National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown posted a photo with one of his young sons after a FoxNews appearance, and the pro-gay marriage left let loose with the hate. And, interestingly, the gay left taunts the poor kid by… asserting that he looks effeminate and might be a homosexual. Bullies and hypocrites, the lot of them.
When a viewpoint (leftism) goes against reason, logic and civil society – when its basic doctrine is in essence an attack on the rights of the individual – we should expect at least some of its adherents to be rude, “entitled” people in the encounters of daily life. Because the person and the viewpoint gravitate toward each other. Leftism fundamentally denies other people’s rights to life, liberty and property. Therefore, committed leftists should tend – not always, but on average and over time – tend to be unreasonable people who disrespect others.
It’s much better to laugh at these people than to feel upset by them. Consider this an open thread for posting your own favorite “ridiculous leftie encounter” stories, in the comments.
I’ll start with a very little one, that just happened. Picture a large gym, a bank of 12 large TVs shared by many exercise stations. A woman is exercising in front of TV #4. She watches #4 intently, with perhaps an occasional glance to TVs 3 or 5. TV #2 is far out of her field of vision, and clearly nothing that she’s watching. So she won’t mind if I change it, as I’m about to work in front of #2. I pick a sports channel. Oops! TV #2 had been set to MSNBC, and she’s a Ridiculous Leftie who must dictate everything that happens. She stops exercising and strides to the far wall just to change #2 back to MSNBC, glaring at me with vicious hostility. And then – get this – she *still* doesn’t watch it. (Probably since she would have had to strain her neck, to keep it up for long; or do even liberals dislike MSNBC?)
The story ended OK for me (I did speak with her and have reason prevail) but that’s enough. Tell yours!
Clay Aiken, the Democrat candidate for Congress in North Carolina’s 2nd District, who is gay but used to try and hide it (but never fooled anyone) seems to have some, um, hostility toward the women-folk. And some tendencies toward acting out violently.
Mr. Aiken expressed a desire to punch Ann Coulter in the face, and later thought it would be okay to refer to Ann Coulter using the same vulgar anatomical reference Bill Maher uses to refer to Sarah Palin. He also became so enraged during a State of the Union address, he expressed a desire to punch members of Congress in the throat.
There was a time when these kind of threats of violence against women would have been frowned upon by polite society, but in the Democrat Party of Alan Grayson and Ed Schultz, vulgarity and threats of violence aren’t just accepted, they’re expected.
If a Republican were to express a desire to punch Chris Hayes in the face, that would be a different matter altogether.
Rather belatedly, a group of prominent Gay Marriage supporters has signed an open letter politely asking the Gay Mob to stop persecuting people like Brendan Eich and be more tolerant of people who disagree with them.
The signatories of this statement are grateful to our friends and allies for their enthusiasm. But we are concerned that recent events, including the resignation of the CEO of Mozilla under pressure because of an anti-same-sex- marriage donation he made in 2008, signal an eagerness by some supporters of same-sex marriage to punish rather than to criticize or to persuade those who disagree. We reject that deeply illiberal impulse, which is both wrong in principle and poor as politics.…
As a viewpoint, opposition to gay marriage is not a punishable offense. It can be expressed hatefully, but it can also be expressed respectfully. We strongly believe that opposition to same-sex marriage is wrong, but the consequence of holding a wrong opinion should not be the loss of a job. Inflicting such consequences on others is sadly ironic in light of our movement’s hard-won victory over a social order in which LGBT people were fired, harassed, and socially marginalized for holding unorthodox opinions.
Don’t expect cooler heads to prevail; the real force behind gay marriage activism has never been the desire for equality, but the desire for vengeance.
Yes, friends, it has been a while since last I blogged. Now, to be sure, I have scribbled out several ideas for posts, mostly related to civil discourse and gay marriage, an issue much in the news these past few with what one blogress (citing Taranto) called “the defenestration of Brendan Eich.”
On the whole, our national debate on gay marriage has been mightily lame, with all too many advocates calling opponents “haters” or “bigots” and with some opponents contending that gay married couples aren’t capable of assuming the responsibilities of the ancient and honorable institution.
Well, in his new book, Not Cool, Greg Gutfeld actually contributes to the debate on gay marriage:
What marriage does for straight men–narrowing choice and creating a structure that encourages and preserves a healthy, prosperous life–should be available to men who prefer other men. And if two ladies want to get hitched, go for it. Maybe because I’m more worried about straight marriage than gay marriage. As divorce rates rise, and illegitimacy rates skyrocket, it’s pretty clear the disintegration of marriage is not a promising path for all involved. Why ban something for others that keeps the others from destroying themselves?
When marriage is what Gutfeld describes it to be, then it is a good thing, whether the spouses be of different sexes — or the same sex.
NB: Several typos fixed since initial publication.
There will be plenty of time to understand what happened and make appropriate points. For now, our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families.
Rhode Island State Senator Josh Miller, who proudly proclaims himself “One of the true ‘left of center’ Democrats of the R.I. State Senate,” is supporting a bunch of new laws that would prevent law-abiding people from exercising their Second Amendment rights to self-defense while doing nothing to stop crazies or criminals from committing violence against the law abiding… i.e. what the left calls “common sense gun laws.” Confronted by questions about his legislation, Senator Miller responded with the class and thoughtfulness we have come to expect from the Progressive Left.
Rhode Island State Senator when challenged on gun control legislation: “Go F*** Yourself” (Video)
A class act all the way, these Progressive Leftists.
Mr. Fred Phelps … the originator of that clever little legal scam the Westboro Baptist Church … is reportedly on his deathbed.
Let’s take this opportunity to behave with more maturity, character, and class than the lefties at Puffington Host and DailyKos who celebrate and dance whenever a conservative figure takes ill or dies. Let’s not revel or celebrate the demise of Mr. Phelps just because he happens to be a Democrat.
My long absence from GayPatriot, has been brought on by a few factors, chief among them that I’ve been taking some classes in the evenings and haven’t had much time for blogging, and what little time I have had to spare has been consumed by more going on socially than in the recent past. But beyond that, there has been my general sense of what I wrote about in this post, and called either Obamalaise or Obamanomie, that feeling of depression and listlessness that comes when I consider the sad state of a country that elected Obama not once, but twice and seems more interested in bread and circuses than in seeking actual, workable solutions to the difficult problems that face our country.
Naturally the online leftist rag Salon can’t understand why anyone would feel upset or bothered by the direction of the country in the era of the glorious Obama, and so one of its contributors, Edwin Lyngar, has written a laughable piece about “elderly white rage” which places the blame on that favorite bogeyman of the contemporary left, Fox News. I learned of the article when various liberals and leftists I know–including one I’ve taken to calling a MINO (a moderate in name only)–linked to it on social media. I just glanced past it until one of them approvingly quoted one of the more ridiculous passages from the article.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I am not elderly, nor am I viewer of Fox News. I mostly avoid the whole TV news genre, preferring to get my information from other sources. The full title of the article reads: “I lost my dad to Fox News: How a generation was captured by thrashing hysteria.” The author, who describes himself as “overeducated in the humanities” with both an MFA in Creative Writing from Antioch University (not exactly a bastion of conservative thinkers) and an MA in Writing from the University of Nevada, Reno unwittingly demonstrates the way shallow generalizations count as somehow being deep thought by those who advocate a politically correct perspective.
As I don’t care to be guilty of the same intellectual offense, I’d like to highlight and unpack a few of the article’s more ridiculous claims and observations. Let’s start with the opening paragraph:
Old, white, wrinkled and angry, they are slipping from polite society in alarming numbers. We’re losing much of a generation. They often sport hats or other clothing, some marking their status as veterans, Tea Partyers or “patriots” of some kind or another. They have yellow flags, bumper stickers and an unquenchable rage. They used to be the brave men and women who took on America’s challenges, tackling the ’60s, the Cold War and the Reagan years — but now many are terrified by the idea of slightly more affordable healthcare and a very moderate Democrat in the White House.
Of course GayPatriot readers can see what he’s doing there, but just for the sake of argument, let’s illustrate that he opens by offering a caricature and a generalization about elderly Fox News viewers, conflates Fox News viewers with the Tea Party, accuses them of being filled with “rage,” and then ends by trying to ridicule them as being “terrified by the idea of slightly more affordable healthcare and a very moderate Democrat in the White House.” Say what? That last clause is contains so many misrepresentations and non-sequiturs that it is really rather stunning. Barack Obama is only a moderate Democrat if you are so far to the left already that you can’t see how far his administration has shifted the political status quo towards statist goals. And just because Obamacare was given the Orwellian title “the Affordable Care Act,” doesn’t mean it has anything to do with making healthcare more affordable. Far from it, just ask the many people dropped from insurance who find that their health insurance costs have gone up and their deductibles are now much higher than they were previously. Even those who haven’t had to change insurance are getting less for more costs.
The article continues with an anecdote about the author’s father and an exchange where the writer tells him he shouldn’t watch Fox News:
I enjoyed Fox News for many years, as a libertarian and frequent Republican voter. I used to share many, though not all, of my father’s values, but something happened over the past few years. As I drifted left, the white, Republican right veered into incalculable levels of conservative rage, arriving at their inevitable destination with the creation of the Tea Party movement.
When I finally pulled the handle for Obama in 2012, my father could not believe how far I’d fallen. I have avoided talking politics with him as much as possible ever since. Last week, I invited him to my house for dinner with the express purpose of talking about po
Mrs. Cathy McMorris-Rogers – a Republican from Washington State – gave the Republican response to Obama’s
Mandatory Attendance Campaign Speech State of the Union Address. The deranged left has decided she is worse than the Countess Elizabeth Báthory de Ecsed (to the Google machine, reference non-getters). I would repost the many, many hate Tweets they have been spewing… but many of them use Bill Maher’s favorite word. And most of the others wish to perform physical violence upon her, because that’s what the left calls “civility.”
Anyway, it’s quite easy to understand the vitriol when you consider Mrs. McMorris-Rogers’s biography.
- She’s a Republican
- She gave birth to a Down’s Syndrome child instead of Wendy-Davising it.
- She has given birth to three children while in Congress and has a happy family life,
- She paid for college by working at McDonald’s instead the proper way (mummy and daddy’s money)
- She’s a Republican
The left sure has taken up Emperior Palpatine on that “let your hatred flow” advice.
Update: TnnsNe1 wonders if Mrs. McMorris-Rogers would be more popular if she had a sugar daddy pay for college, then left him with the kids the day he finished paying her student loans.
What was I just saying about left-wing rape hysteria? Yes, advocating for smaller, accountable, affordable Government is exactly the same as holding a knife to a woman’s throat and violating her sexually.
Come to think of it, Democrats probably really do feel that way.
Since the race card is getting a bit maxed out, the left is now switching to the rape card; everyone who opposes the onward march of progressive fascism will now be labeled a rapist.
Cathy Brennan will be pleased.
Juanita Broaddrick could not be reached for comment.
This is a guy who took Mormon-themed digs at Mitt Romney; brought on a shrink to analyze the allegedly violent, possibly psychotic tendencies of tea partiers; accused Republicans of treating the word “IRS” as a racist dog-whistle against Obama; and wondered if Rick Santorum wasn’t some sort of theocratic second coming of Stalin. When Steve Jobs died two years ago, he turned his on-air eulogy into an excuse to — ta da — bash Sarah Palin again. All of this is par for the course on MSNBC so imagine Bashir’s surprise, after all of that, upon finding out that introducing a little actual rhetorical scat into the figurative scat-flinging at righties was an unpardonable sin worthy of suspension.
I just say: Better late than never!
Dr. Ben Carson is hated on the left. Trayvon Martin is adored. Says a lot, doesn’t it?
The background is recent remarks of Sarah Palin’s:
Palin said that the debt being accumulated will result in the next generation being “beholden to the foreign master.”
“Our free stuff today is being paid for by taking money from our children and borrowing from China,” Palin told a crowd of supporters…“When that money comes due – and this isn’t racist, but it’ll be like slavery when that note is due. We are going to beholden to the foreign master.”
It’s more likely that we will default on our debt, so Palin is not 100% correct. But she’s well on the right track. You always know she is, when she gets the Left to reveal its snarling hatred.
This time, Martin Bashir of MSNBC dropped his mask.
In his “Clear the Air” segment, Bashir lit into Palin straight away, referring to her as America’s “resident dunce” and characterizing her remarks as “scraping the barrel of her long-deceased mind, and using her all-time favorite analogy in an attempt to sound intelligent about the national debt…”
“One of the most comprehensive first-person accounts of slavery comes from the personal diary of a man called Thomas Thistlewood…In 1756, he records that a slave named Darby ‘catched eating kanes had him well flogged and pickled, then made Hector, another slave, sh-t in his mouth…Mrs. Palin…confirms if anyone truly qualified for a dose of discipline from Thomas Thistlewood, she would be the outstanding candidate.
In short, the left-wing Bashir suggested on TV that someone should forcibly defecate in Palin’s mouth.
Now, Bashir went on to apologize, but my question is this: If Rush Limbaugh had said it about Nancy Pelosi, would any amount of apology be enough?
Have not some other conservatives been chased from the airwaves after saying less and apologizing as much (or more)? Given that Bashir’s remarks were “wholly unacceptable” (as he says), why does MSNBC still have him? How low are they?
Item #366,720 in the archives of “The Left is and does, that of which it falsely accuses the Right.”
At MoveOn.org, more than 44,000 have called for the GOP leaders to be arrested for ‘seditious conspiracy’ over the recent government shutdown (and ‘default’ scare). As ZH points out, that’s more people than have signed up for Obamacare.
Needless to say, MoveOn’s petition is a FAIL on several levels: (more…)
Re: the Obamacare, shutdown, budget, default and debt ceiling debates…
I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.
Oh wait, did I say that? Or some jihadist American Taliban terrorist bomb-throwing hostage-taking TeaBaggerParty Ted Cruz-loving anarchist wingnut grandmother, maybe?
No, it was Hillary Clinton saying it about an earlier administration that was quaintly civil to its critics, compared to the present one.
No discussion is grownup, if the participants don’t know/acknowledge certain facts which President Obama, the Democrats and their media try to have people forget:
- The government is supposed to spend by a budget.
- Between April 29, 2009 and March 23, 2013, Harry Reid’s Democrats didn’t even bother to pass a budget. Nearly four years!
- Under the U.S. Constitution, the budget is supposed to originate in Congress and particularly the House of Representatives. Which means,
- The House IS supposed to be able to impose its budgetary will on the President, including by shutting down the government, as Democrat Houses have shut down the government many times before to successfully impose their will on GOP Senates and presidents.
- On a district-by-district basis (as required by the Constitution), the American people elected a GOP House in 2012. To coin a phrase, “they won”.
- The current so-called “shutdown” only affects 17% of the government. (83% is still open.)
- The current House has passed many bills to keep most of the remaining 17% open – bills which the Democrats have rejected.
- Obama has given us more debt than any president in U.S. history.
- Contra Obama, raising the debt ceiling does indeed mean raising our debt further. And it does cost taxpayers a lot of money.
- Contra Obama, there is no reason for the government to default on its debt, even if the debt ceiling isn’t raised. You default only if you fail to make your minimum debt payment. Our ongoing tax revenue exceeds our minimum payment by many times over, leaving lots of money for the rest of government spending after debt service. (Just not as much as Democrats want.)
- Which is probably why Obama and the Democrats are the only side talking about having a default happen. (They want to at least dangle the threat – and they might carry out the threat – even if it’s unnecessary.)
- Contra Obama, our future spending isn’t “paying a bill”. Spending that Congress has budgeted or authorized (but not yet actually spent) can be stopped or cut any time Congress says so, or under-spent if the money simply doesn’t exist for it.
The people who run GayPatriot welcome intelligent disagreement with our views. If your disagreement ignores the above facts, sorry but it’s not intelligent.
As the adage goes, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.”
NB: Originally, point 2 stated incorrectly that the Senate hadn’t passed a budget since 2009. Error fixed. (thanks Kurt!)
ADDENDUM: 13. Contra Obama, borrowing money “to pay our bills” is NOT paying our bills. When you buy something on credit, have you paid you bill? No, of course not. You’ve merely changed to whom you owe the payment (and perhaps when).
Speaking to construction workers in Rockville, MD today, he said:
Everybody here just does their job, right? You don’t – uh uh – If you’re working here, and in the middle of the day you just stopped and said “You know what, I wanna get something, but I don’t know exactly what I’m gonna get, but I’m just gonna stop working until I get – I’m gonna shut down the whole plant until I get something” – You get fired, right? Because, the deal is, you’ve already gotten hired, you’ve got a job, you’re getting a paycheck, and so you also are getting the pride of doing a good job and contributing to a business and looking out for your fellow workers. That’s what you’re getting.
Perhaps without realizing it, President Obama just perfectly described workers who ‘walkout’ or go on strike – and why they should be fired.
But there’s more. Obama made his surprising slam on workers who strike in an attempt to compare them to the congressional GOP who, as we know, are failing (so to speak) to give King Obama his full budget demands.
Top Obama administration figures compare the GOP to terrorists (for example, Dan Pfeiffer the other day). So do other top Democrats (for example, Harry Reid calling them ‘anarchists’, or Al Gore who accused Obamcare foes of ‘political terrorism’).
If the GOP are behaving just like striking workers, according to Obama, and if the GOP are (in the very same behavior) also terrorists, then…striking workers are kind of like terrorists, aren’t they? “Thanks, Obama!”
UPDATE: Peter Schiff has another quote on the Left’s demonizing of conservatives as terrorists, this one from talk host Stephanie Miller on the GOP being “suicide bombers” who are “trying to blow your children up”.
This is the Left, in 2013. If you happen to truly want fiscal responsibility, an end to the endless debt ceiling increases, or avoidance of the train wreck that even Big Labor knows Obamacare to be: you get name-calling. Probably because that’s all the Left has left.
In the past few days, I have challenging Obamacare-supporting classmates in Facebook threads. On the whole, the discussions have been civil, with my peers responding to critiques with argument and anecdote and keeping, by and large, a good discussion going.
Some have noted that insurance costs were escalating even before a Democratic Congress passed Obamacare — and have addressed how the president’s plan would help fix many of the problems in the pre-2010 health care sector. Others, including yours truly, have warned about the increasing costs of the new plan. Most of the arguments are familiar to those who have been following the debate, but I thought one physician’s perspective particularly inisghtful– and so I asked his permission to quote it on this blog. The permission granted, I reproduce it exactly as offered.
Time for a physician (and patient’s) two cents: just today I received a registered letter from united healthcare/oxford that “as a result of the significant changes in the healthcare environment” I am being dropped as a Medicare advantage provider. No reason given except that somehow that will contain costs. Last week I received word from my own health insurer that they are ending my policy at the end of December (6 months early) and that they are under no obligation to help me find other coverage for my small business/ medical practice. Anecdotal? I don’t think so. I will likely be closing my practice soon despite having spent years studying , preparing, and taking excellent care of my patients. I wish everyone luck with Obamacare. So far, I am not a fan.
I do hope those following the threads on Facebook learn to recognize that both sides stand sincere in the support of — or opposition to — the president’s health care scheme.
UPDATE: In the Facebook thread wherein the physician offered the above, another participant shared this link: ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs
In all the discussions about “civility” the last few years – both in the general public discourse, and on this blog – I’ve often had to wonder what the term means, because it seems to me that leftists routinely propose things which are incivil, in and of themselves. Things of which the mere proposition is a serious threat to, or attack upon, many of their fellow citizens.
As a hypothetical example, let’s take theft. If I come up to you and I propose / threaten, most politely, to steal your livelihood, property and earnings: am I not being incivil, no matter how polite my speech is?
Now suppose I don’t propose to take the risk of thieving from you directly, but instead I propose to have the government seize your earnings on my behalf. The example is no longer hypothetical; it’s what left-liberals propose every day of the year, in every political platform.
I could also talk about speech codes (leftists suppressing speech they don’t like), late-term abortion (leftists claiming the ‘right’ to kill viable human beings), gun control (leftists trying to take self-defense away from people they don’t like), government mandates (leftists endlessly proposing to tell their fellow citizens how to live – backed by government force), etc.
Why do we not recognize, and swiftly dismiss or condemn, their incivility? Is civility more a matter of the forms and rules that people uphold when speaking, or of the inner attitude/intent toward one’s fellow citizen?