Texas? This is why!

Apparently, the last time the State of Texas tried to legalize and legislate bigotry and stand in the way of social progress, there was a loophole that spared at least one group.  Well, seeing as how Texas has never been a State to allow a minority group to go unpunnished, it is now a top priority for them to fix this oversight.

Texas? This is why the rest of America hates you. Seriously.

And Conservatives? This is why you suck. Seriously.

All people are created equal, huh?  One vote, one voice, huh?  Freedom and small government, huh? (That's the BIGGEST joke with the RW fools!)  I just have one thing to say to all these flag-wavers on the Right who continuously wipe their collective, ignorant, backwards, back-sides with our Constitution:

GO FUCK YOURSELVES, YOU HYPOCRITICAL, SELF-RIGHTEOUS, UN-AMERICAN SCUMBAGS!

And... that's all I have to say!

We Wouldn't Need "Activist Judges" if We Had Decent Politicans

THIS is very good news.

But, as usual the media gets it wrong regarding Obama.  To a Conservative it may seem like they were covering for him, but this Liberal knows better.  They got it wrong in the this paragraph:

The decision was cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Barack Obama and Washington politics could not.

This should read:

The decision was cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Barack Obama and Washington politics WOULD not.

He had his chance, and he chose to further delay and dither and obstruct for no reason other than political cover.  And if Joe Biden and Bob Gibbs think I'm being a whiny little Liberal here, they can go fuck themselves.

And they needn't worry about it, either: I won't ask, and I won't tell because I don't fucking CARE.  And niether should they. And neither should the Miliraty Brass. And neither should any soldier. Because that would go against everything they're actually out there fighting for!

Welcome to the 20th Century, America.  A little more progress and we might almost reach the 21st.

Some people just make me sick...

I wrote something on Friday, posted it, and then took it down a few minutes later. I’m going to repost it here, as it was originally written, but I want to talk about some of the things that were driving it, other than me just being in a foul, pissed-off mood. Which I was, but… there’s more to it. And remember that all this came, at the time, on the heels of that fucking Phelps piece that I wrote, that I ‘m over NOW (mainly because of what I had writtenTHIS, even though I took it down), but which I was still bitter about come Friday morning when I woke up to THIS, on the radio.

“Petrol Bombs.” Sweet Jumpin’ Jesus Christ! I realize that these are the same people who started WWI and were so vicious in WWII that even the Nazi’s had to tell them to take it easy (not to oversimplify or generalize, mind you, LOL) but come fucking on! If your manhood is so threatened by homosexuality that you feel the need to throw flaming gasoline at people, then either you have some serious problems, or you’re gay yourself and well aware that your "FRIENDS" have some serious problems.

And that was followed up by a story about the same neanderthalism going on in New York. And later that day I caught wind of the remarks made by Carl Paladino, the closest thing we have to an outright thug in politics, now that Kwame Kilpatrick’s no longer in office. And the final tipping point, for me anyway, came when he had the audacity to suggest that someone owed HIM an apology over the remarks!

(I got your apology right here, Carl. And just to show you what a decent guy I am, I’ll let you know: It’ll be coming in high, from the right.)

Oh. My. God. We owe HIM an apology. Apparently because the folks at the church suggested he make the remarks. (1) I doubt that. If they DID suggest anything, I’m sure that what he SAID was not the precise wording they had in mind. (2) Even if they DID, does he repeat EVERYTHING some idiot suggests you do? That would certainly explain a lot, but it doesn’t strike me as being in his character. And I am completely fed up with the Conservative lie that teaching children TOLERANCE somehow serves to “brainwash” them or (infinitely more absurd) “recruit” them. Especially coming from an asshole that just got finished saying “I have nothing against homosexuals.” Yeah… except that you can’t abide spreading a message of TOLERANCE. Which means that you’re just fine continuing to let the LGBT community suffer ostracism, isolation, discrimination, abuse and outright violence. It's very simple folks: We’re all HUMAN. The LGBT community asks nothing more than to be treated LIKE HUMAN BEINGS. (At this point, I might remind them how utterly shitty most human beings actually treat each other; and that they may want to aim a BIT higher…) But a refusal to teach tolerance, and refusal to actually DO something to reverse the trends of abuse and violence, is an indication of nothing more than your feelings that these people are somehow LESS THAN human.  "Governor for all people." That's eay when you consider some people to be less than that.

You know who I think are sub-human? People who think that way.

So while the original post was just inspired by this one asshole, it seems like each passing day I’d get another reminder just how shitty we really do treat each other.
So with that in mind, I’ve decided to repost what I did in Friday. Here it is, as it was:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
You know, some people just make me sick. But go ahead and sign it, for all the good it'll do.



I usually get a pretty good response to my "Person A , Person B" / "Liberal vs. Conservative Resoning" analogies, so here's a pretty blunt one for you:


Person A is homosexual, or does not live their life according to the gender they were assigned at birth.


Person B feels threatened by this person's mere existance in some way and kicks the ever-loving shit out of them over it.


The Conservative sees this reaction as evidence that something therefore must be wrong with person A.


The Liberal sees this reaction as proof that there is something seriously wrong with person B.




Now... If you're Conservative, and you have a problem with this analogy? Look around you. Becuase the anti-LGBT discrimination, biggotry and violence sure as hell ain't coming from Liberals! Those white-trash, fire-and-brimstone, charlatanical pious frauds and the thousands of fainting sheep they're brainwahsing? That's your voting block. If you don't like that reality? Then CHANGE it. (Yeah, only problem is... CHANGE really isn't in a Conservative's nature, is it?)


And if you're Conservative and you DON'T have a problem with this analogy? Then my friend, YOU have some some serious problems.


.
.
.

(exhale)

There. I've used my powers for good and have made ammends for that hideous Phelps piece from the other day.

This house...
...is clean.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
LOL. A little bit over the top at the end, but what can I say? At the time it felt cathartic. LOL
But there it is. And should any of the regular Conservative commenters take issue with this (okie, I’m thinking of you), the sad fact is that THIS is why “Conservatism” has become. This is what it means now. I didn’t DO THAT, and nobody asked your opinon about it either, but THAT’S the reality as I see it. One Political School of Thought seeks to move us out of the darkness, out of the jungle. The other? The only other one that has a voice at the moment? Seeks to move us back in. 

(But... I’m going to use that email of yours in a future post, so we debate the details then, if you’d like to.)

Either way. ;)

"Conservatives" vs. "Libertarians"

Let this sink in...

I came across this over on PoliticalIrony.com.  This is exemplary of the case I've been making for awhile now that "conservative" no longer means what it used to.  Or anything at all, in fact.  That what we have in the Republican Party today is not "Conservatives" but rather Right-Wing and/or Religious RADICALS.  They can talk about "small government" all they want, but it no longer means anything.  It's not REALLY part of their platform anymore. (DHS anyone?) Its just something they throw out there so they don't look like idiots when they push for more tax cuts immediately after complaining about the deficit.  (Too late.)

Because THIS?  THIS is what "small government" looks like.  Libertarianism.  Now I'm NOT a Libertarian.  I COULD BE a moderate one - they're the only part of the Republican party that I have the least bit of respect for.  And I could definitely vote for one, provided that they held Social Libertarianism as highly as Fiscal Libertariansm.  But unfortunately the TRUE libertarians in the Republican Party (like Judge Walker) are pretty much GONE, replaced by Social Conservatives [Religious Radicals] who merely want to lower taxes and deprive the government of its ability to regulate industry.

Because the TRUE Libertarian, the CLASSIC Conservative, would support Judge Walker's decision.  S/he'd also be pro-choice on abortion.  And favor the legalization of Marijuana.  These are ALL "small government" positions.  They are all what the world would like like if, as Ronald Reagan claimed would happen, Government would "get off our backs."  But I'm still waiting, 30 years later, for Government to stop getting MORE on my back.  And with the Social Libertarians now completely marginalized in the Republican party, and Obama's and the Dems' continuous kowtowing to the Right, I don't it happening anytime soon.

Just remember what's REALLY going on here.  "Conservative" is just a niceer sounding (read: better polling) word that the Radical, Religious Right has co-opted to obfuscate their true agenda.  There is nothing "conservative" about them.  It just about Fear, Power and Money.  They use Religion (Fear) to get people to vote for them (Power) so they can pay little or no taxes, and their companies can pollute, exploit and otherwise screw over the public in their reckless pursuit of proifit (Money.)

Prop H8TE

*phew*

If it's OK with everyone else, I'd like to get away from debating the philosophy of religion for a while - at least until the comment to my last post start rolling in.  But I've been writing for the last week or so on the topic, and even I'M getting tired of hearing what I have to say about it. LOL.  In all seriousness, I do look forward to reading your comments, but for now I'm going to take up some current events.

Like HOW ABOUT that Prop H8TE ruling out in California, huh?

The courts are finally starting to get it RIGHT!  Hopefully that will continue and Justice Kennedy won't balls it all up when it inevitably makes it way to the SCOTUS.

But, needless to say, I am very glad to see it ruled such.  And to me this issue is a no-brainer.  (And go figure that those who support banning gay marriage and Prop H8TE have no brains.)  Between Rush Limbaugh wetting his pants about how we're living in Tyranny, and how we're weakening the constitution and these idiots who think the judge should have recused himself or that he's out of the mainstream and the bed-wetter on NPR this morning crying about "his vote doesn't count" and how "it's like a dictatorship..." 

My God, even if I didn't care about the ruling, you've got love ANYTHING that pisses of the Right Wingers and Religious Conservatives that much. LOL

OK, one at a time...

"We're living in Tyranny" or "It's like a dictatorship."

Give me a freaking break.  This is not "like a dictatorship."  THIS is like a CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY.  See... in a dictatorship, you don't GET to challenge the law.  And the rights of people get taken away without recourse.  So... please explain to me how guaranteeing people equal protection under the law and protecting their LIBERTY is tantamount to "tyranny."  It's absurd.  All this judge did was to tell one group of people that the don;t have the right to DICTATE the behavior of another group.  PERIOD.

And last time I checked, "Freedom to take away someone else's freedom" was not it the Constitution!

"Out of the mainstream"

Posters T.Boone Slickens and Highlighter seemed to think that because 7 Million people voted for it, that makes Prop H8TE, the MAINSTREAM school of thought. 

What they fail to grasp is that if a law is unconstitutional, kit doesn't matter HOW MUCH popular support it has!  Segregation was pretty popular in the states that had it.  (Remember - prop h8te was just a California thing, just a STATE thing!)  And the courts saw the insanity and stuck those laws down - that's why we HAVE THEM.  That's was "limited government" is all about! PROTECTING PEOPLE'S RIGHTS!  And that will ALWAYS be in the "mainstream" of Constitutional thought, because that's what the Constitution DOES! 

It's an inherently Liberal document today, and was a FLAMINGLY liberal document when it was written!

What's more, I don't use the segregation issue lightly.  I choose it because the arguments being presented in opposition to gay marriage are almost word for word the same arguments used a generation ago in support of anti-miscengeny laws!  Replace racial bigotry with sexualist bigotry and you're saying the SAME. DAMN. THING!

"The judge (who's gay) should have recused himself."

MMFA does a pretty good job, shooting this one down, but to me it's even more simple.  If we are to assume that a gay judge can't be objective about gay issues, we must also assume that a CHRISTIAN judge cannot be objective on church-state issues!  Like, say...  for example...

GAY MARRIAGE!

The law got shot down because you don't take away people's liberty and deny them equal protection under the law without a compelling state interest.  And the supporters of Prop h8te, and all opponents of gay marriage for that matter, have never come CLOSE to demonstrating one.  Not. Even. Close.

EVER.

[some nonsense about the] "Traditional Definition of Marriage"

This might be the single dumbest line of reasoning of all.  Look... marriage CHANGES.  The TRADITIONS of marriage CHANGE.  If they didn't?  If we stuck to the REAL "traditional definition of marriage?"  Well... that's a father marrying of his daughter to a young man of his choosing, in exchange for a dowry.  So it seems to me that the "traditional definition of marriage" is closer to what we call "PIMPING" today.

And if you're worried about the institution of marriage being threatened, outlaw DIVORCE.  (Something that was also illegal at some point!  See? THINGS CHANGE!)

[some nonsense about] Our "Christian Values"

If your argument against gay marriage has the word "bible" ANYWHERE in it, SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.

The first amendment states very clearly that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.  That's word for word, CRYSTAL CLEAR.  So ANY argument made on the basis of religion is 100% irrelevant.  When our elected officials take their oath of office, they put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution - not the other way around!

I enthusiastically applaud this ruling, and I see it as the beginning of the end of ACTUAL Religious Tyranny on this issue. And I say, "Good riddance."

There will no doubt be more to come.  Gay Marriage is INEVITABLE.  There may be set backs, but - just as with Marijuana - the genie is out of the bottle.  Why conservatives insist on constantly trying to pull the juggernaught backwards I'll never understand.