistent with its mantra of “human rights” (I mean, where is the outrage from them? It was inescapable when Bush was president, but Obama goes into Libya to help radicals overthrow Gaddafi (if they were being consistent, that would be “meddling in the affairs of other countries” and therefore off limits) and there isn’t much outrage from them (and look at the results of the meddling! Libya’s dictator was replaced by something just as bad or worse)).

    Good lord, you people have zero understanding of what was wrong with the Iraq War.

    Comment by Levi — November 27, 2012 @ 9:56 pm - November 27, 2012

  136. It’s funny how conservatives can frame every problem in the world in terms of how Christians are getting screwed.

    I don’t care about Christians. It is the individuals who are getting screwed. But that is beside the point. The point is, most leftists put a lot more effort into opposing Christians than they do Muslims. And not only do they condemn the radical Muslims, but many also go so far as to support Palestine (and Gaza/Hamas in particular in the recent conflict).

    It’s about getting our own house in order so we have the credibility and the moral authority to effect that change in the rest of the world.

    In order for that to make any sense you would have to agree that there is a problem in “your own house.” That is debatable. What isn’t debatable is that there is a problem in the Middle East. With all of the outrage your side manages to produce for Christians in this hemisphere who perform comparatively minor misdeeds, I would hope that you could manage something for the radical Muslims. But that is apparently too much to ask, at least of the more prominent voices on the gay left (such as the Advocate or HRC). And if you are planning on trying to change things over here, it doesn’t really seem like it since all many gay activists seem to be able to do is throw some sort of tantrum.

    Idiotic.

    What is idiotic is saying that Obama’s “lead from behind” strategy had absolutely nothing to do with the current situation in Libya. Maybe the outcome wouldn’t have been any different, but he at least should have tried to prevent the radical Islamists from taking power. Since he didn’t, everything that happens there is his responsibility. If he believes in a policy of non-intervention, that is one thing, but he clearly doesn’t.

    Good lord, you people have zero understanding of what was wrong with the Iraq War.

    Enlighten me as to how it is worse than Libya. In Iraq, there was a brutal dictator who the international community suspected of having weapons of mass destruction. Libya was more worthy of being invaded for what reason?

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 27, 2012 @ 11:04 pm - November 27, 2012

  137. That should be “not only do they not condemn the radical Muslims.”

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 27, 2012 @ 11:08 pm - November 27, 2012

  138. It’s funny how conservatives can frame every problem in the world in terms of how Christians are getting screwed.

    Gee, project much?

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2012 @ 11:10 pm - November 27, 2012

  139. It’s about getting our own house in order so we have the credibility and the moral authority to effect that change in the rest of the world.

    So, basically, the USA had no right to go to war against Nazi Germany because our country still had racism.

    And until we meet liberal standards of purity, we have no right to condemn the barbaric practices of other cultures.

    I didn’t think it was possible, but Levi went ahead and said something even more stupid than his “If the USA embraces gay marriage, Muslim countries will treat gays better” statement.

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2012 @ 11:13 pm - November 27, 2012

  140. @Rattlesnake

    Essentially, yes. There is nothing to stop the US, Canada, the UK, any Republic from falling from the lofty heights and turning into a Levi-stan. Nothing except the people who make up the countries.

    Our (The US) own history shows such things. Like Prohibition, and Slavery. We the People could restart slavery, we could raise the voting age to 21 again, etc etc legally by amending the Constitution. We went to war with ourselves over (besides Slavery) if the states could leave the Union.

    What keeps us from being Imperial Rome (Or worse, Tzarist Russia?) Nothing. Nothing but men and women standing athwart history, yelling “STOP!”

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 28, 2012 @ 7:46 am - November 28, 2012

  141. I didn’t think it was possible, but Levi went ahead and said something even more stupid than his “If the USA embraces gay marriage, Muslim countries will treat gays better” statement.

    The depths of Levi’s stupidity never cease to deliver.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 28, 2012 @ 7:47 am - November 28, 2012

  142. I don’t care about Christians. It is the individuals who are getting screwed. But that is beside the point. The point is, most leftists put a lot more effort into opposing Christians than they do Muslims. And not only do they condemn the radical Muslims, but many also go so far as to support Palestine (and Gaza/Hamas in particular in the recent conflict).

    In order for that to make any sense you would have to agree that there is a problem in “your own house.” That is debatable. What isn’t debatable is that there is a problem in the Middle East. With all of the outrage your side manages to produce for Christians in this hemisphere who perform comparatively minor misdeeds, I would hope that you could manage something for the radical Muslims. But that is apparently too much to ask, at least of the more prominent voices on the gay left (such as the Advocate or HRC). And if you are planning on trying to change things over here, it doesn’t really seem like it since all many gay activists seem to be able to do is throw some sort of tantrum.

    This is true stupidity. I’ll demonstrate with an abortion example. By your line of reasoning, conservatives shouldn’t be complaining about abortion in America, since China has abortion policies that are far worse. Why don’t we ever hear the pro-life movement condemning China? By your logic, conservatives must only be complaining about abortion in America because they hate women. If they really cared about abortion, they’d be complaining about Chinese abortions!

    Does that sound ridiculous? Of course it does, and it’s the exact same thing you’re saying about gay liberals in this country. Do you really need to have it explained to you why people are more concerned about comparably less severe problems that they’re facing in their own backyard than they are with more serious problems half a world away? Welcome to earth, you must be new here. Gays in America are living among anti-gay Christians, not radical Muslims. If a gay person is being hassled by someone, the odds are just about a 100% that the person doing the hassling is a Christian and not a radical Muslim. You could literally dismiss any argument about anything if all you think you have to do is point out that there’s someone in the world that is worse off. I mean this is remedial brain operation….

    What is idiotic is saying that Obama’s “lead from behind” strategy had absolutely nothing to do with the current situation in Libya. Maybe the outcome wouldn’t have been any different, but he at least should have tried to prevent the radical Islamists from taking power. Since he didn’t, everything that happens there is his responsibility. If he believes in a policy of non-intervention, that is one thing, but he clearly doesn’t.

    You are living in a fantasy land if you think that the United States can just go around invading nations and picking new governments for them. I mean – ‘he at least should have tried’? Again, how do you not understand how terribly that attitude has worked out for us, considering Iraq was only a decade ago? And now Obama is responsible for everything bad that happens in these countries because he didn’t invade them. Oh okay, that makes perfect sense. And Bush is not responsible for anything that happens in the Middle East because he did invade a country, so ‘he at least tried.’ Uh huh, yeah you’re really putting that head of yours to good use…

    Enlighten me as to how it is worse than Libya. In Iraq, there was a brutal dictator who the international community suspected of having weapons of mass destruction. Libya was more worthy of being invaded for what reason?

    The Many Differences Between Iraq and Libya

    1. George Bush made the deliberate decision to destabilize a country and region, Libya was already spiraling out of control and our efforts were to stabilize. Destabilizing versus stabilizing, which is better?

    2. George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. I know, I know, you morons will never be convinced of this, but I won’t let your stupidity and intransigence prevent me from using one of my most effective arguments. Bush clearly ignored evidence that didn’t help his case and puffed up rumors that did. Obama didn’t lie to anybody.

    3. George Bush was completely incompetent in his persecution of the war and in particular the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq, which lead to spiraling costs and huge casualties on all sides. This has not happened at all in Libya.

    4. George Bush never planned an exit-strategy and allowed the conflict to drag on for years, choosing instead to plan by assuming the best case scenario every step of the way. Okay, basically you can file this under incompetence but I enjoy spelling it out.

    5. George Bush built a torture/prison network that undermined our moral authority, ruined our credibility as liberators, and gave terrorists a huge recruitment tool. Not something that’s happened in Libya.

    6. George Bush allowed the occupation of Iraq to become a venture for Republican-connected American businesses. This is not happening in Libya.

    Believe me, I could go on like this for days. Do you know that the NATO coalition in Libya never lost anybody? Do you know that Libya was not that expensive for us and that we had allies committing significant amounts of funding and equipment? You’re asking the wrong question if you want to know who is more worthy of an invasion. What’s important is how capably our government functions when there are conflicts to deal with. Obama has done a much better job of handling the conflict in Libya by not risking American lives, not committing to a never-ending engagement that costs us billions, making sure we have allies, etc. Bush created his conflict, then proceeded to mismanage it for half a decade and getting lots of people killed.

    Comment by Levi — November 28, 2012 @ 10:34 am - November 28, 2012

  143. Ah isn’t it cute when Levi goes back to the big lies?

    1) It’s clear here Levi prefers despots destabalizing an area (stable, really? Ever heard of the Oil for Palaces program? Or the genocide of the Marsh Arabs?) rather than self determination. Not surprisingly, given he’s a self admitted facist. Again, President Bush did more for the environment in 8 years than any Earth Firster ever has.

    2) Levi believes that Karl Rove is the Master, and used his TARDIS and hypnosis to go back in time and convince everyone that Saddam hadn’t accounted for all his WMD programs. Well except that he actually hadn’t and we found some. But hey, what are facts to a fascist?

    3) Ambassador Stevens would like to take issue with this comment.

    4) Hmm, lets check who set the timetable that Obama’s been following. Oh, wait… Again facts getting in the way of the fascist’s big lie.

    5) Rendition, started under the Clinton Administration (and continued under Obama… So it’s clear that President Bush inherited the programs.

    6) Again a lie with no sources. Then again I guess in Levi’s world Amazon is a ‘Bush Croney’ too.

    Once again, Levi screams his lies as loud as he can, hoping that the soft truth of facts will be drowned out. His idol Gobbels would be proud.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 28, 2012 @ 11:02 am - November 28, 2012

  144. Forgot to add, note how Levi doesn’t mention Afghanistan? Despite that Casualties have skyrocketed under Obama. Kind of puts the truth to his lie of:

    Obama has done a much better job of handling the conflict in Libya by not risking American lives, not committing to a never-ending engagement that costs us billions, making sure we have allies, etc. Bush created his conflict, then proceeded to mismanage it for half a decade and getting lots of people killed.

    Oh and Bush created his conflict? I almost forgot Levi was a Truther, thanks for reminding us.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 28, 2012 @ 11:05 am - November 28, 2012

  145. This is true stupidity. I’ll demonstrate with an abortion example. By your line of reasoning, conservatives shouldn’t be complaining about abortion in America, since China has abortion policies that are far worse. Why don’t we ever hear the pro-life movement condemning China? By your logic, conservatives must only be complaining about abortion in America because they hate women. If they really cared about abortion, they’d be complaining about Chinese abortions!

    And once again, Levi shows how stupid, ignorant, and uninformed he is.

    Following international outrage over a photo of a Chinese woman and her child who was forcibly aborted at seven months, a top pro-life political women’s group is calling on President Obama to condemn the coercive policy that brought the forced abortion about.

    Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser called on the U.S. president to condemn China’s one-child policy and immediately cut off funding for the United Nation’s Population Fund (UNFPA) through an Executive Order.

    “The photo of Feng Jianmei and her dead child reveal the absolute horror resulting from China’s One-Child Policy, government-forced abortion, and gender selection,” said Dannenfelser. “President Obama must immediately condemn China’s routine violations of the dignity of women and children and cut off U.S. taxpayer funding of the UNFPA, which helps to implement these atrocities.”

    Moreover, this boomerangs on Levi completely, because his Barack Obama Party, including UN Ambassador Susan Rice, endorses, supports, and sends US taxpayer dollars to reward these activities.

    Get that, Levi? Your Obama Party endorses, supports, and funds forcing women to abort and murdering children.

    Your problem, Levi, is that you assume everyone else is as lazy and unprincipled as you are. You don’t understand that people could be applying their principles objectively; you simply believe that any criticism of anything is done for political purposes.

    And you’re simply making calculus. You support killing gays if doing so supports Obama. Since your black liar Obama is in favor of the Libyan government, the Iranian government, the Syrian government, the Saddam Hussein Iraqi government, the Taliban, etc. all killing gays, you make excuses for it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2012 @ 1:49 pm - November 28, 2012

  146. Obama probably waves pom poms for the China policy since the man was perfectly fine with letting doctors kill the babies born alive after botched abortions and believes pregnancy is a punishment.

    Comment by Just Me — November 28, 2012 @ 5:35 pm - November 28, 2012

  147. I didn’t say that gay activists should shut up about any perceived problems where they live. The point I am trying to make is that many gays will not seem to acknowledge that Muslims are worse, or even as bad, as Christians. That isn’t very difficult. Not to mention, again, the absolutely ridiculous uses many gay activists use their efforts for (for example, glitter bombs, outrage over Chick-fil-A, writing op-eds over how traitorous gay conservatives are, general histrionics, et cetera), instead of doing something constructive (which other gay activists actually do with results).

    As for Iraq, I didn’t say it was executed perfectly or that Bush was entirely competent. What I will say is that the West is better off not having Saddam Hussein threaten it with WMD’s or by creating instability. And Iraqis are better off not having a genocidal dictator in power. Was there a country that would have been better focused on? Perhaps, but that seems like a good candidate.

    And my issue with Obama’s actions in Libya is philosophical to a large extent, and my disagreements with his philosophy of “leading from behind” are reinforced by how unstable Libya is right now. Regardless of Bush’s failures (or successes) in Iraq, the Libya campaign was a failure that could have likely been prevented if Obama had more aggressive.

    Anyway, every failure in Iraq was Bush’s fault, but I guess Obama gets a pass.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 28, 2012 @ 5:57 pm - November 28, 2012

  148. Obama probably waves pom poms for the China policy since the man was perfectly fine with letting doctors kill the babies born alive after botched abortions and believes pregnancy is a punishment.

    Uh-huh. I’m guessing he would implement it in the United States if not for the pesky fact that it isn’t a communist dictatorship.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 28, 2012 @ 5:58 pm - November 28, 2012

  149. There is nothing to stop the US, Canada, the UK, any Republic from falling from the lofty heights and turning into a Levi-stan. Nothing except the people who make up the countries.

    While I agree with this, I think minorities should have a legal basis from which to block the majority from infringing on their natural rights (hence natural-law based written law). If laws are purely democratic (that is, there is no constitutional restriction on what the majority is able to turn into law, or if those restrictions are sufficiently limited), then the natural rights of people not in the majority can be alienated. Of course, there isn’t really a system I am aware of that can protect everyone’s natural rights infallibly.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 28, 2012 @ 6:14 pm - November 28, 2012

  150. John Derbshire once wrote that in a civil society the majority has an obligation not to oppress the minority. The minority has an obligation to not push for change too fast.

    What it comes down to I feel, is there is no defense for the minority except morality. With the minority, they can adapt, go underground, leave, or die fighting. We (Western Civ) try to make sure they don’t have to make that choice.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 28, 2012 @ 6:43 pm - November 28, 2012

  151. I didn’t say that gay activists should shut up about any perceived problems where they live. The point I am trying to make is that many gays will not seem to acknowledge that Muslims are worse, or even as bad, as Christians. That isn’t very difficult.

    Oh you’re so full of shit. If you rounded up a bunch of gays and ask them if they’d prefer to be taken into custody by anti-gay, American Christians or radical Muslims, every single one of them would pick the Christians. American gays understand radical Muslims are the bad guys. All of this is understood and should go without saying, but you need everybody to spell it out for you? That doesn’t make sense. If someone is making a point about why gay marriage should be legalized that involves criticizing the Christian religion, you really feel it’s necessary and worth your time to demand that they state that the Christians aren’t as bad as the Muslims? That’s stupid, and it’s used as an excuse to cut off the debate by the people with the weaker argument. Gays and liberals lived through 9-11, too, and just because you’re frightened of the terrorists and want to talk about how horrible and scary they are (which is exactly what they’d want you to be doing, I might add) doesn’t mean the rest of us should temper our arguments or worry about offending some Christian’s sense of entitlement.

    Not to mention, again, the absolutely ridiculous uses many gay activists use their efforts for (for example, glitter bombs, outrage over Chick-fil-A, writing op-eds over how traitorous gay conservatives are, general histrionics, et cetera), instead of doing something constructive (which other gay activists actually do with results).

    This has nothing to do with what we’re talking about, but why is this a problem? I think glitter bombs are more appropriate than screaming at teenagers going into abortion clinics. And who’s to say their activities haven’t been constructive? Gay marriage just won 4 out of 4 decisions this past election.

    As for Iraq, I didn’t say it was executed perfectly or that Bush was entirely competent.

    Understatement of the year!

    What I will say is that the West is better off not having Saddam Hussein threaten it with WMD’s or by creating instability. And Iraqis are better off not having a genocidal dictator in power. Was there a country that would have been better focused on? Perhaps, but that seems like a good candidate.

    It’s hard to argue we’re better off. Saddam was contained, had no weapons, and was not a primary financier of terrorist operations. He’s gone, and that’s about all that can be said. Invading that country is going to end up costing us a few trillion dollars, we ruined our credibility as a moral authority and as a source of reliable intelligence, and oh yeah there are whole generations of terrorists that are pissed off at us. That’s too high a cost to only be able to say, “At least Saddam’s not in charge anymore!”

    And my issue with Obama’s actions in Libya is philosophical to a large extent, and my disagreements with his philosophy of “leading from behind” are reinforced by how unstable Libya is right now. Regardless of Bush’s failures (or successes) in Iraq, the Libya campaign was a failure that could have likely been prevented if Obama had more aggressive.

    Oh my god, this is inane. You make it sound like Obama went into the White House on his first day, asked for the Foreign Policy Philosophy Menu, and asked, “How’s the Leading from Behind? I think I’ll have that!” I’d ask you what the the hell that even means, but you don’t know. Tell me, what part of killing Osama bin Laden involved ‘Leading from Behind’? You know what I think is nice about Libya? We went in with lots of allies, we went in a way that didn’t put anybody at risk, we only spent a few billion dollars on the entire thing, and now we’re pretty much done with it. And here you come complaining about Obama not being aggressive enough? What is that supposed to mean? What, do you want boots on the ground? Do you want an open-ended engagement that lasts for a decade? Would you have preferred if Obama spent 6 months lying to the American people about how Libya was just about ready to attack us with nuclear weapons? Is that what you mean by aggressive?

    And you wonder why I accuse of not understanding why Bush and Iraq were such unmitigated disasters….

    Anyway, every failure in Iraq was Bush’s fault, but I guess Obama gets a pass.

    Bush chose to invade. He wasn’t thrust into his circumstances, Obama was. And some of those circumstances involved the continued fallout of George Bush’s terrible policies in the Middle East. Bush reshaped the region, do you understand this? When the final history of the world is written, the decisions that George Bush made in the early 21st century will figure prominently in entries about the Middle East. This is what happens when you start wars based on lies that you’re too stupid and lazy to coordinate effectively. Yes, Iraq is ALL George Bush’s fault, and so are many of the other conflicts in the Middle East.

    I’ll close by reminding you that Obama has repeatedly stated that he takes full responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. Never got that from Bush. Bush had excuses every step of the way, first it was the intelligence community giving him false information, then it was the liberals who didn’t support the mission and the troops, then it was the Iranians for sabotaging the reconstruction efforts. Obama’s done a lot of horrible stuff with drone strikes and kill lists, and for this he should be harshly criticized. But his intervention in Libya (along with NATO) was a model for how we’re supposed to use our military. Bush didn’t do a single thing correctly and has still never owned up to it. It’s disgusting, and a permanent stain on your credibility, that conservatives let him get away with it.

    Comment by Levi — November 28, 2012 @ 8:31 pm - November 28, 2012

  152. If you rounded up a bunch of gays and ask them if they’d prefer to be taken into custody by anti-gay, American Christians or radical Muslims, every single one of them would pick the Christians.

    I’m sure they would. But they don’t have the integrity to actually say that. Or if they do, it doesn’t look like it.

    If someone is making a point about why gay marriage should be legalized that involves criticizing the Christian religion, you really feel it’s necessary and worth your time to demand that they state that the Christians aren’t as bad as the Muslims?

    No. That is not what I said.

    doesn’t mean the rest of us should temper our arguments or worry about offending some Christian’s sense of entitlement.

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

    This has nothing to do with what we’re talking about, but why is this a problem?

    It isn’t a problem. It is just stupid. And please show me where it was justified for people to scream at teenagers.

    I’d ask you what the the hell that even means, but you don’t know.

    Sure I do. It means that he waits for other people to make decisions (NATO, the UN, etc), that he favours a “weak” foreign policy that isn’t as concerned with getting things done as much as it is with appeasement of enemies and worrying about the US’s “image,” etc.

    Tell me, what part of killing Osama bin Laden involved ‘Leading from Behind’?

    This is stupid. Just about any person would have done exactly the same thing, and sooner if it is true that he waited.

    What is that supposed to mean? What, do you want boots on the ground? Do you want an open-ended engagement that lasts for a decade? Would you have preferred if Obama spent 6 months lying to the American people about how Libya was just about ready to attack us with nuclear weapons? Is that what you mean by aggressive?

    An aggressive foreign policy would make it clear to Islamists that the United States (or whatever country) will not tolerate them, and would use force to prevent them from getting into power.

    He wasn’t thrust into his circumstances, Obama was.

    Yes, because he is a servant to the UN and NATO.

    Bush reshaped the region, do you understand this?

    The region has been unstable for a long time, long before Bush invaded Iraq. There were terrorists in the region before then, and there were radical Islamists before then. The Iraq War may have changed the dynamics of the region, but Iraq has a lot of strategic value (particularly with Iran’s threatening regime) and it makes sense to try to establish some stability there (even if I don’t necessarily agree with doing that).

    It’s disgusting, and a permanent stain on your credibility, that conservatives let him get away with it.

    No conservative is too concerned with your opinion of conservatism’s credibility anyway.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 29, 2012 @ 12:40 am - November 29, 2012

  153. Correction: Please show me where I said it was justified for people to scream at teenagers.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 29, 2012 @ 12:42 am - November 29, 2012

  154. One has to remember, Rattlesnake, that Levi is a supporter of statutory rape, so he’s obsessed with being able to cover his tracks.

    Meanwhile, Levi just lied himself into a corner, given his constant screaming and crying that Christians are just as bad as Muslims and want to murder all gays. It just shows that he’s a desperate and malicious little bigot who will say and do anything to avoid taking responsibility for his words.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2012 @ 1:53 am - November 29, 2012

  155. Again Levi ignores the obvious.

    Fact: Regime change was the policy of the US towards Iraq as of 1998 (But then Levi believes Karl Rove has a time machine)

    Fact: Iraq did fund terrorist groups

    But hey, Fascists like Levi keep shouting the big lie over and over.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 29, 2012 @ 8:07 am - November 29, 2012

  156. I’m sure they would. But they don’t have the integrity to actually say that. Or if they do, it doesn’t look like it.

    If someone is making a point about why gay marriage should be legalized that involves criticizing the Christian religion, you really feel it’s necessary and worth your time to demand that they state that the Christians aren’t as bad as the Muslims?

    No. That is not what I said.

    It is what you’re saying! You want to undermine gays and discredit their criticisms of Christians by implying that they prefer (or are at least indifferent to) radical Islam. This is a favorite tactic of conservatives and it was used to great effect in the 2004 election, when all the anti-war liberals’ arguments were diminished and ignored by conservatives accusing liberals of preferring (or at least being indifferent to) radical Islam.

    This is standard operating procedure for conservatives facing criticism; ignore the argument, deny the evidence, and accuse your adversary of a glaring personality defect. The conservatives gets to sidestep having to defend their archaic and hateful religious beliefs, and then the conversation becomes a test for how their opponent to prove they don’t hate America.

    It’s what you’re doing whether you admit to it or not.

    doesn’t mean the rest of us should temper our arguments or worry about offending some Christian’s sense of entitlement.

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

    Christians in particular hate challenges to their religious beliefs and think that they’re entitled to special circumstances when they’re debating. These special circumstances involve, but are not limited to, providing no evidence for anything they say and invoking god as a final authority. If this doesn’t work, Christians roll up into a ball and claim that they’re being picked on, persecuted, discriminated against, and at this stage are extremely prone to lashing out with ridiculous nonsense such as, “But you don’t care about radical Muslims killing gays in the Middle East!”

    I think religion has had it too easy for too long, and that these cowards’ tactics should be exposed and ridiculed.

    Sure I do. It means that he waits for other people to make decisions (NATO, the UN, etc), that he favours a “weak” foreign policy that isn’t as concerned with getting things done as much as it is with appeasement of enemies and worrying about the US’s “image,” etc.

    As I said, you don’t even know what that means. It’s great you can gargle up some talking points, but you’re not making any kind of case.

    Why is waiting for other people to make decisions a bad thing? It’s nice having allies and friends, you know? Are there, like, some examples, or whatever?

    Obama’s not concerned with getting things done…. what is that supposed to mean? What hasn’t he gotten done? We’re out of Iraq, continuing our timetable for withdrawal in Afghanistan, killed Osama bin Laden.

    What has Obama done to appease our enemies? When Obama killed Osama, was he appeasing our enemies then?

    Oh my god, somebody is worried about the US’s image! WHAT A MORON! Doesn’t Obama realize that image is nothing, that image has never helped American diplomacy?

    Yeah, you’re good at reciting these little platitudes that you’ve picked up in the conservative thinking swamps, but none of these things really mean anything without specifics and details.

    This is stupid. Just about any person would have done exactly the same thing, and sooner if it is true that he waited.

    Oh really? Well, when the conservatives had control of government, they didn’t do exactly the same thing. Bush said on camera a few months after 9-11 that he didn’t worry about Osama Bin Laden at all. Remember when we invaded Iraq? There’s widespread consensus among our intelligence community that that was our best opportunity to get Osama Bin Laden, but Bush decided to invade Iraq instead. So actually, it isn’t the case that any person would have done exactly the same thing.

    Do you know how history works? I mean, some of this shit you’re saying, it’s as if you came out of a coma during Obama’s inauguration with no memory of the George Bush years.

    Love the little dig about how it would have happened sooner if it’s true that he waited…. this is more of your ‘be aggressive’ cheerleading that you think counts as rational foreign policy advice. The bottom line is that Bush failed to get Osama bin Laden for 7 years, and Obama got him in 2.

    An aggressive foreign policy would make it clear to Islamists that the United States (or whatever country) will not tolerate them, and would use force to prevent them from getting into power.

    No, I was asking you for specifics. You’re just saying ‘aggressive’ like that is some universally agreed upon definition. What would you do? Invade the country? How many troops? With allies or without? Are we rebuilding or just bombing?

    You’re talking in platitudes that mean nothing. Oh, we’re supposed to make it clear to the Islamists that we won’t tolerate them….. WELL HOW? What do you mean we’re going to use force to prevent them from getting into power? Is that the role of our government? We’re supposed to ‘use force’ to prevent people from getting into power that we don’t like?

    About that – one of the major consequences of the Iraq War was that we traded an enemy we knew and understood for dozens of enemies that we didn’t understand or in many cases didn’t know about. That’s what happens when you drop a western military into a region that’s been culturally divergent from our own for thousands of years. Yeah, we got rid of Saddam, but ever since we’ve been playing whack-a-mole with the people trying to fill the power vacuum. You might think someone is a terrible dictator that needs to be removed from power, but the reality is you’re taking a huge gamble in removing them because you never know who or what is going to replace them. THESE ARE THE LESSONS OF IRAQ. The United States does not have the power to magically fix countries in the Middle East. And here you are, basically recommending we do the same thing. That’s not smart.

    Yes, because he is a servant to the UN and NATO.

    What’s wrong with having allies? Our allies were right about WMD in Iraq. Wouldn’t that have been a nice mistake to avoid? The cool thing about the UN and NATO is that it gives the west an opportunity to intervene in conflicts without putting all of the risk on one country. Iraq is going to cost us a few trillion dollars, Libya cost us a few billion – since we had our allies!

    The region has been unstable for a long time, long before Bush invaded Iraq. There were terrorists in the region before then, and there were radical Islamists before then. The Iraq War may have changed the dynamics of the region, but Iraq has a lot of strategic value (particularly with Iran’s threatening regime) and it makes sense to try to establish some stability there (even if I don’t necessarily agree with doing that).

    During the Bush administration, Iraq under American rule was far less stable than it was under Saddam. Got that? Bush couldn’t run Iraq better than Saddam could. I mean not even close. Hell, the training and recruitment opportunities alone will be spawning extremists and resentment against the West for decades to come. Nobody is saying the Middle East was a walk in the park before Bush took power, but there’s no doubt that he left it much worse off than he found it by the time he left.

    No conservative is too concerned with your opinion of conservatism’s credibility anyway.

    Oh yeah, I know. You guys can just squirrel all this George Bush/Iraq War stuff down into the memory hole. Must be nice to never have to answer for your humiliating failures, huh?

    Comment by Levi — November 29, 2012 @ 12:46 pm - November 29, 2012

  157. And again, presented with facts, Levi continues to yell his lies louder.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 29, 2012 @ 1:42 pm - November 29, 2012

  158. This is too precious.

    Christians in particular hate challenges to their religious beliefs and think that they’re entitled to special circumstances when they’re debating. These special circumstances involve, but are not limited to, providing no evidence for anything they say and invoking god as a final authority. If this doesn’t work, Christians roll up into a ball and claim that they’re being picked on, persecuted, discriminated against, and at this stage are extremely prone to lashing out with ridiculous nonsense such as, “But you don’t care about radical Muslims killing gays in the Middle East!”

    Comment by Levi — November 29, 2012 @ 12:46 pm – November 29, 2012

    And then Levi rants and screams about those who insult Islam and calls for those who blaspheme against it or burn Korans to be put in jail.

    That’s what makes Levi such a blatant and obvious bigot. Levi supports and endorses bans on blasphemy, imprisoning people who criticize Islam, and insists that Islamists should be allowed to do whatever they want. In addition, Levi endorses and supports violent Islamists both abroad and at home, providing taxpayer dollars to subsidize Islamist organizations.

    Why? Because Islamists punch back twice as hard. Levi and his fellow bigots crap their pants at the thought of what would happen if they held a “kiss-in” in Your Black Muslim Bakery or Farrakhan’s restaurant. They know full well what would happen if they walked into CAIR and yelled the same things at them that they do at Christians.

    In short, Levi is making the rules clear: if you advocate tolerance and non-violence, he will spit all over you, trample you, and openly use the power of government to persecute you. If you riot and commit acts of violence, Levi will not only endorse you, he will subsidize you and use the power of government to punish anyone who criticizes you.

    This is how deranged the idiot boy Levi and his Barack Obama Party are. And Christians need to respond accordingly.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2012 @ 5:16 pm - November 29, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.490 Powered by Wordpress