Patterico's Pontifications

3/31/2013

Racist Supreme Court Justice Compares Homosexuality to Incest

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:02 am

A brilliant post by John Nolte, who notes that Ben Carson was accused of “comparing” gays to NAMBLA scum and practitioners of bestiality — when all he did was make a slippery slope argument. Guess who else made a similar argument this past week? Sonia Sotomayor, questioning Ted Olson in the Prop. 8 case:

Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you’re being asked — and — and it is one that I’m interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to — that could get married — the incest laws, the mother and the child, assuming they are of age — I can — I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on — on protecting the a child until they’re of age to marry, but what’s left?

SHE COMPARED HOMOSEXUALITY TO INCEST!!!!1!!

*

310 Responses to “Racist Supreme Court Justice Compares Homosexuality to Incest”

  1. Racist

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. Cue Happyfeet and his child-like machinations. I, for one, actually a growing chorus, tire of his infantile ravings. But that’s just me…and everyone else…

    Gazzer (7a0997)

  3. I like Happyfeet and see no point in a discussion thread where everyone agrees on controversial matters.

    Very few people stick around to debate a minority viewpoint, especially when they get beaten over the head all the time for it.

    And he’s funny if you don’t take politics too seriously… and these days, I feel bad for anyone who still does as that must be miserable.

    Those saying that Dr Carson compared homosexuality to beastility are liars. They mostly know what they are doing, and that’s sadly just a basic part of being a fanboy for democrats now. While low info voters is a huge problem, both on the right and the left, the real problem is obnoxious dishonesty in hopes of stifling those we disagree with.

    Which comes out in many forms and forums, cough cough.

    Dustin (73fead)

  4. happy feet must like pushing buttons, and blaming conservatives.

    mg (31009b)

  5. On Fox News Channel the afternoon of Wednesday, March 27, Megyn Kelly moderated dueling opinions by the Family Resource Council’s Tony Perkins and the Human Rights Campaign’s Evan Wolfson. Kelly played the audio of the Sotomayor question, and asked Wolfson to answer. This is how he addressed it:

    The answer to [Sotomayor’s] question is … Gay people are not saying “Let’s have no rules, let’s just do anything.” What gay people are saying is, “Let us have what you have.” Just as you have the freedom to marry the person you love, the person you’re building a life with, and take on that legal commitment and responsibilities, so should we. Other questions are other questions…”

    Unfortunately, Kelly allowed Wolfson to duck the “other question,” as just about every same-sex marriage advocate does. Why do they duck it? Because people who are making the case that the law has no right to define marriage in a manner that restricts their lifestyle don’t want to be hypocritical and suggest that the law ought to restrict the lifestyles of others. When you bring this up, air is filled with the shouts of “That’s not what I’m talking about!” or “Stay on the subject!” and “That’s a fallacious slippery slope argument!”

    Exhibit A: When Rick Santorum defended his beliefs (and his infamous pre-Lawrence “man on dog” remark) when campaigning in New Hampshire in 2012, he got an earful from some young attendees at a conference hosting each Presidential hopeful. When he challenged one to elucidate her own opinion on polygamy, she dodged and weaved for several minutes before finally saying, “Sure, go for it!”

    Since the California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 22 (approved in 2000 by 62% of voters) in 2008, I’ve been asking this hypothetical question that no pro-SSM person wants to address. As I first wrote here on Patterico four and a half years ago:

    Try this on for size: Two pairs of legal-age identical twins — two men, two women — go to City Hall in San Francisco and ask for a marriage license. For what reason would they be denied?

    They are of the same gender? BUZZ! That doesn’t matter now.
    It’s “frowned upon?” BUZZ! So what? So was interracial and same-sex marriage.

    They could have children that might be deformed? BUZZ! They can’t produce children without a womb or sperm of an unrelated person. It’s a non-issue.

    It’s illegal? BUZZZZZZZZZZ! It is to laugh.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (a438da) — 6/18/2008 @ 7:07 pm

    L.N. Smithee (18a3fe)

  6. happy feet must like pushing buttons, and blaming conservatives.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 3/31/2013

    Right on both counts, I suppose. But there are blameworthy conservatives out there. That’s a big reason why the conservative movement is struggling despite the times proving it to be wiser than progressivism.

    Dustin (73fead)

  7. Sotomayor is part of the New Guilded Class and as such, protected, she is a female, a minority and a leftist. You will see no media coverage of her statement vs Carson as you have seen from Patterico above. What you will see is Carson dragged through the mud. This is part of their play book and Carson, as Clarence Thomas was before him, will be treated harshly.

    Ipso Fatso (1e3278)

  8. I found the petition, last night;

    http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/the-petiton-against-dr-carson-by-john-hopkins-medical-students?commentId=4301673:Comment:1396225&xg_source=activity

    they were very disingenuous, they only got 133 response, not all what they wanted either.

    narciso (3fec35)

  9. You know that you are arguing your own point, right? That the way to have same sex marriage is by the exercise of the states’ plenary powers through the legislative process. “Why [same sex marriage]? Because we can!” “Why not [polygamy, incestous, ’69 Olds 442, etc.]?” “Because we can!”

    nk (c5b7ef)

  10. Which goes to winning hearts and minds while squeezing balls. Homosexuals have been harassed and shamed in the public arena, de facto and de jure, for a very long time. If it’s now the turn of opponents of gay rights, to be shamed and harassed, within the bounds of the law, in order to advance the homosexual legislative agenda, why not?

    nk (c5b7ef)

  11. And Happy Easter, Christians of the West.

    nk (c5b7ef)

  12. “Why not [polygamy, incestous, ’69 Olds 442, etc.]?” “Because we can!”

    Comment by nk (c5b7ef) — 3/31/2013 @ 6:15 am

    You get to marry your ’69 442 and I can’t marry my ’76 IHC Scout? I just lovingly installed an Aussie locker in the front axle and with the factory posi in the rear that thing will now climb trees. It’s rated to tow Rhode Island to the Gulf Coast. Sure, she’s not as fast as your 442 but let’s be honest.

    Marriages to fast girls don’t last.

    Otherwise I’d be whining about not being able to marry an ’87 Buick GNX I’ve had my eye on.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  13. I, for one, actually a growing chorus, tire of his infantile ravings.

    I’m more fascinated by his slamming people who believe in multi-partner marriages, calling such people trashy or weird, then turning around and saying that folks opposed to SSM are bigots. Truly the height of cognitive dissonance.

    Then again, the famous ancient Greek philosopher Plato originally thought only country bumpkins (in so many words, or to paraphrase) were against homosexuality (much less the idea of same-sex marriage, which wasn’t even on the agenda during his existence), then apparently changed his tune later in life.

    Hp’s glib response to the issue of fetuses (or, in effect, premie babies) who survive the abortion process but aren’t treated as infants also unnerved me. IOW, there’s a glint of surprisingly corrupt, two-faced leftist sentiment in such people, such as the supposed Republican judge who ruled against Proposition 8. That unfortunately is true of a large cross section of the populace.

    Mark (212a14)

  14. Homosexuals have been harassed and shamed in the public arena, de facto and de jure, for a very long time

    That makes me think of people like Happyfeet, who are strong defenders of SSM, yet casually use “gay” in a negative way. Or a liberal I know, who’s a big admirer of Obama and other leftwing politicians, but who on occasion will smirk about the lack of masculinity (ie, same-sex behavior) of certain people. Isn’t that cognitive dissonance found within the GLBT crowd itself? Aren’t various people who are righteous about gayness and gays for, some reason or other, flustered by bisexuality and bisexuals (is that analogous to leftwing blacks who smirk about someone being an “Uncle Tom”)?

    The very fact our lexicon makes a distinction between male homosexuals (generally “gay”) and female homosexuals (“lesbian”), in and of itself not only is discriminatory, but it makes homosexuals sound like a strange foreign species. So the American/English lexicon is….RACIST!

    Mark (212a14)

  15. I have an ’87 Cutlass Supreme Classic, with the whole 442 package of that era (307 V-8, 4-speed Hurst shifter, buckets, heavy duty suspension, low rear-end ratio, steel spoke wheels, etc.) except for the decals. Bought new. But it sits in the driveway. 2006 Nissan Altima is my steady girl now.

    But since it’s a gay thread — I saw a sailor (our Navy) yesterday in sea foam blue and white mottled camouflage. Very striking. Is Vera Bradley now designing Navy uniforms?

    nk (c5b7ef)

  16. Mark, on the use of “gay” pejoratively … I was told that my earrings (pink hearts) looked gay by a gay guy. The earrings were my joke, and the “gay” his joke. It depends on the context and the audience.

    nk (c5b7ef)

  17. Newsflash, exposing racism and hypocrisy of the left and SSM proponents is a reaction to something other than shaming.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  18. 15. But since it’s a gay thread — I saw a sailor (our Navy) yesterday in sea foam blue and white mottled camouflage. Very striking. Is Vera Bradley now designing Navy uniforms?

    Comment by nk (c5b7ef) — 3/31/2013 @ 8:32 am

    Since the Navy arrives off a hostile coast in great steel blocking-out-the-sunshine monstrous ships it’s hard to justify the use of camouflage.

    Army types? Sure. Maybe if you match a particular patch of dirt you might go unnoticed.

    But Navy? What’s the thinking. Maybe if I hide behind the RHIB I’ll go unnoticed? Maybe. But the ship won’t. And besides the ship’s haze grey and underway. And your camouflage is blue.

    I think the point is to save money on SAR.

    A sailor falls overboard (or is pushed because someone is PO’d at him usually over a gambling debt) and generally speaking it’s a few hours before anyone notices. His supervisor starts to wonder where so-and-so is. Tells the chain of command. Then we do a muster and count heads.

    And all that time the ship’s been doing 20 knots.

    Now once you figure out the guy’s missing you’ve got a huge area to search.

    But, hey! He’s wearing blue camouflage. What’s the point.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  19. 15. 2006 Nissan Altima is my steady girl now.

    Comment by nk (c5b7ef) — 3/31/2013 @ 8:32 am

    Yeah, I drive a 2011 Tacoma Pre-Runner. Crew cab with the base 2.7L four cylinder. The whole thing is pretty basic which, when you compare it with my ’76 Scout, is pretty amazing. Cruise control, AC, six disc CD player, etc. If any of that stuff was available in ’76 it didn’t come on the base model.

    And the 2.7L four is pretty darned strong.

    This thing is a company truck and I couldn’t justify upgrading to the V6. I thought I’d hate it. But it’s not bad. I used to commute to community college in my dad’s hand-me-down ’78 Malibu Wagon and that thing couldn’t get out of its own way. But this Toyota gets up and goes quite decently.

    It’s comparable to my friend’s 1990s vintage V6 4wd Tacoma. That V6 had more ponies, but then it also had to haul around something like 500lbs more due to the 4wd.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  20. Justice Sotomayor correctly recognizing that holding that banning same-sex “marriage” violates equal protection because the state recognizes marriage would create a new civil right. After all, states can not ban marriage because marriage is a fundamental right. The Sixth Circuit noted that “marriage as it was recognized by the common law is constitutionally protected, but this
    protection has not been extended to forms of marriage outside the common-law tradition” Vaughn v. Lawrenceburg Power Sys., 269 F.3d 703 at 711 (6th Cir. 2001)

    Consider the case of an equal protection challenge in federal court against an Oklahoma law that prohibits sodomy in public, alleging that the state can not ban public sodomy if it does not ban private sodomy. I choose Oklahoma for this example because the Tenth Circuit had squarely held that public sodomy has no protection under SDP. See National Gay Task Force v. Board of Education, 729 F.2d 1270 at 1273 (10th Cir. 1984) National Gay Task Force expressly left open the question of whether the state may infringe on sodomy between consenting adults in a private context, a question answered in the negative by Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

    Thus, under binding precedent in the Tenth Circuit, SDP allows a state may ban public sodomy, but not private sodomy, between consenting adults. It would be strange then, for a court in that Circuit to hold that banning public sodomy, but not private sodomy, would violate equal protection, given that SDP as interpreted by Lawrence and National Gay Task Force makes that precise distinction. Indeed, such a ruling would effectively stretch the liberty issue at Lawrence to a “right to have sexual intercourse” 539 U.S. at 567

    (Of course, an equal protection challenge against a law prohibiting a particular form of public sodomy, when other forms of public sodomy or other public sex acts are not prohibited, would not implicate Lawrence nor transform its holding into a right to have sexual intercourse, nor (if successful) establish that public sodomy or sodomy per se is a civil right.)

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  21. Absurd false equivalency.

    Next…

    Dad (af3d40)

  22. Dad – You are obviously a deep thinker. Do you have a newsletter to which I can subscribe?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  23. daley, he is just mad. I will bet serious coinage he was unaware of the Justice’s testimony. He just knows Teh Narrative. It’s all knee pads and pom poms.

    Low information.

    Simon Jester (09a89d)

  24. There goes Dad, bringing his D- game to the blog commenting today.

    JVW (aa050c)

  25. daley, he is just mad. I will bet serious coinage he was unaware of the Justice’s testimony. He just knows Teh Narrative. It’s all knee pads and pom poms.

    Low information.

    He could not even make time to read my comment more thoroughly.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  26. Team R already has plenty of candidates that can talk about kiddie diddlers and gays in the same breath I think. What do we need Dr. Ben Carson for?

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  27. Mr. Feets – It’s a big tent. No need to be all hatey.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  28. it’s a 3-legged stool too!

    lol

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  29. I did not know that being a fa9 is now considered a “race”.

    joninva (627bcd)

  30. Dad – You are obviously a deep thinker. Do you have a newsletter to which I can subscribe?

    Hahahahahahahaha.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  31. I did not know that being a fa9 is now considered a “race”.

    The humor in the post is admittedly subtle. I’m playing on the tendency of leftists to call everything “racist” whether it has anything to do with race or not.

    To fully explain the post, I am also not actually accusing Sotomayor of “comparing” anything. She is merely doing precisely what Carson did in his much-criticized speech: making a slippery slope argument. That is different from a “comparison.”

    Patterico (9c670f)

  32. Jokes are funnier when you explain them.

    Now where’s nk to tell me to stick to my day job?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  33. Mr. John Fund still hasn’t retracted his false accusation that Silly Sonia “brought up the issue of bestiality.”

    In fact, it was liberal Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor who brought up the issue of bestiality during this week’s oral arguments on a gay-rights case, openly asking if the extension of marriage law to gays would open the courts up to lawsuits demanding equal marriage rights by polygamists and those who engage in bestiality.

    But what’s more interesting is that the estimable Mr. Fund quite evidently understood Mr. Dr. Carson to be making a *comparison,* and an inappropriate one to boot.

    With his new prominence, Carson has apparently also riled some liberals, including these Johns Hopkins students. Last Tuesday, he told Sean Hannity of Fox News that “marriage is between a man and a woman. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are, they don’t get to change the definition.”

    That inappropriate comparison of gays to members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association and those who practice bestiality, along with his pointed criticisms of liberal policies at the prayer breakfast, prompted a petition demanding that he be replaced with another commencement speaker.

    So Mr. Fund characterizes what Mr. Dr. Carson says as a copmparison, but Silly Sonia just “brought up” bestiality?

    I are confuzzled.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  34. as a *comparison* I mean

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  35. but Silly Sonia just “brought up” bestiality?

    no stupid happyfeet Judge Sotomayor did NOT bring up bestiality when talking about gay peoples – that was Dr. Ben Carson.

    You need to get your facts straight before you discuss all these controversial statements the people are making.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  36. sorry.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  37. Just to make it clear I was not bringing up bestiality when I began discussing marrying a marmot.

    Which is why I cleared things up by shifting the discussion to bonobos.

    If animals have legal personhood, it is NOT bestiality. Just luvin.

    Gotta go. My mistress is whinnying for me.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  38. In his book Same-Sex marriage and the Constitution , Evan Gerstmann summarizes the counter-arguments to the arguments made by Olson about polygamy during Tuesday’s oral arguments.

    “When academics have addressed polygamy, they have treated it with the sort of contempt and indifference that they decry when directed at other marginalized people.” Gerstmann, at 106 (emphasis added).

    “[V]ague, speculative generalizing about the potential evils of nontraditional families [such as polygamous families] is exactly the sort of attack that has so often been used against same-sex couples.” Id. (emphasis added)

    “The argument equating polygamy with patriarchy is oddly indifferent to the views of the very women whom the polygamy ban purpotedly protects.” id.

    “As with the patriarchy argument, this [arguments that polygamy could diminish the emotional bond of marriage] is the sort of seat-of-the-pants sociology that some have used to paint same-sex relationships as shallow, perverse, and so forth.” id. at 107

    “[Some have argued that] polygamy has been rife with abuses- including forced marriages, sexual exploitation of minors, and welfare dependency. This is the sort of fallacious argument that all social scientists should avoid. When a lifestyle is illegal and driven underground, that circumstance can lead its practioners towards antisocial behavior. ” id. at 108, citing Chapman, Steve,

    Two’s Company; Three’s a Marriage, Jun. 5, 2001

    Of course, none of this means that anti-polygamy laws would fail rational basis. Concerns about abuse, steering procreation towards monogamous opposite-sex couples, upholding marital fidelity are each sufficient in themselves to reject constitutional challenges under this level of scrutiny.

    But under strict scrutiny, these asserted interests would not be sufficient, for the ban is not narrowly tailored to these interests, nor is the least restrictive means of achieving these interests.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  39. So Michael @38, I take it you agree with me that if you scratch the surface of Walker’s juvenile ruling there’s nothing in it that couldn’t be used to argue for polygamy? Or marrying your bonobo friend (should the bonobo be legally recognized as human)?

    Steve57 (be3310)

  40. I’m still waiting for Mr. Feet to come up with, well, data to prove that so very many Republicans think that gay = child molester. Other than a few people in the public eye.

    Did I miss it? Sorry if I did.

    This is relevant to the bigotry theme that keeps getting used, and more appropriately, the quite serious insult dealt religious conservatives here and elsewhere.

    And if we are going to play that game of a few comments = widespread agreement, let’s play. And we’ll start with Joe Biden’s pronouncements. Heck, let’s start with the President’s flip-flops!

    I’m not trying to fight. I am increasingly weary of people lying about what others believed (or more charitably, perhaps, making up what other people believe) and then insisting it is fact. Because if it gets repeated enough…well, you know the rest.

    Patterico has shown the equivalence between the comments made by Justice Sotomayor and Dr. Carson. We can start there. But…people who like to cheerlead for issues close the DNC will insist that, well, these things are different.

    Funny how that works.

    Simon Jester (09a89d)

  41. Sotomayor is part of the New Guilded Class

    Is that a typo, or a deliberate pun?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  42. but is Mr. Dr. Carson ACTUALLY making a slippery slope argument?

    Let’s use our reading powers and investigate!

    First let’s start by looking at what a slippery slope argument is according to the experts.

    A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom. The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect.

    Thank you wikipedia for that helpful background.

    Now here’s what Mr. Dr. Ben Carson said what got him into trouble:

    Marriage is between a man and a woman. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition.

    So what Dr. Ben Carson is saying is that the definition of marriage is immutable.

    Let’ follow along with his logic…

    First off he posits a definition: Marriage is between a man and a woman.

    and then he follows with three co-equal assertions:

    1.) He says that homos don’t get to change his definition. (No group, be they gays)

    2.) He says that kiddie diddlers do not get to change his definition. (be they NAMBLA)

    3.) He says that animal shtuppers do not get to change his definition. (be they people who believe in bestiality)

    Lastly, as part of his “slippery slope” argument, Mr. Dr. Ben Carson restates his assertion that his definition of marriage is immutable by collectivizing homos, kiddie diddlers, and animal-shtuppers as “They” (it’s a pronoun).

    They don’t get to change the definition.

    And that is the sum total of Mr. Dr. Ben Carson’s foray into “slippery slope” argumentation.

    Ahh! But the careful reader will say hey happyfeet, where in there does Mr. Dr. Ben Carson state that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect? He doesn’t allow for even a first step! His definition is immutable, you see? NOBODY GETS TO CHANGE IT!

    Slippery slope arguments start by positing a small change and end by asserting a bigger scary change. But Mr. Dr. Carson is saying that NO change is possible on the subject of his definition of marriage.

    Oh. Why right you are, careful reader. Good catch!

    Therefore using our logics we have illustrated that in fact, no – Mr. Dr. Ben Carson was NOT actually making a “slippery slope” argument.

    Reading powers – DE-activate!

    Thanks for tuning in to reading fun with happyfeet. On our next episode we’ll look at whether or not Silly Sonia was making a “slippery slope” argument when she said:

    If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to — that could get married — the incest laws, the mother and the child, assuming they are of age — I can — I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on — on protecting the a child until they’re of age to marry, but what’s left?

    Meanwhile everybody keep on reading! It’s fun n’ mental!

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  43. Steve57 wrote:

    You get to marry your ’69 442 and I can’t marry my ’76 IHC Scout? I just lovingly installed an Aussie locker in the front axle and with the factory posi in the rear that thing will now climb trees. It’s rated to tow Rhode Island to the Gulf Coast. Sure, she’s not as fast as your 442 but let’s be honest.

    Marriages to fast girls don’t last.

    That would be a same sex marriage on nk’s part, because a 1969 Olds 442 is clearly male.

    The sexist pig Dana (af9ec3)

  44. nk wrote:

    But since it’s a gay thread — I saw a sailor (our Navy) yesterday in sea foam blue and white mottled camouflage. Very striking. Is Vera Bradley now designing Navy uniforms?

    My older daughter says that’s Navy camouflage, so that when a sailor falls overboard, nobody can see him in the water.

    The Army-daddy Dana (af9ec3)

  45. And you still don’t answer, Mr. Feet.

    Now, I don’t want to fight. But you are the one throwing the word bigot around, repeatedly. I have tried to get you, with your vast reading and reasoning powers (as evidenced by your uncharacteristically irritable response above, where you even lost your odd schtick!) to note that you yourself were doing the very things you abhor in others.

    So I guess it is clear. And it proves my point. It is dangerous to allow emotion to sway reason when it comes to laws and government. One must consider long term consequences. And that agrees with some of your position, by the way. You just don’t get to pick when emotion gets turned on and off.

    Sort of like a clown’s nose being taken on and off when it suits you.

    As for slippery slope argumentation, by all means debate it with Patterico. I look forward to reading it.

    Simon Jester (09a89d)

  46. but happyfeet, aren’t slippery slope arguments usually construed to be logical fallacies?

    Hah! You rascals just don’t quit!

    I’m very proud of you. Happy Easter to you all.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  47. 44. My older daughter says that’s Navy camouflage, so that when a sailor falls overboard, nobody can see him in the water.

    Comment by The Army-daddy Dana (af9ec3) — 3/31/2013 @ 1:47 pm

    Dana, that’s what I said @18.

    And all that time the ship’s been doing 20 knots.

    Now once you figure out the guy’s missing you’ve got a huge area to search.

    But, hey! He’s wearing blue camouflage. What’s the point.

    Do you know what it does to morale when your “superiors” make you where a suit of clothes that only makes it less likely they’ll try to find you if you fall off the boat?

    Steve57 (be3310)

  48. where=wear

    Steve57 (be3310)

  49. They are immutable because man didn’t create them, it’s like inalienable rights, pikachu is too ‘dazed and confused’ to see this,

    narciso (3fec35)

  50. but happyfeet, aren’t slippery slope arguments usually construed to be logical fallacies?

    Only by dishonest crooks what are hoping hoping hoping to go wheeeee all the way to the bottom of that slope. Oh noes, they’re on to us, they say. Let’s call it a “fallacy”, and then they’ll be ashamed and say sorry, and they won’t know they’ve been had until they find themselves at the bottom and they’ll say what happened to the fallacy, I swear it was right here, did anyone see it?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  51. Navy admirals praise the fact that the lookouts in the SAR helos couldn’t find the lost sailor as proof their blue camo was a brilliant idea – film at eleven.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  52. CNO: “We regret the loss of the sailor but the camouflage worked perfectly.”

    Seahawk crew chief: “We couldn’t see ****.”

    Sailors: “**** this I’m spray painting my uniform orange.”

    Steve57 (be3310)

  53. I think it’s more logical to interpret Carson’s argument as a slippery slope argument. He is listing groups of people who want to change the definition of marriage, or who may at some future point want to change the definition of marriage — hence the slippery slope — to include their group.

    IMO he did not present the groups as comparable, but instead as different types of groups whose only bond is that they have or may have an interest in changing the definition of marriage. The chain of related events in this slippery slope is that the step of legalizing SSM leads to other groups who have an interest in changing marriage deciding to join in.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  54. so you, along with Dr. Ben Carson, fear that the matrimonial homos have dragged us to the very doorstep of legalizing child molestation and also bestiality?

    The average age at which people marry has been climbing and climbing in the United States. And as you can see from the link, the whole let’s marry an animal craze is having a little trouble getting off the ground.

    But maybe Mr. Dr. Ben Carson has some super secret neuroscience data on this.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  55. here is a helpful chart of the ages at which people like to get married

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  56. so we are left to wonder…

    what’s the causal relationship between gay marriage, which is happening at increasingly alarming rates in our world – including in our own little country (!), and the as yet wholly conspicuous lack of enthusiasm evident for pedophile and animal weddings?

    hey!

    Maybe this is why they call it a slippery slope fallacy?

    I just thought of that.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  57. I don’t think most Americans support groups like NAMBLA or behavior like bestiality, and I hope the goals of NAMBLA never become mainstream. But changing the definition of marriage opens the door to other groups seeking to be included — groups like the FDLS Mormons that believe in multiple wives and child marriages, Sotomayor’s example of adult incest, and others. I don’t know where to draw the line but changing the definition of marriage means the line will change.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  58. no that does not make sense logically DRJ

    If we define marriage as between two consenting adults of any sex, then that definition actually *precludes* polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality.

    Done and done! It’s really just that simple.

    Nothing to be scared of. Using the above definition we can let gay people marry without fanning the flames of pedophilia.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  59. Frankly, though, I’m not sure how the residents of cities like San Francisco view NAMBLA or bestiality. Do you think many San Franciscans might be willing to expand the definition of marriage to include those groups?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  60. But you’ve changed the definition from “a man and a woman” to “two consenting adults.” There’s nothing that says it can’t change again, and even your definition doesn’t preclude adult incest.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  61. I think it’s more logical to interpret Carson’s argument as a slippery slope argument. He is listing groups of people who want to change the definition of marriage, or who may at some future point want to change the definition of marriage — hence the slippery slope — to include their group.

    IMO he did not present the groups as comparable, but instead as different types of groups whose only bond is that they have or may have an interest in changing the definition of marriage. The chain of related events in this slippery slope is that the step of legalizing SSM leads to other groups who have an interest in changing marriage deciding to join in.

    This.

    Also, happy, the slippery slope argument is not inherently a fallacy. To assert such is lazy thinking. Eugene Volokh has written about it; for the link, use the Google, or (to celebrate Cesar Chavez’s birthday) the Bing.

    Or the bong. Whatever works for you.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  62. For all the talk of San Francisco values, a Chronicle analysis of how the city voted on the state’s same-sex marriage ban shows a city geographically divided on the issue – and voting trends that turn San Francisco’s typical political spectrum on its head.

    One in 4 San Franciscans voted in favor of Proposition 8, far fewer than the 52 percent who voted to ban same-sex marriage statewide. But a closer look shows race, age and education influenced voters more than anything else – even among those living in one of the world’s most gay-friendly cities.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  63. I’m more worried that if you change the definition of marriage you can also change the definition of “speech”, “jury”, “warrant”, etc.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  64. Feet, you are simply ignoring the concept of a person being able to marry the person of their choice, which is what gay marriage proponents want. That means that “a” person can marry “a” person, then another and another and another. Notice the missing word in that sentence: divorce. Notice more missing words: age, sex. Now when does “a” person get written out into “a” “living being???”

    reff (4dcda2)

  65. Ah, but that is the problem, Mr. Feet: duonormative thinking. What rights do you have to preclude groups from getting married? Your response, each time, has been just as bigoted as the people with whom you disagree, based on your personal dislike of a different lifestyle. You have no statistics to back up your contention, which is precisely how you respond to the opponents of SSM.

    Except you call them bigots, too. And try to smear them as equating homosexuality to bestiality and pedophily.

    This is the point I have been trying to make, repeatedly. When you “expand” the definition of marriage, where do you stop? You say, with two people total. But what is your rationale that does not involve personal taste and bias?

    I couldn’t have asked for a better illustration of the fundamental disconnect here.

    Making decisions that impact a nation, based on your personal view, are dangerous. I don’t expect you to agree, but I do hope that you can see you have much in common with Rick Santorum.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  66. Also, happy, the slippery slope argument is not inherently a fallacy.

    I never stated that a slippery slope argument is inherently a fallacy. I very very carefully quoted the following as part of my definition.

    The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect.

    Mr. Dr. Ben Carson *utterly fails* to demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effects of kiddie diddle marriage or marriages which unite human beings with animals.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  67. Except you call them bigots, too. And try to smear them as equating homosexuality to bestiality and pedophily

    Dr Carson is uber highly intelligent, a well reguarded speaker, a manager of people in a professional multicultural environment.He chose his words carefully and for full effect

    EPWJ (a8d1fa)

  68. If we define marriage as between two consenting adults of any sex

    Duonormative

    JD (b63a52)

  69. nk…….LOVE ’69 OLDS 442 !!!

    reff (4dcda2)

  70. But that wasn’t his argument, Mr. Feet! His argument was about who gets to change definitions…not the basis and details of those definitions.

    Anyway, perhaps this is an intractable difference of opinion. Let me appeal to you with something sugary and creative, if off topic:

    http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/03/29/8-ways-to-reincarnate-peep/

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  71. In addition, this story is heartwarming and topical to today’s holiday:

    http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/033113-648499-easter-story-easter-bunny-andrew-malcolm-vietnam-war.htm

    This one was predictable and tawdry. And relevant, as it speaks to judicial temperament:

    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/03/30/shirtless-judge-admits-to-affair-with-woman-in-chambers/

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  72. His argument was something he had to stand up and apologize for in front of the whole class Mr. Jester!

    Peeps! There’s a whole Peeps store at mall of the americas. I never been yet.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  73. Scalia saw the edge of the slope, in his dissent in Lawrence, we were told they would not go there, no they will go farther.

    narciso (3fec35)

  74. His argument was something he had to stand up and apologize for in front of the whole class Mr. Jester!

    No, it wasn’t something he *had* to stand up and apologize for – it was something he chose to do, whether whether he succumbed to political pressure from those who are seeking to push him forward, or whether a character weakness or lack of confidence in his own beliefs, I don’t know. But ultimately, he certainly did not have to because he is not answerable to anyone, and also, he did not directly insult or offend with hate any particular group.

    Except those who are always looking for a hurt.

    Dana (292dcf)

  75. Sadly, Mr. Feet, and this surprises me coming from you, Dr. Carson was trying to deal with intellectual fascists calling him names, and a complicit MSM.

    I didn’t notice folks suggesting Justice Sotomayor needed to apologize for conflating incest with SSM. Right?

    Because neither one did that, did they? You just want it to be true for Dr. Carson, and not for Justice Sotomayor. Sigh.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  76. Oh, your last sentence was fanatastic, Dana! Like the college President told me years ago: some people would rather have a cause than an effect.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  77. And, if animals obtain personhood… then what happens to the definition of marriage???

    reff (4dcda2)

  78. Mr. Santorum never apologized for saying that homosexuality was like man on child and man on dog.

    But Mr. Dr. Ben Carson *did* apologize for what he said about gays and pedophiles.

    So Mr. Dr. Ben Carson is the one creating the slippery slope where now everyone who sorta kinda does/doesn’t compare gay people to pedophiles will have to apologize!!

    Gee thanks a lot Mr. Dr. Ben Carson you weenie!

    You’ve done SIGNIFICANT damage to the conservative cause you big jerk.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  79. Dr. Carson is not referencing a slippery slope at all. He is saying that no set of people (for whatever reason you define the set), has the right to change the definition of words, and force that definition on other people.

    That is the essence of the problem of the whole same-sex marriage debate. There is nothing remotely bigoted about his statement.

    Sotomayer, makes a somewhat similar argument. Basically if you redefine marriage, then you must account for some of the nuances, such as incest. Incest is a restriction on marriage for common law reasons (and obviously human factors). However how does this apply to the new definition. INCEST LAWS make no sense for same sex marriage. Its not a slippery slope, but rather finding a consistent definition

    Pete (403069)

  80. #77, or what happens to the definition of marriage if the word “woman” is now determined to mean, a person who feels that they are female. Now a man can marry a “woman” without it being a same sex marriage at all.

    Pete (403069)

  81. 58. no that does not make sense logically DRJ

    If we define marriage as between two consenting adults of any sex,

    You mean if we redefine marriage as between two adults of any sex. Because it’s exactly that definition the prop 8 proponents are trying to overturn. And pretend not to at the same time.

    …then that definition actually *precludes* polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality.

    Done and done! It’s really just that simple.

    Nothing to be scared of. Using the above definition we can let gay people marry without fanning the flames of pedophilia.

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/31/2013 @ 2:44 pm

    OK so let’s turn this bus around. Apparently I’m the homophobe for thinking that maybe marriage and having kids go together. So what are you going to tell the high school dropouts you’ve convinced to separate marriage from raising kids.

    I’m the irrational racist homophobe, thank you very much, so my argument doesn’t count anymore courtesy of Judge Vaughn Walker.

    I mean, other than patting yourself on the back for being all open-minded and happyfeet about Ellen DeGeneres but seriously.

    What do yo say to the Florida welfare mom who demands to know who is going to step up the plate and pay for all her kids?

    That she should have waited. Why? You just passed a law targeted at pleasing the folks who are gentrifying your neighborhood. That’s it.

    I think I’ll die on this hill because the consultants the GOP hires who tell us what hill not to die on have run us flat out of hills.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  82. I remember people saying allowing abortions during the first trimester would eventually lead to killing babies born of botched abortions. I guess that slippery slope was not invalid.

    Pete (403069)

  83. Let’s turn the bus back around to where gay people aren’t arbitrarily excluded from social institutions to where your straight kid and your gay kid both can get married to where your gay kid’s partner doesn’t have to sleep on the couch every christmas, which is just awkward for everybody.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  84. I used to internet-know a guy who married his horse. Believe you me, it’s out there.

    luagha (1de9ec)

  85. #84, just don’t invite the partner.

    Pete (403069)

  86. I can’t believe you said that

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  87. they should respect the parents beliefs.

    Pete (403069)

  88. well duh that’s why the partner is sleeping on the couch

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  89. No, he should not be creating the awkward situation in the first place.

    Pete (403069)

  90. but are you fine with you straight kid and your gay kid marrying each other?

    Pete (403069)

  91. happyfeet,

    I thought you wanted the GOP to stop talking about social issues like SSM so it can focus on economic issues, but you seem like someone who cares a lot about this specific social issue. In other words, it seems that social issues matter to you. Why don’t you think they should matter to others?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  92. ok so now we exclude gay people not just from marriage but from christmas?

    Good plan. If we get on it maybe we can get that into the Team R platform in time for 2014.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  93. ok DRJ if I stop commenting on threads titled “Racist Supreme Court Justice Compares Homosexuality to Incest” you promise Team R will start to focus more better on economic issues?

    I need you to promise promise promise cause I have to confess at first blush this seems counter-intuitive to me.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  94. As I pointed out, they had the doctor on report, since the Prayer Breakfast, this was an excuse like any other, to ‘target, polarize, separate from all bases of support’

    narciso (3fec35)

  95. I don’t want you to stop commenting and even if you did, it obviously wouldn’t mean the GOP would change. I want you to acknowledge that you care about social issues, and you understand why elections aren’t solely about economics.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  96. I’d also like to know if you believe anyone who opposes SSM and abortion are voters the GOP doesn’t need?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  97. as I pointed out Mr. narciso, several times, that what Mr. Dr. Ben Carson said, as appalling as it was, does not have the affect of rendering him an unsuitable candidate for certain Team Rs to glom onto as they nurse hopes of recapturing the White House from the fascists in 2016

    it does, however, render him a very run-of-the-mill regular old everyday social con type candidate who is challenging your Santorums and Perrys for a very particular slice of Team R voters

    whereas before he seemed capable of uniting the party under a fresh new message

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  98. Mr. Feets – Do you think Dan Savage would be a good consultant to Team R on gay outreach?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  99. Clearly, all our economic problems are solved, our health system is going gangbusters, so lets embark on another pointless scheme.

    narciso (3fec35)

  100. “as I pointed out Mr. narciso, several times, that what Mr. Dr. Ben Carson said, as appalling as it was,”

    Mr. Feets – As has been pointed out here many time by many people, many of us do not agree with your interpretation of what Dr. Mr. Carson said as appalling in any way, shape or form.

    You are not the boss of me.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  101. DRJ social issues are killing killing killing Team R on the national level. I needed a Team R what could stand up against fascism, not stand up for Anita Bryant.

    Like as not it makes very little difference now.

    Still – I think it’s good to reminder people that the whole social con thing is mostly an 80s phenomenon like Culture Club and John Hughes movies.

    If you want social issues in the mix we can all unite around guns and we can all unite around school vouchers. And we should.

    I’ll start.

    Yay guns! Yay school vouchers!

    READY?????

    OK!!!

    guns n vouchers

    that’s our plan!

    beat the fascists

    yes we can!

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  102. Mr. daley even Mr. Dr. Ben Carson has admitted that what he said was “insensitive”

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  103. “social issues are killing killing killing Team R on the national level. I needed a Team R what could stand up against fascism, not stand up for Anita Bryant.

    Like as not it makes very little difference now.

    Happyfeet, would you just admit that social issues are okay – as long as they are ones you care about!

    You don’t care an ounce about aborted babies who survive, babies who don’t survive, etc. – but you do care deeply about SSM. You may have a personal investment in it (yourself, relatives, friends) but you do care – deeply and passionately so – about this social issue.

    If there were actual honesty and forthrightness coming from the pro-SSM crowd, I might just drop dead from the shock.

    Dana (292dcf)

  104. Dana can you explain why it makes sense to glom onto unpopular social issues like the gay marriagings and the ones that play into the smashingly successful war on women meme?

    cause as an objective observer I gotta tell you it ain’t working for Team R

    too many Akins Gingreys Walshes Mourdocks too many Dr. Carsons and Santorums just waiting to babble awkward stupid things

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  105. 32.Jokes are funnier when you explain them.

    Now where’s nk to tell me to stick to my day job?

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 3/31/2013 @ 11:08 am

    Visiting with my daughter, at our old house. It had been a year since I’d last seen the place.

    The post is fine, but deadpan works better with an obvious nonsequitor. With some of your readers, the more obvious the more better.

    nk the comedy critic (c5b7ef)

  106. The commies have made it a mortal sin to oppose the gay issue.
    The only thing worse is it has scared people into silence. Nice tactic, happyfeet.

    mg (31009b)

  107. Yes, we can be utterly nonjudgemental like this’

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/notes-obamas-easter-service_712247.html

    narciso (3fec35)

  108. “It drives me crazy when the captains of the religious right are always calling us back … for blacks to be back in the back of the bus … for women to be back in the kitchen … for immigrants to be back on their side of the border.”

    Heckuva Christian message at Easter Mass

    JD (b63a52)

  109. Mr 57 wrote:

    Dana, that’s what I said @18.

    Yeah, I saw that after I posted mine.

    The Dana who saw it too late (af9ec3)

  110. That’s a cracked mirror, don’t you think,

    narciso (3fec35)

  111. Heckuva Christian message at Easter Mass

    mixering up politics and religion is just so crass i think

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  112. “Mr. daley even Mr. Dr. Ben Carson has admitted that what he said was “insensitive””

    Mr. Feets – What is wrong with that token? Why didn’t he admit it was appalling?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  113. 88. they should respect the parents beliefs.

    Comment by Pete (403069) — 3/31/2013 @ 3:40 pm

    Oh, yeah, totally. I’m just having trouble understanding why drowning it in a toilet or beating its head to mush against the side of dumpster ain’t ok while punching a pair of scissors into its spine is.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  114. Why didn’t he admit it was appalling?

    he didn’t admit it was appalling cause of if he alienates the core base of 700 Clubbers his political career is now dependent on he’s toast and Fox News won’t want to give him a contract

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  115. He didn’t admit it was appalling because it wasn’t appalling, unless you presume to restate what he actually said into something he didnt say.

    JD (b63a52)

  116. personally I’m content with “insensitive”

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  117. Now what Msr. Leon was insulting, condescending and entirely wrong, but it is the template of the media.

    narciso (3fec35)

  118. yep, its over

    next random savior…..

    EPWJ (a8d1fa)

  119. It wasn’t no more particular appalling than the Planned Parenthood dingleberry in Florida. It shore(sic) as chitlins was thoughtless in the sense that this time he was not preaching to the choir, again like the Florida dummy who was just throwing out items from Planned Parenthood’s Column A and Column B menu free egg roll with every mifepristone order.

    nk (c5b7ef)

  120. i don’t think you can meaningfully slippery slope the two Mr. daley

    Mr. Dr. Carson is a potential candidate for high office whereas the dingleberry is a stupid dingleberry

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  121. The christians you constantly bash have helped thousands of disadvantaged people for numerous years. You and your gay brethren, not so much.

    mg (31009b)

  122. They are lining the skids with grease, re Nussbaum;

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/03/polygamy-would-have-to-be-permitted/#comments

    narciso (3fec35)

  123. Maybe Dr. Carson was trying to argue slippery slope. I don’t know that he wasn’t. But my comparison of gay marriage bans to bans of McDonald’s Happy Meals is a lot more easily understood as an example of the rational basis test (the point I was making), than comparison to laws against bestiality and child molestation. Dr. Carson should call me to write his metaphors and similes for him.

    nk (c5b7ef)

  124. Hey! I thought this was Sonia’s thread. Why is Mr. Feets threadjacking it?

    elissa (9e3aa8)

  125. I’m still unsurprised we have never had a citation on the data that shows that most religious Republicans equate pedophily with single sex marriage.

    Just more bomb throwing as part of Teh Narrative.

    Reminds me of a friend of mine who made a similar argument. She actually wrote that this (a relationship between pedophiles and homosexuality) was wrong because 99% of sexual assaults on boys was by heterosexual men.

    Huh?

    And the ironic part is that no one I knew was trying to equate the two. Though her definitions seemed a bit odd.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  126. Hey, elissa! Did you think Justice Sotomayor was arguing for a slippery slope?

    And why wasn’t it discussed?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  127. silly sonia is stupid and inarticulate elissa

    her commentings on the matter are very garble garble, and tedious to boot

    but in #42 I did indeed reference her commenting and I suggested that her questionings, garbled as they were, were by far a better exemplar of “slippery slope” argumentation than what Dr. Ben Carson had to say in his Fox News audition

    plus Silly Sonia’s commentings had less shock value, since she didn’t reference pedophilia and bestiality like Mr. Dr. Ben Carson did (plus also they are inarticulately expressed)

    whereas Mr. Dr. Carson expressed his ideas about gay people and pedophiles clearly and in complete sentences

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  128. Oh, Mr. Feet. Everyone knows what you believe (though you continue to not support your previous comment about what religious Republicans believe—too bad).

    I was more interested in hearing some other folks chime in on the two situations. Hopefully without the “clown nose on/clown nose off” stuff.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  129. it’s a holiday weekend you might have to just make the best of what you got Mr. Jester

    I’m here for you man

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  130. So a U Chicago professor, has already moved the goalposts, part of the Overton window one might say.

    narciso (3fec35)

  131. Silly sonia’s a supreme court justice. One would rather expect her commentings and questionings and worryings and rulings to affect a lot more people than the off hand political opinings on TV of a surgeon, no? On the other hand I think I’d rather have Dr. Carson to operate on me than the wise latina.

    elissa (9e3aa8)

  132. I don’t know to what extent some random Chicago academic can really actually dictate the terms of the debate Mr. narciso

    her babblings are naught but an incarnadine herring I think UNLESS one can adduce real-world examples drawn from the nine states where gay marriage isn’t banned that show a meaningful progression towards polygamy

    and it may be that at the end of the day we simply can’t trust Utah and Texas to responsibly enact gay marriage

    but I think we need more evidence than the random chicago academic’s word for it

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  133. Oh, I had a wonderful day, Mr. Feet. I had a lovely brunch with my wife and kids, and I got to help them with their homework assignments. Called my father and we shared some nice memories of my late mother. Called my brother and discussed how I wasn’t conservative enough, but hung up on good terms. Then I got to go to work and meet with some students who had done poorly on their last exam. Most of them were nice, but one or two were kind of tempery with me. They told me how much they had studied but sure didn’t remember much.

    So I handed them Easter candy and gave them inspiring speeches about hard work and ownership.

    I heard from some friends, electronic and otherwise, who are having good things in their lives.

    I’m a pretty lucky man.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  134. elissa Silly Sonia’s garble garble was just thrown up as a smokescreen for Mr. Dr. Ben Carson to hide behind I think

    to his credit he himself did not hide behind a smokescreen

    he apologized, albeit conditionally, since he’s not 100% certain if he’s actually offended anyone

    but it remains to be seen whether his apology is accepted

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  135. sounds like a good day Mr. Jester

    I had asparagus!

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  136. Are you ready to say you care about social issues, happyfeet?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  137. Wow, Mr. Feet. When I read this:

    “…elissa Silly Sonia’s garble garble was just thrown up as a smokescreen for Mr. Dr. Ben Carson to hide behind I think…”

    It sure sounds like you are trying to smack Patterico around. Not very polite on Easter day, when he has invited you into his electronic living room.

    Get with the season!

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  138. i already said about the guns n vouchers DRJ

    but mostly I’m worried about the spendings and the redistributions

    I’m fairly neutral about the immigrants except for I think border security just makes sense, and I think it’s disgusting how people put the burden of policing the borders on farms and small businesses

    even if you’re an illegal immigrant everyone’s better off if you’re gainfully employed, and you can hardly blame people for coming here when the Homeland heifer just lets them waltz in like she does

    but the “700 Club” social issues are tired and stale I think

    it’s like how sometimes you just have to let your farmland rest for a season or two

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  139. Mr. Jester you mischievous scamp

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  140. but the “700 Club” social issues are tired and stale I think

    If you don’t care about SSM, then why argue so consistently about it and why only in one direction? Is it because you think it will help the Republicans to accept SSM?

    If so, what makes you think the GOP won’t lose many 700 Club voters or will lure enough Democrats and Independents to offset those losses?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  141. Oh, DRJ, you know the answer to that.

    But I wanted to wish you a wonderful day, ma’am, and tell you how much I appreciate your temperate and fair minded posts.

    And I doubt I am the only one who feels that way.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  142. my gamble would be that a honed message based on unitey stuff what was free of all the cloying 700 club stuff would nevertheless be attractive to a good many 700 Clubbers, many of whom by now are beginning to dimly suspect that their agenda has become an impediment to the realization of Team R’s electoral hopes

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  143. A dozen years ago, except for possibly Scalia, who thought gay marriage was on the horizon, but they dial up the wurlitzer, just like with that other mythical juggernaut, the Carbon monster, and there it is.

    narciso (3fec35)

  144. happyfeet,

    If you want people to unite, why shouldn’t the Democrats unite with the GOP on some social issues? For instance, in the interest of uniting, the GOP could agree to SSM if the Democrats agree to end 3rd trimester and partial birth abortion and require parental consent for minors who get abortions. Why isn’t that fair?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  145. Happy Easter to you and your family, Simon Jester. It sounds like you had a lovely day.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  146. Except for the student part. That part may not have been lovely but it was well done.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  147. Hide the children.
    Here comes another gay pride parade.
    And arrest the 700 clubbers for not kissing ass.

    mg (31009b)

  148. that’s a neat idea but the optimal time for that sort of thing would be after the farmland is more rested than it is now

    plus I don’t think there’s much in it for the Democrats – the status quo with respect to these issues seems to suit them just fine

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  149. Who cares if there’s anything in it for the Democrats. It’s about uniting.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  150. DRJ, I cannot emphasize how extremely brainwashed even the science students are. They literally are incurious about the world, and think in bumper sticker slogans, often of the “cutesy” variety. They actually think that Jon Stewart’s opinion is more important than their own. So I do what I can. And perhaps most important, teach my own sons to think critically and be intellectually honest and consistent.

    And I don’t think this is off topic, actually. It is part of the problem we are seeing in this thread. There are folks who will get a sound bite from “The Daily Show” and think it is the truth. I mean, I had a student say the other day that the Democrats had pushed through the Civil Rights Act.

    Gulp.

    But Teh Narrative is entrenched. It’s all about how the person feels about themselves, not about the topic under discussion. It reminds me of the unilateral disarmament group in the 1980s that called themselves “Physicians for Social Responsibility.” How could you be against that?

    Slogans or bumper stickers as a replacement for debate and thought.

    Sigh.

    But thank you for your kind words.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  151. Because social issues don’t matter. The economy and jobs are what matters, right?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  152. Oh, and DRJ, regarding your comment. We are developing what I call “metacommunication” in our society. Words do not mean what they literally say.

    So “compromise” means “do whatever I wish.”

    This derives from the conceit that your own way is good and just and without question. So that opposition to it must be not-good and unjust. Hence the current situation.

    I would love to see the agreement you suggest. But for all the criticism we hear that Republicans have inflexible litmus test…well…

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  153. I think education is the biggest problem our nation faces, Simon Jester. Ultimately, I think the only answer is vouchers at the K-12 level and less expensive online options for college and technical school.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  154. yes the economy and jobs are what matters

    I think social cons under-appreciate how much of their agenda is a luxury afforded by America’s relatively high quality of life

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  155. I disagree. Conservatives favor life and traditional marriage. Liberals favor choice and change, both of which were impossible to consider before America attained that relatively high quality of life.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  156. Thus, liberals are the ones who under-appreciate how much of their agenda is a luxury afforded by America’s relatively high quality of life.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  157. Not to mention how easily that high quality of life can all be thrown away, especially for the poorest among us.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  158. well we’ll get to test that hypothesis

    the quality of life in this squalid debt-ridden little country ain’t getting any fresher

    the fascist chickens are coming home to roost

    have you checked the youth unemployment rate lately

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  159. Obama just stabbed the foodie left in the back by giving in to Mon santo.

    mg (31009b)

  160. The youth employment rate is dismal. The question is, do the youth finally realize how bad it is?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  161. And, more important, that Obama’s policies are a big part of why it’s so bad.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  162. youth are stupid

    if the youth in Farmington New Mexico and Monroe Louisiana had any idea how hopeless their lot is they’d all take pills

    and your Farmingtons and Monroes are much more the future than your Portlands and Austins

    god save us

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  163. I don’t think they are stupid, only misinformed because they believe what the Democrats and the media tell them. They’ve been trained by our education system to believe authority figures.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  164. it’s unbearably tragic

    the plight of American youth

    HBO should throw a benefit concert like the did for the Sandy victims

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  165. like *they* did I mean

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  166. I’m tired, very tired, of these threads.

    – They all turn into a giant squid tied up into the proverbial Gordian knot.
    – The topic is too serious to be really funny, IMO, and serious comments have to suffer through nonsense
    – and the same topics get recycled with little evidence of the benefit of previous attempts at serious discussion
    – ben carson has the same appeal as Sarah Palin, a previous favorite of disgusting commentary by happyfeet, someone who dares to speak straight forward common sense; work hard, make smart decisions, being a person of faith helps keep a person grounded and gives strength for motivation, don’t blame everybody else
    – in other words, not a public personality that can be allowed to survive, especially so since he is black

    FWIW, as I’ve said before, the reasoning for SSM before the court as a civil right/equal treatment but not for polygamy is very simple per aphrael’s collected comments
    A) homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality; homosexual relationships are not different from or inferior to heterosexual relationships
    B) given A is true (assumed, claimed, question begged), then it is obvious that homosexual couples have the same right to marry as a heterosexual couple
    C) Polygamy is not “just as natural” as a heterosexual couple or same sex couple, hence there is no legitimate claim to make polygamy legal on the same anti-discrimination bias

    happyfeet seems to approve of this, because he thinks it is being a bigot to disagree with SSM, but not a bigot to oppose polygamy

    seems to me anybody with a good high school education of yesteryear would be able to make and follow this little argument of logic and point out where it breaks down, at least as a proven argument

    but few care for any argument more than “I want it” and “It’s not fair”. A society where public policy and law are about as sophisticated as an argument between 5 years olds. There are good reasons not to let 5 year olds vote, but if those over 18 can’t reason any better then it doesn’t make much difference.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  167. polygamy is very trailer park and I feel sorry for the polygamy kids but not sorry enough to want normal kids associating with the weirdo polygamy children

    they probably all have polygamy lice

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  168. Scalia eviscerated Olson, quite handily, but he insists ‘it’s just a fleshwound’

    narciso (3fec35)

  169. Happyfeet seems to be all over the Gay marriage issue. Gayfeet???

    Gus (694db4)

  170. Well I’ve tried to bring studies, like the amici, the prescient posts from Jacobsen, and I topped it off with the St. john’s episcopal sermon by comparison,

    narciso (3fec35)

  171. “youth are stupid”

    Mr. Feets – Except for the one what support SSM, for those ones are brilliant and enlightened independent thinkers and not just following what is popular at the moment.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  172. Ah, Daley. You never fail me.

    Simon Jester (09a89d)

  173. Plus, I always enjoy seeing acceptable bigotry repeated in the comments. But no worries. The clown nose makes it okay.

    I’m just glad no gay lice were involved. Or female lice, I guess.

    Simon Jester (09a89d)

  174. MD in Philly:

    But few care for any argument more than “I want it” and “It’s not fair”. A society where public policy and law are about as sophisticated as an argument between 5 years olds. There are good reasons not to let 5 year olds vote, but if those over 18 can’t reason any better then it doesn’t make much difference.

    When that’s how children are taught to think in school, we shouldn’t be surprised that’s how they think.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  175. happyfeet #168,

    That’s a sad, cruel comment. I hope you were trying to be funny and failed, as opposed to really meaning it.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  176. no i mean it

    if you want something to be socially unacceptable you can’t just ask washington to ban the things you don’t like

    that’s too easy I think

    you have to have the courage of your convictions and just say look you polygamists look you bestiality people

    I don’t want nuffin to do with you and I’m a shun you and your families

    it’s not pleasant but like I say

    you can’t expect washington d.c. to do all your social hygiene for you

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  177. So Michael @38, I take it you agree with me that if you scratch the surface of Walker’s juvenile ruling there’s nothing in it that couldn’t be used to argue for polygamy?

    Absolutely correct.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  178. 177. Point taken, some time back actually.

    Went to a country church for Easter this AM. No doubt a majority are for SSM and prolly near so for gay proud ordination.

    But then, if you’re gay you move well away.

    Kind of pointless to say, ‘No, I won’t have communion with you people cause you’re beliefs are all wacked.’ Its not likely we’ll be tested.

    The last minister that tried to drag them out of the synod found that sheeple are comfortable in the field where they’ve nibbled.

    The Pope says suck it up and ‘Return good for evil’. He also took a vow of poverty. I’m not cutout for my religion. Fortunately theirs an app for that.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  179. But Teh Narrative is entrenched. It’s all about how the person feels about themselves, not about the topic under discussion. It reminds me of the unilateral disarmament group in the 1980s that called themselves “Physicians for Social Responsibility.” How could you be against that?

    An organization that fights against women’s rights could insulate itself from criticism merely by appending “…For Women” at the end of their name.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  180. happyfeet sounds like a staff writer for the stephen colbert show

    or maybe even the steven colbert show. or whatever.

    Elephant Stone (f4dd79)

  181. I always try super hard to return good for evil. Except for those weirdo polygamers and the ones what want to marry animals.

    Them ones I’m real straightforward with.

    Talk to the hand I say, beast-lover.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  182. happyfeet, why do you hate polygamists, just because they love differently more than you do ?

    bigot

    Elephant Stone (f4dd79)

  183. No, he’s a no labels type of pikachu, like Avlon and Frum, why one would want to be that, I have no clue.

    narciso (3fec35)

  184. How’s it feel to be on the wrong side of history, Patrick?

    Dad (af3d40)

  185. Dad, how does it feel to have no clue what you are talking about? How does it feel to be a complete idiot because you have the reading comprehension of an dyslexic snail?

    SPQR (768505)

  186. something about polygamers just don’t set right with me Mr. Stone

    they got them witless droopy polygamer eyes and they all smell like bisquick

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  187. Dad, it sounds like you’re speaking from experience regarding being on the wrong side of history.

    Do tell !

    Elephant Stone (f4dd79)

  188. I think you’re insulting dyslexic snails, SPQR

    narciso (3fec35)

  189. There’s not a whole lot wrong with being on the wrong side of history.

    That’s kind of a stupid statement.

    Ag80 (78934d)

  190. mister happyfeet, so if polygamists don’t set right with you, then you’re cool

    but if same sex marriage doesn’t set right with Joe Schmoo, then he’s a bigot ?

    Elephant Stone (f4dd79)

  191. narciso, point. This “Dad” troll is really an utter and completely clueless moron.

    SPQR (768505)

  192. We already used the ‘Billy Madison line, this week,
    btw, would the believe, Minitrue, edited out the ‘Captain of the Religious Right’ from the sermon,

    narciso (3fec35)

  193. hey no labels Mr. Stone

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  194. mister happyfeet

    you could never be a chef
    kitchen is too hot for you

    Elephant Stone (f4dd79)

  195. plus I’m terrified of raw chicken

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  196. mister happyfeet

    no, you are raw chicken

    Elephant Stone (f4dd79)

  197. Just when you think this thread could not possibly get more tedious Dad shows up.

    elissa (9e3aa8)

  198. Mr. happy:

    As well you should be. You never know when those slimy carcasses might jump up and get you.

    They are nothing like real life.

    Ag80 (78934d)

  199. no but you should taste my chicken carpaccio

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  200. mister happyfeet

    no thanks, i don’t swing that way
    try craigslist
    or santa monica blvd

    Elephant Stone (f4dd79)

  201. Mr. Feets – You need to be careful of that citronella stuff handling the raw chickens. You saw what it did to Frank Perdue. Plus I heard you can catch pedophilia from a toilet seat. Let’s be careful out there people.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  202. “Dad” – dimes to dollars you could not accurately state Patterico’s position on SSM. Or pretty much anything not dictated to you by ThinkRegress or mediamutterz

    JD (b63a52)

  203. I got me some purell wetnaps i got from chik-fil-a Mr. daley

    and when i run out you can be darn sure i’m a go back n get more

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  204. Happyfeet–Inquiring minds want to know—Do you pee in a juice can you keep next to your computer? Because it appears you have not left your keyboard all day long.

    elissa (9e3aa8)

  205. i been hither and yither – i make the comments here and on my phone and at work

    but to the consumer the whole process looks seamless

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  206. S’ok Mr. Feets…
    Tho’ I feel that Genghis Khan had lefty lapses…I enjoy your observations, you remind me of one of my daughters..she wants to be lefty and tries so hard yet she sees and often agrees with Dad.

    My other daughter, well she is a lefty like her Mom.

    Angelo (8bf6b7)

  207. Mr. Angelo I’m a super staunch conservative i swear I just maybe prioritize diffrently

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  208. *differently* I mean

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  209. MD in Philly I wonder how you say polygamy is not natural like hetro- and same sex relationships.

    And I am not trying to pick a fight. I want to hear your reasoning. Also I am opposed to same sex marriage on the slippery slope reasoning.

    reff (4dcda2)

  210. Mr. feet:

    I’m thinking it might be time for me to take a break from posting on blogs.

    Not because it’s not fun and all, but because it can make you forget to walk the dog or forget ugly incidences at other places that some used to post.

    I will still read, but I just bought a new set of golf clubs for really cheap and they are calling.

    Good night to all.

    Ag80 (78934d)

  211. Same here Mr. Feets….

    Angelo (8bf6b7)

  212. reff-
    I’m not so much making the argument as stating the argument as it seems to me what others are trying to claim. There is such a swirl of things, I would just like to see how one can formulate the truth claims and the flow of logic to make it all explicit, to see what things one is asked to assume and how defensible it is.

    aphrael stated his dislike of civil union laws because it made him feel that such a course suggests that a SS partnership is looked at as different and /or inferior. That is why I assume part of his argument is that SS orientation and a SS couple are not different and not inferior, i.e. equal. Then he thinks that polygamy is not a logical next step to be included in the definition of marriage, which I take to mean that he thinks polygamy is “not as natural”.

    Now, all of this applies specifically to the claim that the courts can rule on SSM because of equal treatment under the law.

    As I tried to communicate before, I think it is an argument that simply asserts certain things and asks others to agree, and when spelled out like I did it seems to me it is pretty arbitrary how one is deciding what is or is not “normal” and/or “equal”.

    So, if one wants to claim there is no slippery slope because SSM is normal and deserves equal protection as hetero but polygamy is not, well, I think you are just redefining who gets called bigot for no logical reason.

    I think the underlying point is that this is not an attempt to get equal rights before the law for a SS couple, but rather to make the opinion that same sex attraction and heterosexual attraction are equal become a legally defensible claim, without really making that clear.

    I think many people are willing to say that SS couples can have the same legal protection if that is what the majority of people want, “Let them be and leave them alone”, but I do not think the same number of people, but rather significantly fewer, think that “hetero or homo makes no difference”.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  213. My view is that it is presumptuous to ask the court to decide what normal and not-normal sexuality is, and it is a bait and switch to try to get the court to get backed into that on some other legal argument.

    If you don’t ask the court to rule based on equal protection, but try to legislate, then you need to argue how/why one can change the definition of marriage in some ways but not others. In such a case one can avoid the “what is normal and what isn’t” debate/dilemma, but then you are left with the “make it fair” argument, which then begs the question why do some people get their desire approved (SS) but not others (polygamy).

    I think history and human behavior would argue that for a male to desire polygamy (with all females) is probably more common than the number of men who would want a SS marriage. Now, I’m not advocating for polygamy, I’m just saying that if you want to go by historical example or by “natural unbridled desire”, both calculations I think make polygamy “more common”, and whether you want to call that “more normal” or not is another question.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  214. Very similar to what I thought….

    And, it is the slippery slope….

    “Common” is what is decided to be “normal.”

    reff (4dcda2)

  215. Absurd false equivalency.
    Next…
    Comment by Dad (af3d40) — 3/31/2013 @ 10:20 am

    — Don’t tell us; tell Sonia!

    Icy (944a96)

  216. yep, its over
    next random savior…..
    Comment by EPWJ (a8d1fa) — 3/31/2013 @ 5:06 pm

    — The above ^^^ agrees with Mr. feets. Any questions?

    Icy (944a96)

  217. How’s it feel to be on the wrong side of history, Patrick?
    Comment by Dad (af3d40) — 3/31/2013 @ 7:59 pm

    — How is Patterico ‘on the wrong side of history,’ dishrag?

    Icy (944a96)

  218. Somebody in this thread needs to chill out and munch some jellybeans, I think.
    [Hint: it may be the guy that keeps repeating ad nauseum that Dr. Ben Carson’s place is neither at the front not rear of the bus, but UNDER it.]

    Icy (944a96)

  219. Ag80- Hit em straight.
    I mean the clubs!!!

    mg (31009b)

  220. Two 11 year olds receive threats for testifying against same sex marriage. Grace has been called an 11 year old bigot. And this one has flavor, Just shut the f up until you’ve seen a little more of the world, puppet child.
    Your peeps suck, mr.happy.

    mg (31009b)

  221. Icy

    I was at the eye doctor thursday trying to get a pair of glasses adjusted before driving to a military installation, nad I was impatient that I wasnt being waited on as fast as I would have prefered, well they had reasons ,two children,one who lost an eye playing baseball and a girl who went blind suddenly without warning were being seen in front of me.

    Naturally, I was more than embarassed at my thoughts of being inconvienenced.

    Dr Carson could have chosen to have made a difference in those childrens lives over the next decades, He has a wonderful inpiring life story, clearly he was someone that few if any were going to stack up against.

    If he didnt go down the path and slipping his own private feelings into the public discourse.

    So Dr.Carson clearly isnt up to the task of putting aside whats important to him over whats important to the country

    Blame Happyfeet all you want or me, we dont agree on this subject in the way you think

    EPWJ (a8d1fa)

  222. Wow, EPWJ. Two things: first, you don’t know very much about Carson. He is retiring from brain surgery for a reason. So trying to smear him for not doing more to help others in the future is flat out bizarre.

    Second, are you really going to criticize anyone for making statements that they perhaps should not have? Really?

    Simon Jester (09a89d)

  223. 182. Obviously, I’m above average at returning evil for good, but the Mrs. cannot be touched so why try?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  224. something about polygamers just don’t set right with me Mr. Stone

    they got them witless droopy polygamer eyes and they all smell like bisquick

    Speaking of smells — and getting graphic but being honest — you think guys who are into other guys, and who apparently often diddle with the anal region of one another, tolerate foul smells more than the average person? Combining that with the fact STDs are known to flourish within the gay (ie homosexual males) community, don’t such things make you wince? I recall Liberace saying he could understand why the public was generally disturbed by the thought of homosexuality, if only because of the image many people had of what males did sexually with other males.

    The way you’ve been arguing about SSM — in such a contrary, over-the-top way (and assuming you’re not riled up merely to be a jokester) — makes the assumption that you’re “G” or “B” in the “GLBT” almost a given.

    I think history and human behavior would argue that for a male to desire polygamy (with all females) is probably more common than the number of men who would want a SS marriage

    Exactly. So, if anything, a tendency towards favoring multi-partner relationships (and a desire or need to be unfaithful towards one’s spouse or girlfriend is — when you come right down with it — a form of polygamy) actually is far more common within the realm of human nature, or is more intrinsic to more people (mainly males), than homosexuality is.

    Mark (212a14)

  225. EPWJ-

    – As impressive as it is to go into an operating room and actively intervene to save a life, perhaps by doing something no one else has the skills to do,
    it is a sort of self-tyranny to go down the road of thinking one is indispensable.
    – There are many things that go into being able to do a delicate surgery for over 24 hours, and humans age and their capacities change, and their responsibilities to their families change.
    – He had already made the decision to retire from active surgery. Whether a desire to be more active in the general state of affairs of the nation had a role in that or not, I don’t know.
    – Who knows whether or not his becoming a bigger public figure ends up in just two gifted kids across the nation turning into contributing members of society instead of being delinquents and street thugs.
    – He just went from a revered figure invited to speak at his own institution to a person hated and vilified by the same people. Not really a good move if personal happiness is your priority.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  226. Oh, the above will help, won’t it? Sigh.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  227. I mean Mark’s comment, MD.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  228. Dr Carson could have chosen to have made a difference in those childrens lives over the next decades, He has a wonderful inpiring life story, clearly he was someone that few if any were going to stack up against.

    If he didnt go down the path and slipping his own private feelings into the public discourse.

    So Dr.Carson clearly isnt up to the task of putting aside whats important to him over whats important to the country

    It is basically impossible to parody this kind of gibberish.

    JD (3cbfc7)

  229. Oh, the above will help, won’t it? Sigh.

    No need to sigh. As the saying goes: “The truth will set you free.”

    If anything, in this age of health being a new religion — and the fact that male sexuality is naturally promiscuous, and male-on-male sexuality therefore is even more innately promiscuous, and therefore a health risk — male homosexuality should be discouraged the same way that smoking cigarettes is discouraged, or drinking sugary sodas is discouraged.

    Hey, nanny-liberal Mayor Michael Bloomberg, I got a new campaign for you! Start publicly waving your finger and frowning at gay behavior!

    Mark (212a14)

  230. I don’t think living up to EPWJ’s ideals is Dr. Carson’s primary concern.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  231. Comment by EPWJ (a8d1fa) — 4/1/2013 @ 4:37 am
    I was at the eye doctor thursday trying to get a pair of glasses adjusted
    — Hopefully you told them about that thing you get where every time you look at Iran you see 228 times more Jews than are really there; or how you saw Gov. Palin’s deficit reductions as being a spending problem.

    Dr Carson could have chosen to have made a difference in those childrens lives over the next decades
    — He’s robbing the world of his TRUE talents, is that it? His selfish political whims will cause unintended (and in your view ‘unneeded’) pain and suffering? “To each, according to his needs,” eh, comrade?

    He has a wonderful inpiring life story, clearly he was someone that few if any were going to stack up against.
    — Past tense? As the attacks on him clearly show, there are many that come nowhere close to stacking up against him today.

    If he didnt go down the path and slipping his own private feelings into the public discourse.
    — An honest political figure; one that puts principles above pandering? Heaven forfend!

    So Dr.Carson clearly isnt up to the task of putting aside whats important to him over whats important to the country
    — And the two are mutually exclusive because . . . WHY?

    Icy (944a96)

  232. 231. Indeed. Carson had to know the Roasting he gave Succubus would lead to his ouster at Johns Hopkins in due time.

    Bet he accomplishes more good for the unfortunate with his remaining days than I do.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  233. With the early Easter NCAA tournament had competition:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/04/01/Ten-Commandments-Rerun-Beats-Carrey-Fey-Girls

    Hey Jenny Mac, whatever did you see in that jackazz?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  234. Simon,JD and MD

    Carson had the national stage – he had the spotlight – what I meant was the fact that he could have been a formidable force for good if he could have been a responsible spokesman

    apparently not

    EPWJ (8d0de6)

  235. Same old pattern for EPWJ. Impugn the integrity of those that he does not deem pure enough. Like Scozzafava.

    JD (3cbfc7)

  236. JD

    Where did impugn his integrity – did he not make a statement and then was forced to dison it?

    He’s done.

    EPWJ (8d0de6)

  237. Where did I impugn his integrity?

    Where did I support Dee Dee?

    EPWJ (8d0de6)

  238. Dr Carson could have chosen to have made a difference in those childrens lives over the next decades, He has a wonderful inpiring life story, clearly he was someone that few if any were going to stack up against.

    If he didnt go down the path and slipping his own private feelings into the public discourse.

    So Dr.Carson clearly isnt up to the task of putting aside whats important to him over whats important to the country

    Putting his personal desires for whatever is more important to him than saving the eyesight of children. That is not impugning his integrity?!

    The idea that you did not support DeDe is laughable. Simply denying your history does not change it.

    JD (b63a52)

  239. Again, it is like EPWJ doesn’t think any of us recall his long, long history of, um, unusual posts.

    So when actually writes that someone needs to be a “… responsible spokesman…” and criticizes them for not being such… I have to laugh.

    Out loud.

    Simon Jester (c0c5be)

  240. This is the mindset of the Soros Wurlitzer, at John Hopkins on gun control, that regards prolifers as segregationists and worse, the same mindset in that sermon in Washington,

    narciso (3fec35)

  241. JD

    can you provide any proof?

    EPWJ (8d0de6)

  242. I should add the last chapter of the Bible, a series done on a shoe string, did very well.

    narciso (3fec35)

  243. Simon

    can you provide any proof?

    never mind – move on there isnt any

    EPWJ (8d0de6)

  244. 243. For the record, proof to the query ‘Did the sun rise today?’ may be taken as a number of things that might not be the case. Like the clock on the wall.

    Proof of ‘Does 2+3-1=4?’ is a simple matter of inspection.

    For more complex matters than the former ‘proof’ seldom exists. All reasonings have an end and are subject to another challenge.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  245. always follow links by narciso:
    Some members of SGA also thought that a link on the Voices for Life website, which sent visitors to a Web page that featured graphic pictures of aborted babies, was offensive.
    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/01/johns-hopkins-denies-recognition-to-pro-lifers-equates-them-with-white-supremacists/#ixzz2PGUDOjw6

    Pictures of aborted babies are offensive, doing the abortions apparently not so much, to some, anyway.

    I should add the last chapter of the Bible, a series done on a shoe string, did very well.
    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 4/1/2013 @ 6:07 pm

    I think you can buy it starting tomorrow.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  246. Haiku, at 247. Another capital offense in most of the Middle East, Malaya and Indonesia.

    nk (c5b7ef)

  247. Thanks, MD, the epistemic closure exhibited by some, is remarkable, I think Buzzfeed had a whole threat wondering why fronting Cesar Chavez’s birthday on Easter, was causing some agita.

    narciso (3fec35)

  248. gary

    JD and Simon both make claims they know are false, I try not to engage them because there is no end game and its disrespectful to Mr.P and others

    EPWJ (8d0de6)

  249. One is reminded that Dr. Carson is only a few years younger, then Clarence Thomas, another extremely talented Ivy League educated gentleman and scholar, who happens to be a practicing Christian,

    narciso (3fec35)

  250. EPWJ,

    You claim to be a conservative, yet you always end up aiming your gun toward the guys on the conservative team.

    You’re like the allegedly ‘straight’ actor who keeps getting caught with other guys.

    Elephant Stone (690bc5)

  251. Why don’t you just do with them like you do with me and don’t engage at all?

    Icy (944a96)

  252. Dr Carson is an unkown whohas demonstrated a problematic inability to keep his mouth footless

    EPWJ (8d0de6)

  253. Yes, an unknown that had Cuba Gooding Jr, play him in a well known film,

    narciso (3fec35)

  254. JD, I think we don’t need irony supplements after reading #256. Good sweet Lord, the kinds of nonsense this man has posted in the past! Do we really have to trot out the list?

    Simon Jester (c0c5be)

  255. Without dealing with bizarre posters who seem to lack both shame and memory, narciso, there are indeed very smart, very famous, very accomplished people who believe in awful things.

    Like William Shockley.

    But the heinous sin of Dr. Carson is to be an observant Seventh Day Adventist. But I have read his books, and it sounds like you have too. He really has done an awful lot of good in the world.

    For folks without a lot of time:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson

    Yes, he believes in some things I don’t. But he has done far, far more good for human beings than most people who post here. Most especially including me.

    So impugning him, despite all he has done, is kind of a troll move. We have seen that plenty of times here. I can understand just moving on. But the attempts to vilify and demonize are, um, uncharitable. And not particularly honest.

    Simon Jester (c0c5be)

  256. True, Simon, however re Shockley, I found out in the ‘Dissapearing Spoon’ that he had exaggerated and even appropriated other’s share of the credit, in the development of the semiconductor.

    narciso (3fec35)

  257. EPWJ is Tom Cruise??? Or is he John Travolta??

    Both of those gents pretend to be straight.

    Gus (694db4)

  258. I hadn’t heard that, narciso. Happy to see a link if you have one handy. I wouldn’t be surprised. Big Science equals Big Egos. Lots of horrific examples of folks taking credit for what others have done.

    Consider poor Jocelyn Bell and pulsars, right?

    Simon Jester (c0c5be)

  259. At least with Carson, he is wielding the scalpel when he does pediatric neurosurgery.

    Simon Jester (c0c5be)

  260. Ben Carson invented his own brand of vegetarian corn dogs at the age of 17 and he developed the algorithm what powers fandango (where you buy the movie tickets) while studying for his bachelor’s degree in neuroscience from the world’s poorest university

    plus also he holds most of the patents upon which “fracking” depends and he’s the creative force responsible for the whole first season story arc of WBTV’s smash hit sitcom Full House that turned a pair of slightly awkward but loveable twins into two of Hollywood’s most bankable stars

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  261. Well this sort of corrborates that notion;

    http://www.pbs.org/transistor/album1/addlbios/egos.html

    narciso (3fec35)

  262. Dr Carson makes the point that marriage has a definition. He says that Gays, Nambla and Beastie boyz, who all might have a reason to change that, are not correct, as the definition does not match their WOULD BE DEFINITION.

    Happyfeet, you are silly.

    Gus (694db4)

  263. Breeders

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  264. Happy Feet hasn’t been this animated about what a doctor said on television since George Clooney left “ER.”

    Elephant Stone (690bc5)

  265. wow that was acerbic

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  266. http://patterico.com/2009/10/21/ny-23/

    http://patterico.com/2009/10/26/ny-23-race-heating-up/

    http://patterico.com/2009/11/03/ny-23-election-results/

    These 3 threads suggest otherwise, EPWJ. Your Newt tongue-baths in those threads were hysterical, given your fevered rants against him in the primaries. Same with your TEA PARTY is DEAD rants in 2009. Those threads really speak for themselves.

    JD (b63a52)

  267. Those are surreal. Scozzafava was the right choice for TeamR, even after she dropped out, endorsed the Dem, and did robocalls for him. The idea that she would have been a vote against Pelosi, or against ObamaCare, is simply insane.

    JD (b63a52)

  268. Its always funny when EPWJ tries to pretend that he has no history of beclowning himself … only to have us do some searches for amusement of him beclowning himself…

    SPQR (768505)

  269. thanks Mr. narciso

    it’s invigorating to see a Fresh Voice like Mr. Dr. Ben Carson double down on his support for 700 Club marriage

    Social Cons are the future and it’s never been more self-evident to me than it is when I watch Mr. Dr. Ben Carson speak movingly and persuasively about traditional marriage while our pitiful little country circles the debt toilet

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  270. i like jon carson and egg mc muffinns and findland

    pdbuttons (2648f1)

  271. they drink fermented reindeer blood in finland

    that’s the sort of thing what a bucket puts on its own bucket list

    fermented reindeer blood eff yeah

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  272. People who are not waving the pom poms for SSM are weird looking, stupid, dinosaur riding, inbred, hicks from flyover country.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  273. yeah but they know from bbq Mr. daley

    do NOT pass up a plate of these ones bbq

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  274. “lions, tigers, pat robertson, reindeer blood, and bears, oh my !”

    somewhere. over. the. rainbow.

    Elephant Stone (690bc5)

  275. foreign films end in fin

    pdbuttons (2648f1)

  276. You have to say it, like Gary Busey, in Predator 2, for full effect, ES.

    narciso (3fec35)

  277. JD

    again no where in those threads did I profess support for Dee Dee – please provide again the proof

    I did post links to her record and the bills she had introduced.

    I need the proof that I supported Dee Dee.

    EPWJ (8d0de6)

  278. These 3 threads suggest otherwise, EPWJ.

    EPWJ, you have to admit you’re sort of like Sybil, referring to a person with a split personality or multiple personalities. Except in your case, it’s your politics or ideology that is contradictory and split.

    As for human sexuality, all the months of debating SSM and GLBT — and learning the history of ancient societies like Greece and Rome — has convinced there are more than a few people who suffer from Sybil-type sexuality, meaning they’re a mixture of both bisexual and heterosexual. Simply put, if the following is true of women — who I previously assumed weren’t as sexualized as males are (IOW, unlike guys, women didn’t think with their genitals), and therefore were far less likely to see one another in sexual terms, then anything is possible with humans in general, both male and female.

    yahoo.com, October 2011: A new study reveals that women’s sexual preferences tend to be a gray area (yep, identity confusion wasn’t just for those college dorm days). In fact, researchers at Boise State University found that in a group of heterosexual women, 60 percent were physically interested in other women, 45 percent made out with a woman in the past, and 50 percent had fantasies about the same sex.

    In addition, sexuality gets more, not less, fluid with time – yet more proof that experimentation isn’t just for college. In a study conducted by Diamond, the older a woman was, the more likely she was to describe her sexual preference as “unlabeled”. “We have this idea that sexuality gets clearer and more defined as time goes on,” says Diamond. “We consider that a sign of maturity to figure out who you are. I’ve seen it’s really the opposite.”

    Mark (e5fd6c)

  279. didja ever?
    didja ever meet /or live with someone who liked
    cornish game hens?didja ever?
    cuz they talk talk talk about the
    meat meat meat and the try to convince ya
    about cornish game hens?
    didj cuz I think it’s a lotta effort for meat an cornish blah blah hens
    and they’re messy an a where’s my finger bowl and
    Im upsetim having a not good eating experience and fuck cornish hens b7ut i like fritos whicjh have a corn thing i think

    pdbuttons (2648f1)

  280. What I saw in that thread is the typical bunch of cretins making assumptions about Owne who turned out to be a crack pot who kept again the republicans from winning back that seat

    Insisting on the 100% purity test

    I’m starting to rethink that JD is really still the democrat he used to be

    EPWJ (8d0de6)

  281. I’m beginning to think EPWJ is still the Democrat that he still is.

    Elephant Stone (690bc5)

  282. mark

    sure whatever – when Owen failed once twice to carry the seat and refused to let the republicans win it back – well I called it back then – but somehow I’m stuck with DeeDee because everyone here is embarassed at the spectacle that was created and fell flat on their faces

    I dont remind them of it because they do mean well, they want the best for the country but know I’m starting to think otherwise – they are maybe perhaps just well – they speak for themselves when we cannot debate issues that they have to attack and smear people because they dont agre with them.

    This is what JD and some do and they think its cute but so what the internet is a tough place and in the end – they get out of it what they put into it.

    EPWJ (8d0de6)

  283. I will let everyone read those threads and arrive qt their own conclusions. You were suggesting that we should vote for Soczzafava, who was previously a Working Families Party candidate, won a Sanger Award from Planned Parnthood, and endorsed the Dem and campaigned for him, after gutting the nomination by way of some sleazy dealings by some of her friends.

    The idea that I am a Dem is something only you could come up with.

    JD (b63a52)

  284. I wonder about reports like that MarkO, what is the likelyhood you would get a sample like that, and in Boise of all places, and that it would be representative of anything.

    narciso (3fec35)

  285. i RIF-reading is fun
    duh-mental!
    crabs are shit-u gotta get sprayed
    Cary Grant Iowa cornfield Hitchcock sprayed

    pdbuttons (2648f1)

  286. I apologize to everyone. I know better.

    JD (b63a52)

  287. JD

    No you’vemade the claim – now why dont you prove it

    seriously, or are you just nothing but an empty name caller?

    You made the claim – all I was doing was having a discussion in that thread – and it was an enjoyable one –

    EPWJ (8d0de6)

  288. That was your way of supporting Hoffman?

    JD (b63a52)

  289. Never mind. It is clear from just those 3 threads, what your position was. I should have known better to respond to you. Ever. It ends up in an Alice in Wonderland surreal anti-reality every time you get on one of these benders.

    JD (b63a52)

  290. Ypou’re just risking ‘total protonic reversal’ JD,

    narciso (3fec35)

  291. what is the likelyhood you would get a sample like that

    If it were merely articles just like that, I’d discount their overall significance. But it’s seeing too many stories like the following that make me now realize human behavior, including sexuality, apparently is more volatile than I originally assumed. IOW, when trying to envision Marilyn Monroe getting it on with Joan Crawford, one has to conclude that anything is possible.

    dailymail.co.uk: Although [Marilyn Monroe] married and divorced three times, she was — though few people are aware of the fact — a lesbian by inclination. She admitted to sexual encounters with actresses Joan Crawford, Barbara Stanwyck, Marlene Dietrich and Elizabeth Taylor, as well as with both her acting coaches, Natasha Lytess and Paula Strasberg.

    Marilyn told her close friend, actor Ted Jordan, that she and Natasha were sleeping together. ‘Why not?’ she said. ‘Sex is something you do with people you like. What could be wrong with a natural act?’

    Natasha told Marilyn: ‘You’re wonderful. I love you.’

    Marilyn said of Natasha: ‘She was a great teacher, but she got really jealous about the men I saw. She thought she was my husband!’

    In the transcripts of her taped sessions with Dr Ralph Greenson, Marilyn also admits to a full-blown lesbian encounter with the rampantly bisexual Joan Crawford. ‘Oh yes, Crawford,’ she says. ‘We went to Joan’s bedroom. Crawford had a gigantic orgasm and shrieked like a maniac. Credit Natasha with that. She could teach more than acting.

    ‘Next time I saw Crawford, she wanted another round …  after I turned her down, she became spiteful.’

    Crawford was succeeded in Marilyn’s lesbian adventures by two other veteran Hollywood stars, Barbara Stanwyck and Marlene Dietrich.

    After Marilyn’s divorce from Joe DiMaggio in 1954, DiMaggio confided to the New York newspaper columnist Walter Winchell that the real cause of the breakdown of the marriage was Marilyn’s preference for her own sex.

    On June 7, 1961, at Frank Sinatra’s cabaret opening at the Sands, Las Vegas, she had a one-off sexual encounter with her rival as the Queen of Hollywood, Elizabeth Taylor, who was six years her junior.

    ‘Her touch was electric,’ wrote Taylor of Marilyn in her diary. ‘I wanted to see how far the bitch would go. But she had to do all the work.’

    To all the liberals out there in particular, never deny or downplay the fact there apparently is plenty of “B” in the GLBT. So if GLBT is analogous to race or ethnicity, then it’s similar to, say, black people who have the miraculous ability to be white skinned one day, black skinned the next.

    Mark (e5fd6c)

  292. There is another slippery slope argument that hasn’t been made but that I think is more likely to actually happen. Once SSM is approved, especially if it’s at the federal level, the next step will be to label discriminatory any church that refuses to perform a SSM. It will be a repeat of the contraception mandate with the Catholic Church, only this will affect all churches that object to SSM.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  293. DRJ, we saw those kinds of attempts already at local level like the suit against the photographer by the New Mexico “Human Rights” commission who did not agree to photograph a same sex marriage. The Oregon baker sued for refusing to make a cake. The catholic owners of a Vermont inn sued for refusing to host a same sex wedding.

    SPQR (768505)

  294. You’re right, SPQR. Good point.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  295. DRJ– You are an excellent wordsmith. Do you think that there is a way that federal SSM legislation could be crafted that would very very clearly state it was addressing only civil state sanctioned marriage rights and not religious marriage ceremonies or definitions? I understand that approach would still be changing the “traditional” definition of marriage of one man and one woman on a key level–but the (not unreasonable) concern/fear that churches could be forced to perform weddings seems also to be a biggie for many people including you. Do you see any possible way that a law might be worded to clearly and unquestionably exclude religious organizations from liability or discrimination lawsuits with respect to their ceremonies and practices? Might that be worth pursuing to try to get SSM off the table?

    elissa (9c074b)

  296. Or it will be hate-speech to disagree with SSM. None of this is really speculation, as the inquisitions in Canada have provided a road map.

    JD (3cbfc7)

  297. Well, actually, the Fifth and Fourteenth only apply to state action so there would have to be legislation affecting churches. Easier at the state level, maybe Commerce Clause at the federal level, but still needing a majority to approve it. Then there is First Amendment free exercise and which is probably the most revered of personal freedoms, and intimated a bar to the tax and spend power in certain circumstances (and those circumstances can involve establishment too). A political thorn thicket, first, and a constitutional scorpion pit next.

    nk (d4662f)

  298. elissa,

    It doesn’t matter how it’s worded. It will be the next step in the battle and even if they don’t succeed at first, ultimately I think they will succeed. Similarly, DOMA was clearly worded but that didn’t stopped it from being challenged.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  299. To elaborate on First Amendment free exercise and establishment problems. Say a church which does SSM gets tax exempt status and one which does not doesn’t? Isn’t the government endorsing the religion of the second one?

    nk (d4662f)

  300. nk,

    I agree there might have to be legislation, especially in light of the constitutional protection for religion, but the legislation doesn’t have to be direct. The government can challenge federal funding, tax exempt status, or even a church’s zoning or ability to engage in certain charitable endeavors. Just the political pressure alone might be enough to make some churches back down.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  301. Re: tax exempt status —

    I agree except no two churches will ever be the same. There will always be a way for the government to claim those two churches should be treated differently.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  302. Were I King of America, I would overturn Prop 8 on Fourteenth Amendment intermediate scrutiny, and uphold DOMA against Fifth and Tenth challenge on the basis of a sufficiently important governmental interest for a uniform federal definition of marriage (until such time as SSM was the law in enough states for the issue to be revisited or, better, Congress changed the definition.)

    nk (d4662f)

  303. But the castle crumbled
    And you’ve left with just a name

    Icy (ef2e07)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.9765 secs.