"If you can’t reconcile some of the things Phil says with his otherwise friendly demeanor—perhaps because you are gay, or a duck—I don’t blame you. And I don’t blame Duck Dynasty for keeping the show safely apolitical, ensuring smooth digestion for a mass audience."
By now, the choicer tidbits of GQ's interview have been widely disseminated. Here's the whole article, in case you'd also like to read the interviewer's reactions to Phil's bible-thumping.
First things first: Phil Robertson is a goddam-fucking homophobic bigot. When you compare a sex act between consenting adults to asshole-religious-fanatics flying planes into buildings, you're an asshole-religious-fanatic who hates gays. When you literally tell people that allowing sodomy is the the start of allowing anything and the source of America's problems, you're a fucking homophobic bigot. Period. When Trent Lott told us that integration was the start of modern-day American problems, people correctly assumed that meant he favored segregation. Trent Lott ended up resigning, because acting like you like Black people but still want them to use different drinking fountains is just no longer credible. However, claiming that you love homosexuals while telling them their sex acts should be as criminal as blowing up a pizza joint, and that you hope that they renounce their "lifestyle" so they can be your "brothers" is somehow, still, supposed to be a rational opinion.
Phil, what if we don't want to be your brothers and sisters in Jesus? What if the Christian family just has no appeal for us? Phil's greatest asshole tendency in this article is to assume that everyone wants to be saved like him. No, we don't. We don't want to be involved in this man's life of control freak antics over his family. We don't want anything to do with a man who won't even apologize to people he's beaten up before becoming saved. We don't want anything to do with a white Southerner who insists that he certainly never saw any Black people being mistreated.
And now we get to what's been ignored: Phil is basically saying the same thing Germans said all through the summer of 1945. We didn't know it was happening. We didn't see it. No one complained to us. That lasted until Nuremberg. Hey Phil, does the North really have to stage a version of a war crimes trial documenting Jim Crow? Could you not have cracked open a fucking book to learn that Black people who complained or tried to change the situation in any way got lynched, run out of town, or beaten? Will someone please drag this asshole motherfucker to a room, tie his beard to something, and make him watch Mississippi Burning?
I'm tired of hearing Southerners' lame ass excuses for why it never occurred to them that Black people might not have liked segregation, no voting rights, and a constant campaign of terroristic violence to completely smother anything resembling free speech. Oh, wait, that would get in the way of their own persecution complexes.
To white Southerners (and some white Northerners, I'll admit), the abdication of power whites were never entitled to is seen as some sort of oppression. So, I'll clarify: Phil, you and your ilk were never entitled to keep women and non-white men from voting. You were never entitled to keep them ignorant. You were never entitled to keep them out of professions you wanted to preserve for your own status. You were never entitled to outlaw consensual sex between people of the same sex. You were never entitled to keep homosexuals from marrying. You were never entitled to do any of these things, so taking these powers away from you is the opposite of persecution.
Preventing you and your ilk from persecuting others is the key to everything other ethnic groups, women, the disabled, and the LGBT community have achieved. I know you think the law shouldn't protect the freedoms they need to achieve. I know you think the law should protect a non-existent "right" you think you have to treat others any way you want to.
Phil's fans may think he's been unfairly silenced to keep him from preaching his faith, but what about the Dixie Chicks? What about Helen Thomas, Martin Bashir, and Alec Baldwin? I guess only preaching their bible is the only free speech that shouldn't have any consequences.
Phil's fans think he is being punished unfairly for just stating what their sacred book says. Legally, they have no leg to stand on. So they just argue that the decision came from some sort of gay mafia that doesn't want any Christian to say anything, ever. Last time I checked, your homophobic rants were still safe in your own churches. Phil's fans ignore one thing that is lacking from the First Amendment: there's no obligation, for anyone, to listen to anything Phil wants to say. A&E doesn't have to be a megaphone for someone trying to convert people, or convince them that "love" can be found, but only if you agree that Phil is right and you must live just like him. Phil, my advice is to find a small island just for yourself. Preferably one that is being slowly taken away by rising sea levels. The ocean will never tire of your preaching.
Showing posts with label if it walks like a shitbag and it talks like a shitbag. Show all posts
Showing posts with label if it walks like a shitbag and it talks like a shitbag. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Dear Republicans,
This is your party. Is it too late to nominate Jane Svoboda? This bat-shit crazy, raving bigot truly represents you better than Mitt Romney ever could. Mitt was just a sneaky bigot, who couldn't even do his own bullying himself. He can't even own it later. The witnesses still feel awful about the incident, but Mitt can't even remember it. And then he can't help chuckling over it.
This is what your party has sunk to. At this point, you can't even pass a measure to allow the Catholic Church to keep birth control expensive. Your personhood amendments fail. Planned Parenthood is still open. Scott Walker just monumentally embarrassed himself and is surrounded by corrupt staff. Laying off thousands of government workers over the past two years has retanked the economy. The only thing you've won on this year is to keep the homosexuals down, and remind them that only straights' families count. You go on about our national debt and yearly deficits, but propose cutting taxes anyway.
I will give your party this- you certainly are great at acting as if you know what you're doing. Your party, since the 1960s, has been founded on satisfying the greed of plutocrats, the ignorance of religious fanatics, and the hate of bigots. And that's done well among some of the voters. Turns out that greed, ignorance, and hate do go well together. At least, they work together well at winning elections and referendums. But governing requires putting all three aside.
You can't remain an honest politician while bowing to whatever demands the richest place on you. You can't serve your constituents without a vast body of background knowledge in science, history, and economics. You can't believe in right-wing economics unless you just totally forget the economic history of the Industrial Revolution and 20th century banking. You can't guarantee religious freedom for all if one religious group is allowed to write its dogma into civil law. You can't say you provide economic opportunity when economic outcomes are so skewed for race, sex, and parents' wealth.
So, Republicans, enjoy the mess of embarrassing rants and wealthy ass-kissing caught on video. This is the party you wanted. A collection of mostly ignorant haters that don't care how the rich have screwed the rest of us, because somewhere there might be a homo who hasn't been stoned.
This is what your party has sunk to. At this point, you can't even pass a measure to allow the Catholic Church to keep birth control expensive. Your personhood amendments fail. Planned Parenthood is still open. Scott Walker just monumentally embarrassed himself and is surrounded by corrupt staff. Laying off thousands of government workers over the past two years has retanked the economy. The only thing you've won on this year is to keep the homosexuals down, and remind them that only straights' families count. You go on about our national debt and yearly deficits, but propose cutting taxes anyway.
I will give your party this- you certainly are great at acting as if you know what you're doing. Your party, since the 1960s, has been founded on satisfying the greed of plutocrats, the ignorance of religious fanatics, and the hate of bigots. And that's done well among some of the voters. Turns out that greed, ignorance, and hate do go well together. At least, they work together well at winning elections and referendums. But governing requires putting all three aside.
You can't remain an honest politician while bowing to whatever demands the richest place on you. You can't serve your constituents without a vast body of background knowledge in science, history, and economics. You can't believe in right-wing economics unless you just totally forget the economic history of the Industrial Revolution and 20th century banking. You can't guarantee religious freedom for all if one religious group is allowed to write its dogma into civil law. You can't say you provide economic opportunity when economic outcomes are so skewed for race, sex, and parents' wealth.
So, Republicans, enjoy the mess of embarrassing rants and wealthy ass-kissing caught on video. This is the party you wanted. A collection of mostly ignorant haters that don't care how the rich have screwed the rest of us, because somewhere there might be a homo who hasn't been stoned.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
5 worst motherfuckers of 2009
this is wtf?. not happy happy joy joy. so don't expect a 5 best pussy eaters of 2009, although i'm considering it.
harry reid- do i even need to explain? how does this man stand upright without a spine? to this man, compromise means that liberals give up whatever conservatives want in order to pass a legal version of horseshit. to this man, joe lieberman is a legislative asset. that's horseshit, too. joe lieberman uses democrats to "legislate" the way rush limbaugh uses the 1st amendment to "pontificate".
sarah palin- conservatives claim that liberals hate her because she's proof that you can be a feminist and pretty and conservative. well, she's pretty and conservative. here's a clue for conservatives, who STILL don't know what feminism is: no feminist who chooses to give birth to a kid with down's syndrome would force any other woman to do the same; no feminist would ever even CONSIDER forcing the cost of rape kits to collect evidence of rape onto the rape victims; no feminist would ever support abstinence-only sex ed; and no feminist would shove her kids in front of cameras to show her "family" values and then complain about the media when it turns out her family makes the spears family look classy. next time you feel like telling us all you're a feminist and you care about women's equality, STFU. you don't know shit about feminism. you're just pretty and stupid and that's why conservatives love you. face it.
which gets into my next problem with her: she makes being stupid acceptable. it should never be acceptable to be that stupid and ignorant and badly spoken. we, as a nation, should have learned that over the last eight years of president shit-for-brains. it turns out, approximately 1/4 of the country didn't. here's a hint for conservatives: when you're candidate appeals to the people who couldn't figure out that george w. bush is an idiot, that's bad.
dick cheney- go the fuck away. we hated you when you were the vice president and we had to pretend to care what you think. now we're not even going to bother to do that. stop acting like you can possibly justify anything you did. you can't. it wasn't legal, it wasn't constitutional, and it wasn't for us or our benefit. it was for your own personal aggrandizement, and for the use of future republican presidents. and please, for all our sakes but especially for the sake of those who lost a loved one on september 11, 2001: please stop telling us how awesome it is that you kept us safe after september 11. that's like the germans telling us how safe air travel was after the hindenburg. september 11 isn't a freebie- it was a collossal failure to check on warnings that came all that year, while you were really the president.
bill donohue- this man makes me glad i'm not a catholic or a christian anymore, but especially a catholic. apparently, criticism of the catholic church's policies, misogyny, and rampant child abuse is some form of hate speech. this interview alone should have gotten him banned from any type of media, for life. anyone who can minimize the horrific abuse and shameful coverup that happened over decades in ireland should be shunned. or maybe punished along with the perpetrators.
glenn beck- you're crazy. perhaps you're schizophrenic, or bipolar, or have some narcissistic or personality disorder. i don't know. high school psychology class was a long time ago, and you're not coherent enough for me to figure out exactly what keeps you from grasping the difference between fantasy and reality. but you can't. and your conflict of interest in telling your mouth-breathing listeners to buy gold is pathetic. even opinionators are not supposed to have conflicts of interest, and a real news network would have fired your ass for it. i'm not asking you to shut up, because if you have tourettes that's impossible anyway. i'm just asking you to seek professional help, and possibly commit yourself before the people of new york city have to.
harry reid- do i even need to explain? how does this man stand upright without a spine? to this man, compromise means that liberals give up whatever conservatives want in order to pass a legal version of horseshit. to this man, joe lieberman is a legislative asset. that's horseshit, too. joe lieberman uses democrats to "legislate" the way rush limbaugh uses the 1st amendment to "pontificate".
sarah palin- conservatives claim that liberals hate her because she's proof that you can be a feminist and pretty and conservative. well, she's pretty and conservative. here's a clue for conservatives, who STILL don't know what feminism is: no feminist who chooses to give birth to a kid with down's syndrome would force any other woman to do the same; no feminist would ever even CONSIDER forcing the cost of rape kits to collect evidence of rape onto the rape victims; no feminist would ever support abstinence-only sex ed; and no feminist would shove her kids in front of cameras to show her "family" values and then complain about the media when it turns out her family makes the spears family look classy. next time you feel like telling us all you're a feminist and you care about women's equality, STFU. you don't know shit about feminism. you're just pretty and stupid and that's why conservatives love you. face it.
which gets into my next problem with her: she makes being stupid acceptable. it should never be acceptable to be that stupid and ignorant and badly spoken. we, as a nation, should have learned that over the last eight years of president shit-for-brains. it turns out, approximately 1/4 of the country didn't. here's a hint for conservatives: when you're candidate appeals to the people who couldn't figure out that george w. bush is an idiot, that's bad.
dick cheney- go the fuck away. we hated you when you were the vice president and we had to pretend to care what you think. now we're not even going to bother to do that. stop acting like you can possibly justify anything you did. you can't. it wasn't legal, it wasn't constitutional, and it wasn't for us or our benefit. it was for your own personal aggrandizement, and for the use of future republican presidents. and please, for all our sakes but especially for the sake of those who lost a loved one on september 11, 2001: please stop telling us how awesome it is that you kept us safe after september 11. that's like the germans telling us how safe air travel was after the hindenburg. september 11 isn't a freebie- it was a collossal failure to check on warnings that came all that year, while you were really the president.
bill donohue- this man makes me glad i'm not a catholic or a christian anymore, but especially a catholic. apparently, criticism of the catholic church's policies, misogyny, and rampant child abuse is some form of hate speech. this interview alone should have gotten him banned from any type of media, for life. anyone who can minimize the horrific abuse and shameful coverup that happened over decades in ireland should be shunned. or maybe punished along with the perpetrators.
glenn beck- you're crazy. perhaps you're schizophrenic, or bipolar, or have some narcissistic or personality disorder. i don't know. high school psychology class was a long time ago, and you're not coherent enough for me to figure out exactly what keeps you from grasping the difference between fantasy and reality. but you can't. and your conflict of interest in telling your mouth-breathing listeners to buy gold is pathetic. even opinionators are not supposed to have conflicts of interest, and a real news network would have fired your ass for it. i'm not asking you to shut up, because if you have tourettes that's impossible anyway. i'm just asking you to seek professional help, and possibly commit yourself before the people of new york city have to.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
thanks, joe
mr. wilson:
i would like to thank you on behalf of the democratic party for your outburst wednesday night. nothing expresses just how republicans think and the content of their characters better than your bullshit catcalling. neither you nor any of your "colleagues" have produced evidence that health insurance reform would actually provide coverage of illegal aliens, and the charge has been debunked by non-partisan factcheck.org. but you still feel the need to express outrage based on ignorance, and in the most inappropriate way possible. what better example of how your party operates, what it values, and just how much respect you have for your fellow americans than last night.
you know, when code pink interrupts a congressional hearing with anti-war slogans, they get escorted out. where was the capitol police when we needed them? your outburst has taken the question "do we really need republicans in our discourse?" and put it center stage, where it belongs. even during the worst of the bush administration, democratic elected leaders had the decency to shut up and let bush finish hanging himself. you couldn't even let a man speak the truth. way to show us what you're made of.
regards,
culuriel
i would like to thank you on behalf of the democratic party for your outburst wednesday night. nothing expresses just how republicans think and the content of their characters better than your bullshit catcalling. neither you nor any of your "colleagues" have produced evidence that health insurance reform would actually provide coverage of illegal aliens, and the charge has been debunked by non-partisan factcheck.org. but you still feel the need to express outrage based on ignorance, and in the most inappropriate way possible. what better example of how your party operates, what it values, and just how much respect you have for your fellow americans than last night.
you know, when code pink interrupts a congressional hearing with anti-war slogans, they get escorted out. where was the capitol police when we needed them? your outburst has taken the question "do we really need republicans in our discourse?" and put it center stage, where it belongs. even during the worst of the bush administration, democratic elected leaders had the decency to shut up and let bush finish hanging himself. you couldn't even let a man speak the truth. way to show us what you're made of.
regards,
culuriel
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
mirror mirror on the wall
wow, does camille paglia suck. queen of the overgeneralization, lover of her own experience to the exclusion of all others', translator of others' rejections into theory. all knowledge, or at least that which isn't pointy-headed elitism, just happens to be whatever camille knows, or at least finds entertaining. how dare liberals object to criticism of themselves- especially when it's based on camy's personal surface impressions. don't liberals know their job is to sit down and shut up and let every superficial remark about barack obama go? no, i won't link to her "column". it's on salon premium anyway, and i'm sorry i even read it. don't make the same mistake i did.
this is the woman who doesn't accept that humans cause global warming because there's no way we could have that much effect on something as enormous and constantly changing as the earth. this is someone who takes getting twitted for liking the rolling stones as some sort of statement about feminism. this is someone who doesn't understand that sometime working-class people grow up to be really liberal, and not just claim to be. this woman somehow also has completely missed the long line of religious liberals, such as nancy pelosi, jim wallis, michael moore, cory booker, blah blah blah. and she liked titanic. really liked it.
camille paglia, like most conservatives, is stuck in the late 60s and 70s, when academia had a few examples of what paglia claims liberalism is now, completely. in one column, she double-handedly (she had help from "letter writers") decided that hating religion was the defining movement of liberalism (well, i do, but i'm in a minority of even liberals); obama was disappointing for diplomatic gaffes (some of them non-existent, none of them actually insulting, and none of them involving vomiting); conservatives veer toward facts and not emotion and play fair (does she even read glenn greenwald's stuff? he's a fellow salon, blogger, so she probably wouldn't have to pay), while liberals just leap on anyone who disagrees with them; and that the lessons of her working class background negate the lessons of any other liberal's (i'm using that term loosely with her) working-class background.
according to camy, sarah palin was real, which apparently washes out the facts that she was also stupid, lacked any connection to reality, and had no professional ethics. in camy-world, liberals can't poke fun at themselves (except john stewart and stephanie miller and cenk ungur and i could go on), the media cleverly covers up a murder in a gay, gay townhouse by putting it on the front page. in the gospel according to camy, you can be a feminist and accuse any woman who has aborted a fetus of murder. and the tripe! i have no idea what "all gods exist- because thinking it makes it so" means, but i know of no other atheist who would say something so silly.
because that is what camy page does- she says something so based on surface, subjective impressions, and has no compunction to do routine fact-checking. instead of doing any research on liberal talk radio and where it's going, it's so much easier and makes her look so much smarter to spew out some weird-ass generalization that stephanie miller and randi rhodes could just shove back in her mouth. it's also alot of time to research how increased corporate ownership and reduced diversity of ownership has pushed liberal talk radio out of markets, even when they were doing well. it would require camy to talk to researchers, who might act as if their experience and data trump whatever erudite concepts are bouncing around camy's head.
it's always more important to camy to look like she's an independent thinker rather than actually dig up some fucking facts and base her opinions on them. it's so great to note that moms homeschooling their kids seem feisty and super-organized, and not trouble oneself to ask what they're actually teaching their kids, and whether it's based on actual research or study materials from bob jones "university". it's more fun to act like an atheist who can't understand why atheists would flock to the only major political party that even gives them a voice, and a marginalized one at that. really, camy, you can't understand why atheists tend to be liberal- could it be the conservative disdain for the establishment clause of the first amendment? why don't you show some independent thinking by claiming it's orgies at the democratic national convention. that at least would entertain.
yeah, camy, their are some major fruitcakes out there, and somehow salon.com hires one once in a while. i'll end by linking to something worth reading. if we lived in a just universe, camy would have died of cancer, and molly ivins would still be with us.
this is the woman who doesn't accept that humans cause global warming because there's no way we could have that much effect on something as enormous and constantly changing as the earth. this is someone who takes getting twitted for liking the rolling stones as some sort of statement about feminism. this is someone who doesn't understand that sometime working-class people grow up to be really liberal, and not just claim to be. this woman somehow also has completely missed the long line of religious liberals, such as nancy pelosi, jim wallis, michael moore, cory booker, blah blah blah. and she liked titanic. really liked it.
camille paglia, like most conservatives, is stuck in the late 60s and 70s, when academia had a few examples of what paglia claims liberalism is now, completely. in one column, she double-handedly (she had help from "letter writers") decided that hating religion was the defining movement of liberalism (well, i do, but i'm in a minority of even liberals); obama was disappointing for diplomatic gaffes (some of them non-existent, none of them actually insulting, and none of them involving vomiting); conservatives veer toward facts and not emotion and play fair (does she even read glenn greenwald's stuff? he's a fellow salon, blogger, so she probably wouldn't have to pay), while liberals just leap on anyone who disagrees with them; and that the lessons of her working class background negate the lessons of any other liberal's (i'm using that term loosely with her) working-class background.
according to camy, sarah palin was real, which apparently washes out the facts that she was also stupid, lacked any connection to reality, and had no professional ethics. in camy-world, liberals can't poke fun at themselves (except john stewart and stephanie miller and cenk ungur and i could go on), the media cleverly covers up a murder in a gay, gay townhouse by putting it on the front page. in the gospel according to camy, you can be a feminist and accuse any woman who has aborted a fetus of murder. and the tripe! i have no idea what "all gods exist- because thinking it makes it so" means, but i know of no other atheist who would say something so silly.
because that is what camy page does- she says something so based on surface, subjective impressions, and has no compunction to do routine fact-checking. instead of doing any research on liberal talk radio and where it's going, it's so much easier and makes her look so much smarter to spew out some weird-ass generalization that stephanie miller and randi rhodes could just shove back in her mouth. it's also alot of time to research how increased corporate ownership and reduced diversity of ownership has pushed liberal talk radio out of markets, even when they were doing well. it would require camy to talk to researchers, who might act as if their experience and data trump whatever erudite concepts are bouncing around camy's head.
it's always more important to camy to look like she's an independent thinker rather than actually dig up some fucking facts and base her opinions on them. it's so great to note that moms homeschooling their kids seem feisty and super-organized, and not trouble oneself to ask what they're actually teaching their kids, and whether it's based on actual research or study materials from bob jones "university". it's more fun to act like an atheist who can't understand why atheists would flock to the only major political party that even gives them a voice, and a marginalized one at that. really, camy, you can't understand why atheists tend to be liberal- could it be the conservative disdain for the establishment clause of the first amendment? why don't you show some independent thinking by claiming it's orgies at the democratic national convention. that at least would entertain.
yeah, camy, their are some major fruitcakes out there, and somehow salon.com hires one once in a while. i'll end by linking to something worth reading. if we lived in a just universe, camy would have died of cancer, and molly ivins would still be with us.
Monday, January 19, 2009
please, let the door hit your ass on the way out
doghouse riley has been doing this more than amazing retrospective of the "bush" "administration", and its "governance". i wish i could surpass this. i wish i could express my searing hatred of this "man" and all the shit he has covered this nation in as well as doghouse riley does. hell, i wish i could tell stories about lawn care as well as doghouse does.
and to chris matthews: i'm not disagreeing with you- but i saw all this in 2000, and in 2001 (even on september 12), and in 2002, especially in 2003, and so on. did i have access to information about him that you didn't? is there some reason you decided to become blinded by his manly landing on aircraft carrier, while some of us perceived that this photo op was the whole reason bush decided we should invade iraq? were his jokes on the 2000 campaign plane so fucking hysterical that you felt guilty criticizing him until fucking 2008? when it's too late to even impeach him. finally growing a pair mid-2008 doesn't excuse castrating yourself for 7-1/2 years, asshat.
and to all of you dipshits who voted for this dirty, motherfucking whore to polluters, warmongers, defence contractors, dishonest foreigners, anti-woman zealots, theocrats, cronies, and anybody else who sucks and fucks others over; to all of you who voted for him in 2000 or especially in 2004- are you happy? wtf is wrong with you? how could you look around, even way back in 2004, and think we were doin' okay, or even a heckuva job? did you really need the federal government forcing terri schiavo to keep breathing and destruction in yet another major american city to start giving a shit? question the guy? wonder if maybe brains might just be a minor qualification for the fucking job? shut the fuck up about history judging him- what you really mean is that george w bush will only look like a good president when the people who actually remember him are dead.
and to chris matthews: i'm not disagreeing with you- but i saw all this in 2000, and in 2001 (even on september 12), and in 2002, especially in 2003, and so on. did i have access to information about him that you didn't? is there some reason you decided to become blinded by his manly landing on aircraft carrier, while some of us perceived that this photo op was the whole reason bush decided we should invade iraq? were his jokes on the 2000 campaign plane so fucking hysterical that you felt guilty criticizing him until fucking 2008? when it's too late to even impeach him. finally growing a pair mid-2008 doesn't excuse castrating yourself for 7-1/2 years, asshat.
and to all of you dipshits who voted for this dirty, motherfucking whore to polluters, warmongers, defence contractors, dishonest foreigners, anti-woman zealots, theocrats, cronies, and anybody else who sucks and fucks others over; to all of you who voted for him in 2000 or especially in 2004- are you happy? wtf is wrong with you? how could you look around, even way back in 2004, and think we were doin' okay, or even a heckuva job? did you really need the federal government forcing terri schiavo to keep breathing and destruction in yet another major american city to start giving a shit? question the guy? wonder if maybe brains might just be a minor qualification for the fucking job? shut the fuck up about history judging him- what you really mean is that george w bush will only look like a good president when the people who actually remember him are dead.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
yes, actually, you do hate gays
dear conservatives,
please stop telling me you don't hate gays. please also stop telling me you're just trying to protect marriage. you are the people who run ex-gay ministries to pray the gay the away. you are the ones who don't want gays near your children. one of you even blamed gays (and anybody else with a sex life for that matter) for wall street's meltdown. you hate gays. you hate them bad. and you haven't managed to protect marriage from a goddamned thing. you even let this guy get married. you let this guy get divorced. twice. this guy you love has been married and divorced three fucking times. you still love him. you still listen to him. you don't really give a shit about marriage. especially not if you'd like these two to wed. here's something that marriage actually needs to be protected from. get to it. although, if you really wanted marriage to truly be biblical, you'd actually have to support the FLDS. the actual marriage laws set forth by the old testament, jesus, and paul, are almost never adhered to today. in fact, what we here in 21st century america call marriage bears almost no resemblance to any marriage that happened in biblical times. if you're a widow, your dead husband's brother is neither required nor expected to marry you. in fact, it's considered a little odd. women aren't men's property in marriage any more. we don't even have to change our last names if we don't want to. nobody has to be a virgin to marry (tried to think of a dirty joke here, but couldn't. sorry). you don't even need a religious ceremony. so you conservatives will just have to fucking stop with the defending biblical marriage horseshit. america abandoned biblical marriage ages ago, and is better for it.
personally, i'd prefer it if these two people could wed. they have a child already, they've been together for 15 years already, and both women seem mature and experienced enough to make that kind of long term decision. but this marriage is apparently some evil that cannot be loosed on america, or we'll lose the invisible sky daddy's protection. or he won't crack a smile at us anymore. i know three gay men at work, all of them with long-term partners, one of them raising a kid with a partner. they could handle marriage. they already do handle marriage. they do the work of maintaining a relationship, raising a kid, and maintaining property together. people who do these things are entitled to state recognition for it. straight people get state recognition for much less, or much worse. hell, even this was a legal marriage.
just who the fuck are gays and lesbians a threat to, anyway? straights are starting to enjoy anal sex as much as the village people ever did (men & women as bottoms, by the by. don't open the link at work.). they're not a real threat, since i live in a city where millions of gays and lesbians are fucking right now and it in no way affects me. they're an abstract threat, for a couple of reasons. first of all, gays & lesbians threaten traditionally held gender roles. if men can be homemakers and women can be breadwinners, that kind of ruins the women-are-meant-to-be-the-ones-without-a-career argument. it also ruins the argument that women are meant to be the soft, giving nurturers, while men exist to enforce boundaries, support the family, and teach kids about strength, or some such shit. and conservatives cling to their gender roles. they think gender roles are both biblical and biological, 'cause the bible is such a great fucking authority on biology.
but this is the current culture war, and conservatives have lost so many already. i think conservatives feel they're owed a culture war victory, even if it's fleeting. conservatives lost on slavery, married women's rights, women's suffrage, the right to unionize, anti-semitism, racial equality, women's equality, real religious freedom (not the fake kind for christians only), and hollywood. sorry, conservatives. we liberals have been on the right side of history just a few too many times. and yes, sometimes we're a little smug about it. i'll grant you that. maybe you could stop pretending that you can keep whatever group you currently hate the most in second-class status forever (well, actually i don't know- do you hate gays more than arabs? or liberals? or illegal aliens? please let me know). whenever you do that, you're practically begging to be the bad guy in any future historical movie. especially since you lost hollywood.
conservatives will say they oppose gay marriage being "imposed" by the courts. last i checked, the courts can't "impose" marriage on anyone, for any reason. only consenting adults or older teenagers with their parents' permission can get married. so who's getting gay marriage "imposed" on them? what bullshit. courts can't even force churches, synagogues, or any religious institution to perform a single marriage. catholic churches don't re-marry divorced people. no one "imposes" this on the catholic church, not even the courts. conservatives have no problems with courts deciding people can't sue corporations for faulty medical devices, or interpreting the time limit on sex discrimination claims. conservatives have no problem with those impositions. conservatives have no problem with courts striking down marijuana reform or assisted suicide. conservatives were over-fucking-joyed when the supreme court decided that washington d.c. cannot ban handgun ownership. that's some fucking judicial activism against democratically enacted laws. so conservatives, dears, you don't really have a problem with courts "imposing" things. you just have a problem with a court allowing something you don't like. please, try being honest. that way, we could have a real discussion.
conservatives also tell us that gay marriage is radical. actually, gays are trying to be just like straights. it's not radical to want to get married just like straights can. it's not radical to want a life-long relationship with another adult who you love and loves you in return, and it's not radical that the state recognize that relationship. note to conservatives: the state's been doing that for a long time, just not for my gay co-workers, or mary cheney. that high horse is lame- you might want to get off it. it would be radical is gays wanted to outlaw marriage for everyone. that would be radical. wanting to be just like the vast majority is not radical. it's conformist. i've provided links to online dictionary definitions, in case you're interested.
so conservatives, i'm tired of your excuses for opposing same-sex marriage. i'm tired of them because they're dishonest. they're so dishonest my intelligence as a homo sapien is insulted. i'm tired of them because even a cursory knowledge of the recent california supreme court decision, history, actual gays or lesbians, and even the bible is enough to swat these rantings down. try getting a real reason to oppose same-sex marriage. or at least move on to different lies.
sincerely,
culuriel
p.s.- oh, and by the way, mary cheney, your kid is a political issue. when you actively campaign for a political party that has done everything it can to legalize discrimination against you, refuses to include you in hate crimes law, insists you pose a greater threat to america than terrorism does, you better believe your fucking lesbian family is a political issue. your political party thinks that equality under the law and toleration are the "gay" agenda. i always thought it was the "human" agenda, but that's probably why i'm a liberal and you campaign for people who would hate you if you weren't dick's kid (trust me, they would).
please stop telling me you don't hate gays. please also stop telling me you're just trying to protect marriage. you are the people who run ex-gay ministries to pray the gay the away. you are the ones who don't want gays near your children. one of you even blamed gays (and anybody else with a sex life for that matter) for wall street's meltdown. you hate gays. you hate them bad. and you haven't managed to protect marriage from a goddamned thing. you even let this guy get married. you let this guy get divorced. twice. this guy you love has been married and divorced three fucking times. you still love him. you still listen to him. you don't really give a shit about marriage. especially not if you'd like these two to wed. here's something that marriage actually needs to be protected from. get to it. although, if you really wanted marriage to truly be biblical, you'd actually have to support the FLDS. the actual marriage laws set forth by the old testament, jesus, and paul, are almost never adhered to today. in fact, what we here in 21st century america call marriage bears almost no resemblance to any marriage that happened in biblical times. if you're a widow, your dead husband's brother is neither required nor expected to marry you. in fact, it's considered a little odd. women aren't men's property in marriage any more. we don't even have to change our last names if we don't want to. nobody has to be a virgin to marry (tried to think of a dirty joke here, but couldn't. sorry). you don't even need a religious ceremony. so you conservatives will just have to fucking stop with the defending biblical marriage horseshit. america abandoned biblical marriage ages ago, and is better for it.
personally, i'd prefer it if these two people could wed. they have a child already, they've been together for 15 years already, and both women seem mature and experienced enough to make that kind of long term decision. but this marriage is apparently some evil that cannot be loosed on america, or we'll lose the invisible sky daddy's protection. or he won't crack a smile at us anymore. i know three gay men at work, all of them with long-term partners, one of them raising a kid with a partner. they could handle marriage. they already do handle marriage. they do the work of maintaining a relationship, raising a kid, and maintaining property together. people who do these things are entitled to state recognition for it. straight people get state recognition for much less, or much worse. hell, even this was a legal marriage.
just who the fuck are gays and lesbians a threat to, anyway? straights are starting to enjoy anal sex as much as the village people ever did (men & women as bottoms, by the by. don't open the link at work.). they're not a real threat, since i live in a city where millions of gays and lesbians are fucking right now and it in no way affects me. they're an abstract threat, for a couple of reasons. first of all, gays & lesbians threaten traditionally held gender roles. if men can be homemakers and women can be breadwinners, that kind of ruins the women-are-meant-to-be-the-ones-without-a-career argument. it also ruins the argument that women are meant to be the soft, giving nurturers, while men exist to enforce boundaries, support the family, and teach kids about strength, or some such shit. and conservatives cling to their gender roles. they think gender roles are both biblical and biological, 'cause the bible is such a great fucking authority on biology.
but this is the current culture war, and conservatives have lost so many already. i think conservatives feel they're owed a culture war victory, even if it's fleeting. conservatives lost on slavery, married women's rights, women's suffrage, the right to unionize, anti-semitism, racial equality, women's equality, real religious freedom (not the fake kind for christians only), and hollywood. sorry, conservatives. we liberals have been on the right side of history just a few too many times. and yes, sometimes we're a little smug about it. i'll grant you that. maybe you could stop pretending that you can keep whatever group you currently hate the most in second-class status forever (well, actually i don't know- do you hate gays more than arabs? or liberals? or illegal aliens? please let me know). whenever you do that, you're practically begging to be the bad guy in any future historical movie. especially since you lost hollywood.
conservatives will say they oppose gay marriage being "imposed" by the courts. last i checked, the courts can't "impose" marriage on anyone, for any reason. only consenting adults or older teenagers with their parents' permission can get married. so who's getting gay marriage "imposed" on them? what bullshit. courts can't even force churches, synagogues, or any religious institution to perform a single marriage. catholic churches don't re-marry divorced people. no one "imposes" this on the catholic church, not even the courts. conservatives have no problems with courts deciding people can't sue corporations for faulty medical devices, or interpreting the time limit on sex discrimination claims. conservatives have no problem with those impositions. conservatives have no problem with courts striking down marijuana reform or assisted suicide. conservatives were over-fucking-joyed when the supreme court decided that washington d.c. cannot ban handgun ownership. that's some fucking judicial activism against democratically enacted laws. so conservatives, dears, you don't really have a problem with courts "imposing" things. you just have a problem with a court allowing something you don't like. please, try being honest. that way, we could have a real discussion.
conservatives also tell us that gay marriage is radical. actually, gays are trying to be just like straights. it's not radical to want to get married just like straights can. it's not radical to want a life-long relationship with another adult who you love and loves you in return, and it's not radical that the state recognize that relationship. note to conservatives: the state's been doing that for a long time, just not for my gay co-workers, or mary cheney. that high horse is lame- you might want to get off it. it would be radical is gays wanted to outlaw marriage for everyone. that would be radical. wanting to be just like the vast majority is not radical. it's conformist. i've provided links to online dictionary definitions, in case you're interested.
so conservatives, i'm tired of your excuses for opposing same-sex marriage. i'm tired of them because they're dishonest. they're so dishonest my intelligence as a homo sapien is insulted. i'm tired of them because even a cursory knowledge of the recent california supreme court decision, history, actual gays or lesbians, and even the bible is enough to swat these rantings down. try getting a real reason to oppose same-sex marriage. or at least move on to different lies.
sincerely,
culuriel
p.s.- oh, and by the way, mary cheney, your kid is a political issue. when you actively campaign for a political party that has done everything it can to legalize discrimination against you, refuses to include you in hate crimes law, insists you pose a greater threat to america than terrorism does, you better believe your fucking lesbian family is a political issue. your political party thinks that equality under the law and toleration are the "gay" agenda. i always thought it was the "human" agenda, but that's probably why i'm a liberal and you campaign for people who would hate you if you weren't dick's kid (trust me, they would).
Sunday, September 21, 2008
the lowness of sarah palin
here's how much sarah palin holds her own fellow women in utter contempt. here's how much sarah palin wants to screw (and not the good way) american women. here's how much sarah palin finds rape victims revolting and dirty.
there's been a few things over the last few weeks that demonstrate sarah palin's disdain for all things that smack of actually helping women or improving their lives. she allegedly thought she'd make her sister's divorce easier by trying to get her ex-brother in law fired. she decided that a group that helps pregnant single women could make do with less for their expansion. she only recently decided that equal pay for equal work is right. and, of course, her hallmark: she thinks that even women who have been raped should be forced to continue their pregnancies and give birth to their rapists' children. how nice. how sweet.
what's the difference between fred phelps and sarah palin? fucking lipstick. maybe if fred puts some on, people will like him as much as they do her.
there's been a few things over the last few weeks that demonstrate sarah palin's disdain for all things that smack of actually helping women or improving their lives. she allegedly thought she'd make her sister's divorce easier by trying to get her ex-brother in law fired. she decided that a group that helps pregnant single women could make do with less for their expansion. she only recently decided that equal pay for equal work is right. and, of course, her hallmark: she thinks that even women who have been raped should be forced to continue their pregnancies and give birth to their rapists' children. how nice. how sweet.
what's the difference between fred phelps and sarah palin? fucking lipstick. maybe if fred puts some on, people will like him as much as they do her.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
john-boy: stay the fuck away from ground zero!!!!!
dear fuck-face,
since you obviously think the attack on the u.s. is nothing more than a political propaganda device, why don't you spend the day watching and rewatching that fucking video with rudy giuliani and dick cheney in one of dick's underground bunkers, maybe even the one dick actually spent 9/11 in. stay the fuck away from the place where those poor people died! you don't deserve to be there. you're not worthy to suck the cocks or eat the pussies of those who died there, or those who helped others that day.
or better yet, why don't you use your super-duper senator powers to actually do something to capture the fucker who brought this on us? remember that guy? the one who keeps making the videos?!?!? when you see another one of those, don't you hang your head in shame? do you think you could, just once? you're in the political party that keeps yammering that iraq is some "central front" in the war against a feeling, can't you at least pretend to care about finding that camel-fucker?!?!? i guess that war against a feeling keeps you busy and occupies all your time, especially after feeding people video of 9/11 to keep that feeling alive and well. i presume it's so you can keep pretending to fight it.
sincerest wishes of you shitting your pants in public,
culuriel
since you obviously think the attack on the u.s. is nothing more than a political propaganda device, why don't you spend the day watching and rewatching that fucking video with rudy giuliani and dick cheney in one of dick's underground bunkers, maybe even the one dick actually spent 9/11 in. stay the fuck away from the place where those poor people died! you don't deserve to be there. you're not worthy to suck the cocks or eat the pussies of those who died there, or those who helped others that day.
or better yet, why don't you use your super-duper senator powers to actually do something to capture the fucker who brought this on us? remember that guy? the one who keeps making the videos?!?!? when you see another one of those, don't you hang your head in shame? do you think you could, just once? you're in the political party that keeps yammering that iraq is some "central front" in the war against a feeling, can't you at least pretend to care about finding that camel-fucker?!?!? i guess that war against a feeling keeps you busy and occupies all your time, especially after feeding people video of 9/11 to keep that feeling alive and well. i presume it's so you can keep pretending to fight it.
sincerest wishes of you shitting your pants in public,
culuriel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)