Sunday, June 15, 2008

Liar, Liar, Pants (Always) On Fire

Well now, isn't that special: the San Francisco Chronicle has waited one day before California starts marrying gays to tell us that

"For much of the gay and lesbian rights movement's history, activists saw marriage as an institution to be dismantled."

I could have sworn that gays - and the Chron - have always said they weren't doing that. No "gay agenda," remember? They never encouraged wives to leave their husbands, or any of that stuff, right? They didn't contribute to the rise in the divorce rate - the same one they point to, now, saying gay marriage couldn't hurt the institution of marriage with a divorce rate this high? No, they - and their Lefty/NewAge promoting media outlets - wouldn't have all lied to us, repeatedly, just to suit themselves - and whatever is was they believed at the time, would they?

Would they?

And then they have the nerve to complain that many straights, and those who are devoutly religious, don't seem to like them.

I ask you - after seeing shit like this:

What's to like?


  1. This strawman post seems to assume that you can classify 'gays' as one amorphous group; which is absurd. Just because a gay, or a group of gays, stated that they were opposed to the institution of marriage, or another gay said that his lifestyle was not a threat to the institution of (straight)marriage, now means that there should not be gay marriage lest all gays be branded as hypocrites or liars?!

    Man, there is so much wrong with your post - and all your other posts for that matter (Democrats/liberals are UFO-watching nutcases - yes and Republicans are reductionist reactionary windbags), you must be the liar if you claim to have been in a band as great - and as politically switched-on - as the Beatnigs. Either that or you got the lobotomy after you left the group.

  2. Hey Berko,

    1. I didn't write the quote - the Chron did.

    2. I've already stated I don't have a problem with gay marriage - I even predicted it would happen - but it does piss me off that discussion of any issue that isn't totally flattering towards gays, or any other group of people, is off limits (and subject to withering screeds like yours) designed to stop said discussion. What? Do you dislike the Danish cartoons, too?

    3. Yea, I worked with The Beatnigs - and Consolidated - but I also happen to think "progressive thought" doesn't have to be limited to the editorial line of the New York Times or whatever other liberal bullhorn the rest of you idiots can't seem to get a clue without. You can't find empathy for anyone but yourselves - but claim you care, so fucking much, for everyone - missing your selfishness and ability to alienate others (usually the people who built this country when you were eating boogers) by a country mile.

    Get a clue, dude: there's more to discuss - regarding gays and everyone else - than the window dressing.

  3. "there is so much wrong with your post - and all your other posts for that matter"

    That, plus the chronic Clinton Derangement Syndrome. This blog reads like a rabid right-wing rag. (And did you know Democrats eat live babies?)

    IF not lobotomy, then what...? You're sick with hatred, man,

  4. I don't know if I'm "sick with hatred" (a problem Dems never mind directed at Right-wing Christians) but finding out you've been deceived, and betrayed, by the people and ideals you were raised in, can be off-putting, that's for sure.

    Your comment reminds of what happened at Glide Memorial Church when they got a new preacher. He was all good as long as he was criticizing Bush, but once he focused on the problems the Dems had made for themselves and the country, then everything - even his race - became a problem. Face it:

    Democrats/the Left/NewAgers are ruthless hypocrites who have been indoctrinated to believe in a bumper sticker philosophy of useless slogans they have no intention of honoring.

    Your defense of the Clintons is a perfect example: no one who believes in truth could find themselves defending them, yet you do. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying. His wife lied to your face, repeatedly, about Bosnia, but she's still touted as "the best person for the job," like nobody knows she lies after 16 years of seeing her defending Bill over sexual harassment charges.

    Who are you people trying to fool?

    You believe in nothing.

  5. "This blog reads like a rabid right-wing rag."

    And it should read like what?

  6. See, you can't even read things straight you are so blinded by your hatred. I've never defended the Clintons, barely pointed out that you, like many right-wing gasbags, suffer from CDS which makes you incapable of rational analysis of anything related to the Clintons. Man, and you rally against Bush Derangement Syndrome, while doing the very same thing to others (Clintons). Short on self-reflection, are we not?

    Say, what will you do when Obama wins? Will you support your president in the time of war, or still continue your irrational vendetta against him then?

    Watch out for hypocrisy--you're drowning in it. (Piling on those "UFO-spotting Dems" while championing Adam and Eve believing Repugs--that some twisted reasoning, man.)

  7. I like that you're not defending the Clintons (how could you?) but you're upset at those who call them on their shit - why? If you believed in the truth - or the concept of good - you wouldn't mind at all. You even claim I attack the Clintons like they haven't done anything to deserve it - after we just watched them make a brazen power grab, filled with racism, charges of sexism, etc. What do you think you're defending here?

    If I'm wrong, and Obama wins, it WILL be a trip flipping from watching a Left that irrationally attacks the president to one that irrationally supports him. Unfortunately, for the Left, I'll still be able to rail against them for being irrational - a problem they don't seem to have a problem with, or even a desire or inclination to change. It's weird, unless you accept they're nuts - which I do: I mean, his resume can fit on my driver's license - but he's got the party's full support to lead the country - that's nutty.

    Finally, about my drowning in "hypocrisy" -- I diss belief of all kinds (I dare anyone to look over this site and deny it) but I've made it clear in several posts that:

    1. I pick on Leftist/NewAge beliefs because the evil they do doesn't get the same attention as the major religions.

    2. No matter what they do, people like you aren't standing up to them, and get mad at anyone who says anything against them.

    3. The major religions may be "Adam and Eve believing Repugs" - who pull all kinds of crap - but, at least, they believe in right and wrong and are much more likely to do something about it when it occurs. Dems just fall back on "everybody does it" or some form of two wrongs make a right. (I hate relativism.)

    Get over YOUR anger and, you'll find, I'm pretty consistent in what I'm saying. Though, being a Leftist, it may take you a while to get it. Why that's so is explained in these videos.

    I don't mind your comments, BTW. I welcome them. But you're going to have to come to grips with something: Leftists are flirting with evil.

  8. If you criticize Obama after he is elected president, that will make you a hypocrite and a traitor by your own standards. Because that's what you call those who criticize Bush--you say you do not agree with everything he'd done, but you think that criticizing president during war is unpatriotic and treasonous. We will be at war next year and beyond, and if Obama is president and you keep harping at him, then you'll have to own up to your own hypocrisy and traitor-status. Either way, your own irrationality will bite you in your ass.

  9. Man, if you think Republicans know right from wrong and Democrats are the "anything goes" crowd then you are either seriously deluded or terribly gullible, or both (or that lobotomy charge is true). You need to put the right-wing rags aside for a while and go out to meet real people.

  10. Wrong:

    I have never said you can't criticize a president during wartime - it's the unrelenting nonsense, even after all the questions have been answered, that is offensive and wrong. The Democrats have had more than enough time to understand what the dynamics of this war are/have been but they still insist on being a pain in the ass, rather than a help, to their country. Just as you're doing now, trying to play "gotcha" rather than tryijng to understand the opposition. You forget: I used to be one of you. I know how you think, and I also know that trying to be fair-minded isn't in your toolbox. You want nothing less than submission whether you make any sense or not - whether you damage your own country or not.

    You're crazy.

  11. I was a Democrat from the age of 18. If you're a "young voter," I've probably got more experience with the Democrats than you've been alive - so I know it's corruption better than you ever will.

    The difference between the Dems and the Reps is - when the Reps do something wrong - they're appropriately shocked b it, they admit it, and they do something about it. Not the Dems. They claim "everybody does it," or try to lie their way out of it.

    It's a big difference.

  12. The Crack Emcee says,
    Barack Obama is claiming he's not naive, and knows what's coming, but I don't think he's been allowed to see the Democratic Blooper Reel the Republicans have been amassing over the last eight years - featuring everyone, from common liberals on the street to members of Congress, calling the President of the United States a Nazi, an idiot, and a mad man, in wartime. [] You made mountains out of molehills and gave comfort to the enemy.
    May 8, 2008

    The Crack Emcee says,
    I have never said you can't criticize a president during wartime. [] You're crazy.

    Then you must be deaf and blind. Or self-deluded and hypocritical. Your logic don't fly, man. Unless come January you shut up with your criticisms of president Obama so you will not give comfort to the enemy.

    Btw, you assume I'm a liberal just because I criticize your lack of logic. Wrong again, man.

  13. Calling people out for calling the President of the United States a Nazi, an idiot, and a mad man, in wartime isn't saying you can't criticize the president - even in wartime - it's saying you're not being reasonable, fair, or logical.

    I don't think you know what logic is.

    And, I know, everybody's a conservative now - especially people, like you, bucking for Obama.

    The next thing you'll tell is you've got a bridge for sale,...

  14. "I've already stated I don't have a problem with gay marriage - I even predicted it would happen - but it does piss me off that discussion of any issue that isn't totally flattering towards gays, or any other group of people, is off limits (and subject to withering screeds like yours) designed to stop said discussion. What? Do you dislike the Danish cartoons, too?"

    First up, props to you. I know I lot of rabid ranters would not bother to publish a really critical post, especially in full. That shows real integrity and guts so I'm listening closer to what you say now.

    No I love the Danish cartoons and I reject the thin-skinned lunatics who threaten violence every time someone says or does something they don't like. I also thought it was hugely hypocritical to be disrespectful to the Pope for his comments; to me it proved that militant Muslims are okay with giving offence but can't take it. Fuck em if they can't take a joke, I say.

    When you say 'you idiots' though you again make the mistake of lumping all (this time 'people on the Left') together. I don't swallow every piece of pc garbage uncritically. In fact I agree with you that we should think for ourselves and be individuals. I'm of the anarcho persuasion, believing government to be institutionally and endemically corrupt and self-serving (but realistic to see the problems in posing or expecting other models).

    Gays though are already an abused minority so I'm not sure what collateral can be gained by metaphorically bashing them. There are bigger and better targets. And I'm just staggered that you can see the evil in liberal Clintonian types and not see it in Bush and Cheney, who have absolutely hijacked rational debate by starting an untenable - and unwinnable - war and playing the patriot card to shut down debate.

    And, yes, I was clued in enough to oppose this farce before it started.

  15. Thanks. I'm with you, man - except I reject anarchism too. (Nothing wrong with a *little bit* of government, man.)

    O.K., great: I'm glad we've got it together. Now try this: you're wrong about the war.

    Here's why right here.

    Let me know what you think about it.

  16. Wrong again. I'm a libertarian. Not bucking for Obama, but our country needs someone other than a Republican (or Bush-lite) at the helm now.

    About war. Bush lied insomuch as his administration was planning the Iraq invasion way before the 9-11. The 9-11 tragedy provided a convenient excuse to the band of neocons who had wanted to refashion Middle East according to their tastes for a long time. WMD, Al-Qaida, Saddam-the tyrant, and most outrageously the connection between Iraq and 9-11, were all a bunch of excuses fabricated to get us to war. How and by whom specifically remains to be sorted out as the investigations progress and more individuals come forward. True, many congressmen and women fell for the excuses--but not all. We, the American people, knew this--so many of us did. We spoke out. We protested. We pleaded, to no avail. So the disingenuous argument of The Anchoress and others that now "we all" are guilty here does not fly. The blame for the illegal, untenable and unwinnable war is squarely on the Bush administration's hands, most notably on the whole neocon cabal. But ultimately it's the president's responsibility as the one who beat the war drum the loudest and most persistently. If he was manipulated into it, it is still his head on the chopping block--he's the president after all. And if you have doubts, reread his speeches from 2002 and 2003, including his State of the Union addresses. No one forced him to say the things he did. Funny how now they--Bush and neocons--want to "share" the responsibility for the largest ever blunder in American foreign affairs, if not the whole American history--but their s*** won't fly no more. We remember. And their day of reckoning is still ahead. Will see where you stand, Crack Emcee, when it comes.

  17. No fair:

    I gave you real information to mull over and, instead, you give me another uninformed bullshit lecture with no bearing on what I asked you to read.

    Try again.

  18. And about those neo-con plans:

    The American government has plans for every eventuality - every possible situation. That's called being being prepared and thinking strategically. It's not only what they're supposed to do but what they'd better do.

    Have you no idea how governments operate? Are you really that naive? Read some books on foreign policy. Read some books on the history of nations. Do you think we're the only ones? Don't you understand that ALL NATIONS are playing this game and ours is the only superpower in the history of the world that hasn't used their might to try to control everything - but, instead, used it to free people from dictators and corrupt regimes?

    What's wrong with you?

  19. And one other thing:

    If you accept what I just said as true, then, can't you see that by whining about it, you're doing nothing but hurting us by playing into our enemies hands?

    You're making us appear weak, and indecisive, on the international stage.

  20. "The American government has plans for every eventuality - every possible situation. That's called being being prepared and thinking strategically. It's not only what they're supposed to do but what they'd better do."

    You are kidding, right? Katrina? 9-11? Osama Bin Laden? Taliban? Iraq invasion a.k.a. cakewalk?
    Being prepared and thinking strategically?!

    Man, what's the flavor of your Kool-Aid? Are you so far out of your mind that there is nothing Bushies royally screw up that you would not justify? Holy s***.

    What's wrong with YOU?

  21. And, yea, about those neocon plans--read the Project for the Next American Century, courtesy of your friends from the neocon cabal:

    This will give you a much needed clue on how this war was conceived and why. I'd direct you to their website, but they dismantled recently (this is also known as rats abandoning the sinking ship).

    And your accusation toward me,
    "You're making us appear weak, and indecisive, on the international stage," is plain hilarious. Man, get a grip. I have no standing on "the international stage" and no power to make "us appear weak," etc. Nobody knows about me. Everybody knows about Bush and his cronies, though. And that's how they judge us--by their ineptness, arrogance and endless blunders.

    Man, oh man. You'd be really funny if you were not so naive--and so seriously mistaken in your judgment. Good luck in November and beyond--you gonna need it.

  22. The Anchoress is the best blow-by-blow warding off the attacks against the Bush administration I've read. Not enough to convert me because, if you've read the Bush Hater's Handbook or it's follow-up 'Bushit!'there's enough to keep an army of Anchoresses going day and night.

    There's a reason why Clinton could be a star when he travels and Bush is reviled - he is less competent, so further from the epicenter of Murdoch-supported neocon society, he inspires less confidence. And he has, in perception if not reality, started a costly war on the basis of weapons that did not exist.

    Whether he is well-intentioned or supported in the US, this component alone is an unfortunate weakness in the leader of the free world.
    The image of the buffoon who can fill a desk calendar or two with dumb quotes is actually an impediment; taking him seriously as the President who won the last election at least, allows us to examine how well he does at all the key tasks.

    It is not enough to say, as the Anchoress does, that he responded presidentially to 9-11 or Hurricane Katrina. In fact, it's transparent buckpassing and the leader of what now had a sign on his desk saying 'The Buck Stops Here'.

    I also think she is incredibly weak in her defence of his profligate spending. I can't get you Americans to see why spending three trillion dollars would have all sorts of chaotic effect. That is unprecedented. Your problem is you put far too much faith in your leader and you can't face the fact that you're looking down the barrel of what that faith will cost you.

    The guy's a loser but, worse, he's a loser of the taxpayer dollars; bilking the biggie, the last remaining superpower. You think you can wrench democracy through rendition and torture but you only play into the enemy's hands far more surely than if you backed the hell out of Iraq, yelling as you go that you'll post them a cheque.

    The things I hate about the enemy in this situation are the things I hate in Guantanamo Bay, in the snooping and pernicious Patriot Act, in the media engineering and cordoning from protest, the massive bullying that went on at the height of GWB's triumphalism, back when they thought Iraq was winnable.

    I can see why you dance around all this and waste time worrying about a few harmless hippies when the things to most fear - loss of freedom, loss of rights - are being perpetrated by totalitarian regimes. The thing that fuels conspiracies is the parallel between what happened in America post-9/11 and the burning of the Reichstag. We don't need to believe that there was something fishy about the fact that a report about passenger jets being flown into buildings was ignored, the outcome is the same: less tolerance, more concentrated power in the hands of those most likely to abuse it.

    Think how much good will Bush could have bought with all that money instead of stirring up a bunch of crazed zealots who are going to behave as predictably as if you had disturbed a hornet nest.

  23. Katrina was the governor's fault.

    There were people (very few) that imagined 9-11.

    Osama Bin Laden was looked at (during the Clinton administration) as a small problem.

    The Taliban was Afghanistan's problem.

    The Iraq invasion being looked at as a cakewalk didn't mean it would turn out that way ("All plans change by first contact with the enemy.")

    And, yea, we've got plans for everything - attacking Canada - that's what think tanks, etc., are for. What? Do you think administrations come into power and then say "Hey, whatever happens, happens."?

    If you don't know these things, then you are as naive, or uninformed, as I suggested. That's scary. Citizens are supposed to know how government works. To act as abrake on your own government and have no idea what's going on is crazy: you're only hurting yourself.

  24. I told you I already know about the Project for the Next American Century - what? You can't read either?

    "You're making us appear weak, and indecisive, on the international stage," is plain hilarious. Man, get a grip. I have no standing on "the international stage" and no power to make "us appear weak," etc. Nobody knows about me.

    Bullshit. Every government in the world looks at the citizens reactions to what happens and acts accordingly. Illogical attacks on your own government allow others to act belligerently as well (or haven't you noticed?) Talk about rats leaving the ship - "it wasn't me" won't work here asshole. It IS you - and you're still doing it. You don't know the first thing about government and accusing it of doing something wrong. That's harmful - to all of us.

    If you've got such a good case, where's the impeachment? Taking Bush and "his cronies" to court? Anything? You've got nothing but your bullshit "beliefs" because you refuse to accept the truth. You might as well be Al Qaeda yourself.

  25. Berko,

    But there's not enough to impeach him - or bring a charge of war crimes? Come on, man, use your head: either there's a truth here or there isn't. Bush is traveling freely around the world, right now, gathering farewell gifts from foreign leaders who are still hanging on his every word. That's not how anyone treats a criminal. By your description, there shouldn't be a defense that could be raised. But there is. So, now, you've got to ask yourself: am I wrong? And if you are - and you are - then what else are you wrong about?

    About gaffes - Obama's made tons but I see everyone gives him a pass. It's a tunnelvision that's a wonder to behold, considering the emphasis on Bush's. I take it, based on that, you'll be voting for McCain, since he's made relatively few in comparison? (Hypocrisy rules!)

    The New York Times' David Brooks wrote, a long time ago, that the idea that all conservative governments would be able to limit spending - in all situations - was childish. And it is. And I have a hard time believing any Obama supporter even cares about spending since he's already proposed lots of it. The very idea that anyone on the Left would use that conservative argument against a conservative administration just screams "opportunist" at it's most crass.

    I worry about hippies, and other NewAge con men, for the reasons I state: they make imaginary problems that they claim only they can solve, catering to the worried well, while real issues (in the real world) go to hell. That's exactly what's occurred here. Most of your arguments against Bush are your beliefs - The Anchoress gave you facts - facts supported by the reality that no one's in trouble for Iraq, Afghanistan, or the War On Terror. If you're an honest person (and, unlike this anonymous joker, I'm assuming you are) then you've got to reconcile those two realities - they both can't be right.

    And, finally, that hornets nest was already after us - killing Americans, around the globe, while most citizens were debating Eminem's lyrics - so to blame Bush for going after them is totally unfair. They were coming no matter what. Bush stood up, and that's what I salute him for. After 9/11, everyone was sure we'd be hit again, and it didn't happen. That's to his credit. If Obama becomes president, it's guaranteed - just as Al Qaeda hit the countries in Europe that were seen as sympathetic to them. They don't care who's in. They're looking for weak spots. And that's the very definition of Obama.

    Thanks for writing.