Why all the liberal hatred, violence, and incivility these days?

[cleller]

The thing with Roseanne Barr wishing cancer upon lots of people because the Chick Filet owners disagree with her viewpoint got me wondering why there is so much hatred and violence coming from the left.
The Republican side has their share of dumb and hateful things said by Rush and Glenn Beck. I don't support those two, or the Palin bunch, and wish the Republican party behaved more like it did 30 years ago.
Probably just my point of view, but it seems to me that the liberals have produced more than their share of toxic hate recently. They seem quick to go into attack mode when someone disagrees with them. As a country, our most sacred protection is free speech, yet when someone speaks in opposition, the Democrats seem to want to wipe them off the face of the earth. This is evidenced by Democrat politicians in Boston and Chicago trying to deny Chick Filet their opportunity to do business, based on their social views. When you think about it, it kinda fits with the scheme, that Chicago gang-style stuff.

These are a few examples, and yes, I did copy and paste most of them. Though they are all liberals, from their comments its hard to tell if they are hard core communists or fascists at heart.

"A spoiled child (Bush) is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little b*stard. [audio of gun being cocked]." -- A "humor bit" from the Randi Rhodes Show

"I want to go up to the closest white person and say: 'You can't understand this, it's a black thing' and then slap him, just for my mental health" -- New York city councilman Charles Barron

"F*** God D*mned Joe the God D*mned Motherf*cking plumber! I want Motherf*cking Joe the plumber dead." -- Liberal talk show host Charles Karel Bouley on the air.

"If I got (Condi Rice) a— on camera, I would put my Mars Air Jordans so far up her butt that the Mayo Clinic would have to remove them." -- Spike Lee

"Drudge? Aw, Drudge, somebody ought to wrap a strong Republican entrail around his neck and hoist him up about six feet in the air and watch him bounce." -- Liberal radio host, Mike Malloy

"I know how the 'tea party' people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their 'Obama Plan White Slavery' signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads." -- The Washington Post's Courtland Milloy

Sandra Bernhard on Sarah Palin she should "be gang raped by my big black brothers"

MSNBC's Ed Schultz after Dick Cheney's heart transplant: “We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him."

John Cusack: “I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES ORDICK ARMEYAND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS,”

Keith Halloran, a Democratic candidate for state representative in New Hampshire after the Ted Steven plane crash: “Just wish Sarah and Levy were on
board,”

Bill Maher: “You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.” (Senator John Kerry): “Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.”

Playboy's top ten list of conservative women they'd like to "hate ****"

“Real freedom will come when [U.S.] soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors.” — Warren County Community College adjunct English professor, John Daly

“I’m glad [Al Qaeda terrorists] finally have a chance to see you, Mr. Addington.” — Bill Delahunt, D-Massachusetts hopes to get one of Dick Cheney’s aides killed by Al-Qaeda

“The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.” — Michael Moore

“It’s good (Michelle Malkin’s) in D.C. and I’m in New York. I’d spit on her if I saw her.” — Geraldo Rivera

"When we see crazy, senseless deaths like this, we can only ask why, why, why couldn't it have been Glenn Beck?"
-- Bill Maher on HBO's "Real Time", 05 March 2010

Bill Maher concerning Dick Cheney:
I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.”

"While the rest of the country waves the flag of Americana, we understand we are not part of that. We don't owe America anything - America owes us."
-- Al Sharpton at the "State of the Black World Conference" in Atlanta, GA (not violent, but telling)

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for."
-- Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee Chairman

"Anthrax did not come from a cave in Afghanistan, but from the same people who blew up the building in Oklahoma City, Ruby Ridge, the terror attack in Atlanta, Georgia - those same anti-union forces... Ashcroft is using the FBI as one weapon, the IRS as another weapon, and leaks to the right-wing media as another weapon to destroy the leadership of organized labor."
-- Jesse Jackson at a speech to the AFL-CIO, December 2001

"The man is on the Court. You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that's how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person."
-- USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas

"Shoot him with a .44 caliber Bulldog."
-- Spike Lee on Charlton Heston

"So if you're a gang member and you would normally be killing somebody, why not kill a white person? Do you think that somebody thinks that white people are better, or above dying, when they would kill their own kind?"
-- Sister Souljah in a Washington Post Interview, 1992

"The good ol' boy cracker-crats of the Republican party are having themselves a regular hootenanny over allegations that congresswoman Cynthia McKinney landed a punch on a security guard at the Capitol."
-- Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, from her website

Congressman Paul Kanjorski On Florida Governor Rick Scott: “Put him against the wall and shoot him.”

To finish up, we all remember Bill Maher calling Palin filthy and obscene names because he disagreed with her views. Some justification. I don't care if its Nancy Pelosi, Hilary, or whoever, no man should talk that way about a woman on TV. It was the worst display of un-masculine behavior I can imagine. Any party that embraces him should be feel shame, if they are capable.

[Sooner_Tuf]

I think it's just the liberal's way of displaying their impotence to the world.

[diverdog]

Yeah the libs have a real lock on hate speech.....rolls eyes



2. "I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, 'Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore,' and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, 'Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death.' And you know, well, I'm not sure." –responding to the question "What would people do for $50 million?", "The Glenn Beck Program," May 17, 2005 (Source) .


.

"I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus - living fossils - so we will never forget what these people stood for." - Rush Limbaugh, Denver Post, 12-29-95

"Get rid of the guy. Impeach him, censure him, assassinate him." - Rep. James Hansen (R-UT), talking about President Clinton, as reported by journalist Steve Miner of KSUB radio who overheard his conversation, 11-01-98

"We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs." - Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), Mother Jones, 08-95

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." - Ann Coulter, New York Observer, 08-26-02

"Homosexuals want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers." - Pat Robertson again, The 700 Club, 01-18-95

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped [9/11] happen.'"



There's lots more.


The point is both sides have their extremist.

[soonercruiser]

Yeah the libs have a real lock on hate speech.....rolls eyes

The point is both sides have their extremist.


Only ONE EACH?
:crushed:

[cleller]

Yeah the libs have a real lock on hate speech.....rolls eyes






The point is both sides have their extremist.

I'm sure we can all find more, but what is going on right now? Of those comments, half were 15 years ago, one is a rumor that was overheard, etc. Hardly a day seems to go by in the last couple years that a liberal is not letting loose something like this. Union members are assaulting Fox journalists, Conservative gatherings are being disrupted, "occupy'ers" are destroying things or interfering with people's jobs.

Still seems to lean heavily to one side.

[diverdog]

I'm sure we can all find more, but what is going on right now? Of those comments, half were 15 years ago, one is a rumor that was overheard, etc. Hardly a day seems to go by in the last couple years that a liberal is not letting loose something like this. Union members are assaulting Fox journalists, Conservative gatherings are being disrupted, "occupy'ers" are destroying things or interfering with people's jobs.

Still seems to lean heavily to one side.

Conservatives are the kings of hate speech. How many times have we seen on this board righties calling for outright armed rebellion and the overthrowing of the government?

[cleller]

Conservatives are the kings of hate speech. How many times have we seen on this board righties calling for outright armed rebellion and the overthrowing of the government?

In my view it is just the opposite. I don't recall any overthrow talk, but do recall lots of name calling toward conservatives.

[Curly Bill]

Conservatives are the kings of hate speech. How many times have we seen on this board righties calling for outright armed rebellion and the overthrowing of the government?

I don't wanna overthrow the government, I just wanna eliminate all the socialists, wimps, wealth redistributors, commies, marxists, PCers, and all the other losers from it.

[diverdog]

In my view it is just the opposite. I don't recall any overthrow talk, but do recall lots of name calling toward conservatives.

Well I guess you do not listen to Savage, Levin, Coulter, Limbaugh, Gallagher, Beck and many others on rightie radio. They are every bit as bad as the left if not worse.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

good god both sides are bad, can we not agree on that

[Curly Bill]

good god both sides are bad, can we not agree on that

No one's arguing that. It's just that YOUR side is worse! ;)

[StoopTroup]

Still seems to lean heavily to one side.

Mostly because neither side can agree which side it's leaning towards. That will clear up in November and large portions of it will go away Post Elections.

[cleller]

Well I guess you do not listen to Savage, Levin, Coulter, Limbaugh, Gallagher, Beck and many others on rightie radio. They are every bit as bad as the left if not worse.

Nope, just read the WSJ, and some Yahoo news. The WSJ may lean right, but not as bad as most (non-Fox) outlets lean left.


good god both sides are bad, can we not agree on that

Agreed. It just seemed to me that some truly stupid stuff has been coming from the left most recently. An uptick.

[diverdog]

Nope, just read the WSJ, and some Yahoo news. The WSJ may lean right, but not as bad as most (non-Fox) outlets lean left.



Agreed. It just seemed to me that some truly stupid stuff has been coming from the left most recently. An uptick.

I like the WSJ but I think it has been hurt from the purchase by News Corp. It just isn't as good as it use to be. One thing that really pissed me off is when they got rid of their weekend wine columnist John Brecher and Dorothy Gaiter. A lot of people cancelled their subscriptions when that happened. Still the WSJ is about the best paper out the.

[cleller]

I like the WSJ but I think it has been hurt from the purchase by News Corp. It just isn't as good as it use to be. One thing that really pissed me off is when they got rid of their weekend wine columnist John Brecher and Dorothy Gaiter. A lot of people cancelled their subscriptions when that happened. Still the WSJ is about the best paper out the.

I didn't start taking it until about 3 years ago. Wife got some free 6 month thing, and it stuck. Who I miss is James B. Stewart, he left for the NY Times, where I think he only writes occasionally, and is also writing books.
I know when News Corp bought it, they said they'd keep their mitts off, but don't know if that's true. They take their shots at Obama, but at least try to make it look scholarly. I like it more for its financial coverage, anyway.

[olevetonahill]

Conservatives are the kings of hate speech. How many times have we seen on this board righties calling for outright armed rebellion and the overthrowing of the government?

Point me out one Bro?

Find it and quote and Ill Vote any way you tell me to for the est of my life.

See this is what loses yer side any motion. No One has CALLED for Rebellion. Several have said It may become necessary, Or we may be forced into it . But NO ONE has ever called for the violent Overthrow of our Government

You must be thinkin of those guys you hang out with in Montana and Idaho.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Agreed. It just seemed to me that some truly stupid stuff has been coming from the left most recently. An uptick.
Some of your quotes are 20 years old, most of them are a couple years old at least. It would be one thing if say, all these quotes came in the span of a year or two, but not the case. I think anyone could easily come up with a similar list from the right in the same time-frame. For every Bill Maher there's an Ann Coulter

[olevetonahill]

Some of your quotes are 20 years old, most of them are a couple years old at least. It would be one thing if say, all these quotes came in the span of a year or two, but not the case. I think anyone could easily come up with a similar list from the right in the same time-frame. For every Bill Maher there's an Ann Coulter

Nothing more than what Ive said all along
There are LOONs on both fringes
Some of em post here

[Wishboned]

Nothing more than what Ive said all along
There are LOONs on both fringes
Some of em post here

I prefer to be a loon in the middle. That way I can point fingers at everyone.

And I don't wish death on anyone because of their political stance. Maybe a really bad stomach ache...or the runs. But not death. Never death.

[olevetonahill]

I prefer to be a loon in the middle. That way I can point fingers at everyone.

And I don't wish death on anyone because of their political stance. Maybe a really bad stomach ache...or the runs. But not death. Never death.
Ya got a Point Bro
Howsomever Ive had the ****s so bad that I thot i was dyin

[Wishboned]

Ya got a Point Bro
Howsomever Ive had the ****s so bad that I thot i was dyin

I can only imagine. When we went to Panama we had a guy drink water straight from a stream. Even though they warned us over and over about it. He damn near **** himself to death.

[Midtowner]

ITT

http://beendelayed.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Crying-Baby-Natural-High-for-Some-Moms-200x200.jpg

[olevetonahill]

ITT

http://beendelayed.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Crying-Baby-Natural-High-for-Some-Moms-200x200.jpg
Dont Cry Mid. Yer Lib buds will come back to play with you .

[TitoMorelli]

Of course, we all know that the participants in the Tea Party are far more un-civil than the Occupiers. Why, look at all the windows they smashed, and women raped in the TP encampments. Why you'd think those dirty old bastards had been raised in the wild.

Much worse than those sweet Occupy protestors. As that upstanding and Lincoln-esque congresswoman Nancy Pelosi said of the Occupy Movement, "God bless them."


[/sarc]

[marfacowboy]

What Roseanne Barr said was disgusting. Saying you want to "eliminate" people is disgusting.

[rock on sooner]

The extremist stuff on both sides sucks bigtime. Part of the
reason for the left getting so bad is that they're frustrated by
the fact that the extreme right SEEMS to have been running
off at the mouth for so much longer and louder that it is a
knee jerk reaction.

Rush, Ms Coulter, Beck, Hannity et al have had a hammerlock
on so much for so long that the extreme left has gone off the
deep end to try to get attention.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Roseanne should be put back
in her cage with a gag order of some sort. Jus sayin...

[cleller]

With that Chick Filet crap, do you think Rahm Emanuel and some of the other opponenets would also try to block a business run by an Arab, or Muslim? I hardly think they support gay marriage, but it seems most "progressives" are intent on showing openness to them.

[LiveLaughLove]

This week - Kathy Griffin calls 17 year old Willow Palin a dirty whore and future porn star. Imagine the outrage if someone said something similar about, oh I don't know, say an Obama child.

A few months ago - David Axelrod (the Presidents adviser), said the President chose between three dogs before Beau won out, and one of them was Miss California (who opposed same sex marriage). Interestingly, at that time, so did Obama.

Thom Hartman whom I have listened to quite a bit, routinely wishes death or dismemberment, or some form of rotting in hell to every conservative he happens to be talking about at that time. he is so ridiculous with it, that it's quite amusing. His callers are even worse.

As for the old racist charge against Republicans/ Conservatives, just ask Michelle Malkin to show her emails/tweets about her and her "chink" heritage. They are some of the most vile things I have ever seen, and extremely racist.

I heard an interesting conversation with an analyst (can't recall what show it was on) talking about the fact that most demands for books being taken out of public libraries come from left wing groups, not from Christians as is the caricature.

I've always believed and still do that the left is fascist. They try to shout you down and not let you speak. Go to any talk at any university that is being held by a conservative. The campus fascist libs will be there to shout you down. Try and preach, God forbid, on campus. It's impossible.

As William F Buckley said, "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." Never has there been a truer statement, and they lash out in rhetorical violence against those that have those other views.

[8timechamps]

I prefer to be a loon in the middle. That way I can point fingers at everyone.

And I don't wish death on anyone because of their political stance. Maybe a really bad stomach ache...or the runs. But not death. Never death.

Add me to Wishboned's party.

What should we call ourselves?

[cleller]

Add me to Wishboned's party.

What should we call ourselves?

How about the Luke Warm Loonies? or Lukey-Loonies?

[diverdog]

.Thom Hartman whom I have listened to quite a bit, routinely wishes death or dismemberment, or some form of rotting in hell to every conservative he happens to be talking about at that time. he is so ridiculous with it, that it's quite amusing. His callers are even worse.

I listen to TH and I have never heard him say anything remotely like this.

[East Coast Bias]

I only judge by what I see here, RW is ahead ten to one. Also by how many times my family and friends have asked me to leave the country.....

[cleller]

Here's a good one on the Chick Filet Appreciation Day for MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts:

“So if you like marriage equality and you’re for marriage equality, and you go there that day — you’re a chicken-eating Judas. That’s what I’m telling you.”

[diverdog]

I only judge by what I see here, RW is ahead ten to one. Also by how many times my family and friends have asked me to leave the country.....

Yep. And they always talk about the extreme left and somehow forget about the militia movement, christian identity movement, patriot movement, neo confederate groups and all the other hate groups on the right. Both sides have their issues but in modern times I fear the anti government extremist like Tim Mcveigh far more than I fear the Occupy movement.

[TitoMorelli]

Yep. And they always talk about the extreme left and somehow forget about the militia movement, christian identity movement, patriot movement, neo confederate groups and all the other hate groups on the right. Both sides have their issues but in modern times I fear the anti government extremist like Tim Mcveigh far more than I fear the Occupy movement.

When the mainstream right actually begins accepting such groups with open arms the way the left and its elected leaders have accepted the Occu-Tards and other such lefty fringe movements, then you might have a point. And no, the Tea Party isn't the conservative equivalent to Occupy. They fall short by about 7300+ arrests, not to mention exponentially more acts of violence and destruction of property for which no one was arrested.

[LiveLaughLove]

I listen to TH and I have never heard him say anything remotely like this.

Don't doubt you listen to him, but don't see it as possible that you haven't heard any of it. Wish I had it recorded, but I don't. One that stands out to me, was an attack on our Senator Inhofe over global warming. TH and his callers talked of the various ways Inhofe didn't deserve to live on this planet for the irreparable harm he is doing fighting against global warming measures. It's really hard to believe people actually believe the way he and his callers do....without imbibing mass quantities of hallucinogenics.

Here's a good post on the hate from the left. http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/. It's from Michelle Malkins website so many of you will poopoo it, but it's documented with pictures and videos. Simply put there is no same same both sides does it bullcrap.

While some do it on the right, not to anywhere close to the extent it happens on the left. The stuff that has been said about Sarah Palin alone would fill far more volumes, than all of the right wing attacks combined against all left wing politicians.

Let's not forget everyones favorite anti-bullying crusader, Dan Savage.
He said he wanted to violently hate f*** Rick Santorum.
He also said he wanted to drag a Green Party candidate (whom he saw as a Republican plant) behind a pickup truck until all that's left is the rope.
He calls "Santorum" that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter left over from anal sex.
He said he wished all Republicans were f&&&&ing dead, but then said excluding his Dad of course.

Did I mention he is working with the WH in an anti-bullying campaign? You can't make this stuff up. If I invented a "Dan Savage" people would not believe it and chastise me. If I said he was an anti-bullying person working with Obama, they would call me a racist and homophobe and hater for creating a character such as him.

No, no comparison in the two sides. I've been to a couple of Tea Party events. I've seen the OWS events, not even close.

[LiveLaughLove]

When the mainstream right actually begins accepting such groups with open arms the way the left and its elected leaders have accepted the Occu-Tards and other such lefty fringe movements, then you might have a point. And no, the Tea Party isn't the conservative equivalent to Occupy. They fall short by about 7300+ arrests, not to mention exponentially more acts of violence and destruction of property for which no one was arrested.

exactly.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Don't doubt you listen to him, but don't see it as possible that you haven't heard any of it. Wish I had it recorded, but I don't. One that stands out to me, was an attack on our Senator Inhofe over global warming. TH and his callers talked of the various ways Inhofe didn't deserve to live on this planet for the irreparable harm he is doing fighting against global warming measures. It's really hard to believe people actually believe the way he and his callers do....without imbibing mass quantities of hallucinogenics.

Here's a good post on the hate from the left. http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/. It's from Michelle Malkins website so many of you will poopoo it, but it's documented with pictures and videos. Simply put there is no same same both sides does it bullcrap.

While some do it on the right, not to anywhere close to the extent it happens on the left. The stuff that has been said about Sarah Palin alone would fill far more volumes, than all of the right wing attacks combined against all left wing politicians.

Let's not forget everyones favorite anti-bullying crusader, Dan Savage.
He said he wanted to violently hate f*** Rick Santorum.
He also said he wanted to drag a Green Party candidate (whom he saw as a Republican plant) behind a pickup truck until all that's left is the rope.
He calls "Santorum" that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter left over from anal sex.
He said he wished all Republicans were f&&&&ing dead, but then said excluding his Dad of course.

Did I mention he is working with the WH in an anti-bullying campaign? You can't make this stuff up. If I invented a "Dan Savage" people would not believe it and chastise me. If I said he was an anti-bullying person working with Obama, they would call me a racist and homophobe and hater for creating a character such as him.

No, no comparison in the two sides. I've been to a couple of Tea Party events. I've seen the OWS events, not even close.
Look, there are nuts on every side and just because you listen to Dan Savage/Rush Limbaugh doesn't mean you approve of everything they say. They are really shock doctors first, political minds last. Saying crazy **** gets you attention. I can come up with a myriad of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly quotes that equal Dan Savage or whatever left wing nut you can come up with.

“Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?”
~Rush Limbaugh, while holding up a photograph of 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton on his 1993 television show

“To some people, bankers — code word for Jewish — and guess who Obama’s assaulting? He’s assaulting bankers. He’s assaulting money people. And a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish. So I wonder if there’s starting to be some buyer’s remorse there.”
~Rush Limbaugh, stereotyping Jewish people, January 20, 2010


“You know, one of the benefits of school being out, in addition to your kids losing weight because they’re starving to death out there because there’s no school meal being provided, one of the benefits of school being out, college campi being vacant this time of year, is that our audience levels go up. I think, you know what we’re going to do here, we’re going to start a feature on this program: “Where to find food.” For young demographics, where to find food. Now that school is out, where to find food. We can have a daily feature on this. And this will take us all the way through the summer. Where to find food. And, of course, the first will be: “Try your house.” It’s a thing called the refrigerator. You probably already know about it. Try looking there.”
~Rush Limbaugh, denigrating poor children, June 16, 2010

And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down." - Bill O'Reilly

"I just wish Katrina had only hit the United Nations building, nothing else, just had flooded them out, and I wouldn't have rescued them." - Bill O'Reilly

^but the right wing never wishes death on anyone!

tl;dr don't listen to either wing's nuts

[LiveLaughLove]

Look, there are nuts on every side and just because you listen to Dan Savage/Rush Limbaugh doesn't mean you approve of everything they say. They are really shock doctors first, political minds last. Saying crazy **** gets you attention. I can come up with a myriad of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly quotes that equal Dan Savage or whatever left wing nut you can come up with.

“Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?”
~Rush Limbaugh, while holding up a photograph of 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton on his 1993 television show

“To some people, bankers — code word for Jewish — and guess who Obama’s assaulting? He’s assaulting bankers. He’s assaulting money people. And a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish. So I wonder if there’s starting to be some buyer’s remorse there.”
~Rush Limbaugh, stereotyping Jewish people, January 20, 2010


“You know, one of the benefits of school being out, in addition to your kids losing weight because they’re starving to death out there because there’s no school meal being provided, one of the benefits of school being out, college campi being vacant this time of year, is that our audience levels go up. I think, you know what we’re going to do here, we’re going to start a feature on this program: “Where to find food.” For young demographics, where to find food. Now that school is out, where to find food. We can have a daily feature on this. And this will take us all the way through the summer. Where to find food. And, of course, the first will be: “Try your house.” It’s a thing called the refrigerator. You probably already know about it. Try looking there.”
~Rush Limbaugh, denigrating poor children, June 16, 2010

And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down." - Bill O'Reilly

"I just wish Katrina had only hit the United Nations building, nothing else, just had flooded them out, and I wouldn't have rescued them." - Bill O'Reilly

^but the right wing never wishes death on anyone!

tl;dr don't listen to either wing's nuts

Hmm, you equate those quotes to what I posted? Well, whatever floats your boat I guess.

Limbaugh and O'Reilley aren't working directly with Romney or the RNC, unlike Savage. And they haven't given a million dollars to Romney, unlike Bill Maher. O'Reilley isn't even a conservative for crying out loud. But yeah, if it makes you feel better about being associated with these vile people on the left.

[Wishboned]

Add me to Wishboned's party.

What should we call ourselves?


I tell people I'm a member of the Common Sense party, damn few members and no representation in Washington.

[okie52]

I tell people I'm a member of the Common Sense party, damn few members and no representation in Washington.LOL

[cleller]

I tell people I'm a member of the Common Sense party, damn few members and no representation in Washington.

You're headed the right direction. What we need is party that will cut the government dole off at its knees, and GRUDGINGLY raise taxes (only because of the feces our government got us in) for a short while until we aren't tottering on fiscal cliffs every year.

[8timechamps]

I tell people I'm a member of the Common Sense party, damn few members and no representation in Washington.


Perfect. Now, if we could get some folks elected from our party. Although, election is the easy part...it's getting that person to remain in-line with our party stance while in office that will be hard.

[Wishboned]

Perfect. Now, if we could get some folks elected from our party. Although, election is the easy part...it's getting that person to remain in-line with our party stance while in office that will be hard.

No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy, and no politician survives contact with the lobbyists.

[olevetonahill]

No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy, and no politician survives contact with the lobbyists.
Always kept My battle Plan simple . Shoot them before they can shoot me, worked pretty well fer the most part :stung:

[rock on sooner]

No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy, and no politician survives contact with the lobbyists.

That's where every brand new do gooder fails....absolutely no
clue what is in D.C. until they get there. They all want to change
Washington, do great things & change the system. Money talks,
money walks, money rules! IDM, it'll never change...IDM,(It Don't
Matter)...JMO...

[rock on sooner]

Always kept My battle Plan simple . Shoot them before they can shoot me, worked pretty well fer the most part :stung:

Fair enuf, Vet..cept gun violence is frowned upon in most circles...but
gptta say there's a few that need it...maybe bean bags or at least
paint balls:glee:

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Well, I think you can trace things back to that Network movie with "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!!!!"

When that movie came out, the TV events were surreal. Today, it's commonplace. On radio, on TV, blogs and other internet postings, and in print media.

The right-wingers have an advantage in that their angry rambo-macho-falling-down-postal rhetoric is made for good talk radio, cable "news" shows, and blogs. The libs have had a difficult time matching the cons, partly because their rhetorical tone has historically been in the Adlai Stevenson intellectual pencil-neck-I'm-smart-you're-a-neanderthal tradition. But libs realized that was no match in the hot media of modern times.

It's important, though, to put this in proper context: this is professional wrestling of the word. The goal is to sell tickets and make it to the big show. This is pure unadulterated capitalism.


Diverdog already mentioned the following quote:



"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." - Ann Coulter, New York Observer, 08-26-02

The irony is that saying **** like that gets Coulter publicity that helps sells so many books she ends up on the New York Times best seller list -- which makes even more people curious enough to buy her books. She's a damn good marketeer.

Or take Michael Savages' quote:
"Oh, you're one of the sodomites! You should only get AIDS and die, you pig! How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig? You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage? You got nothing to do today? Go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get trichinosis. Okay, got another nice caller here who's busy because he didn't have a nice night in the bath house and is angry at me today?"

Savage gets fired from MSNBC for this, but it's more like the masked guy in the wrestling ring who gets disqualified for head-butting with a steel plate. It's a springboard to bigger and better venues.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

[SIZE=3]
Or take Michael Savages' quote:


How about this gem:


Now, the illness du jour is autism. You know what autism is? I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they're silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, "Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, idiot.
Anyways, I'm gonna give the 'Pubs on here the benefit of the doubt and say they don't agree with the above statement, just like us libs don't agree with DEATH TO ALL REPUBLICANS

[cleller]

What are, and always have been The Big Three Networks-- watched by the overwhelming majority of Americans-- and which way do they lean?

[Wishboned]

Always kept My battle Plan simple . Shoot them before they can shoot me, worked pretty well fer the most part :stung:

I wonder if it's illegal to shoot a lobbyist? And if it isn't if there's a limit, and no we need a license?

[cleller]

I wonder if it's illegal to shoot a lobbyist? And if it isn't if there's a limit, and no we need a license?

There you go with that violent hate speech. Guess all political parties get around to it sooner or later.

[SicEmBaylor]

They're sexually repressed.

[badger]

Just in case this thread isn't derailed yet, you ever notice how when someone overreacts with big threatening words and puts on a show that after awhile, the calm and quiet opposition just can't stay silent any longer?

I think that's what happens in politics. After awhile, the opposing side just has to match whatever they're facing, even if it's embarrassing to the highest level.

Remember that South Park episode where the short guy with billions of accomplishments gets laughed at by Cartman and after trying to take the "sticks and stones" calm approach he finally relents and tries to get even with Cartman? It's kind of like that.

In any event, I'm disgusted with both sides. Anyone wanna endorse a third party candidate for president on the board yet? :)

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

In any event, I'm disgusted with both sides. Anyone wanna endorse a third party candidate for president on the board yet? :)
http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2011/05/23/102474-gary-johnson.jpg

[OU_Sooners75]

I dont listen to any talk radio or shock jock, regardless if they are on TV or Radio.

That said, reading the quotes from all posts that are negative in nature...none of the ones on the right can even come close to match the hatred and intensity that the left has been putting out there.

If Sarah Palin was a democrat and the republican talking heads said the same exact words about her and her family, the democrats would be ready to slam whoever said it with slander and libel and other law suits that they can get away with. That or they would be ready to go torch that person's house!

I am not saying either side is right. But the liberal media has gone way over board.

Look at the outrage the liberals had when Don Imus said that the Rutgers Woman's basketball team were "nappy headed hos."

OMG, they called for his head and they called for a public apology (which he gave) and he did get fired by NBC.

Point is, it is okay that the liberals say the nasty stuff. But if the conservatives say it, then the "Off with their heads" mentality comes out of the Liberal playground!

It is all ****ing ridiculous and childish! And I think it is time the people demand change and reform of the 2 party system!

[okie52]

http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2011/05/23/102474-gary-johnson.jpg

Gary Johnson:


2 year grace period for illegals to get work visas

Potential immigrants should be issued a Social Security card, which would allow them to pay taxes.
There should be a two-year grace period for illegal immigrants to attain work visas so they can continue contributing to America and begin taking part in American society openly.
Immigrants should be able to bring their families to the US after demonstrating ability to support them financially.


Open the border; flood of Mexicans would become taxpayers

Q: What is your view of the immigration issue?
A: Hispanics who immigrate care about their families like other Americans care about their families. They're living in poverty in Mexico and can come to the US and do a lot better.
Q: By--according to some--taking away jobs.
A: They work the lowest-paying jobs. And they are taking jobs that other Americans don't necessarily want. They're hardworking people who are taking jobs that others don't want. That's the reality.
Q: Would you open the borders and make it easier to immigrate legally?
A: My vision of the border with Mexico is that a truck from the United States going into Mexico and a truck coming from Mexico into the United States will pass each other at the border going 60 miles an hour. Yes, we should have open borders.
Q: Many Americans fear the flood of immigrants that would follow.
A: They would become taxpayers. They're just pursuing dreams---the same dreams we all have. They work hard. What's wrong with that?

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Gary Johnson:
Economic freedom = freedom of labor movement, and we've got plenty of room to grow. I know you want to somehow magically half the national population, but we have one of the lowest real population densities (based on arable land) in the world. Only Canada, Russia, Australia and Argentina are less dense counting countries with over 30 million people. More legal immigrants = more tax revenue.

[rock on sooner]

Imus SHOULD have been fired. There's a big difference between
being funny or shocking and being really nasty and cruel. That
knucklehead fergot to look in the mirror when he shot off his mouth!
JMO...

[okie52]

Economic freedom = freedom of labor movement, and we've got plenty of room to grow. I know you want to somehow magically half the national population, but we have one of the lowest real population densities (based on arable land) in the world. Only Canada, Russia, Australia and Argentina are less dense counting countries with over 30 million people. More legal immigrants = more tax revenue.

It isn't magic to reduce birthrates...just education and access to birth control. Whites are already at 0 growth in this country. More isn't better. High population density is not a good thing. Our natural resources like oil and gas are already overburdened.

The illegals here now will be a worse drain than they already are if they receive citizenship. Their low incomes will never support through taxes the benefits, education, healthcare, SS that they would receive as citizens.

Johnson's position on illegals is much different than his libertarian counterpart Paul.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

It isn't magic to reduce birthrates...just education and access to birth control. Whites are already at 0 growth in this country. More isn't better. High population density is not a good thing. Our natural resources like oil and gas are already overburdened.

The illegals here now will be a worse drain than they already are if they receive citizenship. Their low incomes will never support through taxes the benefits, education, healthcare, SS that they would receive as citizens.

Johnson's position on illegals is much different than his libertarian counterpart Paul.
It would take us quite a long time to get to a "high" population density, and new immigrants would get the same education and access to birth control that everyone else here has. A declining or stagnant population, especially given our current debt situation, is not what we want. Is it easier for 300 million or 150 million people to pay off 13 trillion in debt?

Also, why bring race into the discussion? Seems pretty irrelevant.

[okie52]

It would take us quite a long time to get to a "high" population density, and new immigrants would get the same education and access to birth control that everyone else here has. A declining or stagnant population, especially given our current debt situation, is not what we want. Is it easier for 300 million or 150 million people to pay off 13 trillion in debt?

You'll notice Johnson is for letting illegals bring their families over in the 2 year hiatus...want to guess how many more people we would have over the 12,000,000 illegals we have now?

The ponzi scheme the US has operated under is a major part of the problem with our debt and it will continue to be as long a we have to "grow populations" to pay off current recipients. Madoff went to jail for it.

We're importing over 10,000,000 barrels a day which is over 2/3 of our trade deficit ....we're on pace for $300,000,000,000 a year. Now how is adding people to our population going to help that consumption level? If we were at 150,000,000 people we wouldn't need to be importing oil.

Race into the discussion???...I just mentioned White Americans are at 0 population growth to show that it can be done....I certainly couldn't use hispanics for 0 growth and illegals are off the charts on birthrates.

[badger]

Also, why bring race into the discussion? Seems pretty irrelevant.

Rather than race, it might be wise to consider age. People can retire in the 50s if they play their cards right (work as a professional pilot, a public school teacher, etc), or 60s at their latest (via social security), but people are living longer in years when they'll be at their least productive, least self sufficient selves than ever (except perhaps their childhoods), mostly due to medical care and not working.

How do we support a large, retiring Baby Boomer population? Social Security. Oh, wait, we've raided that piggy bank for years and stuffed it with IOUs. Well, we can just have current workers pay it back... oh wait, that generation was called "Boomers" for a reason, because there were so damn many of them. Our younger workforce can't sustain that many retired social security recipients! Oh crap...

[Bourbon St Sooner]

The only thing I learned from this thread is that Roseanne Barr is still alive. Who knew?

[rock on sooner]

The only thing I learned from this thread is that Roseanne Barr is still alive. Who knew?

Yeah, there are some things ya just can't control...and
not only who knew, but who cares?

[olevetonahill]

Yeah, there are some things ya just can't control...and
not only who knew, but who cares?
Marfa cares, Thats his Twin sister

[rock on sooner]

Marfa cares, Thats his Twin sister

ROTFLMFAO!

[I Am Right]

Bully is as Bully Does
Ray Gross

I have to weigh in on the Chick-fil-A controversy. I detest hypocrisy, but the bullying kind of hypocrisy really makes my blood boil. It is especially important for me to take on the gay Left when it comes to hypocrisy, because I am gay and was once immersed in the Left's mentality of intolerance and hypocrisy. It is the Left's tactics of bullying that really leaves a pit in my stomach -- a leftover from my days as a brainwashed liberal.

The only way to fight the Left in regard to their hypocrisy is to point it out. Use analogies they might be able to understand. Here is one:

Suppose a business owner -- oh, let's say a fast food chain owner was an atheist. A Christian town in the South tries to prevent that fast food chain owner from building in that town because they do not believe in God. What do you think the reaction would be from the Left if this scenario played out? Most certainly the ACLU would be right there suing the town due to civil rights violations. There would be loud cries from the Left that freedom of speech is being squashed. Others from the Left would be pointing out with raised fists that atheism is a right granted us in the Constitution as an expression of freedom of religion. (Ok, normally the Left doesn't have any regard for the Constitution unless they feel they can use it in one of their hypocritical rants against the Right.) The words "intolerance", "hatred" and "bullying" would be used nonstop to describe the actions of the CEO at Chick-fil-A.

Let's use another example. What if the owner of the hypothetical fast food chain was a Muslim who believed the Koran defined marriage as between a man and a woman? Would the Left be protesting his stores and bullying him about his religious beliefs threatening to stop the construction of his stores or banning them from a major city? Take that in for a moment. You know what the answer is to that question. The answer is that the bullying of a Christian would be perfectly acceptable...the bullying of a Muslim would not be.

So, let's get back to Chick-fil-A. Is the owner expressing his freedom of speech? Yes. Is he expressing his freedom of religion granted to us by the Constitution? Yes. Is he expressing hatred, bullying or intolerance? Uh...no.

Being a gay Libertarian-streaked conservative, I respect the president of Chick-fil-A's right to believe in the traditional definition of marriage. I am neither offended nor feel the need to bully him into believing something I may believe. He has the right to believe what he wants. As long as he doesn't try to keep me out of his stores because I am gay, I respect his right to feel the way he does about gay marriage. As Governor Palin so deftly pointed out last week, did the Left go after Obama when he believed the same thing about same-sex marriage as the owner of Chick-fil-A did before his campaign for president "evolved"?

Bullying is bad. Hypocrisy is bad. But hypocritical bullying is the lowest and most onerous form of argument. What is accomplished by "winning" an argument by bullying your opponent? Your opponent's heart is not softened or changed to your position. In fact, those who are bullied are more hardened to their own position due to the bullying.

I will be watching the predictable faux rage, bullying, intolerance and hypocrisy against the Christian Right about rights in this country that only the Left seems to feel they are privy to. I will be supporting the rights of a fellow American to the freedom of speech and freedom of religion bestowed on ALL Americans by our Constitution. I will be showing my support not for his beliefs, but for his right and freedom to have those beliefs.

I plan on eating at Chick-fil-A as often as possible to support their right to their freedoms. Sometimes the taste of freedom is so good.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/bully_is_as_bully_does.html#ixzz22J4elb3B

[okie52]

PC sucks.

[badger]

Being a gay Libertarian-streaked conservative

It is fun to read and speak with those that don't fit the stereotypical mold.

[soonercruiser]

Eat-Mor-Chicken Wednesday!

[LiveLaughLove]

Bully is as Bully Does
Ray Gross

I have to weigh in on the Chick-fil-A controversy. I detest hypocrisy, but the bullying kind of hypocrisy really makes my blood boil. It is especially important for me to take on the gay Left when it comes to hypocrisy, because I am gay and was once immersed in the Left's mentality of intolerance and hypocrisy. It is the Left's tactics of bullying that really leaves a pit in my stomach -- a leftover from my days as a brainwashed liberal.

The only way to fight the Left in regard to their hypocrisy is to point it out. Use analogies they might be able to understand. Here is one:

Suppose a business owner -- oh, let's say a fast food chain owner was an atheist. A Christian town in the South tries to prevent that fast food chain owner from building in that town because they do not believe in God. What do you think the reaction would be from the Left if this scenario played out? Most certainly the ACLU would be right there suing the town due to civil rights violations. There would be loud cries from the Left that freedom of speech is being squashed. Others from the Left would be pointing out with raised fists that atheism is a right granted us in the Constitution as an expression of freedom of religion. (Ok, normally the Left doesn't have any regard for the Constitution unless they feel they can use it in one of their hypocritical rants against the Right.) The words "intolerance", "hatred" and "bullying" would be used nonstop to describe the actions of the CEO at Chick-fil-A.

Let's use another example. What if the owner of the hypothetical fast food chain was a Muslim who believed the Koran defined marriage as between a man and a woman? Would the Left be protesting his stores and bullying him about his religious beliefs threatening to stop the construction of his stores or banning them from a major city? Take that in for a moment. You know what the answer is to that question. The answer is that the bullying of a Christian would be perfectly acceptable...the bullying of a Muslim would not be.

So, let's get back to Chick-fil-A. Is the owner expressing his freedom of speech? Yes. Is he expressing his freedom of religion granted to us by the Constitution? Yes. Is he expressing hatred, bullying or intolerance? Uh...no.

Being a gay Libertarian-streaked conservative, I respect the president of Chick-fil-A's right to believe in the traditional definition of marriage. I am neither offended nor feel the need to bully him into believing something I may believe. He has the right to believe what he wants. As long as he doesn't try to keep me out of his stores because I am gay, I respect his right to feel the way he does about gay marriage. As Governor Palin so deftly pointed out last week, did the Left go after Obama when he believed the same thing about same-sex marriage as the owner of Chick-fil-A did before his campaign for president "evolved"?

Bullying is bad. Hypocrisy is bad. But hypocritical bullying is the lowest and most onerous form of argument. What is accomplished by "winning" an argument by bullying your opponent? Your opponent's heart is not softened or changed to your position. In fact, those who are bullied are more hardened to their own position due to the bullying.

I will be watching the predictable faux rage, bullying, intolerance and hypocrisy against the Christian Right about rights in this country that only the Left seems to feel they are privy to. I will be supporting the rights of a fellow American to the freedom of speech and freedom of religion bestowed on ALL Americans by our Constitution. I will be showing my support not for his beliefs, but for his right and freedom to have those beliefs.

I plan on eating at Chick-fil-A as often as possible to support their right to their freedoms. Sometimes the taste of freedom is so good.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/bully_is_as_bully_does.html#ixzz22J4elb3B

Good read thanks.

My Dad just said the Chick-fil-a in Yukon is swamped, like REALLY swamped with customers. They didn't stay because it was so busy. Not trying to discourage anyone from going, just reporting.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

For the record, I'm against mayors banning Chick-Fil-A for reasons stated in the above article, but this is another interesting read.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-badash/chick-fil-a-5-reasons-it-isnt-what-you-think_b_1725237.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=3607300,b=facebook


Former GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee decreed Wednesday, Aug. 1, to be "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day." The former Republican governor of Arkansas says he "has been incensed at the vitriolic assaults on the Chick Fil-A company because the CEO, Dan Cathy, made comments recently in which he affirmed his view that the Biblical view of marriage should be upheld."

Of course, not one word of that is accurate, not even that Dan Cathy is the CEO (his dad is), and if you're standing in line waiting for your chicken sandwich and waffle fries, why not take a moment to learn about what Chick-fil-A really does, and -- even if you're opposed to same-sex marriage -- what you money is buying.

Here are five reasons why Chick-fil-A isn't what you think:

1) Chick-fil-A has donated at least $5 million to organizations (including a certified hate group) that, among other things, depict gay people as pedophiles, want to make "gay behavior" illegal, and even say gay people should be "exported" out of America.

Even if you oppose same-sex marriage, do you really want to support a company that advocates putting gay people in jail, or "exporting" them, just because they're gay?

2) Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy didn't merely say he supports traditional marriage. Dan Cathy said if you support gay marriage, you "are inviting God's judgment on our nation," and that we "shake our fist at Him" when we do. Dan Cathy also said same-sex marriage is the result of a "deprived" mind and called it "twisted up kind of stuff."

Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you really think gay marriage is "inviting God's judgment on our nation"? Haven't we all heard enough blame from those who claim to speak for the Lord, like after Katrina or, more recently, after the shooting in Aurora, Colo.?

3) Chick-fil-A supports organizations that have claimed they can change gay people into straight people -- "pray away the gay" -- despite the fact that practically every major medical organization has stated that this is not only impossible but dangerous and harmful.

Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you support fake "science" that is known to harm the very people it claims to help?

4) The media keep saying Chick-fil-A has never discriminated, but the truth is that Chick-fil-A has been sued over a dozen times for employment discrimination. That's what a leading business publication, Forbes, stated in 2007, when they also called Chick-fil-A a "cult" and reported that Chick-fil-A's founder and CEO Truett Cathy said he wanted to hire married people because they are more industrious and productive. Truett Cathy has also said he would probably fire someone who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members."

Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you want to support what some call a "cult" whose CEO says he would fire employees for "being sinful"?

5) Chick-fil-A is just exercising their First Amendment rights by running a business based on the Bible, right? Wrong. There's a line between the "free exercise of religion" and violating the law. If Chick-fil-A is violating the law by discriminating against gay people, or by firing women so that they can be "stay home" moms, as one woman who is suing Chick-fil-A says in court documents, that's not exercising religious expression or free speech, and that's not a First Amendment issue. It may be, if the court decides, a violation of the law.

Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you want to support a company that might fire women to force them to be "stay home" moms against their will?

There are plenty of good restaurants that are happy to work hard for your hard-earned dollar. Why support a company that is working so hard to deny people their rights?

[Curly Bill]

I never think to go to Chick-fil-A, but because of the PC, believe as I do or you're evil outrage, I might be able to remind myself to stop by there on occasion now.

[soonercruiser]

For the record, I'm against mayors banning Chick-Fil-A for reasons stated in the above article, but this is another interesting read.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-badash/chick-fil-a-5-reasons-it-isnt-what-you-think_b_1725237.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=3607300,b=facebook

As with most HuffAndPuffPost articles...just throw out some more vitriolic lying trash and see what sticks.
The article was probably written by the same folks who were trashing the past Presidents portraits in the WH a few weeks ago.
The second to last sentence shows you how "objective" the writer is......anti-religious.
And, of course, there were soooo many links to facts.

I am making a special trip to the Chick this afternoon just to show my support for traditional marriage.
Should I worry that they will stick me in a concentration camp if they find out I'm Catholic???......the LW thinks that I'm a member of a cult too, you know!
:untroubled:

[LiveLaughLove]

For the record, I'm against mayors banning Chick-Fil-A for reasons stated in the above article, but this is another interesting read.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-badash/chick-fil-a-5-reasons-it-isnt-what-you-think_b_1725237.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=3607300,b=facebook

Chick-fil-a is being punished for holding the view that marriage is between a man and a woman ONLY. The same position that has been in place in society for thousands of years. The same position that Obama held until his recently famous "evolution".

And the same position that Luis Farrakhan holds today. You know, the guy that is working with the mayor of Chicago on agenda items. You know, the mayor that just said Chick-fil-a doesn't represent Chicago values.

You know, the mayor that curses like a sailor. Evidently, Farrakhan does represent Chicago values.

Lets see, Dan Cathy's values or Emanuel and Farrakhans values? I think I know which one I side with. Actually, I am positive.

Dan Cathy is a good Christian (that's a good thing in my book) man, he has great chicken, and tremendous service at his stores. He does a ton of philanthropy, more than Emanuel or Farrakhan, or that writer at Huffington Post. He holds a killer leadership conference to boot.

[TitoMorelli]

Just wondering. If those programs set up to turn gay people into straight people tried to cure gay guys by putting them in a bedroom with a hot chick, would you pretend so that you could get some "therapy sex?"

[Bourbon St Sooner]

For the record, I'm against mayors banning Chick-Fil-A for reasons stated in the above article, but this is another interesting read.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-badash/chick-fil-a-5-reasons-it-isnt-what-you-think_b_1725237.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=3607300,b=facebook

I don't share the same beliefs as Tom Cruise and he probably supports causes that I don't agree with, but I'm not organizing boycotts of his movies.

Homos are the mouthiest group in this country. Just go get married and STFU. Nobody really cares if you're gay any more. Isn't that what you should want?

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Chick-fil-a is being punished for holding the view that marriage is between a man and a woman ONLY. The same position that has been in place in society for thousands of years. The same position that Obama held until his recently famous "evolution".

And the same position that Luis Farrakhan holds today. You know, the guy that is working with the mayor of Chicago on agenda items. You know, the mayor that just said Chick-fil-a doesn't represent Chicago values.

You know, the mayor that curses like a sailor. Evidently, Farrakhan does represent Chicago values.

Lets see, Dan Cathy's values or Emanuel and Farrakhans values? I think I know which one I side with. Actually, I am positive.

Dan Cathy is a good Christian (that's a good thing in my book) man, he has great chicken, and tremendous service at his stores. He does a ton of philanthropy, more than Emanuel or Farrakhan, or that writer at Huffington Post. He holds a killer leadership conference to boot.
"Its been the standard for thousands of years, therefore its correct"

Is this what you are assuming?

All the statements in the HuffPo article are backed up by quotes made by FRC or their actual donations...

Chik-Fil-A is a private business and should be able to conduct its business and finances how it prefers, without interference from hypocritical mayors. It would be a blessing if government got the hell out of marriage, but until they do, it should be available for all citizens.

@Bourbonstsooner, the obvious answer would be most of them can't "go get married". I think that's what the fuss is about...

[diverdog]

The real joke is that marriage is neither holy or sacred. It is a legal contract that can only be undone in a court of law. All assets are split by the courts and the courts determine who gets custody of the children. The fact that you get married in a church means nothing because the legal part is done when you sign a marriage license agreeing to be legally bound to each other. The institutions that need to get out of marriage are the churches.

[LiveLaughLove]

"Its been the standard for thousands of years, therefore its correct"

Is this what you are assuming?

Uh, no. I'm sure it is correct. 100%


It would be a blessing if government got the hell out of marriage, but until they do, it should be available for all citizens.

No one wanted the government involved in marriage UNTIL the gays demanded that it be changed after eons. We didn't just go out and say, hey lets muck with the gays.

The gays are demanding WE all change an institution that has existed almost forever.

In every state that the populace has voted on it, it has been defeated.

As a society, we tolerate people. We aren't being asked to tolerate any more.

We are having it shoved down our throats, and being called bigots for not agreeing to said shoving. We are told our Bible is a hate speech book and doesn't mean anything any more.

Well, it does to me. I believe EVERY word of it. I'm not some cafeteria Christian that picks this and that to believe and ignores the rest.

I believe it is loving to sinners to not accept their sin as normal. Doing so, puts them on a straight path to a place they will not like. The loving thing is to NOT accept it, and I do not.

I really don't care if any one here likes that or not. I will not have to answer to you in the future. I have a little bigger person to answer to. I plan on hearing, "well done my good and faithful servant".

[LiveLaughLove]

The real joke is that marriage is neither holy or sacred. It is a legal contract that can only be undone in a court of law. All assets are split by the courts and the courts determine who gets custody of the children. The fact that you get married in a church means nothing because the legal part is done when you sign a marriage license agreeing to be legally bound to each other. The institutions that need to get out of marriage are the churches.

For secular people that is true.

For Christians or those of different faiths, that is utter and complete poppycock. Marriage is spoken of in the Bible. The Bible was written way before any lawyer was a twinkle in his daddy's eyes to write the laws you are regurgitating. The laws are the byproduct of the Holy Union, not the other way around. But as usual, you have it bassackwards.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Uh, no. I'm sure it is correct. 100%



No one wanted the government involved in marriage UNTIL the gays demanded that it be changed after eons. We didn't just go out and say, hey lets muck with the gays.

The gays are demanding WE all change an institution that has existed almost forever.

In every state that the populace has voted on it, it has been defeated.

As a society, we tolerate people. We aren't being asked to tolerate any more.

We are having it shoved down our throats, and being called bigots for not agreeing to said shoving. We are told our Bible is a hate speech book and doesn't mean anything any more.

Well, it does to me. I believe EVERY word of it. I'm not some cafeteria Christian that picks this and that to believe and ignores the rest.

I believe it is loving to sinners to not accept their sin as normal. Doing so, puts them on a straight path to a place they will not like. The loving thing is to NOT accept it, and I do not.

I really don't care if any one here likes that or not. I will not have to answer to you in the future. I have a little bigger person to answer to. I plan on hearing, "well done my good and faithful servant".
Slavery, accepted through the majority of the world for thousands of years. Should we still be doing that? Ditto monarchies and other forms of authoritarian rule. Homosexuals used to be stoned or killed (your own book calls for it, Leviticus 20:13, do you believe in that?) and interracial marriage was disallowed in most places for eons.

Clearly, just because something has been a certain way for a while is no justification for continuing the status quo. If two homosexuals are married, or maybe a guy has two wives what effect does that have on your marriage or on your church? Its not like if gay marriage were to be allowed, two dudes would be hitchin it up in Norman Baptist Church tomorrow. It would allow for hundreds of legal rights and benefits to be entitled to other people, it would not allow for for anyone to take away your right to practice Christianity.

Which biblical marriage do you endorse, by the way?

http://bobcargill.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/biblical-marriage.jpg

I find it hilarious that Christians think they are persecuted in America. Every single ****ing president has been a declared Christian, though I'll give you 43 since I know you think Obama is probably a Muslim or something. There is a single avowed atheist in congress, while over 80% claim to be Christian. You're real persecuted and underrepresented, alright.

[AlboSooner]

When you are good at PR, you can be a bigot, a fundamentalist, a racist, and still claim to be the tolerant side. The left-leaning secularism in America has mastered this skill.
I don't expect sympathy, tolerance, or reason from people who want to demolish the foundation of a building while standing on it.

[soonercruiser]

The real joke is that marriage is neither holy or sacred. It is a legal contract that can only be undone in a court of law. All assets are split by the courts and the courts determine who gets custody of the children. The fact that you get married in a church means nothing because the legal part is done when you sign a marriage license agreeing to be legally bound to each other. The institutions that need to get out of marriage are the churches.

Not any more, and especially not with Lefties.
So, you used to be Catholic.....or you'd know better.
:emptiness:

Marriage is just something that the government can tax!

[AlboSooner]

Clearly, just because something has been a certain way for a while is no justification for continuing the status quo. If two homosexuals are married, or maybe a guy has two wives what effect does that have on your marriage or on your church? Its not like if gay marriage were to be allowed, two dudes would be hitchin it up in Norman Baptist Church tomorrow. It would allow for hundreds of legal rights and benefits to be entitled to other people, it would not allow for for anyone to take away your right to practice Christianity.

History has shown when men become the ones who define life's values, society suffers in the long run. Sure gay marriage right now will not destroy America, but the precedent that it sets is a dangerous one. An institution like marriage should not be subject to the whims of our sexual proclivities. You cannot redefine values anytime something new comes in the horizon and demands equal treatment.

Homosexuality is an evolutionary aberration at best, a glitch in the genetic fabric, and at worst a despicable act in the eyes of God. When we see aberrations and despicable acts in other fields, we do not change the definition of every reasonable value we have.

The Biblical verses you showed are taken out of context, and I am sure it would do no good to explain them.

PS: the gay-rights zealots couldn't care less about marriage in itself. They are after one thing and one thing only: universal acceptance of their sexual preference. So they can go back to their parents, and tell them "I told you, there was nothing wrong with this."

[LiveLaughLove]

Slavery, accepted through the majority of the world for thousands of years. Should we still be doing that? Ditto monarchies and other forms of authoritarian rule. Homosexuals used to be stoned or killed (your own book calls for it, Leviticus 20:13, do you believe in that?) and interracial marriage was disallowed in most places for eons.

Clearly, just because something has been a certain way for a while is no justification for continuing the status quo. If two homosexuals are married, or maybe a guy has two wives what effect does that have on your marriage or on your church? Its not like if gay marriage were to be allowed, two dudes would be hitchin it up in Norman Baptist Church tomorrow. It would allow for hundreds of legal rights and benefits to be entitled to other people, it would not allow for for anyone to take away your right to practice Christianity.

Which biblical marriage do you endorse, by the way?

http://bobcargill.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/biblical-marriage.jpg

I find it hilarious that Christians think they are persecuted in America. Every single ****ing president has been a declared Christian, though I'll give you 43 since I know you think Obama is probably a Muslim or something. There is a single avowed atheist in congress, while over 80% claim to be Christian. You're real persecuted and underrepresented, alright.

If Leviticus were part of the New Testament then that would be the Law. Jesus fulfilled the punishments of the Law. So no stoning is not necessary today. However, the New Testament does still say that homosexuality is a sin (along with a whole bunch of other sins). So homosexuality IS still a sin.

Your cute little chart appears (I cant read it all, its too small) to all be from the Old Testament. The New Testament says it is between one man and one woman. I'll go with that. But you knew that already.

As for the slavery BS, complete red herring.

Gays marrying does effect my family. It tells my kids that it is ok. It is most definitely not ok. I don't want them being subjected to it. So yeah, I have a dog in that hunt.

As for Presidents and congress people being Christian. Well, like RINOs, most of them are Christian in name only, same for most of the country.

If our congress and President and most of the country were ACTUAL Christians, we wouldn't be debating this, or have abortion on demand. I can call myself a tree, but until those roots grow, I'm not a tree.

[diverdog]

For secular people that is true.

For Christians or those of different faiths, that is utter and complete poppycock. Marriage is spoken of in the Bible. The Bible was written way before any lawyer was a twinkle in his daddy's eyes to write the laws you are regurgitating. The laws are the byproduct of the Holy Union, not the other way around. But as usual, you have it bassackwards.

Riddle me this. Can you get married without a marriage license?

[AlboSooner]

What I don't get is why do we have to accommodate the genetic aberration/choice of 1% of the population? You can find 1% of people who want all kinds of crazy things.

[LiveLaughLove]

Riddle me this. Can you get married without a marriage license?

Well, I'll answer that this way. You most certainly can get married in the eyes of God without a marriage license, if you go through the ceremony before God.

Will it be seen as legal in America? No, you have to get (and pay for btw. Gotta give the government that money) the license.

You would not be committing adultery in God's eyes without it however.

My turn for the riddle now. What's in my pocket, precious? :)

[diverdog]

Well, I'll answer that this way. You most certainly can get married in the eyes of God without a marriage license, if you go through the ceremony before God.

Will it be seen as legal in America? No, you have to get (and pay for btw. Gotta give the government that money) the license.

You would not be committing adultery in God's eyes without it however.

My turn for the riddle now. What's in my pocket, precious? :)

Oh I am guessing one of these:

http://headostate.com/

:loyal:

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Gays marrying does effect my family. It tells my kids that it is ok. It is most definitely not ok. I don't want them being subjected to it. So yeah, I have a dog in that hunt.

As for Presidents and congress people being Christian. Well, like RINOs, most of them are Christian in name only, same for most of the country.

If our congress and President and most of the country were ACTUAL Christians, we wouldn't be debating this, or have abortion on demand. I can call myself a tree, but until those roots grow, I'm not a tree.
You tell your kids that its not ok then? I'm sure there are plenty of things that are legal that you wouldn't want your child doing, smoking, watching porn, etc. You can still raise your kids to not do those things. Maybe you think those things should be illegal too, I dunno.

If my reference to slavery was a red herring, then your last statement here is no true scotsman.

@Albo

There is no single gay gene, and its no evolutionary misstep, but that doesn't make everyone's sexual orientation malleable either. Its a complex of genetic, hormonal and environmental influences, though most likely birth order is the most important. Being gay is not a choice, says about every doctor and psychology association ever.

Its also not 1%, but more around 10% of the population in America, but whether it is 1% or 40% it really doesn't matter. The size or lack of size of a group does not allow you to stamp them out. They aren't trying to hurt you or take away your civil liberties, they just want the same legal protection you have with the person they love. You have a right to own your religion the same way you have the right to own a gun. You can't use your gun to take away the rights of others, just like you can't use your religion to do the same.

Marriage predates Christianity, though I'm sure both of you won't accept that since you're probably both creationists.


By the way, if you guys want to live in a nice Christian theocracy where you don't have to worry about gays, I know a place for you.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/flags/large/ug-lgflag.gif
enjoy your stay!

[LiveLaughLove]

Obviously, you haven't raised children. I have raised 7 to adulthood and have 5 more to go, so I might know a thing or two about it. Telling your kids something is wrong, and then them going out amongst their friends and hearing something else makes it difficult at best.

When you add in the fact that they spend much more time in contact with their friends than you get to have with them, that makes it doubly so. Add in society saying their parents are bigots and just hate these nice sweet loving people and it tips the scale.

The theocracy thing is another red herring that no one advocates. Our country wasn't founded as one, thank the Lord. Yet, we do have the right (at least currently) to debate for and advocate our side of political positions and we will do so vigorously.

As for marriage predating Christianity, who said it didn't? Again with the red herrings, trying to infer that we lack intelligence or education. So what that it predates it. It doesn't change what it says about it and that's what matters to me.

This country is in decline unfortunately, and it is for the exact same reasons as Rome. The lack of morality. We are decaying from within, because you aren't allowed to say, "this is wrong" without being ridiculed and mocked. So the moral boundaries continually move. Eventually, there will be nowhere else for them to move.

[LiveLaughLove]

Oh I am guessing one of these:

http://headostate.com/

:loyal:

Wrong, but why am I not shocked that you would go gutter sniping.

[AlboSooner]

There is no single gay gene, and its no evolutionary misstep, but that doesn't make everyone's sexual orientation malleable either. Its a complex of genetic, hormonal and environmental influences, though most likely birth order is the most important. Its also not 1%, but more around 10% of the population in America, but whether it is 1% or 40% it really doesn't matter. The size or lack of size of a group does not allow you to stamp them out. They aren't trying to hurt you or take away your civil liberties, they just want the same legal protection you have with the person they love.

Why do you engage in a debate when you have made up your mind?

1. Percentage of gay Americans (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/americans-have-no-idea-how-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/).

2. If you come from a naturalistic world view, then homosexuality is nothing more than an oops of the mindless genetic machine, because homosexuality is detrimental to the evolutionary purpose of passing on the genes and surviving predators. I hope we aren't crazy enough not to realize the biological aversions of homosexual relations.

3. If it is not genetic, then it is a environmental behavior, influenced by hormones, and choice. Why must we re-define valuable institutions based on influenced behavior? What if another group rises in the future with choices that are not common? Where and how do you draw a moral line?

4. Marriage is not a civil right. You don't have the right to get married. The civil liberty is the weakest of all the arguments.

5. If you rule out genetics, then the gay cause becomes a mere supporting of a sexual preference, which that's what it is.

6. It is clear that homosexual relations are not how relations ought to be. You have to victimize reason and common sense to believe otherwise. Nobody is trying to stamp gay people out, but I am against re-defining a social pillar like marriage because 1% of the population prefers the same sex.


Please don't go the usual secular route of clamoring theocracy or telling me to go to Uganda (which is a bigoted thing to say) because Uganda doesn't have the modern vision you do. America and Western civilization, that tolerates gays, doesn't exist without Christianity.

Just come out and say the truth: we want to legalize gay marriage because it is the opposite of what conservatives and religious people want. There is no real reason to re-define marriage, but only the reason to defeat your ideological enemy. Once you set a precedent, like changing the meaning of marriage, you lose any ground of objective morality, and that is really scary.

[diverdog]

Wrong, but why am I not shocked that you would go gutter sniping.

Hey you asked.

[LiveLaughLove]

Hey you asked.

I did, but it whiffed over your head I think.

I was making a The Hobbit reference. You know, the nice children's book by Tolkien.

Think cleaner thoughts DD, it'll be good for ya. :)

[diverdog]

I did, but it whiffed over your head I think.

I was making a The Hobbit reference. You know, the nice children's book by Tolkien.

Think cleaner thoughts DD, it'll be good for ya. :)

LOL. Yep blew right past me.

[okie52]

Why do you engage in a debate when you have made up your mind?

1. Percentage of gay Americans (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/americans-have-no-idea-how-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/).

2. If you come from a naturalistic world view, then homosexuality is nothing more than an oops of the mindless genetic machine, because homosexuality is detrimental to the evolutionary purpose of passing on the genes and surviving predators. I hope we aren't crazy enough not to realize the biological aversions of homosexual relations.

3. If it is not genetic, then it is a environmental behavior, influenced by hormones, and choice. Why must we re-define valuable institutions based on influenced behavior? What if another group rises in the future with choices that are not common? Where and how do you draw a moral line?

4. Marriage is not a civil right. You don't have the right to get married. The civil liberty is the weakest of all the arguments.

5. If you rule out genetics, then the gay cause becomes a mere supporting of a sexual preference, which that's what it is.

6. It is clear that homosexual relations are not how relations ought to be. You have to victimize reason and common sense to believe otherwise. Nobody is trying to stamp gay people out, but I am against re-defining a social pillar like marriage because 1% of the population prefers the same sex.


Please don't go the usual secular route of clamoring theocracy or telling me to go to Uganda (which is a bigoted thing to say) because Uganda doesn't have the modern vision you do. America and Western civilization, that tolerates gays, doesn't exist without Christianity.

Just come out and say the truth: we want to legalize gay marriage because it is the opposite of what conservatives and religious people want. There is no real reason to re-define marriage, but only the reason to defeat your ideological enemy. Once you set a precedent, like changing the meaning of marriage, you lose any ground of objective morality, and that is really scary.
Hey albo...how you doing? Long time no see.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

This country is in decline unfortunately, and it is for the exact same reasons as Rome. The lack of morality. We are decaying from within, because you aren't allowed to say, "this is wrong" without being ridiculed and mocked. So the moral boundaries continually move. Eventually, there will be nowhere else for them to move.
I'm sure it had nothing to do with the over-expansion of the empire and generations of ****-poor rulers. Something we can learn from, I'm glad we slightly agree. Unfortunately your morality is based on a bronze age text written by some goat herders in The Levant. So lets go back to the most basic principle of the argument:

Q. Why is homosexuality wrong?




Why do you engage in a debate when you have made up your mind?

1. Percentage of gay Americans (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/americans-have-no-idea-how-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/).

http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/

Your survey says 1, mine says 7-8, both from well respected universities. There are studies that put it up to 10%, depending on what you define homosexuality as being. Lets call it 3-4%, but it really doesn't matter.



2. If you come from a naturalistic world view, then homosexuality is nothing more than an oops of the mindless genetic machine, because homosexuality is detrimental to the evolutionary purpose of passing on the genes and surviving predators. I hope we aren't crazy enough not to realize the biological aversions of homosexual relations.

Ah, the old gay is counter-evolutionary argument. There are a varieties of arguments against yours here. One, female relatives of homosexual males tend to have more children than their father's side. [Link to study] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691850/?tool=pmcentrez)

Next, there is the gay uncle hypothesis, which states that people who do not have children nonetheless increase the chance of their family passing on their genetic material by providing support to their relative's offspring. [link] (http://www.livescience.com/6106-gay-uncles-pass-genes.html)

Lastly, studies have also shown that genetic conditions predisposing to homosexuality increase mating chances in heterosexual males carrying a "lighter" version of the same predispositions. This is now getting way over my head, link to study (http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(08)00068-8/abstract)



3. If it is not genetic, then it is a environmental behavior, influenced by hormones, and choice. Why must we re-define valuable institutions based on influenced behavior? What if another group rises in the future with choices that are not common? Where and how do you draw a moral line?It is not influenced by choice, I think that is clear. The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics among others, have all agreed.

“a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors.” There is considerable evidence to suggest that biology, “including genetic or inborn hormonal factors,” plays a significant role in a person’s sexuality." - APA

I think you draw the line when people wish to cause harm to others or there is lack of consent. Obviously incest, pedophilia and bestiality fall under this category.



4. Marriage is not a civil right. You don't have the right to get married. The civil liberty is the weakest of all the arguments.


"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
-Loving v Virginia 1967

Of course the Fourteenth Amendment does not solely pertain to race, it makes a much more broad statement on who should be granted civil rights:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."



5. If you rule out genetics, then the gay cause becomes a mere supporting of a sexual preference, which that's what it is.

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. Genetics is not the sole cause, as in there is not a single gay gene. Scientists can't look at a genetic code and go "FAGGOT!". I don't understand the rest of your point here, though.



6. It is clear that homosexual relations are not how relations ought to be. You have to victimize reason and common sense to believe otherwise. Nobody is trying to stamp gay people out, but I am against re-defining a social pillar like marriage because 1% of the population prefers the same sex.

That's a pretty generalizing and baseless statement. Homosexual relationships are often observed in nature outside of humans, so they are pretty natural.



Please don't go the usual secular route of advising a theocracy or telling me to go to Uganda (which is a bigoted thing to say) because Uganda doesn't have the modern vision you do. America and Western civilization, that tolerates gays, doesn't exist without Christianity.

Just come out and say the truth: we want to legalize gay marriage because it is the opposite of what conservatives and religious people want. There is no real reason to re-define marriage, but only the reason to defeat your ideological enemy. Once you set a precedent, like changing the meaning of marriage, you lose any ground of objective morality, and that is really scary.

It only sort of tolerates gays, in the majority of states you can still be fired for being gay, you can't marry in most, and you can't adopt in several. Not second-class citizen level as blacks were, but not exactly full rights and privileges either.

Um, no. The same could be said for you, since gay marriage has no effect on you, you only oppose it because your ideological enemy supports it. I'm also not totally your ideological enemy, I can agree with the both of you on a lot of economic and some foreign policy issues.

Objective morality ignores the fact that our sense of right and wrong develops historically, and open to change as we evolve from generation to generation. As our brains develop over thousands of years, our understanding of right and wrong is likely to change as well. That doesn't necessarily make what is new right or wrong, but what is right or wrong is not universally fixed for all times. I know you won't agree with that, since you see them as being fixed by a creator.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

"Its been the standard for thousands of years, therefore its correct"

Is this what you are assuming?

All the statements in the HuffPo article are backed up by quotes made by FRC or their actual donations...

Chik-Fil-A is a private business and should be able to conduct its business and finances how it prefers, without interference from hypocritical mayors. It would be a blessing if government got the hell out of marriage, but until they do, it should be available for all citizens.

@Bourbonstsooner, the obvious answer would be most of them can't "go get married". I think that's what the fuss is about...

I don't GAS about gay marriage. My point is why all the belligerence over a guy that happens to own a business expressing his views? Gays have won a lot of hard earned gains and acceptance, but this type of juvenile **** doesn't help their cause.

[cleller]

I don't GAS about gay marriage. My point is why all the belligerence over a guy that happens to own a business expressing his views? Gays have won a lot of hard earned gains and acceptance, but this type of juvenile **** doesn't help their cause.

Right. These mayors could have made known whatever point or complaint they had in a number of civil, responsible, adult ways that are more in keeping with our historic preservation of free speech.
By trying to whip up hysteria, and take punitive measures against a company based upon the protected speech of an executive, they've only polarized the issue further. And made Chick Filet alot of money.

[SoonerAtKU]

So what we're all saying is that a bunch of uninvolved politicians jumped in trying to make some hay and screwed it up for the people who were doing the right thing already?

You don't say.

[diverdog]

Right. These mayors could have made known whatever point or complaint they had in a number of civil, responsible, adult ways that are more in keeping with our historic preservation of free speech.
By trying to whip up hysteria, and take punitive measures against a company based upon the protected speech of an executive, they've only polarized the issue further. And made Chick Filet alot of money.

Just talked to my friend who runs/ owns a Chic Fil A. She said her sales were triple her best one day sales.

[Sooner98]

Where was all the phony liberal outrage all these years against Obama when he was verbally opposed to gay marriage? Where were the anti-Obama boycotts, since he was such a bigoted, narrow-minded, homophobic, gay-basher? Why did liberals overwhelmingly and proudly support and vote for a spewer of such venomous, intolerant, anti-gay hatred? Can anyone answer any of this?

N6K9dS9wl7U

[cleller]

Wow, not only does he come out with the "between a man and a woman" line, he also calls it "sacred" which was debated here. States that God "is in the mix".

Wonder if he changed his feelings on that, too?

[SoonerAtKU]

Where was all the phony liberal outrage all these years against Obama when he was verbally opposed to gay marriage? Where were the anti-Obama boycotts, since he was such a bigoted, narrow-minded, homophobic, gay-basher? Why did liberals overwhelmingly and proudly support and vote for a spewer of such venomous, intolerant, anti-gay hatred? Can anyone answer any of this?

N6K9dS9wl7U

Is it because in the piece you linked, he talked specifically about not denying civil rights to gay couples? Just a thought.

[LiveLaughLove]

Is it because in the piece you linked, he talked specifically about not denying civil rights to gay couples? Just a thought.

I must have missed dan Cathy or any one else denying civil rights also.

Everyone has the legal right to marry currently, always have.

[Sooner98]

Is it because in the piece you linked, he talked specifically about not denying civil rights to gay couples? Just a thought.

Neither did Cathy, yet he and his company are now the new boogeyman for the left, to be targeted for complete destruction. So, why the double standard and hypocrisy?

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Where was all the phony liberal outrage all these years against Obama when he was verbally opposed to gay marriage? Where were the anti-Obama boycotts, since he was such a bigoted, narrow-minded, homophobic, gay-basher? Why did liberals overwhelmingly and proudly support and vote for a spewer of such venomous, intolerant, anti-gay hatred? Can anyone answer any of this?

N6K9dS9wl7U
He's a flip-flopper for sure, shame he didn't come to the side of freedom earlier, but better late than never

[SoonerAtKU]

Neither did Cathy, yet he and his company are now the new boogeyman for the left, to be targeted for complete destruction. So, why the double standard and hypocrisy?

Because one of them donates money directly to groups that are opposed to granting those civil rights to Americans and the other...doesn't?

I care much less about what the CEO of a chicken joint says than I do about where the money goes. He can swear up and down that the moon landing was faked or that he knows Elvis, but if he starts donating to the Klan, that's when I start caring about where I eat my lunch.

[diverdog]

Because one of them donates money directly to groups that are opposed to granting those civil rights to Americans and the other...doesn't?

I care much less about what the CEO of a chicken joint says than I do about where the money goes. He can swear up and down that the moon landing was faked or that he knows Elvis, but if he starts donating to the Klan, that's when I start caring about where I eat my lunch.

Additionally he supports therapy to convert gays back to hetero.

[soonercruiser]

Wow, not only does he come out with the "between a man and a woman" line, he also calls it "sacred" which was debated here. States that God "is in the mix".

Wonder if he changed his feelings on that, too?

Who? Obama, or Diver?

[cleller]

Who? Obama, or Diver?

I'd guess Obama's mind is made up by polls, generally. Look at that video. He feigns conviction and honesty that he surely never possessed. Who knows what he'll think if re-elected.

[BetterSoonerThanLater]

He's a flip-flopper for sure, shame he didn't come to the side of freedom earlier, but better late than never

so you're ok with pandering for votes? it's ok if he isn't sincere in what he says, just so long as he says it...gotcha ;)

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

so you're ok with pandering for votes? it's ok if he isn't sincere in what he says, just so long as he says it...gotcha ;)
Well I'd rather him support equal rights for questionable reasons rather than support discrimination, yeah. As long as he doesn't enforce his newfound beliefs through questionable methods. His sudden non-enforcement of DOMA sadly falls in that category.

[diverdog]

Who? Obama, or Diver?

Obama.

I still maintain marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman in the US. Religion will fly out the door once she decides to get a lawyer and file for a divorce.

Churches have really lost control over marriage. About 40% end up in divorce.

[diverdog]

so you're ok with pandering for votes? it's ok if he isn't sincere in what he says, just so long as he says it...gotcha ;)

They all pander for votes....every last one of them. Hell Reagan's first speech after he announced his run for POTUS was in Philadelphia Mississippi to show his support of states rights and to wooo the Dixiecrats.



Philadelphia, county seat of Mississippi's Neshoba County, is famous for a couple of things. That is where three civil rights workers -- Michael Schwerner, James Chaney and Andrew Goodman -- were murdered in 1964. And that is where, in 1980, Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan chose to launch his election campaign, with a ringing endorsement of "states' rights."It was bitter symbolism for black Americans (though surely not just for black Americans). Countless observers have noted that Reagan took the Republican Party from virtual irrelevance to the ascendancy it now enjoys. The essence of that transformation, we shouldn't forget, is the party's successful wooing of the race-exploiting Southern Democrats formerly known as Dixiecrats. And Reagan's Philadelphia appearance was an important bouquet in that courtship.

[Sooner98]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chick-fil-a-protests--have-they-gone-too-far-.html

Hateful, intolerant, hypocritical liberal Adam Smith, a CFO of a medical supply firm, thought it would be a good idea to try and stick it to Chick-fil-A, a corporation he hypocritically sees as "hateful". The way he tried to accomplish this, was to film himself getting a free water thru the drive-thru, and hatefully bully the poor young girl who had the misfortune of having to serve this liberal coward. Yeah Adam, you really showed them.

The next day, the video went viral and Smith got fired from his job. LMAO!

bPLNgkP9nzc

Also, a Torrance, California Chick fil-A store was vandalized by equally hateful and intolerant liberals with the words "Tastes like hate" spray-painted on the front of the store. This whole story is just the gift that keeps on giving.

[Curly Bill]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chick-fil-a-protests--have-they-gone-too-far-.html

Hateful, intolerant, hypocritical liberal Adam Smith, a CFO of a medical supply firm, thought it would be a good idea to try and stick it to Chick-fil-A, a corporation he hypocritically sees as "hateful". The way he tried to accomplish this, was to film himself getting a free water thru the drive-thru, and hatefully bully the poor young girl who had the misfortune of having to serve this liberal coward. Yeah Adam, you really showed them.

The next day, the video went viral and Smith got fired from his job. LMAO!


Also, a Torrance, California Chick fil-A store was vandalized by equally hateful and intolerant liberals with the words "Tastes like hate" spray-painted on the front of the store. This whole story is just the gift that keeps on giving.

If only this was on video!

[TitoMorelli]

If only this was on video!

That d-bag is a real glutton for punishment. He now has posted a lengthy explanation/apology on YT.

[pphilfran]

"You should know that I never planned to say the things that I said to you...."

2psKXqKpWSo