Someone Here is Lying

I guess it’s sort of a chicken-egg scenario. Does a polarized society breed a polarized media or does a polarized media breed a polarized society? Increasingly we are seeing folks take opposite positions not on opinion but on the facts. When that happens, someone plain and simple, is lying.

There are loads of examples but the one that was most recently brought to my attention by my readers is the case of Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings. Let’s start with the phrase “Safe Schools Czar”. This phrase fits in with the conservative talking point that Obama has all these unconstitutional “czars”. The Safe Schools Czar was in fact created by George W. Bush as part of No Child Left Behind and was staffed with two people with no qualifications in education. Jennings, appointed by Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education  (not Obama) was the first Safe Schools Czar with any background in education.

Let’s dig deeper and look at some of the coverage:

Jennings hid a case of statutory rape: A student confided in Jennings that he had been involved with an older man. Jennings “counseled” him that he should wear protection. Jennings actually contributed to the statutory rape part of the story by mistakenly referring to the boy as 15 years of age when he was in fact 16 (the age of consent).  Fox News had to correct its sensational headline when the boy himself came forward with evidence of his age. To further lay the matter to rest, Jennings said:

Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities. Teachers back then had little training or guidance about this kind of thing. All teachers should have a basic level of preparedness. I would like to see the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools play a bigger role in helping to prepare teachers.

via Kevin Jennings Releases Statement on Past Controversial Conduct.

Admittedly, this statement is a bit too little too late. As gay conservative blogger, B. Daniel Blatt points out, the issue is how could anyone in counseling the boy neglect to give the obvious advice to NOT have casual sex with strangers (which is what the boy admitted to).  By fanning the flames of a bogus statutory rape charge, the right-wing lost the opportunity to hammer home Blatt’s more relevant point.

Jennings is a NAMBLA supporter: This one falls in the “Obama pals around with terrorists” category, namely lazy connect the dots journalism. Jennings, who is gay, spoke positively of Harry Hay, a gay activist from the 1950’s and  1960’s. He found inspiration from Hay’s advocacy.  Some headlines cited Hay as founder of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). The fact is that Hay did not found NAMBLA although late in his life he was a vocal NAMBLA sympathizer. At no time did Jennings voice support for NAMBLA nor did he say that Hay’s support of NAMBLA influenced him.

Jennings distributed porn to students: This is one of the latest shoddy jobs of journalism (i.e. lies) coming out of the right-wing. Jennings founded and led GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network). GLSEN sponsored a conference at which a third-party (Fenway Community Health) made available pamphlets describing explicit sexual activity. GLSEN did not request this information be made available nor did it approve of it. It was basically a slip up.

Now let’s look at this slip up from a few different angles. First, this was not classroom activity in a school, this was a conference about sexual matters and any parent taking their kid to such a conference had to understand the inherent risk of seeing information that might be over the top. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why any parent would take their kid to such a conference. Second, although Fenway claims no child took any of the pamphlets, let’s assume one did. Would that pamphlet scar him for life? Would it be any different from the kid finding a Hustler magazine in the basement? Cable companies have accidentally broadcast porn in the middle of a family show. While it triggered outrage, were any kids permanently scarred? Third, there is the question of what information should be shared with kids by way of preparing them for the real world. While I found the information in the pamphlet age-inappropriate (various “alternative” sexual practices were discussed) it reminded me of information I received in junior high school some 35 years ago. Back then, under the guise of informing kids about drugs so they wouldn’t use them, very detailed information was distributed to students on every drug imaginable, its effects, its slang names, etc. Years later, I looked back on it a bit puzzled. Why would you tell kids everything they wanted to know about drugs if the goal was to keep them away from it? In my opinion this is a typical pattern in educational circles of giving too much information. While the GLSEN conference is an extreme case, I think it fits the pattern.

Jennings wrote the forward to a pedophilia book: This is one of the more preposterous of the lies promulgated by the right-wing media. This lie is almost understandable because the truth is much more complex and to many minds, just as disturbing. Fox and friends simply found the lie easier to sell than the more complicated truth. The book in question is titled Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling. I read an excerpt on Amazon.com. From my reading, it starts from the premise that homosexuals are born that way and therefore, teachers have in their class straight and gay students. Right off the bat, this premise leaves behind an entire league of people for whom homosexuality is deemed a choice, not an innate predisposition. With that premise in place, the book goes on to discuss how can we educate “homosexual children” in such a way that they are not demeaned or pigeon holed into a heterosexual model of behavior.

To any ordinary Joe, this is some radical stuff. The whole idea of labeling a five year old gay is ridiculous to some and downright repugnant to many. The fact is, as far as I can surmise, Kevin Jennings is steeped in a very political view of gay rights that includes the perception that gays are unfairly treated right out of the womb. (By the way, his “hero” Harry Hay seems to have the same view.)

So what is the bottom line to all this? In the never-ending effort to dumb down America and get eyeballs on web pages and TV screens, the right-wing media chose a bunch of lies (and some half-truths) to get everyone riled up about Kevin Jennings. What is fascinating is that the truth, although perhaps harder to present on paper, still leaves the average person with misgivings about Jennings. Should Duncan have appointed him? Despite Jenning’s stellar resume, I think Duncan bought himself more trouble than he needed to. America is justifiably sensitive about who controls their children’s education. While I believe Jenning’s ultimate influence in his job is small, mostly limited to anti-bullying campaigns, his real background (not the trumped up BS) touches on radical ideas for which most of the country is not yet ready. Some may call Jennings an outright pervert, others may call him a man before his time. No matter how you cut it, Duncan could have made a better choice.

If you want to investigate the different sides of this story, Gateway Pundit has made an entire side-business to “following” Jennings. Media Matters has taken the position of supporting Jennings (unfortunately mostly by saying “that’s not true, that’s not true” but providing little contrary evidence). Think Progress wrote a practical unemotional attempt to fact check the Jennings stories. George Stephanopoulos and Sean Hannity square off on the topic, with George trying to be a journalist and Hannity yelling the sky is falling.

Unfortunately, as long as the media chooses to lie instead of doing the hard work, you will have to do your own research to get a better understanding of any issue.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

85 thoughts on “Someone Here is Lying

  1. Good summary with a leftist bent, of course. No matter, you were as fair as Rutherford gets, though you only touched on the real question.

    Why do people of questionable credibility continue to get nominated for Czars, posts, positions of some influence, etc.?

    By themselves, they might be excusable as a simple mistake, somebody not vetted properly, simple cronyism at middle-management levels, relatively unimportant positions of power, etc…

    But taken as whole as the Obama administration continues to bungle almost daily even the simplest of appointments, never mind the glaring weaknesses in fiscal and management policy, it underscores a man not ready for prime time, with a staff guilty of gross incompetence and negligence.

    This has proven in less than a year to be one of the most corrupt, shallow, inept administrations of history – the absolute worst in my lifetime. In addition to their own half truths, Obama has balked on dozens of campaign promises, flat out lied about transparency, and shown an arrogance worthy of impeachment. He is a self-serving hypocrite worthy of America’s scorn.

    America was no doubt hoodwinked in 2008, and may have very well damaged itself irreparably by electing Obama. If anything is to be gained, it should be that liberals are utter failures, not to be trusted, and the entire philosophy should be summarily revoked. The real question is, will many Americans learn this lesson of Democratic futility and kick the entire party to the curb in three years or less? They accomplish nothing but making bad situations worse and deserve to be completely rejected. 😉

  2. America was no doubt hoodwinked in 2008, and may have very well damaged itself irreparably by electing Obama. If anything is to be gained, it should be that liberals are utter failures, not to be trusted, and the entire philosophy should be summarily revoked. The real question is, will many Americans learn this lesson of Democratic futility and kick the entire party to the curb in three years or less?

    After about 220 years of all sorts of stuff going down, including a civil war, I kinda doubt one Obama term will bring us to our knees. 🙂

    I’d almost sign up for your eliminate-the-liberal approach if there was remotely a good alternative but as you well know there isn’t. Your Republican party can’t even stay true to its own conservative values. That’s why you’ve got a bunch of nutjobs Tea Party protesters trying to take the reins. You see what happened the last time these geniuses tried to protest? Apparently their plan was to go into the Capital, pretend to “participate” in the new health care system and then literally play dead, lying on the floor of the Capitol. Instead when they got there they were treated to lemonade and snacks, treated quite politely, and they left without carrying out any of their plan. LOL 😆

    This is what you want to leave us with after the demise of the Democratic party?

    Oh here is an admission for you. The Obama administration’s track record on appointments has been abysmal. No denying it. (Although, if I’m not mistaken Bill Richardson was eventually vindicated.)

  3. How long did it take Castro and Che to ruin Cuba? Hugo to collapse Venezuela? Those are couple of Obama’s friends and fans of recent memory.

    Oh, I think you can collapse a lot more than 220yrs of history in about four if you have the right “dunce” with an evil intention and the people in the right positions to carry it through.

  4. I really didn’t know anything about this guy until I read Rutherford’s blog.

    This guy is deplorable.

    Out of 300 million American motherfuckers, Obama picked a guy who hangs out with a pro NAMBLA quack, kept the fact a 15 year old male was getting butt slammed by a predator a secret and ran a disgusting sex seminar with porno pamphlets.

    Hey Rutherford, let me tell you how “simple minded” we are over here in these parts. If one of my buddies was linked to NAMBLA, we would beat him to a pulp and leave him for dead in some parking lot of a Detroit bar. I’m not kidding either.

    You know what we WOULDN’T do? Hire him to protect school kids.

    I don’t care if you entered the word “might” next to every allegation I stated, who in their right mind wouldn’t move on to the next resume?

    You can’t make this stuff up. A tax cheat in charge of the IRS and now this dude is in charge of keeping kids safe.

    WOW.

    I used to think I was sick motherfucker until I learned the kind of things deemed acceptable by liberals.

  5. Wow Rabbit, I don’t think I’ve ever read a comment on my blog in the past 2+ years that shows such evidence of NOT having read the article you’re commenting on. At the risk of repeating myself, here is what you seem to have missed:

    1. Obama didn’t appoint him, Duncan did.
    2. There is no evidence Jennings ever met Hay much less hung out with him.
    3. The boy was 16, not 15 and therefore at the age of consent. (Just the facts … I’m not justifying Jennings’ response to the boy.)
    4. He ran a sex seminar with pamphlets that were not approved by him (a mistake) AND a seminar that parents took their children to for God knows what reason.

    If one of your buddies was truly one of your buddies you’d ask him “what the f*ck is wrong with you?” and then you’d probably tell him “If you don’t go to a doctor right now, I will put your sorry ass in my car and take you to a doctor.” Now that’s if he was really one of your buddies. There’d be no ass kicking. You’d do the best you could to set the dude straight if at all possible, or you’d tell him to stay the hell away from you and your family.

    As for why Duncan chose him, who the hell knows? The dude belongs in a gay rights advocacy department within the government, not in charge of making schools safe for kids, even though he has experience in that area (more experience, as I said before, than either of the appointees under Bush). As I said in the article, his background suggests support for ideas way too radical for the job he was given.

  6. By the way, totally off topic, but my bedroom Tivo died last night and I’m royally pissed. Now I’m using the crappy Comcast DVR in place of it. It’s like trading a Maserati for a f*cking pony. 😦

  7. Shoot Rutherford, I’ve got my Eiffel Tower TV for five days now, and I still haven’t taken it out of the box because furniture is in the way.

    Only a moron would spend $1,600.00 for a piece of equipment and leave in the living room floor like I have. Or a liberal. 😉 But since I am alone during the week (dangerous, I know), I haven’t figured out how to mount the TV to the stand without somebody’s help.

    Since all of my neighbors are wonderful, but all elderly, I’m forced to wait until my wife gets home Saturday and my kids get home from college.

  8. I’m gonna regret this but I have to enter the fray here.
    I find it a little crazy anyone can support Jennings period but surely he isn’t qualified for the job as per its title.
    I also am having the hardest time swallowing the liberal line that he is just a department appointment with no trackbacks to Obama. That shit wouldn’t float in the bowl for W why should it for O?
    From the DoE website news release btw

    Kevin Jennings is the founder and former executive director of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), an organization that works to make schools safe for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Prior to his tenure at GLSEN, Jennings served as History Department chair and a history teacher at Concord Academy in Massachusetts and before that as a history teacher at Moses Brown School in Rhode Island. Jennings has also authored six books including Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son: A Memoir which was named a 2007 Book of Honor by the American Library Association and Telling Tales Out of School which was the winner of the 1998 Lambda Literary Award. Jennings received an A.B. in history from Harvard, an M.A. from the Columbia University Teachers College and an M.B.A. from NYU’s Stern School of Business.

    I don’t see where this guy even headed up a DARE program or was involved in a school setting consistent with shall we say the national complexion.
    Jennings is a,nay THE bone being tossed to the gay community by this Administration,from the top down! His resume is a pure ultra liberal pedigree tinged with those elements usually identified as the culprits in the destruction o the public ed system. Columbia Teacher College especially.

  9. No, the role of government is to advocate for no one- that is the problem with the left, you’ll bemoan discrimination but then support institutional discrimination.

    Think about it, advocacy is inherently biased towards what is being advocated.

    Duh…..

  10. I don’t see where this guy even headed up a DARE program or was involved in a school setting consistent with shall we say the national complexion.

    Welcome back Alfie! How can we not expect the author of In2TheFray not to get into the fray of this post? Very glad you paid us a holiday visit.

    To answer your comment, this is from Think Progress, which I link to in my article:

    FRC Claim: Jennings is “unfit for the post to which he’s been assigned.”

    FACT: Jennings, in fact, will be the first head of OSDFS in years to have a background as an educator. His predecessor, Deborah Price, received her BS degree in home economics, worked on the National Prayer Breakfast, on the Senate Republican Policy Committee, and then doing student aid in the Department of Education. Her predecessor, Eric Andell, was a judge from Texas and was eventually fired. He “pleaded guilty in federal court to one misdemeanor count of conflict of interest that included using federal money to pay for personal expenses.” Jennings has received many mainstream education awards, including the Distinguished Service Award of NASSP. ThinkProgress spoke to NASSP Executive Director Gerald Tirozzi, who wrote a recommendation letter on Jennings’ behalf. He said that he has “always been impressed with Kevin and his forthrightness. He’s a very courageous young man.” Tirozzi stressed that Jennings’ work on school bullying made him an ideal fit for this particular position.

    I totally disagree with your assessment of Obama’s involvement in Jennings appointment. It is convenient for you to assume this was an Obama appointment. It is equally convenient and logical for me to assume that Obama delegated this to Duncan, who did in fact make the appointment. If you really believe with two wars waging, record deficits and unemployment that Obama spent a minute of his time second guessing Duncan on this relatively minor role, then I’ve got some swampland in Florida to sell you.

    You also seem to miss the point of my article, which was really not to defend Jennings. My point was to highlight how the right wing media promulgated lies and half-truths when the unblemished truth was all they needed to point out how misguided this appointment was.

  11. Yet G, you fail to see how Bush’s tax cuts for the rich were ipso facto advocacy on their behalf. Wasn’t it? Damn right it was. You just like to pick and choose for whom your government advocates.

    By the way, what are your thoughts on this:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html

    Sounds like when Obama met with McChrystal, he should’ve told him “you’ll get your extra troops provided you can prove you can fight the war competently and not be outwitted by insurgent amateur electronics geeks.”

  12. Tex, LOL regarding your TV, your latest comment could be summarized “profile of busted middle-aged man”. I could not possibly imagine having that baby in the box five days later. I’d suffer a damn double-hernia if need be to get at that sucker. You must have made a friend or two in med-school … invite one of those young bucks to come by and help you out!

  13. And redistribution of wealth is what? Tell me, if you pay no taxes, how can, or should, you expect a tax cut?

    What? Are you serious? You know very little about war or the evolution of its equipment…

  14. “We are not going to vote against healthcare in the final analysis, because what we’ll get from the Senate will be better than what we have now,” said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.). “Rahm told us months ago: Everything can be compromised except our ultimate goal of getting something done. Everything else is negotiable.

    This comment comes from Gorilla in the prior thread. For the record, I am disgusted with the current state of the health care bill. I tend to think Howard Dean is right. Get a few goodies via reconciliation and leave the rest.

  15. And expose you for the power hungry elitests that you are. Everyday, the popularity of this drops.

    Tell me this though, the Wasgington post, the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, the Chicago Sun Times, etc, etc, etc are not telling ANYONE what is in the bill yet folks know and are fighting against this. You’ve made a huge tactical error in pushing this bid to control the lives of the American people…

  16. If the fact that drone transmissions were intercepted with a $26.00 kit from Radio Shack does not bother you, then I’m damn glad you’re not in charge of the Afghan war.

  17. You’ve made a huge tactical error in pushing this bid to control the lives of the American people…

    Ehhhh fooey. The only blunder here is a wimpy bunch of Dems who didn’t have the balls to fight for what was right and a President not willing to take a hard stand.

  18. Of course it bothers me, but I recognize the complexions of war.

    The harbor of Pearl Harbor was too shallow for torpedos, until the Japs installed wooden planks to pull them up quicker.

    Technology happens…

  19. It is a little disconcerting that our defense contractors can mastermind unbelievable technology, thanks to satellite and the like, yet can’t seem to master simplistic hardware and software to secure it…

    Next you know, the Taliban will figure out to rearm and re-aim the drones to attack our own troops with their Afghan IPods…

  20. BiW, your comment assumes the government should have no role in enforcing civil rights

    It assumes nothing of the sort.

    The dude belongs in a gay rights advocacy department within the government, not in charge of making schools safe for kids,

    You referred to an “advocacy department within government”. Enforcement and advocacy are two very different things. However, your comment implies the obvious, that being that “government” does not recognize “gay rights” as a civil rights issue…and indeed it can’t as every other civil rights category in law is based on rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution and/or immutable physical characteristics which cannot be changed by those persons.

    Being “gay” does not fit into either of those classifications, recent idiotic “hate” crimes legislation notwithstanding.
    If there were such civil rights, enforcement of said rights would be the purview of the Department of Justice, which would be fitting, snce they cannot seem to confine themselves to doing their job nowadays.

    Maybe Obama can create a new cabinet level post: The Department of Specialness, and it can hand out domesticated Skittles-crapping unicorns to everyone who wants to declare themselves “Different” and therefore elligible for special rights…and then, one day very very soon, when everyone is special, then no one will be.

  21. immutable physical characteristics which cannot be changed by those persons.

    Being “gay” does not fit into either of those classifications

    Ahhhhh BiW, now we’re getting to the meat of the matter. Many in the gay community would argue that homosexuality is a characteristic (not physical I’ll grant you) that cannot be changed.

    This reminds me of a heated exchange that our most prominent lesbian pundit, Rachel Maddow had with a man who claimed he could “cure” gays. She did a decent job of containing her considerable outrage. Sadly, his work is part of what has inspired the Uganda “gay is a crime punishable by execution” law that has been under debate the past few weeks. Looks like getting rid of Idi Amin did little to civilize that country.

  22. Ahhhhh BiW, now we’re getting to the meat of the matter.

    No, the “meat of the matter” is the fact that you confused advocacy of new rights with the enforcement of civil rights…a topic I noticed you failed to address in your response.

    Many in the gay community would argue that homosexuality is a characteristic (not physical I’ll grant you) that cannot be changed.

    As for the rest of your editorial, I’ll simply remind you that there is a marked difference between failing to grant a group special rights based on their lifestyle preferences, and making their lifestyle preferrence illegal, and that I have never advocated for the latter.
    And if we were to change the law based on an unproven claim, then we do society a disservice, and leap straight to the bottom of the slippery slope, because we will truly have no basis to hold any unsavory conduct illegal simply because it we decided to accord a preferred status on conduct that has not been proven to be a characteristic.

    The bigamist “cannot change.” It’s a characteristic. The polgamist cannot change. It’s a characteristic. The pedophile cannot change. It’s a characteristic. The ones who engage in beastiality cannot change. It’s a characteristic. The serial killers cannot change. It’s a characteristic.

  23. Or, in the correct order:

    Ahhhhh BiW, now we’re getting to the meat of the matter.

    No, the “meat of the matter” is the fact that you confused advocacy of new rights with the enforcement of civil rights…a topic I noticed you failed to address in your response.

    Many in the gay community would argue that homosexuality is a characteristic (not physical I’ll grant you) that cannot be changed.

    And if we were to change the law based on an unproven claim, then we do society a disservice, and leap straight to the bottom of the slippery slope, because we will truly have no basis to hold any unsavory conduct illegal simply because it we decided to accord a preferred status on conduct that has not been proven to be a characteristic.

    The bigamist “cannot change.” It’s a characteristic. The polgamist cannot change. It’s a characteristic. The pedophile cannot change. It’s a characteristic. The ones who engage in beastiality cannot change. It’s a characteristic. The serial killers cannot change. It’s a characteristic.

    As for the rest of your editorial, I’ll simply remind you that there is a marked difference between failing to grant a group special rights based on their lifestyle preferences, and making their lifestyle preferrence illegal, and that I have never advocated for the latter.

  24. The bigamist “cannot change.” It’s a characteristic. … etc.

    It would appear at first glance that this is the slippery slope you say it is BiW. I maintain the slope is controlled by the mores of the day. There was a time for example, many moons ago, when childhood was not viewed as it is today. It was not considered a time of “innocence” nor were children viewed as special. They were basically considered little adults.

    The “community standards” of today dictate that homosexuality in and of itself is part of the normal spectrum of acceptable sexual behavior. Current legislative failures on gay marriage show this has not come completely to fruition but I think it will get there.

    If 90 years from now community standards consider fornicating with Rover as acceptable then the laws will (and should) reflect that. I don’t call that a slippery slope. I call that the ever changing values of society.

  25. There was a time for example, many moons ago, when childhood was not viewed as it is today. It was not considered a time of “innocence” nor were children viewed as special. They were basically considered little adults.

    I completely disagree with you on this. For starters children were never viewed as little adults. They were seen especially in industrializing nations as tools for the greater good but even then there are gaps.
    False social norms are a reality that warps our sense of what is truth. be careful what you wish for regards romping with rover

  26. The “community standards” of today dictate that homosexuality in and of itself is part of the normal spectrum of acceptable sexual behavior.

    Sure they do. That’s why they always pass when placed on ballots for citizens to approve in individual states. Oh, right, that doesn’t happen. Silly citizens, when will their standards catch up to the permissiveness of their betters and the perverts in their midst? The minorities who want society’s sanction for their alternatve lifestyles JUST.CAN’T.WAIT.

    Putting your fictional view of history aside, you have strayed pretty far afield from the original notion that this particular brand of perversion is somehow a civil right. I did notice your willingness to cheapen a concept that you already benefit from with your support of the concept that it somehow should be extended to those who’s uniqueness is rooted in choice rather than an immutable characteristic, and when I paint you the picture of where it will take us, you offer of some faux ‘historical perspective’, and talk to me about shifts in society’s moral compass as if you thought of it. The only reason that we talk today of people being openly “gay” and wanting “Gay rights” is that 25 or so years ago, people who knew that it was wrong conduct that is not beneficial to society secuumbed to fear of being called intolerant and biggoted by the perverts and their enablers, so that now, we have open conversations about things that would have been unthinkable 30 years ago. And now that the door is being opened to the idea of a societal sanction for this conduct, you had better believe that the others I named are paying attention and starting to work for their own piece of the pie, because in truth, their claim to it is no different than that of homosexuals: “I can’t prove it’s an immutable characteristic, but I was born this way and you have to accept me and my perversion, or you’re a bigot/intolerant/homophobe, etc.”

  27. Welcome back Alfie – board is always better with your presence. I have to admit to our host and my Conservative comrades that I am very guilty of moving on to the latest thread, never to return unless a heated argument. I missed that beauty of a statement from my lefty friend Rutherford.

    When we this time Rutherford when children were looked at as little adults? I would say that your statement has it ass backwards, at least in modern America.

    Now is the time that children are considered little adults. Not too many years, children were looked at as a blessing to be treasured and nutured, not a lab experiment for academia. And here is a statement that I completely disagree with that I’ve heard many parents and “experts” make that I believe couldn’t be more wrong: “Children are more mature today.”

    No they are not! They may be introduced to things at an earlier age, but never confuse introduction with maturity to process. I would say kids are less mentally mature today – and I learned this fact while attending medical school. The lack of simple common courtesy and critical thinking skills being two attributes that apparently is no longer in vogue or popular.

    And a little off the subject, but I read a statistic the other day that blew my mind. One out of two adult males under the age of 40 didn’t know how to change a tire on a car. Are you kidding me?

  28. gad…

    Should have read “when was this time” in the second paragraph and being two attributes that apparently “are” no longer in vogue.

    My proofreading has gone to hell in a hand basket.

  29. Really, R, where are you coming from on this? It’s pretty simple really, we can’t control our race, ethnicity or sex, we can control who we fuck. I can’t say it any plainer than that.

    The fact that you even consider looking at homosexuality as equivalent to civil rights baffles me, and cheapens what those who suffered for equality fought for.

    You’ve said it yourself, several times in this thread alone, it is a lifestyle. You chose a lifestyle, you don’t chose what sex you are born with, or what color your skin is.

    To me, this is the same as what the left is BSing the American public with when they call health care a right. Please, rights are things you are born with- the government can’t give them to you, they can only take them away. This is a fundamental concept you on the left can never grasp, which is why most of you hate the Constitution, to include the ‘O’. The Constitution recognized this and sought specifically to prevent the government from taking away rights by identifying them.

    You’ll notice that wearing your boyfriend as a belt buckle isn’t one of them…

  30. For starters children were never viewed as little adults. …
    False social norms are a reality that warps our sense of what is truth.

    “Little adults” was probably a bad choice of words on my part, but I stand by my statement that the “innocence” we attach to childhood today has not always been the case in all societies.

    As for “false social norms”, WOW is that ever a subjective statement. Who is the arbiter of what social norm is false?

  31. …and talk to me about shifts in society’s moral compass as if you thought of it.

    Excuse me? If you’re slamming me for lack of originality you’re wasting your time. There’s precious new under the sun. Society’s moral compass does change over time (slavery a good example) and no, I never thought I invented that notion.

    …should be extended to those who’s uniqueness is rooted in choice rather than an immutable characteristic

    I thought I addressed that. You are assuming choice where there may not be one. Now let’s be clear, the homosexual ACT is a choice just as the heterosexual one is. But the homosexual preference may not be a choice.

    So this is what a civilized society must do. A civilized society must look at the actions that innate urges/preferences prompt us to to act on, and then decide which of these resulting actions is tolerable. Currently, many (and I actually think a majority) of Americans think the gay act between consenting adults is tolerable. They do not currently think that bestiality or pedophilia (whether or not these are innate urges) are acceptable.

    you had better believe that the others I named are paying attention

    You are absolutely right. In fact, NAMBLA makes an effort to justify what most of us believe is wrong behavior, by using all sorts of psychological gobble-de-gook. They can talk until they are blue in the face. Current American society will not tolerate sexual relations between adult men and minors. The feeling against this is so strong that I don’t believe we can be “shamed” into changing our mind or believing that an anti-NAMBLA stance makes us intolerant or bigoted.

    Also I think it is important not to mistake the anti-gay marriage trend that is apparent in every recent state referendum for a lack of tolerance of homosexuality per se. Many of the folks who oppose gay marriage are perfectly fine with equal legal protection. They just think marriage is special and reserved for heterosexuals.

  32. Tex regarding your comment about kids being considered “little adults” today, I see where you’re coming from. I was addressing times in history when child abuse was not considered child abuse. Working conditions being a prime example. In those societies, either the innocence of childhood was ignored or simply not recognized in the first place.

    You’re hitting upon another angle with which I completely agree. All you need to do is watch the Disney channel to see how there is virtually no where on TV that you can completely trust your kid to not see something offensive. I see loads of shows aimed at kids where the child actors are saying sh*t written by adults that have no business coming out of kids mouths.

    So I don’t really disagree with you there.

    (Perhaps what I am saying is there is a level of hypocrisy today not found in some former times. We talk about how precious children are today but the way we portray them in the media tells a different story. There were times in history where the actual attitude toward children matched the way they were treated.)

  33. Gorilla’s last comment merits my further clarification.

    I don’t believe being gay is equivalent to being black. For starters, there is, contrary to some folks opinion, no such thing as black behavior. Depending on whom you talk to, being black is either a result of heritage (where your family hails from) or simply skin color being darker than some arbitrary standard. Neither of these qualities can be controlled by the person involved.

    Gay people do behave a particular way if they act on their urges. No, I’m not talking about stereotypes, I mean the very specific sexual behavior that classifies them as gay. In that behavior is choice. No arguing that.

    So clearly the civil rights struggle of blacks is most definitely different from the civil rights struggle of gays.

    With that said, I can still say that there is no reason to discriminate against two people engaging in consensual behavior that does not hurt anyone else in any physical or financial way. If a gay man said his struggle is identical to a black man’s struggle, I’d disagree with that. That does not mean the struggle does not exist.

    Finally, the reason I harp on the notion of innate preferences is because I think that those who ignore this possibility paint homosexuals as people intent on being perverts and thumbing their nose at convention, when on the contrary, they may be struggling with very visceral urges … urges just as strong as those of any heterosexual whose actions are socially acceptable. I think understanding the potential depth of gay preference makes us more sympathetic to their predicament. Nothing wrong with a bit of sympathy.

  34. …they may be struggling with very visceral urges …” — R

    I’ve heard pedophiles and serial rapists say the same, which from your own words lends credence to BiW’s argument.

    With that said, I can still say that there is no reason to discriminate against two people engaging in consensual behavior that does not hurt anyone else in any physical or financial way.” — R

    Really? In 2005, 50% of newly diagnosed Americans with HIV were gay men. Everyone else constituted the other 50%. From a news article in 2006, it’ll cost $12.1 billion to treat those newly diagnosed with HIV.

    With the travesty about to be passed on all of us, specifically intended to force this burden onto everyone, how can you even remotely think that this won’t hurt everyone else?

    Again, as you’ve just said as well as previously stated, this is a life style and changing the definition of marriage, shifting legal codes and imposing restrictive legislation on the rest of society- who tend to not approve- is bullshit. Just because an American says they don’t care what happens behind closed doors does not mean they approve of what is happening behind closed doors.

    You never responded to a previous comment I made: how is it that a girl takes it in the ass and she is dirty, but a boy does it and he is expressing himself. What’s the difference?

  35. R ,Yeah I’m still not buying it. i think you are confusing child labor and classical thought of street urchins and orphanages as offsetting what society did to child molesters back in the day for instance.
    Other empirical points could include the sensation surrounding the Lindbergh kidnapping.
    No I think society has bought into a false set of goods and today is more anti child than ever before. And there it is the steady reality of falsehoods. Like the infamous 1 in 10 theory. It has been said that 1 in 10 Americans are homosexuals. This is false of course and the “data” proponents use is as weak as a lint lifeline

  36. You never responded to a previous comment I made: how is it that a girl takes it in the ass and she is dirty, but a boy does it and he is expressing himself. What’s the difference?

    WOW!! I honestly don’t know how I missed that one, I’m gonna have to do a search later to see when you said it.

    While I personally find sodomy rather distasteful (just ain’t my thing), I don’t consider a girl who takes it in the ass dirty. And I’d be surprised if most people do, not including the contingent who make love with the lights off and can’t name an anatomical part to save their lives. 😉

  37. Like the infamous 1 in 10 theory.

    Now Alfie, I know this is hardly a scientific study but I had two roommates freshman year in college. They BOTH turned out gay. While that proves nothing, it still makes me think the 1 in 10 stat is not far off. Too many people know someone who is gay, or who they THINK is gay for that stat to be a gross exaggeration. (And I include in the gay stat, folks who are bi.)

  38. Or R just is THAT sexy. Pulling them to the dark side are you? My guess, your winning progressive personality brought the ‘best’ out in them!

    LOL, wow, I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say they made their roommates gay before…

  39. LOL Gorilla, don’t think that coincidence from Freshman year in college didn’t leave me a little scarred. I had vague suspicions about both but neither were out at the time, in fact both were in deep denial. One came out within five years of graduation, the other took about 10 to 15 years. Oddly I was the only straight one in the bunch and it took me until age 39 to finally tie the knot. So who knows? Folks may have had suspicions about me!

    But on a more serious note, one of those two roommates was like a brother to me. He is one of the most decent men I know and seeing the commitment between him and his partner forced me to re-examine my attitudes about homosexuality. I know that you and many others would like to just write this off as perversion but there is more to it than that.

  40. As I stated previously, I don’t care what he does in his bedroom. However, when he looks to reexamine the definition of marriage, when he looks to force me to accept his lifestyle or when he looks to force acceptance of his lifestyle on my children through he education system, that is something I have a huge issue with.

    That is the ultimate issue here, we’re not talking about getting rid of antiquated laws like sodomy in the bedroom, they’re forcing their lifestyle front stage in front of my children and challenging me to say no to them. Well, not only will I say no, but I’ll say hell no.

    If you want to take it in the 4th point of contact- and even do it monogamously- fine, but don’t put that in my face.

  41. I know that you and many others would like to just write this off as perversion but there is more to it than that.

    You “know” nothing of the sort. If you were as informed as you pretend to be, you would understand that my faith requires me to love the sinner, as my lord does me, but hate the sin.

    We are discussing the agenda that says that:
    1.) society’s imprimatur must be placed on this lifestyle choice, which has no discernable root other than their own desires; and
    2.) that we MUST accept their relationships as being the same as marriage, and therefore equivalent in being and in name, when it is neither>.

    You can, of course, paint this in starker terms than that. Somply ask yourself this: What does homosexuality contribute to society? What is the average lifespan of these purveyors of a nobel and pure lifestyle? What is the cost to society?

    Ironically, the CDC, part of the government leviathan that you would cheerfully entrust your care to is already aware of the more salient statistics:
    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#incidence
    And the picture that the data translates to is not a pretty one:
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/09082609.html

    Factor in the costs of the care, which is many times borne on the backs of tax payers, and it isn’t hard to see the net lossloss for society.

    If you want to wrankle at an injustice, your time would be better spent by a system inspired to create welfare dependence, in part by destroying minority families. That would be a true injustice worthy of your time and outrage.

  42. BIC,

    If you want to wrankle at an injustice, your time would be better spent by a system inspired to create welfare dependence, in part by destroying minority families. That would be a true injustice worthy of your time and outrage.

    Agree completely but if you can figure out this paradox, you’re a more perceptive man than me. One thing I have never understood about Rutherford and most educated people of his bent and his race?

    Here’s the puzzle:

    You have conversed now with Rutherford enough to know he is not a dumb man by an stretch. Rutherford must see the truth of your statement from above – that is, a government that no matter the good intent, has made things far worse in creating an unhealthy dependence. The results could not be more clear at the destructive nature. It is like much of the black community has become nothing but small children, unable to fend for themselves. New Orleans and Katrina were a perfect example of the helpless nature of a large segment of the black population.

    And yet, with Rutherford & Co. having to recognize this fact, they still think combating it with more government, more intervention, and more dependence on the same entity helping to create the dependence will make things better.

    Can you ascertain a logical reason as to the why?

  43. Can you ascertain a logical reason as to the why?

    Logical? No. I simply see a propensity of the afflicted community to reject the burden of freedom (and the consquences that come with it) for a modern-day plantation on which their subsistance needs are met when they exchange their own power for the meager leavings relegated to them by “their spokespersons” who enrich themselves by constantly leading the drumbeat about all that Uncle Sugar and the rest of the country “owes” them.

    It’s really the ultimate expression of the maxim about those who would exchange liberty for security finding themselves with neither.

  44. It’s really the ultimate expression of the maxim about those who would exchange liberty for security finding themselves with neither.

    True. And in their ancestor’s quest to fight slavery and overcome to truly be free, many of those benefiting generations have now burdened themselves with another form of slavery, and though more tacit, just as destructive.

  45. True. And in their ancestor’s quest to fight slavery and overcome to truly be free, many of those benefiting generations have now burdened themselves with another form of slavery, and though more tacit, just as destructive.

    Oh, but its ok now, Tex, because they have done it to themselves.
    /sarc off/

  46. An interesting observation from Rutherford’s favorite (Glenn Beck)

    I have to hand it to Beck (an idea that I toyed with in a prior post), every now and then he at least tries to appear intelligent. His graphically illustrated observation is interesting although not necessarily conclusive.

    I do take issue with the notion that colleges teach us what to think and not how to think. I feel my college at least tried to teach me how to think. I never felt I was being fed any sort of ideology.

  47. Oh, but its ok now, Tex, because they have done it to themselves.
    /sarc off/

    I actually don’t see how you were being sarcastic here. Don’t you believe that poor blacks deserve what they get for buying into the government’s pusher/junkie dynamic disguised as healthy social programs?

  48. It’s really the ultimate expression of the maxim about those who would exchange liberty for security finding themselves with neither.

    There is way too much discussion of loss of liberty going on lately. It’s an insult to those who have truly lost their liberty in countries more despotic than this country will ever be.

    Laura Ingraham had the nerve to address a crowd recently with the “First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out…” speech. Kinda makes me want Laura’s well fed ass to spend 24 hours in a death camp to see what real loss of liberty is.

  49. I actually don’t see how you were being sarcastic here. Don’t you believe that poor blacks deserve what they get for buying into the government’s pusher/junkie dynamic disguised as healthy social programs?

    No, I don’t. I believe that these programs ultimately abridge the rights granted to man by his sovereign and outlined in the Declaration of Independence by fostering indolence, incentivising the destruction of the black family structure, and fostering an attitude of dependence and class envy that ultimately is corrosive to the continuation of a free society.

    There is not a pit in Hell deep enough, dark enough, or hot enough for those in politics and society who have cynically promoted these programs and reaped the electoral and pecuniary benefits of institutionalizing the enslavement of both the body and the soul of the modern American black, who is constantly told by his or her betters that they can’t do for themselves and that their only choice is to be a thug and die young, or submit to the “authority” of their overseers like the Wrong Reverends Jackson and Sharptongue, and empower them so that they can “get” for them what “they are owed”.
    And I find nothing so offensive as the belief prevalent among some who should know better that a) this isn’t a form of slavery, more insidious than that ended in the Civil War, and b) even if it is, its ok because blacks have chosen this path.

  50. What does homosexuality contribute to society?

    Wow, If that isn’t a Nazi question, I don’t know what is. Or maybe it’s better just to label it dumb.

    If contribution to society is the measure of all things good, then every severely retarded child in this country should be killed immediately as well as any “vegetative” human beings. You’ve got to be kidding me.

    Homosexuality contributes to the emotional well being of the homosexual. Men who find companionship and intimacy with other men are rewarded by that companionship. I’m not talking about promiscuity here. I’m talking about men who wish to fulfill their sexual preference within the construct of “acceptable” heterosexual relationships (i.e. monogamy and yes, marriage).

    As for contribution … I’d rather see a child adopted by a gay couple than by a hetero couple where Daddy beats the crap out of Mommy every couple of days. I’d be happy to see gays, who by virtue of their personal experience, fight for the civil rights of all people.

    I don’t think contribution to society is the be-all end-all but if that’s your standard, gays can have something to contribute.

  51. There is way too much discussion of loss of liberty going on lately. It’s an insult to those who have truly lost their liberty in countries more despotic than this country will ever be.

    No. What’s an insult is to someone who has proven time and again that they are otherwise intelligent continue to deny the inescapible fact that debt is as much a prison as can be made with concrete and iron bars. Or who thinks that Teh Won™ who has never produced a single thing of value in his life, and has all the financial intellect of a newborn can wave his magic unicorn and create a lean, efficient health care delivery system for all without necessarily limiting not only the health care choices of the recipients, either to address the issues of provider to patient ratios, or as a matter of cost control, but also limiting the other choices that Americans can make because some will have to disproportionately bear the cost for all, and they will be forced to ‘buy’ the policies that the government will approve. That is a loss of liberty, and a serious one.
    When it comes down to it, R, your wages represent your life energy. This is a finite resource, and is not government’s to give to others in ever increasing amounts. At some point, such a concession is no longer a “voluntary contribution to the well-being of society” and instead simply becomes theft. When the theft is perpetrated by elected “representatives” who are so bold and confident in their actions that they simply no longer see the need to answer calls and correspondence from constituents, and are so craven that they avoid meeting them or engaging in honest debate, and will continue to vote for bills that they have not even read, then we have again arrived at the spark that set the continent ablaze in 1776.

  52. ok I’m like totally lost so please excuse me but…

    I actually don’t see how you were being sarcastic here. Don’t you believe that poor blacks deserve what they get for buying into the government’s pusher/junkie dynamic disguised as healthy social programs?

    That’s Rutherford in #55. Is that really a question or what?
    btw re gays:8% is the highest with 3-5% being the generally accepted bit. I also find R’s earlier answer somewhere between unpalatable and lame. You went to Harvard dude! If you went to Bob Jones U I’m thinking your roommate experience would have been far different. that captures my previous point about false realities etc. Empirical data on a human subject isn’t very impressive even though I am otherwise a big fan of empirical data.
    As for homosexuals contributions to society. I’ll toss my hat in the ring that is in line with the following. A groups contributions are of no ise to society if such contributions come at a cost to accept something that society is generally against especially when those contributions are made solely for quid pro quo. That isn’t society.

  53. Yeah I’m with BiW here. Debt is a definite loss of liberty. There are many more things too that are borne from the overproductive womb of American Liberalism that totally infringe on ones liberties.
    I hope nobody here expects a liberal to see that though.

  54. Good Lord,

    Homosexuality contributes to the emotional well being of the homosexual. Men who find companionship and intimacy with other men are rewarded by that companionship.

    Like alcohol contributes to emotional well being of the alcoholic? I thought we had finally determined that homosexuality a destructive lifestyle, of which even honest homosexuals will admit by the common catch phrase, “Do you think I would have chosen to be a homosexual if I had a choice?”

  55. Wow, If that isn’t a Nazi question, I don’t know what is. Or maybe it’s better just to label it dumb.

    And Godwin shakjes his head in disappointment once again.

    If contribution to society is the measure of all things good, then every severely retarded child in this country should be killed immediately as well as any “vegetative” human beings. You’ve got to be kidding me.

    Your myopic view once again amazes me. First of all, you need to focus. The operative word to focus on in any discussion of homsexuality is choice.

    The severely retarded and the otherwise handicapped do not chose to be that way, and in the idea that their existance might be a “drain” on society, a moral society will recognize that as an acceptable one that is easlily differentiated by those who deliberately choose to engage in conduct that not only endangers themselves but those that they ostensibly claim to care about as well.

    Homosexuality contributes to the emotional well being of the homosexual. Men who find companionship and intimacy with other men are rewarded by that companionship. I’m not talking about promiscuity here. I’m talking about men who wish to fulfill their sexual preference within the construct of “acceptable” heterosexual relationships (i.e. monogamy and yes, marriage).

    Except that I have yet to see such a relationship that was not unhealthly as it requires a subserviance in one and a dominance in the other. It is never a union of equals made possible by the difference in the sexes that exists in a heterosexual relationship.

    As for contribution … I’d rather see a child adopted by a gay couple than by a hetero couple where Daddy beats the crap out of Mommy every couple of days. I’d be happy to see gays, who by virtue of their personal experience, fight for the civil rights of all people.

    Of course, now that we have a brave new society that increasingly relies on man based morals rather than God-based morals, the only remedy for the domestic violence scenario that you use as justification is the application of the law’s police power’s after the fact rather than the opinion of society and the displeasure of one’s peers as a impediment to committing the act in the first place.

    Its really very simple. Society has a vested interest in hetero families because they always have the potential to increase the next generation, and to carry their ideals forward. Gays can only propagate the species through artificial means.

    I don’t think contribution to society is the be-all end-all but if that’s your standard, gays can have something to contribute.

    Disease and a significantly shorter than average lifespan doesn’t really count as a good thing, you know.

    Oh btw, on the contribution scale, I think society would be a lot better off with more doctors and fewer lawyers.

    Depends on the doctor. An awful lot of them have God complexes that shame the current occupant of the Oval Office. As for the lawyers, I agree, but as long as Congress and state legislatures continue to find more and better ways to regulate the size and shape of what I leave in the toilet every morning, how much water I can flush it with on the first try, the overall wattage and type of light burning overhead while I do it, the diameter of the pipe through which it leaves my house, and whether it goes into a septic field, or a sewer, where it will eventually be cooked at the time and temerature that they determine, there will be a need for them. However, I agree with the sentiment. Let’s start with all the jokers in Congress with the (D) after their names. It would constitute a fine start. 😉

  56. “Do you think I would have chosen to be a homosexual if I had a choice?”

    Wow, Tex did you skew that quote! Gays say this because being gay gets them sh*t from most of society. They can live as straight laced a lifestyle (pardon the pun) as anybody and they’ll still get sh*t from folks if they’re found out. That’s why they wouldn’t choose it.

    And perhaps Gorilla, gays put “it in your face” because of one of the well known laws of physics … every reaction gets an equal and opposite reaction. Gays push back against a society that does not accept them. If everyone said from the get-go that what people do in their bedroom is their business and they meant it, then gays could go about their business without flaunting it.

    To Alfie’s point about Harvard vs Bob Jones U, fair enough. (Although one can only imagine the torment of the closeted gays who attend there … that 3 – 5%) 🙂

  57. Except that I have yet to see such a relationship that was not unhealthly as it requires a subserviance in one and a dominance in the other. It is never a union of equals made possible by the difference in the sexes that exists in a heterosexual relationship.

    BiW in what fantasy world do you live? In any couple there is virtually no possibility of “equality”. Most couples feature a dominant partner and a submissive one, or perhaps dominant in certain aspects but submissive in others. Equality exists in mathematics, not in human relationships. Now if you’re talking sex, then again, the most typical sexual behavior involves the dominance of the man over the woman (the penetration of the woman by the man), so again I don’t know what equality you’re referring to. I think you’re just having a real problem with a man being someone’s “bitch”.

    now that we have a brave new society that increasingly relies on man based morals rather than God-based morals

    I’m sorry to let you in on this but God-based morals are expressed through the minds and mouths of men. God didn’t write the Bible, men did. Correct me if I’m wrong but Jesus himself didn’t write the Bible. So you can’t even say that God’s son gave first hand testimony. So this differentiation between God-based morals and man-based morals is empty. It all comes from man, even if I acknowledge inspiration from God, it all comes from man.

    the only remedy for the domestic violence scenario that you use as justification is the application of the law’s police power’s after the fact rather than the opinion of society and the displeasure of one’s peers as a impediment to committing the act in the first place.

    Sadly, this again is fantasy land. Do you think our society condones domestic abuse? The abuser ultimately doesn’t care what his buddies or his neighbors might think. He (or she as the case may be) are addicted to a violent pattern of behavior. HELL, most abusers think they love their spouses. They’re twisted and all the condemnation from society doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. THAT is why we need police power. In fact, that is always why we need police power … to enforce the code that society supports that the criminal defies … the criminal who doesn’t care what societal norms exist.

    Now eventually you get to the point I suspected you were making in the first place … that gays do not contribute to the next generation reproductively. True enough. Heterosexual couples don’t contribute reproductively when they mutually masturbate, engage in fellatio, or do any number of things that bring them mutual satisfaction. I don’t see that troubling you any.

    There is a simple fact here and I fully understand it. Most men are creeped out by the notion of men sexually stimulating each other. That is really all it comes down to. Everything else is a lot of intellectual bullsh*t when the truth is most guys find the gay “act” disgusting. It goes a step further than that. The fact that some guy wants to poke another guy, makes other guys worry that maybe they might want to poke another guy … and that REALLY creeps them out. So they’d prefer for the whole thing to go away.

    I don’t think I’m too far off to say that most men LOVE the notion of attractive lesbians getting it on (I’m not talking bull-dykes here). Mmmm, lesbos certainly can’t procreate? Lesbos using dildos to simulate sodomy can probably cause physical harm to each other. But guys don’t get their shorts in a knot over that, do they?

    That’s why the time has come to live and let live. The sooner we stop going bat-sh*t crazy about this stuff, the sooner it will become a non-issue.

  58. OH … and since I see a counter argument coming from a mile away, let me say this: there is inequality in a relationship and then there is inequality in a relationship. So before anyone claims that I support pedophilia on the grounds that no relationship is completely between equals (as I said in the previous comment), the inequality that exists between adult and child is a whole ‘nother bag. In that case, the inequality is too much to the disadvantage of the child for the relationship to be justified.

  59. Tex, not ignoring your earlier comment. First, good for you that you called your local politician to express your outrage. That is what you’re supposed to do.

    Second, I know you don’t like what I call the sausage being made but wouldn’t it be worse if you didn’t know how the sausage was being made? What makes this America is that people can talk openly about the backroom deals and not get imprisoned for it.

    Look, I don’t like the Louisiana Purchase or the Nelson deals any more than you do. Hell, I’m not even happy with the bill as it stands now. But every time I get ready to write an article completely condemning it (ala Howard Dean), I stop and ask myself, if we don’t put a stake in the ground now … some stake … any stake, how can we ever get to an effective system? We can change an imperfect bill over time. If we settle for nothing now, we will get nothing for another generation.

  60. Rutherford,

    You’re so ignorant about the Bible, I almost hesitate to correct you anymore…

    Do you not know that Christians believe as the Bible clearly states that “all scripture is inspired by God” Christ clearly states as much. Using your dumb analogy, nobody’s autobiography, including the feckless Obama, could be used as first hand account. Your problem is that you continue to try and use the scientific method to disprove God or Christ, not realizing how ignorant that makes you concerning the balance of proof.

    You don’t weigh history by science – you weigh it by corroborating evidence like you do in a court of law. And there is nothing more corroborated than the Bible.

  61. Rutherford,

    The health care bill is so bad, I predict not only will it be overturned by a court of law, but it will be overturned before by Congress.

    Everyone knows its a bill worthy of libs. No bill would be better than this thievery. This one will come back to deservedly bite the Democrats.

  62. the Bible clearly states that “all scripture is inspired by God”

    Mmmmm, I thought I said:

    It all comes from man, even if I acknowledge inspiration from God, it all comes from man.

    When a man writes his autobiography, he writes it himself (arguments about Obama notwithstanding). God has written nothing. So the best we can do in figuring out God-made laws is to rely on the words of mere mortals. And that, in my book is a man made law … perhaps … with divine inspiration.

  63. So all of history must be rejected because God didn’t write it?

    Eye witnessed testimony, over 1,500 years in three different languages, forty different authors most who didn’t know of each other, prophetic in nature, with documentation of 23,000 historical digs all based on biblical instruction, all of which have been absolutely accurate, just man made law and testimony, hey?

    Well, you go ahead and continue to believe that Rutherford. But there is no historical book, religious or otherwise, that comes even remotely close in documented proof – including written testimony no more than 40 years after the historical fact. All of that Greek writing you find interesting will then need to be thrown out, because its proof doesn’t come remotely close to the Bible. 😉

  64. 😆

    Do y’all figure that people are getting damned tired of this Congress. Get a gander of this letter piped to Sen. Barbara Boxer, Washington shrew.

    Get a load of this letter!

    Read the letter sent to Sen. Barbara Boxer from an Alaskan Airlines pilot below.

    Many of us witnessed the arrogance of Barbara Boxer on June 18, 2009 as she admonished Brigadier General Michael Walsh because he addressed her as “ma’am” and not “Senator” before a Senate hearing.

    This letter is from a National Guard aviator and Captain for Alaska Airlines named Jim Hill. I wonder what he would have said if he were really angry. Long fly Alaska !!!!!

    Babs:
    You were so right on when you scolded the general on TV for using the term, “ma’am,” instead of “Senator”. After all, in the military, “ma’am” is a term of respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position. The general was totally wrong. You are not a person of superior rank or position.. You are a member of one of the world’s most corrupt organizations, the U.S. Senate, equaled only by the U.S. House of Representatives.

    Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered), criminals, and other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense of the People of the United States and its Constitution, in order to be continually re-elected. How many of you could honestly say, “We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor”? None? One? Two?

    Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your abysmal ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general shows you to be an elitist of the worst kind.. When the general entered the military (as most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank check, offering his life to protect your derriere, now safely and comfortably ensconced in a 20 thousand dollar leather chair, paid for by the general’s taxes. You repaid him for this by humiliating him in front of millions.

    Second is your puerile character, lack of sophistication, and arrogance, which borders on the hubristic. This display of brattish behavior shows you to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold or shrew, unfit for your position, regardless of the support of the unwashed, uneducated masses who have made California into the laughing stock of the nation.

    What I am writing, are the same thoughts countless millions of Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability or time to convey them. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize that politicians are pretty much the same, and will vote for the one who will bring home the most bacon, even if they do consider how corrupt that person is. Lord Acton (1834 – 1902) so aptly charged, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

    Unbeknownst to you and your colleagues, “Mr. Power” has had his way with all of you, and we are all the worse for it.
    Finally Senator, I, too, have a title. It is “Right Wing Extremist Potential Terrorist Threat.” It is not of my choosing, but was given to me by your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. And you were offended by “ma’am”?

    Have a fine day. Cheers!

    ~ Jim Hill

  65. BiW in what fantasy world do you live? In any couple there is virtually no possibility of “equality”. Most couples feature a dominant partner and a submissive one, or perhaps dominant in certain aspects but submissive in others. Equality exists in mathematics, not in human relationships. Now if you’re talking sex, then again, the most typical sexual behavior involves the dominance of the man over the woman (the penetration of the woman by the man), so again I don’t know what equality you’re referring to. I think you’re just having a real problem with a man being someone’s “bitch”.

    R, whether you want to believe it or not, the genders were made to compliment each other. Equality does not mean the same. Nevertheless, the idea of marriage is that the joing together of these two genders will create a pair that is equally yoked in their labors together. For that to occur in a homosexual relationship, both must necessarily supress aspects of their respective roles and innate characteristics.
    This does not deny that in a biblical marriage that the woman is expected to be submissive to the male, but that does not mean submission in the modern context, nor is it carte blanche for the man to be an asshole. Being granted that authority is a responsibility, not a priviledge. I know non-Christians frequently have trouble with that concept.

    I’m sorry to let you in on this but God-based morals are expressed through the minds and mouths of men. God didn’t write the Bible, men did. Correct me if I’m wrong but Jesus himself didn’t write the Bible. So you can’t even say that God’s son gave first hand testimony. So this differentiation between God-based morals and man-based morals is empty. It all comes from man, even if I acknowledge inspiration from God, it all comes from man.

    Hogwash and piffle. If you’re going to deny the authority of scripture because God didn’t sit down in your presence to personally write out the rules for you, then you better convert to judiasm, because I’m pretty sure that they are the only group that still gets a pass on being stiff-necked and demanding a sign. Tex has already clued you into the various means of authentication, and the fact that there is no other history so supported by fact and evidence in exisitence.

    Sadly, this again is fantasy land. Do you think our society condones domestic abuse? The abuser ultimately doesn’t care what his buddies or his neighbors might think.

    Wrong. If he is trained up properly and surrounded by others who are also so trained, there is plenty to prevent such conduct, and a strong social tool to use if he does violate that code, which is far more effective than a visit from the police and a night in jail.

    He (or she as the case may be) are addicted to a violent pattern of behavior.

    R, if there is a niggling kernal of truth that athiests and agnostics overlook at their peril, it is the fact that man is innately imperfect, and without his own personal submission to a higher authority, and the expectations that come with it, he will always lack the self control to defeat his “addictions”.

    HELL, most abusers think they love their spouses. They’re twisted and all the condemnation from society doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. THAT is why we need police power. In fact, that is always why we need police power … to enforce the code that society supports that the criminal defies … the criminal who doesn’t care what societal norms exist.

    You miss the point. The farther we stray from the source of ‘societal norms’, the more we will rely on ‘police power’ to govern the conduct of man, because the only source of law will be the whims of man. This is the kind of thinking which has lead us to the sad place where we have too many people allowing themselves to believe that a “right” is something that government must provide for them, and that more, and more government is necessary because each man will increasingly fail to govern himself.

    Now eventually you get to the point I suspected you were making in the first place … that gays do not contribute to the next generation reproductively. True enough. Heterosexual couples don’t contribute reproductively when they mutually masturbate, engage in fellatio, or do any number of things that bring them mutual satisfaction. I don’t see that troubling you any.

    I said ” Society has a vested interest in hetero families because they always have the potential to increase the next generation, and to carry their ideals forward.” Whether the other things a married hetero couple might do might trouble me or not is really of lessor consequence. No matter how much they might want to, gays cannot naturally procreate with their partner. No matter how much they might want to mix their genetic material, they cannot. If you actually require a demonstration of what is and is not natural, that alone should be all an honest and unbiased observer needs.

    I don’t think I’m too far off to say that most men LOVE the notion of attractive lesbians getting it on (I’m not talking bull-dykes here). Mmmm, lesbos certainly can’t procreate? Lesbos using dildos to simulate sodomy can probably cause physical harm to each other. But guys don’t get their shorts in a knot over that, do they?

    Again, I take issue with that “statistic”, but then again, I’ve read the first chapter of Romans more than once, and weighed it against what I have had the misfortune to observe in my life.

    Look, I don’t like the Louisiana Purchase or the Nelson deals any more than you do.

    I suspect that isn’t true, since you’ve already demonstrated that you’d rather blame republicans for the sorry state of affairs in Louisiana rather than the corrupt Dems who fostered attitudes that lead to many of the problems you’ve complained of, and because you seem to be ok with the government depriving children of their right to life with its offical sanction of Murder.

    Hell, I’m not even happy with the bill as it stands now. But every time I get ready to write an article completely condemning it (ala Howard Dean), I stop and ask myself, if we don’t put a stake in the ground now … some stake … any stake, how can we ever get to an effective system? We can change an imperfect bill over time. If we settle for nothing now, we will get nothing for another generation.

    Yes, because if you can’t kill a republic outright, then by all means, kill it by inches. In fact, that just may be preferrable. Once ohalf the body is effectively dead, then there is nothing to be done but stay the course.

    Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to do this, and if the body politic acquiesces to it, don’t think that will be the end of it. The seizures that will come when the toxic shock sinks in will be devestating, and although I suspect that the fist-bumper in the Oval Office believes he will reap great power riding this tiger, I tend to think that the tiger will dine on he and his freinds.

  66. I’m going to play non-partisan today and let everyone get equally angry. If this doesn’t bother everybody, then something is amiss.

    Takes about 15 minutes to listen to both, but it is worth the time. It made me angry…be sure to listen thru Article II, because that will provide the necessary example.

    http://www.ourcaucus.com/Article1.html

  67. Hey Tex …. I’ve watched all the way through Article 4 and I think I saw something you don’t want to admit to. The problem at the heart of our country is …. drumroll please ….

    CAPITALISM GONE WILD

    Congress is bought and sold by fat cat corporations looking to get fatter. I can’t wait to see the Independent Caucus’ prescription for how to fix this. Could it be …. drumroll please ….

    SOCIALISM? 😆

  68. Congress is bought and sold by fat cat corporations looking to get fatter. I can’t wait to see the Independent Caucus’ prescription for how to fix this. Could it be …. drumroll please ….

    SOCIALISM?

    Well, except your suggestion for the implementation of socialism has been an utter failure everywhere it has been tried now, hasn’t it? Like Obama, you still seem to not recognize that fact.

    No, Rutherford – the problem isn’t capitalism as capitalism the only economic engine that works to the benefit of everyone if executed properly.

    But capitalism has one inherent weakness – it is based on a concept of integrity. And when integrity fails, capitalism fails. So the problem Rutherford isn’t the system. It is the people that administer it like Obama.

    But if you have a better suggestion knowing fully well that socialism doesn’t work, communism doesn’t work, fascism doesn’t work, imperialism doesn’t work, etc…please enlighten all of us about your theories. I’m all ears. 😉

  69. It is the people that administer it like Obama.

    Whooooooa! Now you really lost me on that one. Capitalism fails when the people who “administer it” screw up? How ’bout those participating in it? I fully agree that the success of capitalism depends on the integrity of the “participants”. Sounds like you’d rather blame Obama and let all those companies listed in the Independent Caucus video off the hook (plus their lobbyists).

    Well, this I will agree with you on: It takes two people to participate in a bribe. The giver of the bribe and the recipient of it. If it became illegal for politicians to accept donations from lobbyists or corporations, a good deal might change. Surely you agree it would take a lot more than Obama for that change to occur.

  70. Tex, I haven’t finished reading your PJ Media article (I’ll finish it sometime this weekend amid the holiday festivities) but this sentence caught my attention:

    The problem is that now the entire engine of the federal government is harnessed in the most unapologetic way to pushing through a far left agenda.

    LOL Does Victor have the slightest idea what a “far left” agenda is? There will be no single payer system for health care. THAT would have been far left. We are not getting out of Afghanistan any time soon. THAT would have been far left. Victor needs a reality check real bad!

    More after I read the entire article.

  71. Surely you agree it would take a lot more than Obama for that change to occur.

    Oh absolutely – Obama and each Democratic Senator provfile the perfect example concerning the health care bill. In this case, they get the double criminal whammy of both being a giver and recipient. Liberalism has a synergistic effect of multiplying evil. 🙂

    LOL Does Victor have the slightest idea what a “far left” agenda is?

    Apparently, it is only the left that doesn’t have the slightest idea of what a “far left” agenda is. The rest of America clearly understands that Obama and the rest of the Dimocratic party a miserable failure as you will be learning next year. 😉

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s